Talk:Sarah Palin/Archive 17

Archive 10

←

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

Sarah Palin Article Is Going Stale

This process is obviously not working. There was a total of 1 updates in the past 16 hours to the article and this was made by a passing admin who made a change without concensus. The review process to decided who did what will take a long time as the article gets older. The editors are losing interest over having to debate over a minor update. As a result no updates are happening. Sitedown (talk) 12:20, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

It's not a "perfect" article at present, but it's not bad either. If you contrast it against [1], it appears the hard work over the past ten days paid off in reaching accuracy through consensus. What specific issues do you think make it "stale" and warrant immediate inclusion? Fcreid (talk) 12:24, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Last I checked, WP was an encyclopedia. How can an encyclopedia article go stale in 16 hours? Ronnotel (talk) 12:27, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

It's been days since any edit of substance has been made. And one doesn't have to look far for issues that require resolution. Spiff1959 (talk) 12:40, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

So, chip in and help forge consensus on the outstanding issues.--Paul (talk) 12:45, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

It is impossible with the majority blockers in place. I have given up. 66.186.173.180 (talk) 12:55, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

So you are asserting your right to add material that has not gained consensus? Ronnotel (talk) 13:09, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

(ec) Are there any edits of substance and WP:CONSENSUS that have been ignored? If so, let me know and I'll be happy to add them. Ronnotel (talk) 12:46, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Ronnotel, do you think we have enough consensus on beluga whales yet? T0mpr1c3 (talk) 13:38, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

It's getting close. Can you please make an edit request with specific language. If no one bleats I'll consider adding. Ronnotel (talk) 13:45, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

AdminPedia I have no idea what needs to be added or removed because I am not a subject matter expert on Palin and I can not imagine any of the administrators here are either. Millions of people will visit this page and a percentage of people who do are subject matter experts and have important verifiable facts that need to be added or changed. This is the whole purpose of a wiki. It is not the responsibility of the admins to make an article "perfect" before it is unlocked and since information changes by the minute on a person it would be impossible to ever make it "perfect". My understanding is the reason the article was locked was due to hacking of the page and that maybe valid for a very short period of time (although it is quicker to press undo then argue about what should or should not be included). I am disgusted by this behavior and believe it is not in the spirit of wikipedia, democracy or freedom of speech. Sitedown (talk) 13:29, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

WP:CONSENSUS is non-existant and unattainable. Incontrovertible issues of unsourced bias, or easily verifiable factual errors, go unchanged if a single person lodges opposition. Proving that opposition unwarranted bears no fruit. WP:CONSENSUS apparently means that in order to replace blatant flaws in this article, one must produce a perfect edit that garners universal approval. For the shortest read in my list, review the merits of "Edit request: 2008 vice-presidential campaign - Convention speech" 216.170.33.149 (talk) 13:32, 8 September 2008 (UTC) (Pardon, I neglected to login) Spiff1959 (talk) 13:46, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Can you point to any "easily verifiable factual errors" in the article? I highly doubt admins would raise objection to correcting such an error. Hobartimus (talk) 13:49, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

The issue is not what is in the article but what is not. Until the article is unlocked no one will know what that information is. I can't believe this argument is still ongoing. I have not heard one valid reason why the article can not be semi protected. Sitedown (talk) 13:58, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

If anyone's bored after that firxt read, look at the major edit that took place just before the lock to the text discussed in this talk-page section and subsection: "Suggested edit to Public Safety Commissioner section" and "Gripes" Spiff1959 (talk) 14:01, 8 September 2008 (UTC) You'd of thought I'd of at least been able to correct an unsourced global assertion of total media praise attributed to the Palin speech in over 2 days? Or put sentences into a chronologically-correct order to properly portray the factual order of events in the Public Safety Commissioner section in 2 days? Both of continuing violations impart a particular bias. This page need to be unlocked now, or have a bright shiny POV tag pasted smack on the top of it.

You are only furthering the beating of the dead horse into glue. It's been largely discussed at AN, ANI, AE... with consensus to keep the page fully protected for the short-term. You're a pretty new user (judging from your contributions), so it is understandable you didn't read the countless threads on this topic. seicer | talk | contribs 14:02, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I reviewed the Arbitration discussion, the war wheeling pages, most of the on-and-on discussions about unlocking, semi-locked, full-protection a long time ago. I'm not sure what I saw is what I would call consensus. So, this flawed article is to remain intact, in it's current state, indefinately (beyond Nov. 4th?) due to turf wars amongst the admins, to the detraction of providing a quality, accurate product to the millions who pass through WP? (I'm a WWII buff, I had a WP login years ago which I've forgotten and contributed somewhat to those civil, less-ugly topics within WP) Spiff1959 (talk) 14:13, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I am a new editor but a regular user. My reason for creating an ID was simply because I could not believe this was occurring. I have read and already commented on a lot of the locations you mentioned where this is being debated and I continue to raise it either sarcastically or directly as it is not being resolved. When I stated it should be left locked until after the election it was obvious sarcasm to show just how ludicrous this is but now it appears this is actually the opinion of some people. This is CENSORSHIP BY LACK OF CONCENSUS.

I can only assume the majority of people who want to make updates do not have the time to debate for 2 days on if Palin was a member of the PTA or basketball team captain and then spend another 24 hours trying to get the wording correct so everyone agrees. Sitedown (talk) 14:23, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I will desist with any of my opinions as to the locked/unlocked status of this page as that is not within my purview. But you have to be kidding, you relegate the flaws demonstrated above to the triviality of PTA membership? Spiff1959 (talk) 14:32, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Pardon, I'm a bit frustrated and your sarcasm (temporarily) went over my head ;) Spiff1959 (talk) 14:36, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually that time was not an attempt at Sarcasm and I am concerned that anyone would refer to community work such as PTA membership as Trivial. Education of children is one of the key issues and Alaska has the highest drop out rates in the country [2]. So this is very important, so important Sarah has mentioned this several times in her speeches as the turning point in her career. I am not here to debate this though, my objection is to the fact this record is locked and neither Biden or Obama’s records are locked. This is very one sided politics and should not be occurring.Sitedown (talk) 14:51, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry Spiff1959 I should not have lost it like that but I like you am frustrated and everyone has different views on what is or is not important. That’s kind of why wikipedia works so well. BTW I am neither a republican or a democrat or even an American for that matter so I am in no way biased either way. All I want is a wikipedia article on a potential VP of one of the most powerful countries in the world to have a neutral point of view so the people who do vote can vote responsibly knowing all the facts and not just the ones that were “approved by consensus” for submission. Sitedown is taking a break. Sitedown (talk) 15:15, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

No, I apologize. I in no way meant to belittle the importance of the PTA or even High School sports. I, too, am frustrated, and misunderstood your statement. I'd thought you were discounting my documented instances in this article of unsourced personal opinion, and a fictitious timeline, as trivial. Spiff1959 (talk) 16:53, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

• By saying "I understand the editors are in a bind, sorting out rumors, with Dems wanting to add truthful negative information and Republicans desperately trying to keep readers from knowing the truth." and more, you are clearly indicating your own bias, and may not be in a position to offer an objective opinion about what is neutral or not regarding this article. PHARMBOY (TALK) 15:18, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Unless I'm misunderstanding, a BLP article is not a "debate" forum, right? On the issues you mentioned: there was extensive talk regarding the book removal incident above with a multiple of sources cited and examined. Have you participated in that discussion? Just because you see it one way does not mean everyone does, and you will invariably find multiple reliable sources that interpret the event entirely differently than you. There was (or was approaching) consensus above. Why should your interpretation now trump all other editors and reliable sources? I don't recall discussion or proposal on the other issue you mentioned (the Wasilla budget), but have you proposed an edit for discussion and consensus? I think the fundamental problem is what I mentioned above. People are trying to use this person's biography to grind their political axes. Certainly that's not appropriate when multiple RS provide entirely different conclusions (and often entirely different "facts"). The article must strive for neutrality. Fcreid (talk) 15:21, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Misunderstaning and jumping to conclusions. Again, when someone makes a comment (regardless of topic) requesting neutrality, and the statement itself is based in bias, you have to question their motives. As to my participation or editing of this article, that doesn't matter as your opinion isn't more important than mine (which I didn't state, by the way...) by virtue of the number of edits you have made. What I am tired of is all the wannabe political hacks in all the articles on candidates, and all the bias hiding inside of "we need to make it NPOV!" comments. There is as much dishonesty in the political articles as their is in the campaign. PHARMBOY (TALK) 12:22, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Neutrality will not and can not be acheived until the article is unlocked like every other politician. Sitedown (talk) 15:27, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree, POV tags should be added until this article can undergo a through assessment by the community, which will take time. Right now its neutrality is in dispute and that should be clearly noted.Neutralis (talk) 15:34, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Yeah. I agree, sadly. A "disputed" tag is appropriate. --Evb-wiki (talk) 15:40, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Whether I agree or not is irrelevant, as I have nothing to do with that decision. Based on my understanding, the admins were going to wait until the page hit volume subsided, as BLP violations can be much more egregious when tens of thousands of users are reading that content. It looks like the "Political Positions of Sarah Palin" article is unlocked... why don't you work on that one? Fcreid (talk) 15:43, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Why don't we go work on a spinoff? A good response might be that the majority of the readers will get their misinformation from this page, and not bother delving into the sub-articles Spiff1959 (talk) 17:00, 8 September 2008 (UTC).

• Any editor can join in the discussions on the talk page to propose changes to the article and to help achieve consensus on any changes. Those that claim that the article is biased without participating, and those who continually post poorly-sourced and libelous charges on this talk page are only prolonging the protection of the Sarah Palin page. It is partisan anger that got the page protected in the first place.--Paul (talk) 15:49, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

The right reason for the temporary use of a POV tag is to alert the reader that an article may fail to adequately reflect all points of view, with the intention of encouraging more participation in consensus building. Once consensus has been reached, the tag is removed. The wrong reason to add a POV tag is when one side in an editing dispute fails to gain consensus on their preferred version. In this case, it's difficult to argue that all points of view are not being adequately represented. That some feel their input is not sufficiently represented in the consensus version that is adopted would fall under the wrong reason to add a POV tag. Ronnotel (talk) 15:54, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

The point is there is zero consensus on the stuff that's up here. I have tried to change it several times and I can't get consensus on my change because everyone wants to assert POV. My earlier changes were all reverted without any explanation and then the page was locked thereafter. I tried to work on the talk page several times (and many archives ago) and my suggestions were just ignored. Not responded to. Every change I've made, all duly sourced by reputable sources, has been reverted back without explanation and locked. And people have been extraordinarily uncivil. If you want me to name names, I will, but I'd rather not make it personal. This is a more systemic problem.

All I'm saying is that let's post truthful, balanced information. If you want to balance the positive with the negative or the negative with the postive, fine. But what we have here is the locked remains of Young Trigg, the probable political operative who created this puff piece to begin with.

These early changes then locking the door is kind of like someone stealing my money and then saying, "The case is closed. I won't discuss giving the money back unless you and I agree on whose money it is." And I say, "The money is mine!" And you say, "Sorry bud, no consensus. Case closed."

Right now, I'm not arguing for a particular edit. I've learned the hard way it's practically impossible. Every well-sourced edit I put in gets reverted and people refuse to dicuss why. I'm just saying there is ample disagreement that the version of this article represents anything close to neutral POV. And that disagreement should be reflected with a POV tag until we can all agree (consensus!) that the article expresses all the truthful descriptions of this woman's life, including things she's done that can be perceived in both a negative and positive light.

