Jump to content

Talk:Sarah Palin/Archive 2

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

Dubious catchall source

There is a very dubious catchall source being used: Johnson, Kaylene (2008). "Sarah: How a Hockey Mom Turned Alaska's Political Establishment Upside Down". Epicenter Press. ISBN 978-0979047084. I welcome and support paper published documents but I cannot imagine the unbelievable coincidence that an entire biography of this woman was conveniently made this year. As well I count no less than 10 citations going to this one book which I doubt anyone has actual access to. For example since when does a municipality have the power to "reduce property taxes by 60%? Unless there was an immense high-density growth the likes of New York City in Alaska OR a state supported socialist funding mechanism the likes of Norway, there would be no feasible way for local government to cut itself in half in that manner.

Anyway as for the source itself, because this page has greater scrutiny than other WP pages, I suggest we start marking citation needed for assertions that sound quite a bit out of the norm considering the beauty-pageant editing of the page that has been going on by the McCain campaign. .:davumaya:. 04:30, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. We'll have to wait a few days for reliable, neutral sources to catch up in their research. By the way, the following is not a neutral source, but editors of this particular Wikipedia article should find it interesting (though unusable for citation). Stevens & Palin: "Singing from the Same Sheet of Music" --Ohaohashingo (talk) 04:53, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
It's not so dubious, at least in terms of timing: the Johnson biography has been on the stands here in Anchorage at least since I moved here in February. No connection with ultra-current events that I can see - McCain wasn't even the presumptive nominee then. As far as "anyone has actual access to" - my local Fred Meyers has a dozen or so copies, send me your address and I'll mail you one. Alparrott (talk) 04:58, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
Fabulous please do, plus its interesting reading. The fact I've questioned may very well be true, I'd just like to understand how it was done, its not exactly a common thing. .:davumaya:. 05:06, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
The tax was reduced from 0.2% to 0.12%, a 40% reduction. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 10:17, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Pawlenty/Romney bruised feelings

Other candidates did not feel manipulated, nor did they claim to be used as decoys.

This line is false and the citation provided does not verify any of the claims made.

"Palin's selection surprised many Republican officials, several of whom had speculated about other candidates[66][67] such as Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty, former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney, United States Senator Joseph Lieberman of Connecticut, and former Pennsylvania Governor Tom Ridge.[68] Mitt Romney and Tim Pawlenty, previously considered the frontrunners for the position, reportedly 'feel manipulated' over the surprise announcement for being 'used as decoys.' [69]"

Citations 68 and 69 say nothing about "reportedly 'feel manipulated' over the surprise announcement for being 'used as decoys.'" Someone should correct this. As a new user I do not have permission to make the adjustments.

Taskr36 (talk) 23:52, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

This has been fixed (as it now is sourced by a relevant article.) Not sure its relevant, but it is at least accurate. --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:42, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I believe that the line "Mitt Romney and Tim Pawlenty, previously considered the frontrunners for the position, reportedly 'feel manipulated' over the surprise announcement for being 'used as decoys.'" should be removed because A) This is mainly pertinent to 1) the Mitt Romney Article; 2) the Pawlenty Article; and 3) (mostly) the McCain article under VP search. Rumored bruised feelings by third parties are not pertinent to Palin's biography until such time as there is backlash, etc. B) Does the AP article meet the source requirements? The AP can only quote unidentified sources. Should we not wait for either 1) the gentleman in question to express displeasure or 2) some sort of consequence/backlash? I look forward to your instruction.76.92.144.119 (talk) 04:37, 30 August 2008 (UTC)jason

IMO, it may be pertinent if and when it becomes a controversy that affects her candidacy. At this point it appears to be limited to "talking head speculation" and does not appear to be noteworthy on her own living person biography. Veriss (talk) 04:48, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
Agreed it should be removed, I almost took it off myself. It didn't seem very relevant, many campaigns use ruses to fool the media. .:davumaya:. 05:04, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
In addition to being better placed in other articles and not directly relevant to this one, I find that this statement, without further explanation, is also biased against Palin. Besides, bruised feelings and the stringing along probably result more from the fact that the McCain campaign actually did a good job of keeping its pick secret and the fact that the media insisted that it would be either Pawlenty or Romney up until Thursday than from the fact that he finally picked Palin. I am removing the statement and accompanying link since we all here are against it. If someone later wants to add it back, I'm sure they will. Bojangles04 (talk) 07:02, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

2006?

The lead paragraph says "Palin was elected governor in 2006..." I think it would be pertinent to mention that this was late 2006 (as should took office in December). It's a bit misleading it seems otherwise. - 71.178.193.134 (talk) 04:39, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

She was elected on November 7 and assumed office on December 4, 2006. -- Dmeranda (talk) 05:01, 30 August 2008 (UTC)


Actual federal monies kept by Alaska in Gravina Bridge cancellation

Apparently, $36 million, which Palin directed Alaska DOT to a find other ways to spend. [1]

NB: Alaska drivers seem to pay well over $100 million in federal fuel taxes each year: "[i]n 2006, Alaska's drivers paid $120.1 million in fuel taxes" [2]
— RVJ (talk) 05:31, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

NPOV

  • "Abuse of power investigation" violates NPOV. It should be a neutral "Public Safety Commissioner dismissal" or "Investigation for alleged abuse of power."
  • For the Wasilla section, the 60% figure is wrong. It should be 40%:
Sarah began delivering on campaign promises. First, she took a pay cut, from $68,000 a year to $64,200. Second, she cut property taxes from 2 mills to 1.2 mills and eliminated personal property taxes and a business inventory tax.
-- Kaylene Johnson, Sarah p. 65 (2008)

I'd make the edits, but the page is protected. Halcromania (talk) 06:32, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

It's semi-protected. Only brand new users and IPs can't edit the article. Gwen Gale (talk) 06:33, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
Fixed. .:davumaya:. 06:43, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
Doesn't that make the Johnson, Kaylene (2008). "Sarah: How a Hockey Mom Turned Alaska's Political Establishment Upside Down". Epicenter Press book a more unreliable than reliable source? The article relies much too heavily on this book in any case. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 06:59, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
Can you say Publishing Bonanza for Epicenter Press. Sure. Sure you can.   Justmeherenow (  ) 07:06, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Firing scandal discusion

FYI, we can use more eyes here: Talk:Alaska_Public_Safety_Commissioner_dismissal#scandal category. Thanks. rootology (C)(T) 07:04, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Reduced salary but added deputy administrator?

Ms. Palin did reduce her salary, but didn't she also add a deputy administrator position to assist her?

Yet again, need citations. Veriss (talk) 07:49, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Why are there two Environment and Energy sections?

Why are there two Environment and Energy sections? They say essentially the same thing, except the higher up one is more pro-Palin. They should be merged. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 08:06, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Good point. Arjuna (talk) 08:31, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
Combined. .:davumaya:. 10:11, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, buddy. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 10:19, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Consistency in citations

Some paragraphs place the citation after punctuation, some others before it. Should we have consistency, and if so with which format? NerdyNSK (talk) 09:31, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I always thought MOS stated that all citations go after the sentence (after the period to be exact) and NOT to the exact fact. The reasoning behind it is, if it is a well composed COMPLETE sentence then it should only state one or two facts. A run-on sentence would thus incorporate several facts and necessitate placing citations within it. That is poor MOS. But maybe it has changed since I last saw it. .:davumaya:. 10:00, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
I'm sorry I re-read your question again. Yes citations always go AFTER the period, not before. .:davumaya:. 10:01, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

References

Of the 100 references listed almost all were added after Sarah Palin was picked as McCains VP. Most of these references seem to have a POV; very few address her marijuana use, approval of hunting wolves by helicopter, extreme positions on abortion, gay rights, teaching creation in the schools, involvement in current scandals, and lack of knowledge and experience.

We can find lots of references about her second place finish in a beauty pagent but very little well referenced information about her positions on Iraq, foreign policy, Israel, the economy, peak oil, global warming, alternative energy, environmental protection, endangered species, drilling for methane hydrates, the Bush administration, its policies of warrentless surveilance, kidnapping, torture, murder and holding without rendition, signing statements, the Cheney vice presidency, Supreme Court nominees, Bush vs Gore, election issues, etc;

Given that there are 100 references listed including checks on her ancestry, how come there are no references to her speeches, appearances at Bucannan rallies wearing his campaign button, and her husbands ties to the oil industry.Rktect (talk) 12:07, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Because no one has found & added them. Fell free to find some and post them here and/or add them. --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:14, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

According to some non-professional journalists (bloggers), the neutral evidence that might be perceived as not Pro-Palin has been scrubbed fromt he intertubes!

Stevens & Palin: "Singing from the Same Sheet of Music" [3]

As well, the nature of the troopergate scandal is wrongly depicted in this article. Palin is likely to be deposed in the investigation, as the aide claims to have been "pressured." http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/story?id=5687512&page=1

There's also fairly damning evidence that Palin wasn't even vetted by the McCain campaign until August 24, 2008 (Sunday night): [4]

If original sources are being destroyed, how are we supposed to cite them now? Erichd (talk) 17:33, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Nuke mention of son's MOS in speech?

I don't get the impression that Palin revealing son's MOS is encyclopedia-worthy. Can we remove that entire paragraph (in the 2008 VP campaign section)? Dsf (talk) 11:50, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Quoting from the the reference given, "Track now serves in an infantry brigade. And on September 11th, Track will deploy to Iraq in the service of his country." So the exact date is given (it would be hard for a US politician to skip using that one), but does "serves in an infantry brigade" really count as revealing a "Military Occupational Specialty"? The latter point seems to be an interpretation that is unencyclopedic, and without it the whole paragraph probably is as well. Pingku (talk) 12:36, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Statement made on Glenn Beck has no point

The statement she made on the Glenn Beck show stands in isolation and has no apparent point attached to it. Lots of politicians make lots of statements every day, but in order to be worthy of inclusion in an article this brief, it should be in support of some point being made. The statement should be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thatemailname (talk • contribs) 13:55, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Signature?

Must we have a personality's signature featured in the page highlight box? When did this become relevant? For John Hancock, yes, George Washington, that sort of historic figure. Even sports figures whose signatures are relevant in the world of collectables, like a Babe Ruth or Mickey Mantle. But for contemporary figures whose signature's have no demonstrable relevence? May we not nip this off in the bud?24.63.103.140 (talk) 15:09, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

There is no "we" in "wikipedia". But there are three different "I"s. Go for it. Homunq (talk) 15:55, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
He asked for consenus, and there is none. rootology (C)(T) 15:56, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
While not notable on the national scale, it certainly is notable on the scale of her local governorship and needs to stay in that context in the expand size. rootology (C)(T) 15:56, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Dobson

Back in May, long before the VP pick, Dr. R. Albert Mohler, President of The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary and one of America's leading Evangelical theologians (see Wiki on him), devoted an entire blog post to Palin and her infant. I think this would make an excellent and extremely valid "External Link", especially now that there will be a lot of focus on her pro-life views.

"Welcome to the World, Trig Paxson Van Palin" http://www.albertmohler.com/blog_read.php?id=1144 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.150.83.6 (talk) 14:46, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Dr. James Dobson's reactions http://townhall.com/columnists/DennisPrager/2008/08/29/dobson_%E2%80%9Ci_would_pull_that_lever%E2%80%9D_for_mccain-palin?page=full should be included. It is very noteworthy and important for the McCain campaign. 75.3.229.144 (talk) 16:29, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you but no thanks. Blogs, columnists, and opinion sources are not WP:Reliable sources whether pro-life pro-choice or pro-kitties. All anonymous users please read WP:External links before you suggest adding another one. At this point we have all the proper external links covered and no more should be added unless there is compelling reason. As for use as references, again, we really don't use these for references (even though they creep up over time). They will be removed. .:davumaya:. 16:45, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
Oh. I get it. You're anti-kitty. --Evb-wiki (talk) 17:39, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
Good thing this is wikipedia and not the John Mccain website, no it should not be included! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.114.19.245 (talk • contribs) 16:48, August 30, 2008

Energy and environment lede

With the pro-life/ pro-choice debate, I accept framing each side in their own terms. Anybody who cares about these terms understands what both sides mean. But on the pro-energy-development/ pro-environment debate, I think that there are more people who think a middle ground (pro both) exists. But it is clear that, insofar as such a ground exists, she is not in it. Therefore, it is appropriate to mention the fact that she is generally criticized by environmental groups in the lede paragraph of the Energy/Environment section. Homunq (talk) 17:05, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Sources? Kelly hi! 18:05, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Facts suggested for inclusion (consolidated)

Pat Buchanan

The article I saw said that she was wearing a Buchanan button on a 1999 visit to Wasilla.

--RobbieFal (talk) 18:04, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Passport July 2007

Sarah Palin got her first Passport in July of 2007.

New York Times 08/29/2008 http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/30/us/politics/29palin.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin

Miss Congeniality?

In August 30, 2008 St. Louis Post-Dispatch, p. A2, it is reported that in 1984 Amy Gwin, now living in University City, Missouri, won "Miss Congeniality" in the Miss Wasilla, Alaska, competition, not Sarah Palin. See <http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/news/columnists.nsf/debpeterson/story/23D7A0CF8A2E3A61862574B50011DB30?OpenDocument>. Phaedrus7 (talk) 15:44, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Palin was Miss Congeniality in Miss Alaska, not Miss Wasilla.--King Bedford I Seek his grace 15:51, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Court tapes chronicle Palin family dispute

http://www.ktuu.com/Global/story.asp?s=8726444

This source does not explain how she was personally involved in this controversy. If she was not, this material does not belong to the article.Biophys (talk) 16:13, 30 August 2008 (UTC)


Clarification - Taxing Oil Company Profits

Under Governorship in Energy and Environment, there's mention Pain favors taxing oil profits. I'm unable to find this mentioned in the cite offered. Alaska taxes oil at extraction since it's a natural resource taken from the people by the oil companies so it's a royalty tax, not a tax on profits. This clarification needs to be made since it's factually inaccurate.--Shulerd (talk) 18:11, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

The first source listed says "She stood up to the powerful oil industry, and with bipartisan support in the statehouse she won a tax increase on oil companies' profits." Is the source mistaken? --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:05, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I removed the campaign $$ links because this is not a wikisite for a campaigns for governor or mayor. Accordingly, "Wikipedia is not a soapbox, a battleground, or a vehicle for propaganda and advertising." Likewise "Wikipedia is not a mirror or a repository of links, images, or media files." Furthermore, "Links in the "External links" section should be kept to a minimum. A lack of external links, or a small number of external links is not a reason to add external links."

In addition, "Any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a Featured article." With this in mind even the governor's webpage doesn't go beyond what this site could provide. However, I still kept it because "Articles about any organization, person, web site, or other entity should link to the official site, if any." Doesn't get more official than the government of Alaska's website, considering she doesn't have one herself. Lihaas (talk) 18:28, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

There are standard links found in Governor and Candidate articles (including those in the template). Please stop deleting them. There is no reason to treat Palin's article any differently than the rest. Flatterworld (talk) 20:20, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
According to wikipedia's guidelines (of which i cited in the removal) wikipedia is not a repository of links. there is no need for redundancy. Wikipedia also says use the official links where need be, it thus not necessary to use multiple profiles when one suffices (if it's not the best we can agree to another).
Furthermore, wikipedia also says not to link to multiple sites at the same location (ie- on the money). if need be find one link on there that goes to both places, to cut down on the link clogging. Lihaas (talk) 14:13, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

additional points

Seems like small stuff, but it would be useful to have her height.

Secondly, in the same vein, we need to know if she's related to Michael Palin of Monty Python, etc.