Once we at least acknowledge disagreement, we can work on our differences. But to pretend, in an Orwellian kind of way, that there is no disagreement, makes me think any attempt at working out our differences is hopeless.GreekParadise (talk) 16:07, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

"But what we have here is the locked remains of Young Trigg, the probable political operative who created this puff piece to begin with." I don't know who is pushing this argument, but here is the Early morning Aug. 28, 2008 version of article. I would think that any unbiased observer would conclude that current article is VASTLY more critical of Palin than it was 10 days ago. and "Young_Trig" didn't "create this puff piece" he (or she) started with an existing 2200 word consensus article.--Paul (talk) 17:00, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I'll make you a deal, slap a POV tag on Obama until you include mention of black liberation theology in his article and I'll support a POV tag here....sound good? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.18.108.5 (talk) 18:09, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Where is mention of the $22 million dollar debt she accrued while Mayor Details are being ommitted

Palin, who portrays herself as a fiscal conservative, racked up nearly $20 million in long-term debt as mayor of the tiny town of Wasilla — that amounts to $3,000 per resident. She argues that the debt was needed to fund improvements. http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0808/12987.html

She also claimed to have balanced her budget but omitted that during her six years as Mayor, she increased general government expenditures by over 33%. During those same six years the amount of taxes collected by the City increased by 38%. She inherited a city with zero debt, but, despite the increase in taxes, left it with debt of over $22 million. http://www.opednews.com/articles/Sarah-Palin-A-Wolf-in-Moo-by-Anthony-Wade-080904-936.html

Also did anyone mention that funds she acquired from Congress, of 27 million dollars was for a little town of 6,500 people. http://www.opednews.com/articles/Sarah-Palin-A-Wolf-in-Moo-by-Anthony-Wade-080904-936.html

There are serious details being ommitted from this article.

--207.232.97.13 (talk) 02:03, 9 September 2008 (UTC)fred

Since this is a biography of a living person, a higher standard of reliable sources is required, which OpEdNews.com is not. If you can find a proper source, propose an addition here and try to build a consensus for its inclusion. -- Scjessey (talk) 02:11, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

• It was $14.7M not $20M and it is already 1/3 paid off. These details are in the article already.--Paul (talk) 03:25, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Question

I added a more reliable source to the bit about smoking marijuana, though this edit removed undid it, replacing the link with what appears to be a blog-type article rather than CBS news. Thoughts? Thanks, –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 02:25, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

See this edit. The user didn't use sectional editing and undid a number of edits in err. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 03:32, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

In Her Two years In Office she has requested $750 Million In Special Federal Spending

More News Associated Press http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5ici5RhMkh6-9V07yckpLBEEjzf6QD932MU100

The governor has cut back on pork-barrel project requests, but in her two years in office, Alaska has requested nearly $750 million in special federal spending, by far the largest per-capita request in the nation.

And as mayor of Wasilla, Palin hired a lobbyist and traveled to Washington annually to support earmarks for the town totaling $27 million.

--207.232.97.13 (talk) 02:58, 9 September 2008 (UTC)fred

You do realize that the governor doesn't directly request any earmarks right? You also realize that the bit from her mayor days is already in the article right? --ThaddeusB (talk) 03:59, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

article proposal

With the protection continuing and admins insisting on concensus that will never come before making edits. I propose that all but the first sentence of the article be blanked. It's the only thing that can be agreed upon:--Rtphokie (talk) 03:34, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Sarah Louise Heath Palin (pronounced /ˈpeɪlɪn/; born February 11, 1964) is the governor of Alaska and the Republican vice-presidential nominee in the 2008 United States presidential election.

A) The full protection was removed several hours ago. B) Your proposal is silly.

So please go forth and edit in good faith toward a neutral point of view. Dragons flight (talk) 03:42, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Redlink in my edit summary

MOS:QUOTE says blockquotes are for quotes of four lines or more.Ferrylodge (talk) 04:17, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

"Lobbyists" section

This section seems highly messed up. First of all, two sentences are not enough for a separate section. But that's the least of the problems. We are told that Palin "appointed lobbyists" but the Governor does not appoint lobbyists. We are told that Richter was a lobbyist, but she was not; she was a fundraiser for Palin. We are told that Cora Crome oversees an industry, but she does not; she's merely an adviser to the Governor. And why just focus on Richter and Crome? Newsweek says: "As her attorney general, Palin chose Talis Colberg, a friend who specializes in insurance law." The Colberg appointment seems equally as notable, which is to say not very notable at all. I will remove this section.Ferrylodge (talk) 04:43, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

This has become kind of moot, now that there's a new article on her governorship.Ferrylodge (talk) 05:09, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Election : City Council Member, Mayor of Wasilla

Addition Information. Mayor Sarah Palin. Term of Service. Sarah Palin was first elected to a seat on the Wasilla City Council in October of 1992 and was reelected in 1995. In 1996, she ran for and won the Office of Mayor and was reelected in 1999. She concluded her public service as Mayor in 2002 and was unable to run again due to term limits. City Council Member, Seat E, Term October 1992 - October 1995 (First Term)

   October 6, 1992 Election Results 

http://www.cityofwasilla.com/Modules/ShowDocument.aspx?documentid=451

City Council Member, Seat E, Term October 1995 - October 1998 (Second Term) Please note, Sarah Palin only completed one-year of this term before she was elected Mayor.

   October 3, 1995 Election Results

http://www.cityofwasilla.com/Modules/ShowDocument.aspx?documentid=452

Mayor of Wasilla, Term October 1996 - October 1999 (First Term) October 1, 1996 Election Results http://www.cityofwasilla.com/Modules/ShowDocument.aspx?documentid=453

Mayor of Wasilla, Term October 1999 - October 2002 (Second Term)

   October 5, 1999 Election Results

http://www.cityofwasilla.com/Modules/ShowDocument.aspx?documentid=454 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Poohwinnie11 (talk • contribs) 09:34, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Restore mayor section

I just restored the text to the mayor section which was moved to a new subarticle. That portion of text went through a lengthy discussion (see above). There should be a discussion on the talk page before it is moved to a subarticle. I, for one, would not support moving it off of the main page to a new article. -Classicfilms (talk) 10:30, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I just noticed the post

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Sarah_Palin#Mayoralty_of_Sarah_Palin

and added to that section. Sorry about that...it's early. -Classicfilms (talk) 11:48, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Fiscal conservative

I added that Palin was a fiscal conservative to her positions section to give context and structure. I'm worried that some people might object to calling her that. Others might want to rephrase it to incude her time as Mayor. I'm on the fence on this, and am looking for a source right now that says she is a fiscal conservative. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 12:16, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

• Sources are actually not looking good for her being a fiscal conservative, I'm going to remove it for now. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 12:20, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

"Originally baptized as a Roman Catholic"

It's been a long time since I took instruction, but I seem to recall that in RC theology, one is not baptized "as a Roman Catholic". That is to say, in RC theology, baptism is baptism regardless of who performed it, or where or when. There is by their lights no such thing as a "Roman Catholic" baptism. It would be more accurate to say that SP's parents had her baptized in an RC ceremony, or by an RC priest.

Also, Assemblies of God appear to prefer adult (or at least non-infant) baptism [3]. Also they distinguish between "water baptism" and "baptism of the Holy Spirit," as evidenced by speaking in tongues. [4]. If the AG baptism is notable, the "baptism of the Holy Spirit" is the more notable date of concern.

In my opinion, however, the baptism section is not notable, and its inclusion is a little NPOV and even a little snarky. --nemonoman (talk) 14:05, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Article incorrectly infers Palin's ethics complaint against Renkes was the major factor in his resignation

In fact, the Renkes scandal was already months old by the time Palin filed her ethics complaint against Renkes in December 2004. Gov. Murkowski had two months prior appointed his own investigator (Robert Bundy) into the matter, and a large volume of damning information had already been uncovered by public records requests from the press (http://www.adn.com/news/government/renkes/story/42104.html). Bundy finished his report January 26, 2005. Murkowski reprimanded Renkes January 29th, 2005. And Renkes resigned February 6, 2005 (http://www.adn.com/news/government/renkes/story/42125.html). The unfinshed ethics complaint investigation, now largely moot, was settled a month later. Joeljunk (talk) 19:22, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I think you mean "imply," but I see to some degree your point. Palin was ahead of Bundy & Murkowski but perhaps behind public release of the documents. I can support that change. Kaisershatner (talk) 18:33, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Please be more clear on 'high approval rating'

"maintained a high approval rating throughout her term.[43]" can we please be a bit more specific and include some numbers? I heard some say she had the highest of any governor, if this is true (and I don't know if it is), that certainly warrants a mention.

Recap of Political positions

Political positions (current mainspace version)

Main article: Political positions of Sarah Palin

Many of Palin's political views are of a strong social conservative nature: she opposes abortion except when the life of the mother would otherwise be imperilled, and is a member of Feminists for Life; she backs capital punishment, and opposes same-sex marriage. She is also a member of the National Rifle Association and is a strong supporter of the right to keep and bear arms.

Palin is known for her support of "individual freedom and independence", and her endorsement for the minimal state and economic liberty of classical libertarianism: she is known in Alaska for her strong opposition to what she views as excessive government spending and corruption. She has strongly supported development of oil and natural gas drilling in Alaska, including in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.

Comments on Political positions (current mainspace version)

• This version is currently in mainspace. It is way too short. QuackGuru 22:53, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
• Keep - This version is fine for now, written in summary style, and comparable to Joe Biden#Political positions. I would much rather see incremental improvement to it via {{editprotect}} than to replace it with one of the laundry lists of controversial issues below. Kelly ^hi! 22:57, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
• Expand - A featured article has a very well written political positions section. Barack Obama#Political positions This article would easily fail to be a WP:GA because of the very short political positions section. QuackGuru 23:06, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
• Expand. "Controversy" doesn't have any meaning; as long as there are no BLP violations, and care is taken to follow the sources, why shouldn't it be in the Positions section? QuackGuru, please find us a few reliable sources that say that Palin took these positions deliberately, to forestall any claim that a position is a slip of the tongue or something. We do not need Palin's campaign website to also say what positions she takes, but if there is such a source, please add it, so that nobody can say it isn't appropriate for Wikipedia. Also, please note that only 10,000 people a day visit the Political positions of Sarah Palin article, but 500,000 visit this page, so the "they can just click through" argument must be tempered to allow more in the summary. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 23:13, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
• Keep - There is no need for a main biographical article of a politician to give lots of political positions on particular issues. For example, see the John McCain article which is a featured article that only addresses two particular issues: the economy and Iraq. John McCain#Political positions mostly covers broad themes, and leaves particular issues for the sub-article. It's very difficult to describe a particular issue position in a very brief sound bite, and that's why we have the sub-articles. Also, doing it all in the main article will prevent the main article from ever becoming stable; people will constantly be arguing about which issues to include, and how to describe her position.Ferrylodge (talk) 23:14, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment The article is protected, so stability shouldn't be a problem. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 23:53, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
• Note - Talk:Joe Biden/GA1 Either expand "Political positions" or get rid of it. It has a separate article, and that's fine, but the one in this article is way too short for its own section. The Joe Biden article failed to become a Good Article in part because of the short political positions section. The goal for this article can easily be a WP:GA. This can happen when we work together in good faith and are reasonable. QuackGuru 23:40, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
• This is not enough on her positions. Social issues are not the single, monolithic important aspect to her campaign. She ran as governor as a fiscal conservative, and has said on numerous occasions that she opposes pork-barrel spending. There is plenty of evidence to suggest her past history with lobbyists contradicts her statements. With that in mind, the "Political Positions" part of the article should be split into Social Issues and Fiscal Issues. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.123.227.162 (talk) 23:54, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
• Keep The current short summary is fine, it's the same as Joe Biden. If someone is intrested we have a full article dedicated to political positions, no need to duplicate the whole thing here. Time to focus on improving other parts of the article. Hobartimus (talk) 04:43, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Did you read my note above? The Joe Biden article failed GA in part because of the short political positions section. QuackGuru 05:23, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Expand I think people just want to conveniently ignore this fact although it is obvious that the section needs to be expanded. 66.186.173.180 (talk) 12:41, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

• Note The wikipedia blurb claims that she is against abortion except when the mother's life is in danger, yet the cited article claims she is against it except when the mother's health is in danger. This is a fairly big difference, policy-wise. Porcupine8 (talk) 22:16, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Political positions (draft 1)

Main article: Political positions of Sarah Palin

Palin has described the Republican Party platform as "the right agenda for America," adding "individual freedom and independence is extremely important to me and that's why I'm a Republican."