71.246.234.163 (talk) 19:05, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

It would be her husband that would be related, if anything.--King Bedford I Seek his grace 19:07, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Intelligent design

Is this an appropriate category for the bio? --70.181.45.138 (talk) 20:14, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Nope, I've removed it. Kelly hi! 20:16, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
Thank you. --70.181.45.138 (talk) 20:21, 30 August 2008 (UTC)


Order of Precedence

first I think the offices table should be above references. Second, the order of precedence is confusing. Palin is not the V.P. so has she really succeeded Cheney?. Shouldn't it indicate rank or something? It seems to be set up so precede means higher rank in the order, but that is wrong Rds865 (talk) 20:20, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

The tables are in there standard location (see other politician pages for reference). If you don't understand "Order of precedence" see the appropriate article. It is based on her being governor of Alaska. Every governor comes after the current VP when in their home state. --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:29, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

5 billion in education of Alaska ?

some german new media(national public TV has said): that she invested 5 billion dollar into the renewal of the education system of Alaska. Is that true? are there quots on this? german quote: Sie investierte die Rekordsumme von fünf Milliarden Dollar in die Erneuerung des Bildungssystems von Alaska. german source: http://www.tagesschau.de/ausland/us-wahl/mccain138.html

i found only this: Under her leadership, Alaska invested $5 billion in state savings, overhauled education funding, and implemented the Senior Benefits Program to provide support for low-income older Alaskans. written by her very self i guess : as she is member of this association. http://www.nga.org/portal/site/nga/menuitem.29fab9fb4add37305ddcbeeb501010a0/?vgnextoid=864bb9006da3f010VgnVCM1000001a01010aRCRD&vgnextchannel=d54c8aaa2ebbff00VgnVCM1000001a01010aRCRD

which would be just a small portion of the 5 Billion for education...

Question: 1)are there other independent sources for that claim of spending billions in education in Alaska?

2) what is meant by "investment in state savings", a) cost cuts in public spendig or 

b)incentive to start  private pension savings programs (like in germany) ??
or c)...

thanks --Stefanbcn (talk) 20:23, 30 August 2008 (UTC)


TO BE UPDATED: Video thread goes here

Miss Alaska in lead

I've removed it more than once now. I don't think a detail this minor belongs in the lead. It's already stated in the article. Comments? --Elliskev 15:16, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, it's trivia, really. Kelly hi! 15:17, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
Agree as well. Hobartimus (talk) 15:29, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Disagree. The reality is that beauty is important. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 15:52, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Disagree. Miss Alaska is a big deal! It should be included and would be on someone else's page. 72.91.214.42 (talk) 03:42, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

considering it has been a major tactic of the republican party to label the opposition as a celebrity i think it is a valid and importand piece of information.

Plus pageants are great events for young women that show them how to be a proper lady. Palin is a great model for all young women, for pageants in general, and proves you can be smart and pretty. 72.91.214.42 (talk) 05:21, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

This isn't the Palin for president page. Its a LIVING BIO page. Heck yes miss Alaska is important. This should recieve more prominence not less. --98.243.129.181 (talk) 13:51, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

If she won Miss Alaska then maybe however as I understand it she was only runner up. That's not important enough to make the lead.Filceolaire (talk) 14:34, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I have added and had deleted the following:

The Governor's husband, Todd Palin, served as a judge in the 2008 Miss Alaska Scholarship Pageant. [5]

I find this relevant to her history of beauty pageants. Especially in light of her criticism of pageant judges. I will add again. Please discuss. Poggio (talk) 01:04, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

That her husband was a judge in a year she did not compete is irrelevant to her article, trivial at best to his article. I think we should remove this, if consensus exists to do so. --Coemgenus 01:11, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
Further, since the quotation in the article is not a direct quote from Palin, I'm not sure we shouldn't rephrase it to fit the flow of the paragraph better. --Coemgenus 01:16, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Pro-death penalty in parentheses after the pro-life statement

I don't see that one has anything to do with the other, however they are placed in such a way as to imply a relationship. Being against abortion is unrelated to being for the death penalty for convicted criminals. Moreover it's pretty common for people who hold the former opinion to also hold the later, which leads me to suspect that whoever edited it that way did so for the sole purpose of suggesting some sort of conflict in logic between what are in reality two distinct issues. I suggest editing it to two seperate sentences. 199.133.19.254 (talk) 15:47, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree that this is really poorly written and needs to be clarified. The parenthetical stands out as an absolute, and in some instances a person who truthfully calls herself pro-life may in fact support use of capital punishment. It would be better here to clearly state her stances, in detail, regarding abortion, euthanasia, and capital punishment. 198.242.210.113 (talk) 16:38, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
Yes whoever wrote it was probably politically motivated but how can anyone not see the conflict of logic there? How can the American religious nutters who are so against abortion for religious reasons also be the same people who support the death penalty? I should also stress that I am against abortion but I don't feel its the place of a government to leglislate on this matter.--217.202.153.5 (talk) 18:49, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
There is no conflict of logic. There is no fallacy of any sort, there is no error in reasoning for someone to hold bot those positions. Those positions are mutually exclusive and certainly not contradictory. Abortion is killing a human being who is exceedingly early in growth and development. Capitol Punishment is the killing of a human being who is developed and sapient as well as having been convicted of a serious crime against humanity like murder or treason. The former kills an undeveloped human being at the whim of anther's will. The latter kills a human being who has himself assaulted and destroyed another human beings life, or betrayed his country into the hands of the enemy. The moral implications of each position are radically different. Clear enough for you? Furthermore as a Christian (pro-life), an American, and an advocate of the death penalty please demonstrate some restrain and respect by not insulting a significant number of Americans, including myself, with the reprehensible attitude demonstrated in your use of the phrase "religious nutters". Thank you. Have a good day. -- An-Alteran
Except, of course, that previous studies have shown that any system which has employed the death penalty has made mistakes. While, in theory, the death penalty is about killing convicted criminals, the fact remains that the death penalty kills innocent people. Is it not on that same basic presumption of innocence that we object to the killing of an unborn child? For that matter, how can the United States ever seek a leadership role in the drive to convince countries like China to abandon their own death penalty (which is used, among other things, for murdering political dissidents) when it still clings to its own? 68.151.60.194 (talk) 10:37, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
There absolutely is a conflict of logic here. The Catholic church is pro-life, and does not condone killing whether it is an unborn fetus or a convicted killer. the logical inconsistency is arguing that God's will says the life of the unborn is valuable but not acknowledging the same value in all lives. religious nutter is unfortunate, maybe religious extremist is the better phrase. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.65.249.86 (talk) 22:53, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
The only accurate way to describe her is anti-abortion. She can't be classed as pro-life if she supports the death penalty.GiollaUidir (talk) 14:39, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
Update: The BBC is describing her as anti-abortion rather than pro-life-see here.GiollaUidir (talk) 15:12, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
Arguing over semantics? There is no error in logic. No paradox. It is only in the minds of those who judge anothers opinion to find the error in logic and that is unfortunate for us all. I have a personal problem with calling people pro-choice too. How can a person be called pro choice if they do not permit the right to choose ANY and ALL matters. I supoopse if we are to get THAT technical then we must say pro-abortion and anti-abortion. Yet the problem with that is that MOST people are a mixture of both and the silly labels we WANT to put on them are nothing more than our own fears and prejudices owning OUR logic. Neither do I buy that most people object to abortion to extreme religious reasons. Again, the flaws in our OWN abilities to comprehend are what drives us to label those with opposing view points. Get over it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.189.42.13 (talk) 00:01, 31 August 2008 (UTC)


Finally, read the link below for more information:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/8/30/121350/137/486/580223

So, would anyone add that a politician supports abortion everytime it mentions that he or she opposes the death penalty? It works both ways. The two issues are separate, and many people have converse views on them. In fact, I would guess that most people do. Logophile (talk) 10:45, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

None has ever run for president

"She will be the first politician from Alaska to be nominated for Vice-President; none has ever run for president." What about Mike Gravel? I'm changing this to "none has ever been nominated for President."

Nevermind, someone already beat me to erasing the line.

Eric Rosenfield (talk) 16:27, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I deleted the whole line about first person from Alaska ever to be nominated for VP. It seems trivial, given the number of election cycles since Alaska became a state. --Crunch (talk) 16:31, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Not only did Gravel run for president in 2008, he ran for vice-president at the 1972 Democratic convention (and lost to McGovern's pick). But to say Palin's the first Alaskan to be nominated on either major party ticket does seem significant; it has been almost 50 years. Wasted Time R (talk) 17:18, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

In 12 elections there are at most 48 major-party candidates on the tickets. It wouldn't even be possible for all 50 states to be represented. I don't think it's significant. —KCinDC (talk) 00:29, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Note to American wikipedia editors

When mentioning someone's birthplace and US states, make it clear that the place is in the United States. I am invariant under co-ordinate transformations (talk) 17:14, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Is that really necessary? Is it not safe to assume in an article about a US figure that their birth place is in the US unless indicted otherwise? – ukexpat (talk) 17:19, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
As a foreigner, you may also be unaware that the US Constitution requires presidential and VP candidates to be born in the United States. Furthermore, the WP pages for Idaho and Alaska are only a click away. Oren0 (talk) 17:21, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
That is not true. The Constitution requires the President and Vice President be "natural-born citizens". There are two ways one can be considered "natural born", jus soli and jus sanguinis. I have known people born while their parents lived in Europe while stationed at US military bases there, who are absolutely "natural born citizens". 72.128.16.243 (talk) 20:26, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
Except for John McCain, who was born in Panama. However, I think it is valid to presume that a candidate for one of those offices was born in the US unless otherwise stated.Alanmjohnson (talk) 18:03, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
Not true. Simply not true. Gross Wikipedian misinformation. McCain was born in the Panama Canal Zone which was U.S. Territory at the time. Also, McCain was born in a U.S. Naval Hospital, U.S. Government owned land. So it is false and misleading to state that McCain was born in Panama when he was born in the Panama Canal Zone which was a U.S. Territory in a U.S. Militar base hospital.
It is also false and misleading to say that the Canal Zone was a US Territory. Ultimately sovereignty remained with Panama. It was under American administration and control, but it was not a territory. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.233.236.143 (talk) 02:44, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
Governor Arnold_Schwarzenegger was not born in the US —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.5.54.199 (talk) 17:23, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
As such, his entry states his birth country. --oZ (talk) 17:26, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
(ec)True, and it says so right on his page. But he's not a presidential candidate. And his constitutional ineligibility for president has been a matter of interest (people are trying to amend the constitution for him). Oren0 (talk) 17:28, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
And he is not a candidate for president or VP and can never be without Amendment. --RossF18 (talk) 17:29, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Okay, the issue isnt simply about place of birth but in general. The first line now says that Palin is the governor of Alaska, how many ppl outside the US know what Alaska is ? WP has some rules and conventions, and they must be followed as far as possible. I am invariant under co-ordinate transformations (talk) 21:59, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I would say that most people outside of the US know what Alaska is, and more to the point where it is. I would not be surprised to learn that more people outside the US can find Alaska on a map than those who live in the US. If I were to put in an article about myself that I was born in Albany, New York I'm confident there's no confusion that it was in the US and not Albany, Australia. The addition of a state name is pretty clear that it's in the US. There are some US states that arent well known in the world, but Alaska (and California and New York) is not one of them, it's a major geographic entity as well. We arent talking Alabama! (no offence!). On a second note- the constitution does not bar people who were born outside the US from being president. It bars people who were not BORN US CITIZENS. That is why Gov. Schwarzwhateveryouspellit can not be president. People who are the children of US citizens but born on foreign soil are still eligible. On another note- wow, is this entire article a giant republican propaganda piece or what! NPOV anybody? 24.182.142.254 (talk) 03:37, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
Yes, this entire article is a pawn of the vast conservative conspiracy. :P Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 03:40, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, there are probably people who do not know where Alaska is, but most people take geography at some point in their course of education. Edison2 (talk) 04:15, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
I dont think you get my point, you said "I would not be surprised to learn that more people outside the US can find Alaska on a map than those who live in the US.", this a completely POV statement (in addition to being ridiculous), America's literacy rate is close to 100 %. You also said, "The addition of a state name is pretty clear that it's in the US.", is this standard wikipedia policy ? What about Rampur, Himachal Pradesh or Perth, Western Australia, are they in the US ? Follow wikipedia guidelines to avoid confusion.I am invariant under co-ordinate transformations (talk) 04:31, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
All things being equal, if there is a desire to refer to US geographic locations such as Rochester, New York, US -- would the same be true in the near future for Europe in similar fashion, Cork, Ireland, EU? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.5.54.199 (talk) 16:00, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
Ireland is a sovereign country that can grant rights of citizenship, Alaska is not. I am invariant under co-ordinate transformations (talk) 17:39, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Pro-contraception?

Last night, the article stated Palin is stongly pro-contraception. Now that part's been disappeared. Anyone know the facts?

I don't really know for sure, but I assume she has no problem with contraception since she is a Protestant Christian. Contraception is usually only an issue for Catholic Christians. Rreagan007 (talk) 18:07, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
I'd remove reference to either stance unless we have a source clearly stating her position. Hiberniantears (talk) 18:23, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
I found a source for her being pro-contraception, and added the reference back in. JayareIL (talk) 20:54, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
I just dug through all four sources. At first it seemed as if contraception wasn't mentioned at all, but it does get a sliver of attention in a 2006 article in the Anchorage Daily News. I'd love to see more detail, but I imagine that'll crop up in the media soon enough. Darkfrog24 (talk) 22:39, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
I honestly do not see the relevance of including her stance on contraception unless she is notably against it. Has she made any big policy moves or campign moves on that issue? If not, I do not see the importance as contraception is not too big an issue outside of conservative christian groups, such as Catholics.66.194.118.10 (talk) 19:14, 30 August 2008 (UTC) MikeD
I read on a blog she was against contraception, so that rumor is out there - whether true or false I don't know. In any case, since it's out there, it seems reasonable to include the accurate information - whatever that may be. Vcrs (talk) 23:24, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
Most probably she is in favour of contraception. But still, such a statement in the article must be sourced ... and that is reliably sourced, not some blog entry, not even some inaccurate newspaper article that says that she belongs to "anti-abortion pro-contraception group Feminists For Life" (FFL do not have a position on contraception, hence nothing can be interred from this to Palin's view).
So I have tagged the contraception claim so that anyone may provide a ref. If no one does, I will remove the contraception claim in time.
Finally, contraception is not "usually only an issue for Catholic Christians" and Catholics are not "conservative christian groups". Str1977 (talk) 13:12, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Weasel Words?

While I agree that a NPOV can be reached here, there seem to be a significant number of weasel words that need to be edited out. rather than being NPOV, i propose that we add a weasel words tag. Log'a'log (talk) 23:58, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Another important neutrality point

This article states that Palin is "pro-life." Pro-life is NOT a neutral term. This is similar to saying she is Anti-choice (some people would say being against the right to choose is anti-life). The correct designation would be that she is "Anti-abortion."