She has called herself as "pro-life as any candidate can be " and would permit abortion only in cases where the mother's life is in danger, and supports mandatory parental consent for abortions. Palin is a member of Feminists for Life. Palin has been described as supportive of contraception. She backs abstinence-only education and is against "explicit sex-ed programs" in schools. She supports capital punishment and opposes same-sex marriage and supported a non-binding referendum for a constitutional amendment to deny state health benefits to same-sex couples.

Palin has said she supports teaching both creationism and evolution in public schools, but not to the extent of adding creation-based alternatives to the required curriculum. She has strongly promoted oil and natural gas resource development in Alaska, including in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR). She has opposed federal listing of the polar bear as an endangered species warning that it would adversely affect energy development in Alaska. Palin does not believe that global warming is human-caused.

Palin, a long-time member of the National Rifle Association, strongly supports its interpretation of the Second Amendment as protecting individual rights to bear arms, including handguns. She also supports gun safety education for youth.

Palin's foreign policy positions were unclear at the time she was picked as McCain's running mate. When asked for her views about troop escalations in Iraq, she replied "…while I support our president, Condoleezza Rice and the administration, I want to know that we have an exit plan in place…"

Comments on Political positions (draft 1)

This draft is very well written. QuackGuru 22:53, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I like #1 since it is shorter than #2 and to the point. I would tighten it up bit more by:

• Delete the mention that she is a member of Feminists for Life. It should certainly be mentioned in the article, but not here. Membership in an organization is not a political position.

• State simply that “Palin is pro contraception. “ That is the clear message in the cited reference. There is no need to qualify it with “it has been reported that”. This is an encyclopedia article. Everything we post has been reported by others.

• Delete the mention that she is a member of the NRA for the same reasons above. It should be in the article, but not here. Instead simply say that “Palin strongly supports an individual’s right to bear arms, including handguns. “

• Regarding foreign policy, simply say “Palin supports the current administration’s policies in Iraq”. There is no need to mention what we don’t know (i.e. her positions are unclear). When they become clear, we can add them. There is also no need to mention that she wants to know we have an exit plan in place. That’s not a policy position.

• Add that she is pro Israel--Nowa (talk) 02:22, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

If you would like, I can go ahead and make the above edits, or leave it to the original poster to decide which of these, if any, to incorporate in his/her proposed draft. Just let me know.--Nowa (talk) 01:36, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I started a new section below for you to draft a similar version to draft 1. Anything is better than the current mainspace version. QuackGuru 05:04, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Political positions (draft 1.5) (shortest draft)

Main article: Political positions of Sarah Palin

Palin has described the Republican Party platform as "the right agenda for America," adding "individual freedom and independence is extremely important to me and that's why I'm a Republican."

As governor of Alaska, Palin has been a strong supporter of reducing state government spending, including cutting $1.6 billion from the Alaskan construction budget. Nonetheless, she has been strongly in favor of increased federal funding of construction programs for her state.

She has called herself as "pro-life as any candidate can be ", would permit abortion only in cases where the mother's life is in danger, and supports mandatory parental consent for abortions. Palin is supportive of contraception but she backs abstinence-only education and is against "explicit sex-ed programs" in schools. She opposes same-sex marriage and supported a non-binding referendum for an Alaskan constitutional amendment to deny state health benefits to same-sex couples.

Palin supports allowing the teaching of both creationism and evolution in public schools, but not to the extent of requiring the teaching of creation-based alternatives.

Palin has strongly promoted oil and natural gas resource development in Alaska, including in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR). She has opposed federal listing of the polar bear as an endangered species warning that it would adversely affect energy development in Alaska. Palin does not believe that global warming is human-caused.

Palin strongly supports an individual’s right to bear arms, including handguns. She also supports gun safety education for youth.

Palin supports the Bush Administration's policies in Iraq.

She supports capital punishment.--Nowa (talk) 12:40, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Comments on Political positions (draft 1.5)

I added draft 1.5 to the draft article.[5] QuackGuru 19:15, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you.--Nowa (talk) 20:39, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Political positions (draft 2)

Main article: Political positions of Sarah Palin

Palin has described the Republican party platform as "the right agenda for America," adding "individual freedom and independence is extremely important to me and that's why I'm a Republican."

In 2002, while running for lieutenant governor, Palin called herself as "pro-life as any candidate can be." She opposes abortion in cases of rape and incest, supporting it only in cases where the mother's life is in danger, and suggested that requiring parental consent for abortions be added to Alaska's constitution. Palin is a member of Feminists for Life. A 2006 article in the Anchorage Daily News refers to Palin as supportive of contraception but does not go into detail. She is a "firm supporter of abstinence-only education in schools", saying, "explicit sex-ed programs will not find my support".

Palin supports capital punishment for some crimes. "If the legislature passed a death penalty law, I would sign it. We have a right to know that someone who rapes and murders a child or kills an innocent person in a drive-by shooting will never be able to do that again."

Palin opposes same-sex marriage and supported a non-binding referendum for a constitutional amendment to deny state health benefits to same-sex couples. Palin has stated that she supported the 1998 constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage.

In a televised debate in 2006, Palin said she supported teaching both creationism and evolution in public schools. She clarified her position the next day, saying that if a debate of alternative views arose in class she would not want its discussion prohibited. She added that she would not push the state Board of Education to add creation-based alternatives to the state's required curriculum. Palin does not believe that global warming is human-caused. Palin opposed federal listing of the polar bear as an endangered species on the grounds that the "population has dramatically increased over 30 years as a result of conservation," and supported a controversial predator-control program involving aerial hunting of wolves to increase moose populations for hunters.

Palin, a long-time member of the National Rifle Association, strongly supports its interpretation of the Second Amendment as protecting individual rights to bear arms, including handguns. She also supports gun safety education for youth.

Palin's foreign policy positions were unclear at the time she was picked as McCain's running mate. When asked for her views about troop escalations in Iraq, she replied "…while I support our president, Condoleezza Rice and the administration, I want to know that we have an exit plan in place…"

Comments on Political positions (draft 2)

This draft has the most detail. QuackGuru 22:53, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

If this is going to be a summary of what is described in more detail on Political positions of Sarah Palin, there probably should be a mention of her position on energy and the environment. --Crunch (talk) 23:18, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Here is a transcript of an interview with her on CNN earlier this year. In it, she carefully outlines her strong opinions that the environmental activists are using the Endangered Species Act as a tool to prevent oil and gas development that will not really harm the environment. It is clear that this is a political position she believes in. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 23:48, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Comment- In an (probably archived already) discussion, we hashed out better language than "Palin, a long-time member of the National Rifle Association, strongly supports its interpretation of the Second Amendment as protecting individual rights to bear arms..." which makes it sound as if Palin holds the position because the NRA does. Better wording would be more like "Palin strongly supports the individual right to bear arms and praised the 2008 US Supreme Court decision in Heller that interpreted the Second Amendment as an individual right.(cite) She is a long-time member of the NRA.(cite)" etc. Kaisershatner (talk) 00:01, 7 September 2008 (UTC) NB this discussion is still several sections above, not archived yet. Kaisershatner (talk) 00:02, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I simplified it a bit more. See v 1.5 above.--Nowa (talk) 12:58, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

• Comment The reference for the predator hunting program does not confirm that Palin supports the program, nor does it support the POV-clause "for hunters." Also, this is mostly a list of wedge issues and doesn't really tell us anything about Sarah Palin's political principles or political accomplishments. It is well documented that she is a fighter for ethics in government, and against wasteful spending, having vetoed 300 spending items so far as governor. This summary is not balanced. --Paul (talk) 01:06, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

It is equally well documented that she has been a fighter for earmarks, and has helped to appropriate vast sums of money for her town, and later for the "bridge to nowhere" that she later changed her mind on. So are we talking about the dictionary definition of "balanced", or the FOX News definition? -- Scjessey (talk) 01:54, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I prefer a summary that doesn't address any specific positions. I would prefer the summary only deal with her political philosophy and possibly decision making process. I prefer this for two reasons: one it avoids unnecessary duplication of info and two it discourages people from adding more specifics and more specifics as is bound if the article becomes unprotected again. The section will inevitability expand until it is basically a copy of the daughter article again. (This already happened multiple times despite the hidden comment asking people not to expand it.) All of that said, I think this is a well written, reasonable, and fair summary. However, I feel it is at the very least too long and detailed. --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:11, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

"A summary that doesn't address any specific positions" doesn't make any sense at all. How can you have a section called "Political positions" that doesn't specify any? While I agree these sections have a tendency to expand, that is not a good enough reason to keep important details out of the summary. There are plenty of editors who can step in to provide guidance, perform "good faith reverts" and/or perform regular pruning as and when necessary. This particular version is reasonable, accurate and non-controversial summary of the key details. -- Scjessey (talk) 01:49, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Biden doesn't address any and McCain only addresses two, so certainly it can be done. To be clear I meant that the summary should be something like it is now (only bigger) in that it explains the general principles behind her positions without addressing the finer details. A few sentences on her philosophy on social issues, a few on her economic view (with ~1 on her view of the environment.), a few on her view of governments role, and maybe a few on what she is know for/how other view her. --ThaddeusB (talk) 03:20, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I added her views on government spending to v1.5 above.--Nowa (talk) 12:59, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Manticore55 (talk) 17:58, 9 September 2008 (UTC) I think it is very relevant to her bio. It appears in many of the summaries in which people talk about her. It is also the first issue I heard about her after, "Troopergate." How exactly is it NOT relevant to her bio?

Manticore55 (talk) 21:11, 9 September 2008 (UTC) The wolf thing, by itself is not 'excessive'. The placing of the wolf thing next to the whale thing seems....interesting to me.

The Bristol Palin Part of the Main Article Ignores the Fact that Bristol's Pregnancy Was Only Announced in Response to Vicious Internet Rumors

Sarah Palin did not suddenly decided to make her daughter of 17 an issue. Vicious Internet rumors falsely claimed that Sarah was claiming the daughter's baby. Only to squelch those rumors was the announcement about Bristol made. While the press was putting Bristol Palin on the front page of newspapers, there was no mention whatever of any of Biden's kids when they were 17, and the press failed to investigate rumors which had persisted since October 2007 that John Edwards was having an affair. As Obama and Biden correctly noted, children are off limits. The press indeed left the children of Democrats off limits, but not the children of Republicans, thereby leaving the press wide open to charges of partisan bias. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.44.153.18 (talk) 16:00, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree about Gov. Palin not intending to make her daughter an issue, but I think there was a slight correction. I think what touched that off was that some blogger claimed that Bristol was the actual mother of Trig (the baby suffering from Down's Syndrome). WAVY 10 Fan (talk) 16:09, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Yartett (talk) 14:32, 8 September 2008 (UTC)First entry here folks. ;-) The pregnancy is an issue given that Sarah Palin is a so-con who is into abstinence sex-ed, and that she might not have told McCain.