No, that would be POV. Nobody is actually 'pro-abortion'. One is 'pro-life' or 'pro-choice'. If you prefer, we could contrast 'pro government decision' vs. 'pro individual conscience'. Flatterworld (talk) 19:50, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia has a standing consensus to use the terms preferred by each side of the abortion issue. It's pro-life and pro-choice. --Elliskev 19:49, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
Aye, deviating from generally accepted terminology in an environment as volatile as this would cause more trouble than it might solve. --Kizor 08:14, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
I'd think the correct terminology would be "pro-choice" and "anti-choice". 12.40.5.69 (talk) 23:17, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
Only if you are Pro-Choice. I believe that the decision on terminology is intended to represent the position as the person would want to be portrayed, not as their opposition wants them to be portrayed. As such, using the terms Pro-Choice and Pro-Live is a courtesy afforded on the individual. Make sense?--Tralfaz (Ralraz, yech) (talk) 00:54, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
The widely accepted and supported terms in published North American political discussion are pro life and pro choice and there are reasons for this.[6] Gwen Gale (talk) 01:00, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

PLEASE READ: According to Associated Press standards, the correct designation is "anti-abortion" (Associated Press Stylebook, 2006, p. 5). If Wikipedia has different standards currently then I think those should be under discussion as well. Regardless of what people who are against abortions want to be called, there is no legitimate or logical reason to refer to them as "pro-life". That is like referring to a Christian as "pro-good", it is a completely biased term. This label can not be used without perpetuating a problematic cultural assumption. The reason I especially take offense is because this particular label infers that people who are for abortion rights are somehow "anti-life" and I can only see thinking like that leading to an increase in women's health problems. It is just plain NOT RIGHT to refer to an anti-abortion person as pro-life, that is a semantic faux pas along the lines of referring to an ethnic group by a discriminatory slur. If people with such a little understanding of the English language are going to use an incorrect term on their own, that's their business, but in a matter of public record that is supposed to be objective, like the newspaper or an encyclopedia (even an Online one) the correct terms should be used as an example to everyone. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.193.165.124 (talk) 05:51, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

it could be stated as for or against abortion. I think pro-life is a good term, because it helps communicate the perspective of pro life people, the same goes for pro-choice. refusing to call pro-life supports pro-life, is like refusing to call Christians Christians, or calling Marxists, anti-private property. I don't think any one is being fooled here. Pro-choice, implies that pro-life people are against choices. try to spin it your way. next you are going to suggest the patriot act, can't be called the Patriot Act, because it isn't patriotic? Rds865 (talk) 08:03, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
The Patriot act is not Patriotic. That is the irony and why it was given that moniker. Much like "The People's" Republic of China. On the topic at hand, Palin is anti-abortion and it should be stated as such rather than given a euphemism. 66.186.173.180 (talk) 15:56, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
The correct terms are those used by the group, themselves. Unless you want us to start calling the pro-choice side "anti-birth," please respect the CHOICE of the pro-life side to choose the description they feel best fits them. Izuko (talk) 02:15, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
While I agree we should call them whatever term that group wants, your logic is false. Anti-birth would imply that those supporting that view NEVER want to see births. Bad analogy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.16.138.78 (talk) 05:27, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

The reason for preferring "pro-life" and "pro-choice" as labels is because the views are both generally in agreement that abortion is a bad thing and that women have a right to do what they want with their bodies. Where they differ is that one side thinks the issue of life outweighs the issue of choice, and the other thinks choice outweighs life. Thus these labels are the best ones to indicate where the actual difference lies. It doesn't hurt that these are the labels the people holding the views prefer, but there is an independent reason to consider those views the most accurate way to get to the main issue of disagreement. Parableman (talk) 11:41, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Abuse of power investigation

Undue Weight. Too much info. Too much is written on something that has only affected a small period of her life. — Realist2 19:46, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

What are you kidding? she is CURRENTLY under investigation for ABUSE OF POWER, which is an impeachable offense Scottf43 (talk) 19:58, 29 August 2008 (UTC)


Niggling details should go in Alaska Public Safety Commissioner dismissal controversy; the main points should stay here. Homunq (talk) 23:12, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Gotta stay on top of this one. The entire section had been scrubbed as of a few minutes ago. I've reinstated it. BTW, the subtitle "Abuse of power investigation" is not a violation of NPOV. It is simply the proper description of what is currently taking place.--BenA (talk) 06:03, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

This issue is a part of Palin's wikipedia entry not because she dismissed the public safety commissioner, but because she is the subject of an abuse of power investigation. The NPOV title of the section should thus be "Abuse of power investigation," as that reflects the actual core subject of the discussion.--BenA (talk) 13:29, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Despite providing no justification for doing so, others keep changing the title on the section on the abuse of power investigation to "Dismissal of Public Safety Commissioner." This matter would not appear on Sarah Palin's wikipedia page were it not for the abuse of power investigation. The accurate, NPOV title remains "Abuse of power investigation." Saying so is in no way to render judgment on the outcome of this investigation. Failure to title it "Abuse of power investigation" is a little like titling a section of Bill Clinton's wiki entry "Grand jury deposition" rather than "Impeachment."--BenA (talk) 19:02, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

The investigation relates to the dismissal. The subtitle "Abuse of power investigation" is a violation of NPOV and undue weight. Rlendog (talk) 19:07, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
There is an investigation. That is an objective fact. Were it not for the investigation this matter would not be a part of this entry. How is accurately naming this section either a violation of NPOV or undue weight? The violation of NPOV is attempting to cover up a public investigation into potential wrong-doing by giving this section a misleading title. The chief item of interest here is the investigation itself, without which the firing would be a minor matter.--BenA (talk) 19:19, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
As I recall, Bill Clinton was not impeached. 208.61.250.70 (talk) 19:44, 30 August 2008 (UTC) MikeD

I have put the dispute over the naming of this section on the NPOV notice board for more general comment.--BenA (talk) 19:39, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Bill Clinton WAS impeached (only president ever to be so) and we should all review BLP guidelines. We can't just throw up sections that are potentially libelous like "She did something wrong maybe and is under investigation". Just be more neutral with the wording is all. Someone with a clear head (as opposed to a hot one) should probably be editing that section once we get a concensus. --98.243.129.181 (talk) 00:04, 31 August 2008 (UTC)--98.243.129.181 (talk) 00:06, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
Does the name Andrew Johnson ring a bell? Hint: He was the first U.S. president to be impeached. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.76.154.39 (talk) 02:37, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

AddDeWitt is repeatedly inserting details into the section, defeating the whole purpose of the separate article. If people want details, they can click over. The section should not be more than a few sentences in this article. —KCinDC (talk) 06:59, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

The information referenced above is critical to understanding the controversy. It is not accurate to say it is minor detail that should be in a sub-entry.Nabob (talk) 07:29, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

If there's some essential bit missing in the summary, then add it, but why do you have to import that whole quote and all that other text from the other article? It should be a summary. —KCinDC (talk) 07:58, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

She is under investigation not convicted. She has been tossing corrupt people out of office for years now and one happened to be her brother in law. Initial investigation concluded that anyone in her position would of fired him. So to throw a conclusion that is wrong up as the TITLE is bias and counting on the fact that few read the details of an investigation because its dry. I don't see any arguement to rename sections where she resigned do to corruption and that is WHY she ran for governor. So if you want to keep the "convicted" statement then you have to apply the "white Knight" statements to the positive work. PRNN (talk) 09:03, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Quality of sources

Can someone come up with better sources than LifeNews.com and TPMCafe for Palin's pro-life stance? I don't doubt the position, mind you, but neither of those are acceptable as reliable sources. Tvoz/talk 23:32, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Reputable sources that aren't from a blog or activist web site have been an on going battle. If you have citations from balanced sources you could definitely help us out =) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Veriss1 (talk • contribs) 06:01, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

TPMCafe -- which is part of TalkingPointsMemo -- is not a blog, and is considered by most experts (except for the right-wing partisans) to be a reliable source. However, practically every one of its articles are built around links to websites maintained by the Corporate Media Mainstream media, so unless you want to cite the opinion of one of the reputable journalists working there like Joshua Marshall, one should be able to follow the link to the kind of source you are looking for. -- anonymous, 01:17, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Moose hunting

Why does it state that she would wake at 3:00 am to hunt moose? Shouldn't this be cited or removed?

The citation covers multiple sentences in the paragraph. It shows how dedicated she is to outdoor activities so is therefore relevant. Entire Washington Post articles have been written about Bush landscaping his ranch. Veriss (talk) 01:46, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

This should be related to the time of sunrise, for purposes of context. Her hometown should have periods of sun almost all night, and I doubt she was blundering around in the woods in pitch black. Wnt (talk) 20:58, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Merger of political positions article

This article [Political positions of Sarah Palin] contains duplicated material from Sarah Palin and does not add anything new. Merge proposed. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:05, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

  • Support merge from Political positions I agree with Jossi, at the present time - based on the amount of information available now - that there's no point in the separate article. Forks aren't needed if the main article is of a reasonable length, which Sarah Palin is. Can revisit this at a later time if reliably sourced material emerges that would overwhelm this article, and then it should be summarized here. Right now there isn't all that much. Tvoz/talk 06:29, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose too! Sorry I understand what you are trying to do but the page is constantly being edited and it is difficult to keep up with. The separation has allowed at least some of the traffic to spin off. At a later date we may recombine. .:davumaya:. 05:48, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose For now, look again in a week or two if this article doesn't grow. I have a feeling this article will grow a lot, to the point it will fork right back out. rootology (C)(T) 06:23, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Support Oppose maintaining a separate web site. It's already too hard keeping the neutral players on a neutral front. I maintain that any effort to maintain a separate site is merely to complicate the mission of the neutrals and to make the endorsement of them more difficult. Veriss (talk) 07:35, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose merge with main article. A politician on the caliber of a VP pick should have a detailed analysis of their views, noting specific instances and examples. For example, the phrase "pro life" is pretty damn generic. And what does she consider contraception? Some forms of birth control (say, the pill) are believed by some pro lifers to be able to cause abortion. Others may call this contraception. Answering responsibly what she thinks on numerous issues would get lost in one-page article on the woman. -Aknorals (talk) 08:32, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose merge with main article for reasons articulated by others already. The PP article will grow naturally in coming days as reporters delve into her past statements, and thus the article will become an increasingly salient and relevant one on its own. Arjuna (talk) 08:36, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose as creator (of "Political positions"). 1. This page is already 60k, which is double what it was a couple of days ago. It has to be split up, sooner rather than later. 2. Precedent: Joe Biden, and numerous other, less significant politicians have corresponding pages. 3. Even though the page originally, as a matter of convenience, was created by copying text from the main article, it is already taking on a life of its own. Lampman (talk) 09:28, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
  • OpposeDo not merge. Too much information to incorporate here, but a summary should be here. Edison2 (talk) 12:42, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Discussion of Palin's education (consolidated)

degree?

Sarah Palin, if elected, would be the first VP in over forty years who does not have an advanced degree.

FORTY years?!! --Elliskev 01:44, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
Even on the talk page, assertions like this should have a source. As I recall, Ronald Reagan had but a 4 year college degree.[7] Gwen Gale (talk) 01:48, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Who cares? Let the voters decide. We're not investigative reporters. Veriss (talk) 01:48, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I was talking about verifiability of content in a helpful encyclopedia article. Gwen Gale (talk) 01:50, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
Sorry Gwen Gale, I tried to alter my indents so it wouldn't appear that I was replying to you. I was trying to reply to the original poster. I probably could have been more diplomatic in my response as well. I'll post the same on your talk page so you are sure to see it. Veriss (talk) 02:14, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
I think it would be relevant if true, but I believe Al Gore did not finish his Masters of Divinity or his DJP at Vanderbilt University.[8] That fact pretty much makes it a moot point.--Appraiser (talk) 02:42, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

academic status and j-school

She has a BA degree, therefore I assume she has the right to display the "BA" or "B.A." postnominal letters after her name. Does she use these postnoms? Should we add them? Also, her degree is in journalism from UoIdaho. Would it be correct to describe it as a journalism school or j-school? NerdyNSK (talk) 09:25, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I have never seen anyone display a BA after their name. There is no need to describe "it" as a school of any kind, it could be a department, school, college or division, but nobody cares about these names. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 10:39, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
I really cannot believe that you have never seen anyone displaying a BA after their name. Was that a joke or something? If so, sorry but I can't understand it. To the best of my knowledge most people who have postnominals do use them, whether they come from degrees, professional registrations, or membership to honour orders. NerdyNSK (talk) 10:56, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
I don't know anyone who proudly writes "B.A." after his name. Maybe in some non-U.S. countries it is the custom. People who have more advanced degrees would be amused and those who didn't go to college or left without a degree would be annoyed. No one would be impressed. Edison2 (talk) 12:39, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
Really strange. Probably the US has a different culture on this. NerdyNSK (talk) 12:59, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
I am from the US, and live in Guatemala. Here in Gt undergraduate degrees are more respected, not just because they are rarer, but also because they require a thesis, unlike in the US. Homunq (talk) 15:58, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Well my friend, this is America, and not guatemala. In America, lots of people have undergraduate degrees, it's similar to a highschool or middle school degree in your country. She's nothing impressive, in fact her education appears to be lacking considering she's being compared to harvard and yale law school grads.71.114.19.245 (talk) 18:56, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

She does not sign her name Palin BA and we should follow suit. Also, Al Gore's page doesn't say Al Gore BA. Go try it on his page and let us know how it works.. --98.243.129.181 (talk) 04:29, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Low Level of education

If elected she will be the first vice-president of the United States, in the modern era, who does NOT have an advanced degree. Her highest education is a bachelors at the university of idaho! This is certainly worth at the least noting in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lakerking04 (talk • contribs) 16:18, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Discussed above. Gore has no advanced degree either, though he did some graduate work. —KCinDC (talk) 16:55, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Gore's graduate degree got disrupted becuase he joined the military, miss palin's got disrupted because she had to do a beauty pegeant.

I don't think either of those is true. Gore's graduate work was after his military service; he left school to run for Congress. Palin didn't have any graduate work to disrupt. —KCinDC (talk) 17:35, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
Now now, don't let the facts get in the way of a good story. 68.43.197.22 (talk) 17:40, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
Oh, but a good story isn't always verifiable... IceUnshattered [ t ] 17:42, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
George H. W. Bush also only has a bachelor's degree. --Coemgenus 21:36, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Having a degree is not synonymous with having an education. G.W. has an MBA. Does that make him a good businessman? Truman did not have a degree at all, and neither did Lincoln. 98.201.33.248 (talk) 03:12, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

For her first semester as a freshman in 1982, Palin attended Hawaii Pacific College in it's Business Administration program before transferring.[9] Booksnmore4you (talk) 04:33, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Father the science teacher

Any infromation about the father the "science" teacher. What kind of science. Did he have a degree? It's hard to image that she would be a creationist if her father held a science degree and taught life science? Dan 8-31-08 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.106.7.167 (talk) 15:04, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Photo discussion (consolidated)

Palin in photo with fur

The photo of Palin wearing a fur, why doesn't someone just come out and say that she's in support of hunting and trapping in Alaska. Why the allusion (sarcasm here). Either state it or get rid of it. I can't believe the partiality of Wiki's contributors. We don't show Barack Obama barechested in Hawaii while giving a press conference....75.73.4.221 (talk) 17:48, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

How do you know it's real fur? Kelly hi! 17:50, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Mmm. Dead fox heads...