Actually, its appropriate for Wikipedia because the media made it an issue. Her political stands are irrelevant to Wikipedia. --ThaddeusB (talk) 17:09, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

On a similar note, it's also been revealed that Sarah Palin's first child was born less then 8 months after she eloped with her husband.

now that she's in the spotlight she's trying to make Bristol's new baby seem like some kind of happy blessing to the family (that's number three for Bristol, in fact; the first one was, guess what, aborted - looks like Sarah feels her family should be exempt from her pro-life policy!) Not only that, but now that Obama went and said "children are off-limits" anyone who points out the political relevance of this pregnancy, being an extremely well-placed indicator of Sarah's inability to instill responsibility into her own child as well as the ineffectiveness of the abstinence-only sex education she advocates, will be labeled as a cruel attacker, a personal invader, etc. In other words, Obama was trying to look like a good guy, but he gave the Palins a big credibility boost and media leverage by doing so. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 157.178.2.1 (talk) 18:16, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Do you have any sources whatsoever for these claims? Blackngold29 18:23, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I sure would be interested. Yartett (talk) 18:04, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

The question remains as to whether Bristol Palin is actually the mother of Trig. Many questions remain particularly the fact that photos give Bristol the appearance of pregnancy and Sarah does not look pregant when Sarah was reportedly 7 mos. pregnant. Further, no evidence has been presented that Bristol is now 5 mos. pregnant; just Sarah's claim to that effect.Dstern1 (talk) 02:02, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually in the absence of reliable sources there is no "remaining question". You can speculate and make stuff up all you want, but as far as WP goes, it doesn't belong here. Blackngold29 02:08, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

AKIP dispute

1. The article currently says nothing about Palin's tangential association with the Alaskan Independence Party, but the mainstream news media has analysed the issue. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 00:34, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

We have had lengthy discussions about this material, and while no strong consensus was reached we did seem to be leaning toward not including the (minimal) factual information as not being proven to have any relevance to Palin's career/life.

We don't get to decide; the frenzy of mainstream coverage says it's notable. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 01:00, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually we do get to decide to an extent. We aren't a news source, so what is relevant for their purposes is not necessarily relevant to ours. This page is supposed to be a biography, so things should be relevant to the subject's life for inclusion. --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:18, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

We shouldn't be looking to evaluate topics, but edits. For example, we ought to talk about the weight of someone's treatment of Palin's AIS associations, the edit's verifiability, etc.. If we start trying to evaluate topics, it descends quickly (super fast) into mob rule, utter disregard of argumentation. The Wiki-edit guidelines exist for a reason; we should use them, and allow ourselves to be constrained by them. Catuskoti (talk) 10:15, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

There was no lean toward excluding the info. In fact, it appeared to be 3 to 2 in favor of including it. The only objection to a section on Palin links to the AIP is that they are allegedly not relevant. See discussion above. But the fact that they have gotten so much media and public attention shows they are relevant to many people. Since the items are all factual and well sourced, they should be included. -Pulsifer (author of the AIP links section that was deleted).

There was previously a single sentence in the article about her connection to the AIP. That was sufficient. It's now gone. It could be put back. Anything beyond that is merely an attempt to paint her as a secessionist, which is an absurd idea at this point. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 01:22, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I support a single sentence, preferably in the 2008 campaign section, saying that she has not been a member of the AIP, citing to Mother Jones and whatever other sources people think are important. As Bugs said, anything beyond that is merely an attempt to paint her as a secessionist, which is an absurd idea at this point.Ferrylodge (talk) 01:34, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't object to such a sentence. (Nor would I object to its exclusion.) That she was never a member is the one fact that seems well established and possibly relevant. All other points are either debated or irrelevant. --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:41, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I think there should be a single sentence that mentions her attending the convention in 2000, Todd previously being a member and her video tape address for the AIP 2008 convention. zredsox (talk) 01:44, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

There should also at minimum be a mention that her husband Todd, at member of the AIP, was the treasurer of her 1999 mayoral campaign. -Pulsifer —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pulsifer (talk • contribs) 01:49, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

One sentence about the AIP convention sounds about right. Coemgenus 01:54, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

This is highly irrelevant to the life of Palin as a whole and her BLP and also previous consensus seemed to be to not include it.Hobartimus (talk) 01:59, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Link to previous consensus? I have been watching this page for days and must have missed it... zredsox (talk) 02:08, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

IMO, the 2008 convention video is the LEAST relevant of all the facts and "facts" --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:07, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

The AIM thing has been widely reported by RS. The problem is decideing what exactly to write.Geni 02:29, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I added proposed text to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Sarah_Palin#Palin_links_to_AIP

---

There is no controversy that Palin had links to AIP, including her husband's membership. This is different than claiming she was a member. The links are well documented and certainly relevant. This section should remain available to readers as a well-documented source of information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pulsifer (talk • contribs) 23:28, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

This has already been extensively discussed above. Kelly ^hi! 23:32, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Obviously not enough as it was removed when it seemed quite clear that the consensus was to have at least a mention of this in the biography. zredsox (talk) 01:32, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Kelly, I have read the complete discussion above. It focuses primarily on her husband Todd's membership in AIP, which was in the end deemed relevant. Similarly, the section I added documents other links to the AIP. None of them were discussed above, and certainly they are all relevant. Your stated reason for deleting the section was that it had been "debunked". This is not the case. All of the items are both true and well sourced. It appears you are trying to hide behind the above discussion to prevent relevant information from being added to the entry. If you have any issue with the truth or relevance of any of the statements, please identify the specific statements. -Pulsifer

Kelly, you keep saying that, but what is being posted is simply *not* contradicted anywhere above. These are WP:V-referenced statements. -- Rei (talk) 23:39, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

(ec)Exactly what is the purpose of including all this information on the AIP, as opposed to other organizations, like the Better Business Bureau or the Girl Scouts of America? Kelly ^hi! 23:40, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Does this straw man even need to be dignified with a response? No, we don't need lot of info about the AIP here. But pretending that the AIP thing isn't a huge scandal is just plain ridiculous. It's real, it's WP:V, it's WP:N, and thus, it can go into Wikipedia. By the book, if those constraints are correct, the only question is *where* it can go (there's no right for WP:N things to go into any particular article; it simply has the right to go into Wikipedia).

And seriously, cut it with the "debunked" stuff. We've all read the previous discussions. Nothing is debunked. If you think something is debunked, cite a source. -- Rei (talk) 23:54, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Clearly many people think it is relevant because it is all over the news. When links to those other organizations also become news items, they can also be added, but that is not the issue. -Pulsifer

• Some mention MUST be made of the AIP material, it is all over the news. Censoring it on Wikipedia is pointless now. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 23:42, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
  • ZOMG censorship...please see the extensive discussions we've already have. It's a guilt-by-association attempt that has already been debunked. Kelly ^hi! 23:45, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
    • Kelly: first you said "debunked", now you are saying "guilt by association". Regardless, there is no guilt by association. It is simply information. There's no claim that she is guilty of anything. -Pulsifer

(undent)It's true that Palin had well-documented links to the AIP. However, those well-documented links are so tenuous as to not be notable here in this article, except maybe a brief mention in the campaign section that her membership was debunked by Mother Jones. I feel like the tenuous links to AIP are being used not to give a neutral description of the subject, but rather to pulverize the subject.

By the way, Pulsifer, are you any relation to this guy? Ferrylodge (talk) 23:53, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

If you believe the links are tenuous, that is all the more reason they should be included in the article. This allows readers to judge for themselves whether the AIP association is substantial or not, and if they decide they are tenuous, it would prove the point that there should be no controversy. -Pulsifer

There is *no* tenousness here. Her husband *was* a member for seven years. She *did* go to at least one convention, possibly two. She *did* record a message telling them to "keep up the good work" this year. The McCain campaign spokesman *did* sidestep a question as to whether she wants a vote on secession. These aren't up for debate; they're confirmed. And they are huge issues, as made clear by the explosion of controversy. -- Rei (talk) 00:04, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

And her husband, a member of AIP, was the treasurer of her mayoral campaign. -Pulsifer

Palin also has tenuous links to the Democratic Party. Shall we create a section about that too? Her mother-in-law is a Democrat, so obviously Sarah Palin's Republican schtick is a complete charade, right?[6]Ferrylodge (talk) 00:23, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Again, the is a straw man. When Palin's links to these other organizations become so important to people that they are mentioned in the news, then we can add them. -Pulsifer

This comes up quite often, someone could add something to the FAQ about it. Hobartimus (talk) 00:29, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

No, it's not a straw man at all. Much ink has been spilled about Palin's willingness to cross the aisle and work with Democrats, and to encourage bipartisanship in her administartion. Smells like a Democrat to me, and I think we need a new section about her ties to the Democratic Party.Ferrylodge (talk) 00:36, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

So let's get the facts. One, a party official said she was a once a member, but had to recant when proven wrong. Two, she may have attended one or two party conventions. Three, she sent a welcome video to their convention. Four, her husband appears to have been a member in the past, later re-registered as Independent. So form these 4 facts, you think a 4000 character section, attempting to tie every possible thing she has said in the last 10 years into AIP somehow is justified. Apparently, this isn't original research in any way and is based on the length is the single most important part of her entire career, regardless that it had never even come up before 2-3 days ago? Is that an accurate summary of your position? --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:29, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

It is irrelevant to your conclusions, but for the record the various assertions have included her being present at up to three conventions: 1994, 2000, and 2006. Dragons flight (talk) 00:47, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

The only argument that has been made is that these items are allegedly not relevant. But if half of the population feels they are relevant, and half of the population feels they are not, then the material should be included so that readers can decide for themselves. Unless someone can come up with an argument other than relevance, I am going to add the material back in. -Pulsifer

Good luck with that. Coemgenus 00:34, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

There is no evidence that Palin has "links" to the Alaska Independent Party. The only relevancy in trying to include this is to suggest through guilt by association that Palin is an extremist who favors succession of Alaska from the Union. This argument started when officials of the AIP claimed Governor Palin had once been a member of the party. These claims have since been withdrawn, and Sarah Palin's voter registration records showing that she has been registered as a Republican since 1982 have appeared. So editors wanting to include this material have fallen back on circumstantial facts. 1) In her capacity as Governor she sent a video to the 2008 convention where she refers to "your party" in the first sentence, 2) in her capacity as Mayor she attended the 2000 convention, and 3) her husband declared AIP preference for several years in his voter registration. Using WP:SYNTH editors claim that these three facts prove that Governor Palin has ties to the AIP. They do no such thing. This is not material that is relevant to the biography of Sarah Palin. It is an attempt to imply guilt by association when there is no association. Inclusion of this material violates WP:BLP, WP:NPOV and WP:SYNTH.--Paul (talk) 12:26, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

{{editprotected}}

This is what I propose adding. It accurately describes the controversy which has received much attention in the press; it correctly describes that Palin has never been a member of AKIP, but does accurately describe her association with AKIP and is properly sourced and written from a neutral point of view. It violates none of the rules that Paul has cited. Its seems some people at intent on censoring facts, but that is a violation of wikipedia rules. -Pulsifer

---

The Alaskan Independence Party (AKIP) is an Alaskan political party that calls for a vote on the secession of Alaska from the United States. The motto of the AKIP is "Alaska First - Alaska Always".

On September 1, ABC News reported that Sarah Palin had been a member of AKIP. The sources for this story later retracted these claims, and the Alaskan Division of Elections confirmed that Palin has always been registered Republican.

Palin's husband Todd however was a registered member of AKIP from 1995 to 2002, and served as the Treasurer of Palin's 1999 mayoral campaign. The McCain campaign admits Palin attended the 2000 AKIP convention, and as governor, Palin sent a video address to the 2008 AKIP convention. In addition, two AKIP members recall seeing Palin at the 1994 AKIP convention, although Palin denies attending.

• I disagree with this proposed edit as 1st) Wikipedia is not a newspaper, and 2nd) it is a classic case of "when did you stop beating your wife?" Let's start with Wikipedia is not a newspaper.

  On September 1, ABC News reported that Sarah Palin had been a member of AKIP. The sources for this story later retracted these claims, and the Alaskan Division of Elections confirmed that Palin has always been registered Republican.

  This paragraph contains anti-matter (the incorrect news report) and matter (finally finding the truth which is that the report was false). When you add them together they create a big bang but leave nothing behind. In the discussion of the National Enquirer rumor (below) the consensus is to wait to see if the rumor is true or not. If true, it will be added, if not it will be ignored. That is what should have happened here, but the ABC claim was inserted as soon as it came out, and the truth only came out a day or two later. It should never have been in the article when it was little more than a politically-charged hit, and now that we know it is false, it is not appropriate to add it.

Second there's "when did you stop beating your wife?"

Palin's husband Todd however was a registered member of AKIP from 1995 to 2002, and served as the Treasurer of Palin's 1999 mayoral campaign. and as governor, Palin sent a video address to the 2008 AKIP convention. In addition, two AKIP members recall seeing Palin at the 1994 AKIP convention, although Palin denies attending.

Palin's husband is not Palin, and what is the purpose of sneaking in the fact that he was her campaign finance manager in 1999 other than to insinuate that because a family member with AKIP ties was active in her campaign, she must "have ties to AKIP"? This is clearly POV-pushing and it is also clear WP:SYNTH. Next is mentioning that two AKIP members recall seeing her at the convention 18 years ago. She denies it. I don't know, maybe she was there to get some grocery money from Todd, or to go out to dinner with him. It certainly doesn't prove any "ties to AKIP" and is either trival or POV-pushing. As I said "when did you stop beating your wife?"

And because of the reasons above, the following isn't needed at all.

The Alaskan Independence Party (AKIP) is an Alaskan political party that calls for a vote on the secession of Alaska from the United States. The motto of the AKIP is "Alaska First - Alaska Always".

I strongly object to this proposed edit for all the reasons above and because it gives undue weight by virtue of its length. --ThaddeusB (talk) 18:19, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Object as well. Serious undue weight for this "incident". Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 18:21, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

That's fine. Then I propose deleted the 2nd para and the sentence about 1994, leaving the following. This simply states the facts and let's the reader decide the importance. -Pulsifer

---

Proposal: The Alaskan Independence Party (AKIP) is an Alaskan political party that calls for a vote on the secession of Alaska from the United States. Its motto is "Alaska First - Alaska Always". Palin's husband Todd was a registered member of AKIP from 1995 to 2002, and served as the Treasurer of Palin's 1999 mayoral campaign. Sarah Palin herself has always been registered Republican. She attended the 2000 AKIP convention, and as governor, sent a video address to the 2008 AKIP convention.

I disagree with this insertion. First off, it cites an abcnews blog, and youtube. It is also compiling a lot of stuff together that if it were true, should be available as being convered in a single very reliable source. Based on the fact that you need so many sources of questionale reliablility to make the point appears to be a case of WP:SYNTH. Chrislk02 ^{Chris Kreider} 18:32, 4 September 2008 (UTC)SYNTH

The multiple sources were included because otherwise you would be arguing that the information was not sufficiently sourced. Most of the sources contain the entire story. This is the first time I have heard an attempt to exclude information because it had too many references. The facts stated are NOT IN DISPUTE, by anyone, and therefore the alleged "questionable reliability" of the sources is a red-herring. The material also does not state any conclusion, it simply lists facts, and therefore WP:SYNTH does not apply. The YouTube video is the actual video Palin sent to the 2008 AKIP convention. It is also mentioned in the other sources. There is no way it can possibly be deemed to be unreliable, and therefore the caution about self-published sources that generally applies to YouTube links does not apply to this video. The reference to the YouTube video of Palin's address is also appropriate as link the reader can follow if they are interested in the content of the video. -Pulsifer

I think this is probably a bit too much weight, not to mention that it is clearly trying to POV push the AIP views onto Palin. I think the more relevant fact is her husband's participation, which if you can imagine hypothetical analogies (if Michelle Obama was Green party), is more than just trivial. I propose the following insertion in the family section right after "...commercial fishing business."

Proposal:

He was also a registered member of Alaskan Independence Party (AKIP) from 1995 to 2002; while Palin has always been a registered Republican, she attended the 2000 AKIP convention, and as governor, sent a video address to the 2008 AKIP convention.

I don't have all the refs from above so they'd have to be chosen. This retains the essential facts, which are more than notable through all the media coverage, but doesn't impose or imply any viewpoints of Palin's. (Update: I suggest using this NYT article as the source of the sentence, as all relevant info is included) Joshdboz (talk) 19:13, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

While it is better being wittled down into a smaller (single sentence), it also shows how little subtance is involved with such assertions. The article is about her, not her husband (or daughters). Overall, I do not see the significance of it? As a governor I am sure she did lots of stuff with the state of alaska, should we include a blurb for every speech or video she sent to any organization (outside of her party)? I think this is a sever stretch to be included for inclusion. Chrislk02 ^{Chris Kreider} 19:28, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

 Declined It is clear that at the present time there is no consensus supporting any version of the edit proposed here. If such a consensus forms in the future, and is clearly stable, then it will be time to use the {{edit protected}} template. GRBerry 20:17, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

If you read this entire section you will find many editors who have stated that some mention should/could be included, though nothing was resolved. I have thus removed your "declined" tag until further discussion. As for your comments Chris, it may be a minor detail in her political life, but the amount of media coverage it has received is anything but minor. Now, one could rightly say that we shouldn't allow the media to run our agenda here; on the other hand, we rely on them to determine notability, and these facts, which have been the soul subjects of articles in many top newspapers, are much more notable than other details of her life. Joshdboz (talk) 21:07, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I have restored my own comment to the state I left it in. I declined to implement the edit protected request. The text makes it clear that such declining was a decision as of that time and if there is consensus in the future you would be free to make the request again. GRBerry 13:46, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

There was no edit protect request. There was a proposal looking for comment. Joshdboz (talk) 14:02, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

There was indeed an edit protected request. I converted it from {{edit protected}} to {{tl|edit protected}} (the latter of which displays as the former, the former of which displays as one of those beige-orange boxes) at the time I declined it. It is between Paul.h's comment of 12:26, 4 September 2008 (UTC) and Pulsifer's undated comment immediately below that. Properly used, that template is to request an admin to make the edit immediately - which is why the template says "please discuss it on the protected page's talk page before using this template." [emphasis in original] GRBerry 14:20, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

As it is is now noted without dispute that Sarah Palin attended the AIP meeting in 2006 and created a video this does deserve mention. If other sources of involvment are identified they should be reviewed on a case by case bases. Proposal from the AIP Website "Sarah Palin's husband Todd Palin was a member of the Alaskin Independant party. Sarah appeared at the AIP Convention in 2006. Sarah sent a welcoming DVD to the membership at the 2008 AIP statewide convention." http://www.akip.org/090308.html Sitedown (talk) 15:13, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Palin was campaigning for governor in 2006 and visited the convention as part of the campaign, and as had been said many times, sent the video to the 2008 convention in her role as governor (and no doubt vote prospector). I would like to know what the rationale for including this material in this article. Please note: "There are verifiable sources for these facts" is not the answer I am looking for. I am curious as to how editors think this adds to the narrative of Sarah Palin's biography. What does it show about her? If you had to write a sentence after your suggested insert of this info that drew a conclusion, what would you write? Thanks!--Paul (talk) 16:14, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi Paul, The large number of requests to include or not include this information that has been verified as fact demonstrates there is a level of importance associated with it. As the general public believe this is an important part of her history we have no choice but to include the verified fact in her biography. The only alternative would of course be to make a conscious decision and censor information that the public believes is important and I am not sure anyone believes censorship is the responsabilaty of wikipedia. Sitedown (talk) 17:59, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Censorship? No one is advocating censorship here. Certainly you aren't accusing anyone of censorship, are you? You may think that there is a wikipedia policy proscribing censorship, but there isn't. However, there are policies on verifiability, reliable sources, maintaining a neutral point of view, proscribing synthesizing opinions out of unrelated facts, and being especially careful and sensitive about accuracy and not making conjectural interpretations or implications when editing biographies of living persions. Wikipedia is not a free-for-all. Just because something is verifiable does not mean it has a free pass into an article.

The proposals to include AKIP info in the article have never achieved consensus because they aren't NPOV. First some editors tried to establish that Palin was a former member of the AKIP. Later proposals put together a bunch of unrelated facts in an attempt to establish that Palin "has ties to AKIP." Simply put, the sources provided do not back that up. I'm perfectly willing to put something in the article but it needs to be factual with a neutral point of view, which none of the prior proposals have been.

The only "fact" that is indisputable is that Palin was reported as having been a member of AKIP, but that isn't true. Beyond that we get into NPOV and the relevancy of the "facts" to this biography.--Paul (talk) 20:18, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

"I'm perfectly willing to put something in the article but it needs to be factual with a neutral point of view Paul.h" Thanks Paul Thats great. I will place a request to craft the appropriate entry and ask for submision based on the facts available. Sitedown (talk) 20:57, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

---

AKIP Inclusion request

Please assist in creating a single sentence with the appropriate minimal and verifiable facts from reliable sources of Sarah Palin direct interactions with the AKIP.

{{editprotected}} As there has been no objections raised I would suggest the following for submision. Sitedown (talk) 02:04, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Proposed Sarah attended the Alaskan Independence Party convention in 2006 and sent a welcome movie to the attendees of the 2008 AKIP statewide convention.[7] Sitedown (talk) 20:57, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

N Edit declined. There is currently no consensus for the suggested edit. Please use {{editprotect}} only after a consensus for a change in the article has been achieved (see CAT:PER). The edit request is otherwise not actionable. Also, we don't refer to the subjects of our articles by their first name.  Sandstein  05:47, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi Sandstien, I made a proposal and recieved no objection after 6 hours. Could you please provide the documented and approved process to obtain concensus. Your objection to using the first name is easily fixed. Are there any other issue or concerns. ? Sitedown (talk) 12:04, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Hello. To request an edit, please open a new subsection and start it off with a specific, WP:MOS-compliant proposal. If there is consensus to include it after 24 hours or so (i.e., no opposition or substantial net support), then you may use {{editprotect}} at the bottom of your subsection and an admin will evaluate the request.  Sandstein  21:54, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Arbitrary section break

The fact that there is so much controversy both for an against the exclusion or inclusion of this information then it is obviously important. I believe if there is documented evidence of Sarah Palin attending multiple events for the AIP this should be noted as this I believe is simply a documented biography of noteworthy facts. {99.228.151.16 (talk) 22:49, 4 September 2008 (UTC)}

Just as a BTW, there is a claim near the beginning of this topic claiming that it is significant because of the frenzy of media attention it is receiving. A query on Google Trends returns the following: Google Trends: Palin "alaska independence party" - do not have enough search volume to show graphs.--Paul (talk) 23:38, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Try a Google News search for "Sarah Palin" "Alaskan Independence Party". WP:NPOV says "Assert facts, including facts about opinions—but do not assert the opinions themselves," and I don't see how anyone can claim that it is not a fact that the Palins' links with the Alaskan Independence Party have been the subject of extensive media coverage worldwide, and that it is a campaign issue that deserves mention. --Stormie (talk) 01:51, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

The only "fact" about this "campaign issue" is that Palin does not have any ties to the AKIP even though it has been falsely reported that she did. Since there's nothing about this in the article at the moment, and in the interest of closing this dispute, I propose using an update version of Ferrylodge's sentence as follows:

Members of the of the Alaskan Independence Party suggested that Palin was a member at some point, but have since retracted that claim.