(ec) I think it's the best photo we have of her speaking... In Alaska it is not unusual to wear fur, so I don't think there's any great fuss to be had here. Calliopejen1 (talk) 17:52, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
She's also apparently an avid hunter, so I don't think the image is trying to say anything that isn't already said in text. - auburnpilot talk 17:53, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
Agreed. If God didn't want us to hunt animals, why did he make them so delicious and their fur so wonderfully warm? Kelly hi! 17:59, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
Well, they were given warm fur to keep them warm. Just had to add that for corrections sake, I personally am not against hunting or fur.66.194.118.10 (talk) 18:55, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

given that the native alaskans have hunting as part of their culture/heritage AND part of their dailies lives for survival/sustenance, we cannot ignore that fact. plus, there is no indication that the article of clothing she is wearing is real fur. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.176.93.18 (talk) 19:51, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Miss Wasilla pictures

I would like to include her victorious pictures as Miss Wasilla into the article. Can someone check whether these images 1 and 2 ... are in the public domain? Thanks. 72.91.214.42 (talk) 04:30, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

They obviously weren't published prior to 1923 or produced by the federal governmet, so I really doubt they are in the public domain. Kelly hi! 04:31, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
Can I use a fair use justification? Or could someone else? 72.91.214.42 (talk) 04:34, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
I don't think the images would be acceptable under WP:NFC - we have plenty of free images of this person. Kelly hi! 04:35, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
I appreciate the help Kelly. However the link you give says we can use "Images with historical importance: As subjects of commentary" ... since McCain could die and she could be President, is it not historical that she was Miss Wasilla ? I think she would be the only beauty queen President -that's historical ... especially since most of the women who have lost in the past we're ugly. 72.91.214.42 (talk) 04:39, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
If you can find the owners of the pics and they release them then you're on the way to including them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Veriss1 (talk • contribs) 04:44, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Palin's not professionally noted as a beauty contest winner (and most of such contests aren't notable at all). Any wry irony of political contests being "beauty contests" aside, following WP:WEIGHT, a picture like this would likely highlight this aspect of her background in a highly misleading way and hence be unhelpful to the article's NPoV. Gwen Gale (talk) 04:46, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Maybe I am bias because I have taken part in beauty pageants, but one of the first things commentators have mentioned about her was she was runner up to Miss Alaska (a big deal) and she only got that chance because she was Miss Wasilla (the town she won mayor of for 9 years). 72.91.214.42 (talk) 04:51, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
Her pageant photos are all over the news, so the argument about not being NPOV is not well grounded. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:53, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
Exactly ! pageants are hard. I feel like the men here overlook the difficulty of them. Her win shows her determination. 72.91.214.42 (talk) 04:56, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
I haven't seen any of that coverage, so I understand what you mean, but my comment about WP:WEIGHT still has some sway. Wikipedia isn't (or shouldn't be) fluff telly news, I guess we'll see where both the sources and editor consensus go on this. As for pageants being "hard" that's true of lots of stuff and wouldn't have anything to do with notability or weight. Gwen Gale (talk) 05:00, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

It gives a picture of her when she was younger, and should be included just because of that.--King Bedford I Seek his grace 06:54, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

That's not a really convincing reason to add it. Perhaps after we clarify that the pictures are free and in public domain, we can continue this but please avoid inserting the photo. .:davumaya:. 06:58, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
Of course there should be a photo of her winning Miss Wasilla. That is probably her most notable achievment of her "early life" 72.91.214.42 (talk) 13:46, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Picture of family

I love the picture of her family. But which one is which? --Evb-wiki (talk) 18:10, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Photo

Why are we not using her official Governor's portrait? I think we should.

Rick J. Evans 19:39, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

In general official Governor portraits are not Public Domain.--Appraiser (talk) 20:02, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Photo

I think we should upload a better, and more formal photo for Gov. Palin. The photo on the State of Alaska's page seems more appropriate. This picture is available in higher resolution on various sites like here. Thoughts? - WilsonjrWikipedia (talk) 22:25, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

What's the license on the official photo? - Jredmond (talk) 22:26, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
The license is critical - while U.S. federal government photos are in the public domain, that isn't true of most (all?) state governments, which normally use a standard copyright. For example, this page of an agency of the Alaska government says "the unauthorized copying and posting of material contained within a department publication or web page to a non-[departmental] hard publication, web page or other electronic publication constitutes copyright infringement". So I'd guess that Palin's official photo is not note: added the prior word - my error in the initial posting - JB in the public domain at all. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 22:36, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
What he said. The current photo, on the other hand, is GFDL, which means that it can be reused right alongside the article text. - Jredmond (talk) 22:45, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
John Broughton, would you please clarify? This sentence of yours does not seem to be gramatically correct: "So I'd guess that Palin's official photo is in the public domain at all." Thanks.Ferrylodge (talk) 22:48, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
Typing way too fast (and not carefully reading) - my error. I've fixed it; thanks for checking with me. Not in the public domain. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 23:08, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Undue Weight Given to Kuwait Visit

Right, so in this article there are 4 pictures of Palin visiting soldiers in Kuwait, and in Political positions of Sarah Palin there are another 3. If I came to these two articles and didn't bother to read all the captions, I would get the impression that Palin has bags of foreign policy/military experience, when in fact all the pictures seem to just come from two trips (there are also a couple of photos from Germany) - rst20xx (talk) 13:23, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I suggest taking all the photos of the visit to Kuwait and putting them in a gallery format. --Crunch (talk) 13:27, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I was the person who located and uploaded most of the photos we have of her - the reason there are so many of the Kuwait trip is that the military images are among the only photos of her in the public domain. (I also uploaded a ton of photos from Barack Obama's visit to the troops overseas.) I don't think including the images says anything about her foreign policy experience, but just a matter of style I think the article is too cluttered with photos right now. Kelly hi! 13:35, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
Well, I do think it implies something, on some level, however would also agree that there were simply too many photos to start with. I see now though that many of the Kuwait pictures in Sarah Palin have been taken out, thus somewhat alleviating the problem - rst20xx (talk) 15:02, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

6 Photos of Kuwait visit is redundant. Please remove 5 of the photos. J23 08/30/2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by J23 (talk • contribs) 15:42, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Agree that there are too many photos, some of which are not germane or helpful to the article. Arjuna (talk) 23:03, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

The idea of creating a gallery of photos makes perfect sense. I think we should do that. Sleeping frog (talk) 23:20, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Photos of Troops? It's too Much

Why are there so many photos of her visiting the troops? Casually scanning through the article gives you the impression that she's some kind of military leader.

User:NerdyNSK added lots of photos here ... but also to the Joe Biden article, of him speaking at various conferences, appearing with Obama, etc. I've started reducing them there, since there is too much replication from the same era. Same problem here. Wasted Time R (talk) 14:14, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
I just noticed this.....there are a lot of them for sure. I'll take a few out. RxS (talk) 14:29, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
I took 3 out, they were pretty irrelevant to the sections they were in, not to mention there were too many. I left the ones that seemed to have some connection to the section they appeared in. RxS (talk) 14:36, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Has she spent her entire term as Gov in Kuwait? Or was that the only place she was photographed? --Evb-wiki (talk) 14:57, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

No, it's just those are among the few photos I could locate with a free license. I'm sure there will be more as she begins to make campaign appearances. Kelly hi! 15:00, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia always has strange place-of-image distributions, due to our highly restrictive rules. I read somewhere (would have to be checked) that the Kuwait-Germany trip was her first time going out of the country that required a passport, so giving the impression that she's a world traveller is misleading. Wasted Time R (talk) 15:00, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
If true, that might make an interesting fact for here - rst20xx (talk) 18:10, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Photos, disproportionate weight

OK, why are nearly ALL the photos of her in the military context? I'm going to start swapping them out for others--we don't need nearly all of them showing her in Kuwait and the Middle East, plus it's a bit of disproportionate WP:WEIGHT and WP:NPOV, since he is distinctly NOT known for having any real foreign policy standing nor experience. rootology (C)(T) 16:00, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I certainly concur, they're making her seem like some kind of an expert on foreign relations. Her short visit to kuwait was in fact the first time she had been outside the United States, and didn't even own a passport until then!
Yes, I agree. Not intentional though, since the military ones are always PD and so easy to use. Meanwhile, User:calliopejen1 has found this picture; Image:Palin with kitty.jpg. --I am not Paranoid (talk) 16:11, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
That picture is manipulated and irrelevant. I think it has no place in wikipedia and should be removed. Elwinda (talk) 17:18, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
A persistent Wikipedia issue with regard to images is that the US government and US military claim no copyright, i.e., all their material is in the public domain. This is why the only picture we may have of a foreign leader is on a visit to Washington. It's a problematic inherent bias and we need to monitor individual cases to make sure they don't slant the POV of an article. --Dhartung | Talk 19:29, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
An editor continually re-inserts her photo visiting an "injured" officer. I would incline to allow this but there is NO TEXT TO SUPPORT THE PHOTO. Photos are meant to further illustrate the text and simply mindlessly placing it in the Governorship section with no paragraph to reference it is not appropriate. FOr now the Don Young photo is important because it tells the viewer who this Representative is, since she is trying to oust him. .:davumaya:. 19:30, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Why all the military photos?