This mentions Palin and AKIP and uses as a source for the correction, the same ABC source that was used for the original incorrect charge.--Paul (talk) 06:50, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

The fact Palin attended multiple conventions either in person or via video raises controversy and is relavent to her biography. Sitedown (talk) 11:49, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't see much of a controversy. I think it'd be a great thing if every governor of every state sent welcome messages to the conventions of the other major parties in their states. What I think is problematic here is that after a flare up of media attention, this is now a dead story, especially since the veracity of the claims has since come under a cloud. I think including it here is just not biographical, and would place wp:undue on the matter.   user:j    (aka justen)   02:21, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Protection

Just to keep us all up to date, what are the plans to get this page down to semiprotection? This is supposed to be a Wiki. I remember reading somewhere that we were going to give it a try on Saturday. This is Sunday and the page has been fully protected for three days. I think someone on this page seriously proposed keeping it locked until after the election, which is a laughable suggestion and diametrically opposed to Wikipedia's mission to be an encyclopedia that anyone can edit. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 19:04, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

There is currently a proposed temporary injunction at the ArbCom case regarding this. Admins are waiting for a determination, which I think is prudent. Kelly ^hi! 19:06, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

That's got nothing to do with my question. The proposed temporary injunction only concerns how admins should handle the page while it's protected. This seems like a silly question if the page will be unprotected before that question can be settled, like it should be. What steps are being taken to get the page unprotected? --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 19:21, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

The issue was discussed by administrators at WP:RFPP (sorry, no link), but the sense of the conversation was that any admin who screws with the protection of this article now risks being added as an involved party to the ArbCom case. Kelly ^hi! 19:26, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Very nice catch-22 we've blundered into here, protect the page and then make it procedurally impossible to unprotect it, thereby indefinitely enshrining a situation that runs directly counter to Wikipedia's mission. Very well, how can the community voice its views on getting this page unprotected, notwithstanding the activities at arbcom? --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 19:36, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

For now, the best way forward is to draft proposed edits and propose them here at the talk page, for consensus. This process actually seems to have become fairly civilized and is working well so far. Kelly ^hi! 19:41, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Your edits will then be reviewed and if they are positive towards Sarah we will add them. If they are in anyway negative despite the fact they are current and in the MSM and verified correct we will not include them. We will do this by continually declining updates based on wording or other semantics that would normally be resolved through the wiki process. Sitedown (talk) 20:16, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Is the above meant as some kind of sarcasm? Obviously, including only positive edits but no negative edits would be an NPOV violation. Wikidemon (talk) 20:20, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

(ec)Afraid not. There is plenty of material in this article that people could regard as negative - i.e. the Alaska Public Commissioner dismissal and other things. But those things will only be accepted if they comply with WP:NPOV and have multiple, reliable, sources. This is the same reason you don't see garbage about being a secret Muslim or Mob-associated at the Barack Obama article. Kelly ^hi! 20:23, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm well acquainted with NPOV policy. That would suggest that any contentious material, positive or negative, and particularly anything challeneged by another editor, must be reliably sourced. The notion of multiple sources is a bit unique but I would go along with it as a mater of weight for hyper-notable people (on the theory that if it's truly notable a lot of sources would agree on it). The only policy I'm aware of that goes one-way to admit only positive and not negative stuff is BLP, and that is only under limited circumstances. Most negative things about major politicians are POV issues, not BLP issues. For example, the "troopergate" and "bridge to nowhere" matters as they affect Palin are matters of her public record in office and definitely not BLP concerns (though I suppose where they affect the officer himself, the kid, the divorce, etc., they raise BLP questions for other people). Wikidemon (talk) 20:33, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I absolutely agree. In terms of multiple sources, I was thinking of WP:REDFLAG as regards controversial or unlikely claims. Kelly ^hi! 22:23, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

And I thought Troopergate was Bill Clinton's baby. Glad I always read talkpages too.Die4Dixie (talk) 16:27, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Background on Traffic

I have just finished writing this summary of the traffic and activity on this page. It remains the most visited page on Wikipedia. I plan to propose a reduction in protection once the evidence shows this page falls out of the top spot, but we aren't there yet. Dragons flight (talk) 21:10, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing out the high level of traffic on this page. That is an excellent argument in favor of lowering the protection level as soon as possible and not waiting for the traffic to abate. Wikipedia articles are supposed to be available to edit by anyone. The fact that our most-trafficked article is locked is a mockery of our purpose. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 21:25, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Excellent work, Dragons flight. The problem with this article is that the volume of editing simply overwhelmed the normal wiki procedures of warning and blocking for quality control. There were simply so many edits that it was hardly possible to read them all, much less check out the supplied sources. I was going to do an analysis of edits per minute, but your work is good enough so that I think I'll do something else this afternoon. I'm sure there were long periods of time with edits at more than one per minute. Thanks again.--Paul (talk) 21:38, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Of course, as you know, Paul, that describes what was happening three days ago, before the article was locked. Furthermore, the number of page views tells us nothing about the editing pattern. Looking at that part of the summary shows that the edit rate on the day before it was locked (Sept. 3) was about half what had been on Aug. 29. Also, the page views were down yesterday to 207,000 yesterday from a high of 2.5 million on the 29th. There's obviously no more reason for this page to be locked. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 01:06, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I get your point, but you'd probably be better off making your point at the Arb case page. No decision will be made here, it's just wasted bytes. Kelly ^hi! 02:45, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Mr. Anderson makes a wondeful point. Mrs. Palin's page may be receiving an enomorous ammount of attention and be suseptable to vandalism, but the irony is, that by receiving such focus the chance of removing slanderous and untruthful comments also proportionally increases. For Wikipedia to place this page under full protection is a basic violation of one of their basic strengths, an "open and transparent consensus." To reject the word is to reject the human search. ~Max Lerner —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aruhnka (talk • contribs) 06:12, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Mr. Anderson and Aruhnka make fine utopian agruments, but they've never edited the Sarah Palin article, and presumably weren't here at the height of the attacks that led to fully protecting the article. Poke around on the Adminstrator's pages there is plenty of evidence as to why the article is locked at the present. As disagreements are solved here on the talk page, and as interest falls back to normal levels (on Friday Aug. 29, this page had more page views than any wiki page ever). the protection will be removed.--Paul (talk) 13:13, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Why doesn't Obama's page get the same protection she does? Are the wiki admins being paid by the republican party or something? I've notive alot of things with this presidential election and wiki and alot of things I've observed have been pro republican themes and reverts. This needs to be put out on main stream media on how wiki has change to being evil now.--Ron John (talk) 11:59, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Obama's page isn't fully protected at the moment, because it isn't being attached by 100's of POV-pushers. Though if you look at the protection log, it has been fully protected at times in the past.--Paul (talk) 13:13, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

You're a nut! Need help adjusting that tin foil cap of yours, son? 68.46.183.96 (talk) 04:48, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

• Have you got any friends who are reporters you can contact? We know that reporters watch Wikipedia talk pages for juicy stories, maybe a story is in the works. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 12:03, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

NPR already did a story on how the article was edited by one volunteer the night before the Palin announcement. What seems to be missing is the followup story on how the article was so heavily attacked by partisans of the other side inserting libel and NPOV and BPL voilating materials, that the article has been locked for editing ever since; a very much bigger story which has not been reported.--Paul (talk) 12:55, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't know if people outside Wikipedia would find it surprising that an article with millions of views would attract a few NPOV edits, since this is the "Encyclopedia that anyone can edit". My comment to Ronjohn above was tongue in cheek, although not unsympathetic. I was trying to convey that unless a reporter is very familiar with Wikipedia's internal workings, they would not understand how unusual the behavior of the admins has been lately. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 13:30, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

What is happening at the discussion is akin to two mighty rivers converging...one is the River Palin, the other, the river Wikipedia. The result is the mud and silt of the current talk page. (I havent read the article in 4 days) True...good soil for the crops of differing ideas, but confusing and difficult to wade thru. A conglomeration of quid pro quo. But, I am VERY MUCH un-concerned about the state of the article during its metemorphasis. It will become whatever we create over the next important weeks. My basic and initial problem was the imprisonment of the article by well-intentioned, but I believe, misguided, administrators. This act of disconnecting the article from the vast array of worthy and good faith editors and holding it in bondage where only the privileged few could sculpt it, goes against everything wiki. Freedom and openness are at the core of where this, Wikipedia, all started. But, I'm afraid that in all the hubbub about the candidate, the REAL problem that occurred will be swept under the rug. Does anyone know where an open discussion about what happened should take place...under what heading...here or elsewhere. Should a seperate thread be started? Is a discussion happening that interested parties should know about? The freedom to edit is dislocated. Has someone called a Doctor?--Buster7 (talk) 01:11, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Beluga whales

Currently, the last line of "Energy and Environment" states:

Palin also disagrees with strengthening the protection status of the beluga whales in Cook Inlet, Alaska, where oil and gas development has been proposed.

Recommend replacing with:

Palin also opposed the placement of beluga whales in Alaska's Cook Inlet on the engangered species list, on economic grounds. Palin cited state scientists who claimed that hunting was the only factor causing the whales' decline, and that the hunting has been effectively controlled through cooperative agreements with Alaska Native organizations.

I believe it's more neutral and specific. This is the additional source being cited for the info, in addition to the source already on the sentence. Kelly ^hi! 09:12, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose That source is the government of Alaska's own page. Since Palin is the governor, that is a decidedly non-neutral source; she could well have written it herself. Please find a newspaper or other independent secondary source that says what you (and Palin) are claiming. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 09:48, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

  Here is another source regarding the whale population and the agreements with the Eskimos. I think the state press release should also be kept as an additional source though, since it contains the scientists' statments. Kelly ^hi! 09:55, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

• • That source is acceptable, it says "Gov. Sarah Palin already has come out against listing the whales because of the potential for long-term damage to the local economy." and clearly blames overhunting (now curtailed) for the decline. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 10:07, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

• I see where you're coming from, Kelly, but it's not really more neutral since it gives her rebuttal but no argument for. The NMFS doubtless have their scientists too. How about

In 2007 Palin urged against a proposal by the National Marine Fisheries Service to place beluga whales in Alaska's Cook Inlet on the engangered species list. Such a listing entails vetting of all actions under the scope of federal agencies. Palin argued that there was evidence that the whale population was on the increase, and warned against damage to the local economy by the costs of added delays in process.

? 86.44.29.35 (talk) 10:00, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

• Yeah, including the NMFS opinion is a good idea. What do you think of the mention of the Eskimo whaling agreements? Kelly ^hi! 10:05, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I would like to suggest:

... the hunting has been curtailed after federal negotiations with Alaska Native organizations.

because that is what the source says, and I don't think Alaskan Natives would like to see themselves described as "controlled." Phlegm Rooster (talk) 10:08, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

If we want to be loquacious, we can add "She pointed to collaborative hunting agreements in place between the State and Alaskan Native organizations, and asked the NMFS to work with the State in implementing alternative plans to ensure the conservation of the Inlet's whales." Rather wordy though. 86.44.29.35 (talk) 10:21, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

No, it was the feds who negotiated it. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 10:28, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

The hunting agreements, you mean? 86.44.29.35 (talk) 10:38, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 10:40, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

My mistake, I presumed otherwise from the .gov source. OK, substitute "federal agencies" for the first instance of "the State", i guess? 86.44.29.35 (talk) 10:45, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

• May I direct your attention to this document containing more recent from the NMFS research that addresses Palin's scientific claims. The document states that despite hunting controls beluga whales in Cook's Inlet remain severely depleted and at high risk of permanent extinction. T0mpr1c3 (talk) 10:17, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Yep but we're just saying what she said, we're not saying it's true. Give the reader some credit.86.44.29.35 (talk) 10:21, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

The NOAA source is okay, but ideally we'd need a newspaper or magazine that says that, or better yet assesses all the claims. State scientists vs federal scientists, who is right? Phlegm Rooster (talk) 10:26, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

OK, but if we state her position we should also state its rebuttal in a scientific document by the NMFS, a branch of the US department of Commerce. T0mpr1c3 (talk) 10:24, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Do they call it a rebuttal of the Alaskan/Palin claims? Phlegm Rooster (talk) 10:27, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Read the document for yourself. It clearly rejects the claims of the Alaska state scientists that are being considered here. T0mpr1c3 (talk) 10:30, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Why get into the rights and wrongs of it? It will be its own article! The NMFS proposed it, there was obviously good reason for doing so, she rebutted them thus. And we're out. 86.44.29.35 (talk) 10:36, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

No, that's only half the story. The NMFS proposed the listing. Palin argued against the listing it on the grounds the hunting restrictions adequately protect the beluga population. And then the NMFS review was published which rejected those grounds. T0mpr1c3 (talk) 11:16, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, it's 134 pages long, I just read half of it. Please find a secondary source. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 10:39, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

There already is a secondary source: the Time article. T0mpr1c3 (talk) 10:55, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

• To clarify: the NMFS proposed listing belugas and held a public discussion. The Alaska scientists put their case at the public forum. And then the NMFS published this review which rejects the claims of the Alaska scientists. And seeing as its federal scientists who get to decide whether or not the belugas get listed as endangered, that's pretty important information. T0mpr1c3 (talk) 10:42, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

• • But I don't even mention scientists in my proposed version. We really don't want to give claim and counter claim to infinity. Don't you like my proposed version? *is hurt* 86.44.29.35 (talk) 10:48, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

• • • FWIW I don't think it's a case of claim and counterclaim. The NMFS held a public discussion at which Palin and presumably others put their case, and then published a review synthesizing the current status of research. The NMFS is a public body, its not a bunch of animal rights loonies. As I'm sure you know.

[Absolutely accept that it's not claim & counterclaim, loose language on my part, i meant to indeed imply that the NMFS has some weight, and giving their proposal with a politician's response to it was sufficient and npov.] 86.44.24.95 (talk) 07:01, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I'd say this discussion really needs to take place on the "Political positions" page where we can maybe do some proper wiki editing on an unlocked page, and then when we have consensus we can summarize it here. The version currently up there has already benefited from a bit of back and forth between Kelly and myself.

Here is the version as it currently stands on "Political positions":

Palin also opposed the placement of beluga whales in Alaska's Cook Inlet on the endangered species list, on economic grounds.[36] Palin cited state scientists who claimed that hunting was the only factor causing the whales' decline, and that the hunting has been effectively controlled through cooperative agreements with Alaska Native organizations. [37] More recent research by the National Marine Fisheries Service suggests that despite hunting controls beluga whales in Cook's Inlet remain severely depleted and at high risk of permanent extinction. [38]

As an intermediate step, I propose the first sentence of the above for this page, sourced to the Time article which is the ony secondary source we have at the moment:

"Palin also opposed the placement of beluga whales in Alaska's Cook Inlet on the endangered species list, on economic grounds."

This avoids mentioning oil & gas which are not the main economic considerations (it's really about fishing) and is generally a bit more neutral. T0mpr1c3 (talk) 12:30, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Should we specifically say "fishing" instead of simply "economic grounds"? Kelly ^hi! 14:41, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure, the statement that Palin put out doesn't specifically mention fishing. I would say it's probably on the safe side not to single out the fishing industry. But I don't have a strong view on that. T0mpr1c3 (talk) 18:01, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Are there any more suggestions? I'd like to build consensus towards an edit because I think we have made some progress here and it would be good to see that reflected in the page content. T0mpr1c3 (talk) 19:00, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Pending any further suggestions: I propose Palin also opposed the placement of beluga whales in Alaska's Cook Inlet on the endangered species list, on economic grounds in place of the current sentence. 79.74.252.173 (talk) 23:07, 7 September 2008 (UTC) I support the sentence change since it is more accurate than the current one. --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:02, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Yet another proposed revision:I agree with the basic idea that scientific arguments should be included (both sides) or excluded. Giving only one side, as in the original proposal in this thread, would be wrong.

A few suggestions for improving the wording proposed above (by 79.74.252.173 at 23:07): This and other versions say something like "placement of beluga whales in Alaska's Cook Inlet". This would make the reader think first of some kind of program to stock the inlet with whales, until he or she reads on, and then has to go back and re-understand the sentence. Also, the version above might give some readers the impression that the listing was on economic grounds -- not reasonable under the ESA but some people wouldn't know that. Finally, "the endangered species list" most logically means the species designated as "endangered". I've only skimmed the references but it seems possible that NMFS was considering some kind of listing under ESA, which could include listing as "threatened" rather than "endangered".

{{editprotected}}

For these reasons, I suggest: "Palin also opposed, on economic grounds, a proposal to list beluga whales in Alaska's Cook Inlet under the Endangered Species Act." JamesMLane t c 02:00, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

(in place of Palin also disagrees with strengthening the protection status of the beluga whales in Cook Inlet, Alaska, where oil and gas development has been proposed.) T0mpr1c3 (talk) 14:31, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Approve. Could maybe wikilink beluga whales. T0mpr1c3 (talk) 08:18, 8 September 2008 (UTC) Approve This is definitely an improvement (more neutral and more accurate). --ThaddeusB (talk) 17:00, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

•  Done by somebody; I haven't checked the history to see who or when. GRBerry 19:41, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Disapprove The main argument is not "on economic grounds", Palin said it was a concern. By only listing this reason it is implied it's the only one! The Time's article doesn't source this reason of "economic grounds" - it implies it about Palin. Remember, the NMFS decided to NOT list the whales in 2000 with the same population numbers. That's why they are taking the six month extension to do another population estimate. The reasons are given here. This is a bias POV.

Decision to list Cook Inlet belugas delayed

Theosis4u (talk) 23:38, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Even if all that is so (and it isn't, quite) this is was still an intermediate improvement on the sentence it replaces. 86.44.24.95 (talk) 07:15, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

The only accurate piece of information in the above is that the protection status of belugas is still under review. 194.83.141.23 (talk) 08:38, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Please point out what is "wrong" with assessment?

"In 2000, the agency [The National Marine Fisheries Service] refused to list the whales." source

'Rod Hobbs, leader of the beluga whale research project at NOAA's National Marine Mammal Lab, also in Seattle. Hobbs said the long view shows that this year's [2007] estimate of 375 beluga whales is about what it was in 1999." ... 'In June, NOAA biologists flew five surveys of waters in the upper Cook Inlet where the whales tend to be most often and recorded video of the belugas in groups. The biologists came up with the new estimate of 375 whales _ up from 302 whales last year _ by examining the video and from counts made by researchers. ... This year's increased estimate is the largest since 2001 when 386 whales were counted."source

Besides - economic impact. "Palin said ... However, the state is going to closely review all the scientific information in the proposal to be sure it meets the requirements for listing under the Endangered Species Act, she said. Additionally, the state will study whether existing federal law, such as the Marine Mammals Protection Act, provides sufficient protection, she said." Proposal to list belugas as endangered has leaders wary over projects

1. wants to confirm population in light of restraint on whale hunting over the years

A. doesn't address the issue of why whales haven't had an increase when compared to other whale population growths of 2-6%/year.

2. be sure to meet requirements for ESA (the beluga whales in cook inlet I believe still haven't been demonstrated as genetically unique.)

3. whales are covered by existing laws - question is if it's sufficient.

4. and of course, economic impact due to the possibility of how the ESA is enacted. There would be a difference if the habitat is including in the policy verses not being including.

Theosis4u (talk) 17:37, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Approve Manticore55 (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 21:20, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

POV

<de>

• {{editprotected}}

--Proposed edit until consensus is reached for reasons stated above. Otherwise, people who go to this encyclopedia will think that consensus has been reached when it clearly has not.--

GreekParadise (talk) 16:22, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I withdraw my original request. Now that wikipedians are fully able to edit article, I think we're resolving conflicts nicely. (Knock on wood!).GreekParadise (talk) 19:35, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Oppose

Oppose:Disagree for now, can you be more specific? Kelly ^hi! 16:26, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Oppose: As above, I think this is a poor reason to insert a POV tag on this article. Ronnotel (talk) 16:44, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Oppose I don't like most of her politics, but the article is neutral in regard to the facts. The debate about adding additional content that doesn't favor her is a separate issue. While the article isn't as up to date as it could be (and Wikipedia policy is clear that it is better to be out of date than to try to be a news source) doesn't make the article POV. Again, I am not a fan of hers, but there does seem to be a fair amount of people determined to turn the article into a political tool, which is NOT the purpose of Wikipedia. PHARMBOY (TALK) 16:54, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Oppose The typical wikipedian: a white male under 35, who favors legalizing pot, is a tekkie, leans socialist, is pro-obama, despises conservatism....of COURSE you think its POV. You want to shove more controversy in it...like talking about speaking in tongues, etc. Funny how the words "black liberation theology" is no where to be found on Obama's article. But Palin/McCain now have a 10 pt lead in the polls, and I understand how desperate you are. You have to save Obama! You got to get that controversy stuffed in this article.....these are desperate times!! 17:09, 8 September 2008 24.18.108.5 (Talk)

Reminder: comments like this do not factor into consensus.--Tznkai (talk) 20:49, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Oppose, for the time being .... someone should condense what the issues are and then the validity of a tag can be weighed. CENSEI (talk) 17:26, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Oppose no valid reasons have been given for the adding the tag - this seems to a request based on frustration that the article is locked rather than actual material problems --ThaddeusB (talk) 17:34, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Oppose -- I don't see how this would help resolve anything, and I'm not sure what particular POV you're suggesting exists. Coemgenus 17:39, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Oppose -- Seems to be lacking a lot of substance, but it sure doesn't seem biased to me. Manticore55 (talk) 17:34, 9 September 2008 (UTC) Oppose with caveat While small portions here and there are subtly unbalanced (in either direction!), I don't see any overall problem with neutrality. The disjointedness present here is very common with a high interest article with polarized perspectives. I would revisit this if someone was more specific. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 19:05, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Oppose - NPOV icons are an admission of defeat, that we can't work out how to edit an article. Page protection more or less says as much. The very idea of consensus on a POV tag is baffling, and asking for an NPOV tag to go in under page protection seems doubly odd. POV tags are usually added only after one fails to gain consensus for something. If we had consensus together to say that the article has a POV violation we might as well get consensus together to make a protected edit to fix it? Wikidemon (talk) 19:17, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Oppose on the basis of what is being proposed as POV problems below. Kaisershatner (talk) 20:34, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Oppose I do not see what the proposal states as being a POV bias in the article. It seems we've removed the major POV problems are are chipping away at minor problems now. --98.243.129.181 (talk) 20:43, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Oppose any tags on one of our highest trafficked articles, but more on principle than anything else (I think tags are evil and unprofessional, and are too self-referential). Of course the neutrality is disputed. It always will be, from one side of the aisle to the other, depending on who's editing. Political articles are pendulums, which by laws of physics, eventually will settle into a very nice article with smaller and smaller undulations. With or without a POV tag. I will always "vote" without, for any tag, especially for a highly visited article. Keeper ǀ 76 22:14, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Oppose The only complaint I see is that some editors want to lard up the article with every single Dem talking point about her. Sorry, that's not what Wikipedia is for. A.J.A. (talk) 04:03, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Agree

Agree I would prefer the article was unlocked but if we can't get that then this is a good start. Sitedown (talk) 16:49, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Agree Wholeheartedly. Spiff1959 (talk) 17:06, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Agree The objectively of the article is in dispute even though the majority might think it is fair. In reading though the talk page archives it is clear that many of the changes made were based on democracy rather than clear consensus. It would be best at this time to denote the article does not represent a neutral point of view and begin working to achieve it.Neutralis (talk) 17:13, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Agree -- A POV tag would not be unreasonable, considering the ongoing discussion here. On the other hand if people want to help get either Senator Obama or Senator McCain elected they will probably do much better to volunteer at their local campaign office rather than fooling around on WP. :-) Steve Dufour (talk) 17:14, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Agree -- Just putting in a vote for my own proposal. Now it's 7-5.GreekParadise (talk) 19:02, 8 September 2008 (UTC) See above note.GreekParadise (talk) 19:35, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Agree, and in a case like this, it shouldn't be a vote, but an indication. The current situation is that enough people are concerned about POV for it to be POV-tagged. Our concerns should not be dismissed. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 22:03, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Agree only if equal treatment This article deserves a POV tag only if Barack Obama and John McCain also get one. 3 or 4 articles have POV. Only Joe Biden's article is decent. Even that has POV but it's not nearly as bad. 903M (talk) 01:22, 9 September 2008 (UTC) The end result will be that this will get a POV tag and the other POV articles won't have it as others will cite "other crap exists". This article is not more POV than Obama and McCain.903M (talk) 04:32, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Agree LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 15:51, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Agree The continued lock on the door would indicate we are either not worthy or not welcome. Is there another choice?--Buster7 (talk) 09:01, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Comments

Comment Can you provide some specific examples of POV within this article? Just because there is a content dispute it doesn't mean that the article itself is POV. Heck, the content dispute could be over things that make a NPOV article POV... --Bobblehead ^(rants) 17:15, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

it doesn't bash her enough...we need to talk about speaking in tongues, and being 'saved'....more controversy! Scrolling up you can see several people wanting to include more about her pentecostal religion and controversial items. But I'm reasonable, I'd support to slap the POV tag on if the Obama article will put one on too (or talk about black liberation theology, which is nowhere mentioned in the Obama article) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.18.108.5 (talk) 18:14, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

If you don't agree with something in the Obama article then change it and I will change the areas I don't agree with on Palin's article. Oh yeah thats right - I can't cause it's locked. This is why we need to put the POV flag on. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sitedown (talk • contribs) 18:45, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Certainly, Bobblehead. My problem is I'm trying not to get into any specific content war but simply get people to admit that a dispute exists. Right now we have a 7 - 5 vote saying that no controversy exists. But I don't think majority rules. If 5 say a controversy exists, a controversy exists!

Here are some of the things I would change if allowed. They are all well-sourced facts. They are admittedly not a very positive portrayal of Sarah Palin, but as postive portrayals have been included, the more nuanced truth (including negatives) should be included as well. Warning: I am not now trying to argue for this or that point. Only to note that these are points on which consensus has not been reached. While this list is far from complete, there is no mention currently of the following indsiputable facts in the article.

Wasilla had 5,450 people when Palin was mayor, not 7000.

Palin hired city administrator to run Wasilla when mayor

Palin raised sales taxes 38%, including tax on food

Palin began with 0 debt and left town in $22 million debt

Palin flew annually to Washington to get earmarks

Palin's earmark request for Alaska was largest (per capita) of any state

Kilkenny allegations of cronyism and incompetence (similar allegations in Anchorage Daily News too)

Troopergate: Palin denied calls before admitting them

Troopergate: Legislative investigation starts before Palin admitted to calls —Preceding unsigned comment added by Spiff1959 (talk • contribs) 19:49, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Controversy over going into labor in Texas then flying 4000 miles to Alaska to have baby there without informing airlines

Banning book scandal is definitely NOT consensus. Who pretends the firing of the librarian was not due to her refusal to ban books? Show other side.

Palin had harsh history with Republican State Senate President Lyda Green, a former cancer victim. Palin called her a "bitch" and a "cancer to Alaska" on live talk radio

Palin's flirtations with the Alaskan Independence Party - I know this is controversial. That's why there's no consensus, but husband's membership, plus attending two or three conventions, plus giving welcoming address six months ago? You can't argue it's nothing.

Palin's supporting Buchanan, according to Buchanan. Both sides of controversy should be mentioned.

Again, I'm not trying to argue for inclusion at this time. Just trying to. say there's an obvious controversy. Others can add things that they feel are disputed or NPOV. Let's just add the POV tag until we arrive at a conensus on at least most of these.GreekParadise (talk) 18:43, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

A good example would be the political positions which does not seem to clearly reflect the factual ascertations of the daughter article. The selective inheritance of views which make up the summary seems to be pushing a point of view by what is not included. Neutralis (talk) 18:53, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Two points. 1) The daughter article has become quite unbalanced in places, so this comparison may not wash. 2) I appreciate the list of controversies, but point out that threading that list in in a contextually readable way would greatly unbalance the article. To really assess the overall article, one would have to hold up a similar list of controversies included, as well as similar lists of noncontroversies both included and not. At least in proinciple.

Perhaps a better solution is to prioritize this list: rank the top 10 (say) topics for proposed inclusion with ranking reasons and open for discussion. Some might be better in. Many won't. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 19:13, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Per *Restore_large_protection_notice*, replacing the protection tag would serve the purpose by informing readers & would-be editors why "the encyclopedia that anyone can edit" cannot be edited and explain generally the unresolved disagreements between editors. --Evb-wiki (talk) 19:13, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

GreekParadise, the issue I have is that many of those things you list are debunked or misleading in their formulation (have you stopped beating your wife?). The debt, for example, which I believe was a result of the town's decision to build a large capital project. The "support for Buchanan" which is a total red herring (she is on record as working on the Forbes campaign and has also stated she wore a Buchanan button when he spoke in her town not because she was behind his candidacy). The Lyda Green stuff is also, as you have presented it, slanted (she called a cancer patient a bitch! OMG!). Harsh words for a political opponent but not exactly like she ran to the cancer ward to pull the plug on her or something. Those are just the three most obvious (to me) places where your list is misleading. Some of the other stuff (not informing the airline?) IMO doesn't exactly rise to the level of controversy, and isn't treated as such in other wikiarticles (Obama. Ayers. Black Liberation Theology.) Kaisershatner (talk) 20:05, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Technically, only $15 million of the debt was for the sports center. Although, $1.3 million of the cost for the sports center was because they started building the infrastructure before they actually owned the land and someone else snatched it up and they claimed eminent domain on the land.[8] --Bobblehead ^(rants) 20:52, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Isn't the solution to speech more free speech? Say that the debt is caused by the sports center. Say that Buchanan remembers her and Todd as being "brigaders" at a fundraiser in 1996 and that she said she worked for Forbes then (but never addressed Buchanan's claims. They can both be right you know.) This is more than the button. This is Buchanan personally saying it happened in 1996. The button incident was 1999. The Lyda Green stuff is true. Maybe Palin thought she was a "bitch." Give Palin's point of view on why she hates Green. But the comment was recorded on live radio. It's a fact. We could even provide an audio link. The airline thing was discussed at length in the Anchorage Daily News, but it's not on my top list of priorities. My point is I'm all for giving both sides. But to include only the positive things said about her and none of the negatives seems to me unfair.GreekParadise (talk) 21:54, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

At any rate, my point is there should be a POV tag, NOT to argue the specifics. I'm saving that for later. Can we at least agree to disagree, i.e. agree there's no consensus?GreekParadise (talk) 21:54, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

From someone who was listening to that live radio broadcast when it first aired, Sarah Palin never called Lyda Green those things. It was the DJ who was doing the interview, (who says he did not know Lyda was a cancer survivor at the time of the remark).Zaereth (talk) 23:07, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Restore large protection notice

There was never consensus for Jossi's change to the small padlock icon. Please restore the large notice. Previous discussion here, here, here and here. Mike R (talk) 17:32, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Support - I actually think is also the proper resolution for the POV-tag request issue being !voted on above. The large protect tag contained the specific reason why the article was locked. --Evb-wiki (talk) 19:08, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Support, users need to know that the article can't be edited, why, and what to do to get it edited. The only argument I've seen for not having it is "it is embarrassing for Wikipedia", not an appropriate agrument for such a high visibility article--part of the strength of Wikipedia is to admit it is a work in progress, with disputes that in the end built better articles. There are raging disputes here, but this fact is being concealed for the sake of Wikipedia's "image". Phlegm Rooster (talk) 22:20, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Oppose per reasons I gave at the POV tag vote. Too self-referential (to my knowledge, I didn't participate in any of the prior discussions, I don't recall seeing them until Mike R linked them here now). Of the millions of people that come here to get information about any subject, the first thing they read shouldn't be an internal tag, no matter what the tag says. Find me a tag that spans all the way across the browser window that says "This is one of Wikipedia's best articles!!" for our featured articles (this certainly isn't one of them) and I'll perhaps change my mind. Keeper ǀ 76 22:27, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps you should nominate the tag template for deletion, if you feel that way about all articles, Keeper76. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 22:33, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

(ec)Just an additional comment if anyone is looking for non-Palin specific rationale(s) for not including this, or any tag, can be found at this user essay. Just an essay, one I agree with. I did not say I want them deleted, just not used, especially on high profile articles. I've used them myself, on NPP for example, or for general cleanup issues. 2 million visitors to a high profile article should not be immediately presented with a meta-tag instead of a lead paragraph about the subject article. Keeper ǀ 76 22:36, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Oppose - risk of vandalism is no higher with this article at this point than with any other article about a prominent politician. We may disagree and the article may change shape as a result, but that's wikipedia. LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 15:56, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

New Biography about Sarah Palin

A suggested link under "External Links" to a new biography about Palin, scheduled to release October 10, according to the press release.

New biography: Sarah Palin: A New Kind of Leader by Joe Hilley

Finz7 (talk) 17:03, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Unlikely, to say the least. We'd only include it if the biography itself was available online, and only afterwards. We won't include spam links. GRBerry 17:31, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Good point. When I see that content is available, I'll write back.

Finz7 (talk) 14:07, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Please be advised that Sarah Palin eloped with Todd Palin as a result of pregnancy, rather than financial concern, as noted in this article: [9]--Barclay080808 (talk) 03:55, 10 September 2008 (UTC)