3 of 5 photos in the article show Palin in millitary settings. It appears that the person(s) editing in these photos are attempting to paint a picture of Palin as having millitary experience. People searching for Sarah Palin on Google will get this article as the first hit. A lot of visitors will not be interested in reading this very very long article, and will just read the lead and skim through the photos and photo text. The significance and impact of pictures are very important and makes the article look slanted. If the millitary background of Palin is not of high importance for her biography article, the emphasis of millitary elements in the photos should be reduced or replaced. Elwinda (talk) 16:14, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Cazort (talk) 16:16, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Well we've been talking about changing or removing her military photos, but I currently don't have the credentials to since the page is semi-protected. Why don't you do it?

I don't mind if they're replaced with photos of similar technical quality. Kelly hi! 16:23, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
NPOV is more important than pure technical quality. rootology (C)(T) 16:32, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

The military photos are public domain; that's why they are used.--King Bedford I Seek his grace 16:26, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, we've got lots of free photos of her, and I've removed all the military ones for our others due to NPOV, which is more important than having a shiny pretty bauble of an article. rootology (C)(T) 16:32, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
There is no rule saying each article must have at least 6 photos, and in an article this long the photos are very significant in conveying essential information. The Sarah Palin article (like others) is of course a very attractive item for use as a presidential campaign tool, but that is not what wikipedia is for. If only what appears as slanted photos exist remove them to restore a balance and neutrality. I am not saying that any one single photo is wrong, but that the overall appearance looks biased. Someone please look into this. Thanks. Elwinda (talk) 16:34, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
I already did. Look again. rootology (C)(T) 16:35, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
I replaced a couple of the military photos - some of the images being used were of poor resolution/quality. Exactly how does a photo of her in a military setting violate NPOV? It's silly. We should strive for high quality. Kelly hi! 16:47, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
She's got dead zero (per sourcing) military history, credentials, foreign policy skills/training/history/experience, nothing. To present her in a light like it was before I cleaned it up violates NPOV, WEIGHT, and other concerns, which trump image policies always. We can't present her in the light of being some military/foreign policy person like Joe Biden or John McCain--she's a village mayor and first term governor, so the photos should reflect that to comply with NPOV. rootology (C)(T) 16:52, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
Barack Obama contains two military photos. And I don't see that the case being made of a photo of her standing in a chow hall makes the claim that she's a foreign policy expert - it's just a photo. The technical quality of some of the images we are using is horrendous. Kelly hi! 16:55, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
That is solely why you removed the military photos; you are an Obama bin Biden supporter. Haven't you heard of NPOV? A couple of those need to go back in.--King Bedford I Seek his grace 16:56, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
I think relevance should be the major concern when posting a picture. High resolution ant artistic quality is not essential. Wikipedia is not a press center. Elwinda (talk) 17:04, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

The millitary photos just keeps pouring in it seems. This time a wounded German soldier. Germany is not even mentioned in the long biography, so why is this picure important?! Do not post photos unless they compliment information mentioned in the article. Even if you happen to have 3000 pictures of Sarah Palin with millitary personell readily available. I repeat that images have extremely in an article this long and thus should be selected to hightlight what is important in the biography. If the wounded German soldier is important the article should explain why! Elwinda (talk) 16:59, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Unless the Kuwait trip was somehow the most significant event of her life, there's no reason to include more than one photo from it. If there aren't other photos available, then let's just have fewer photos. —KCinDC (talk) 17:02, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

My concern is simply the technical quality of the images. If we have good, high-resolution photos with a free license, why use crappy photos? I don't understand how a photo carries a POV, could someone explain this? If photos of GIs are so objectionable, just crop the military people out. Kelly hi! 17:04, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
I'm not suggesting using crappy photos. There's no requirement that every paragraph have a photo even if it's irrelevant or redundant. Just delete them. How does having yet another photo of the same trip add to the article? —KCinDC (talk) 17:13, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
Technical quality should not be the main reason for choosing a picture. Relevance to the main points in the biography should be the most important. We have several pictures already. If these extra pictures do not add significant explanatory value whey simply are not needed. The second point is how people read an article, which is by first reading the lead, then skimming the pictures and picture text, and then a lot of people stop there. Therefore the colletion of pictures should reflect the article and not be biased towards aspects that may seem to be slanted. This is even more important in a hight profile article as this. Elwinda (talk) 17:13, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

The wikipedia user named "Kelly" seems to insist on posting millitary pictures because of their "superior technical quality". That user even removed a relevant picture of Palin with Alaska congressman Don Young (mentioned in the section), and replaced it with a picture of a wonded soldier in Germany (that had no relation to the text in the section). Please someone correct this misconduct. Elwinda (talk) 17:40, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

It may be proper that we bring a formal complaint and request sanctions against this user. They are continuing to edit out other photos in favor of sensational photos of Palin with every member of the military. As well this particular user has added nothing of value to the page in terms of text. I believe its a very sinister SPA at work here. .:davumaya:. 19:41, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

<-- Yes, it's wonderful that all of the high-quality photos we had of this person have now been scrubbed out in favor of ugly, low-resolution photos. Kelly hi! 20:14, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Every news network has used many military related pictures of her, there is no reason we should avoiding using them. Sarah Palin is also commander in chief of Alaska’s National Guard. Please don't remove useful pictures. Pissed off starfish (talk) 21:28, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Palin's trip to Kuwait and Germany is now being mentioned in the "Persona Life and Family" section. The Kuwait photo should be moved to that section instead of being in the "Energy and environment" section. Elwinda (talk) 00:43, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Cute Kitten

File:Palin with kitty.jpg
like this?

We've got pictures of Palin with wounded soldiers, and in Kuwait in a cute t-shirt. I was wondering, can we get a picture of Sarah holding a kitten? --I am not Paranoid (talk) 05:12, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

How about a fish? Gwen Gale (talk) 05:14, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
Your comment is sexist. She is cute, so her picks are cute. you must be ugly. 72.91.214.42 (talk) 05:19, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, if I get through the day without crackin' a mirror, I'm happy. Gwen Gale (talk) 05:24, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
No, I'm not ugly, and I'm certainly not using Satire to ridicule the media for focusing on her good looks. I'd just like the article to have a picture of Sarah snuggling up with a rilly cute kitten. --I am not Paranoid (talk) 05:25, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
Agreed! .:davumaya:. 05:28, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
Fye, can't find any. My day is chaveled. Gwen Gale (talk) 05:30, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
Shopped... >u<
Well, would little Sarah Heath as a toddler snapped up in her jumper on her dad's shrimp boat or somewhere with two live, shiny, mud-colored, antenna'ed(?/sp) jumbo shrimp, one in each of her paws do? (See here, but scroll down a bit.)   Just meow (  ) 06:52, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
Should we use this photo as part of her gun-paragraph? Maybe we can even crop it tight on her and caption it out of context :) .:davumaya:. 10:32, 30 August 2008 (UTC) ---- If only her shirt was red, white and blue and with a giant Eagle - it would be purrrfect. --I am not Paranoid (talk) 16:04, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, we don't have any kittens, but guns are a close second, I guess. --I am not Paranoid (talk) 06:39, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Does it have to be a live kitten? 207.237.198.152 (talk) 07:39, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Do we actually have any good photos of her doing sporting? Would fit the article. rootology (C)(T) 06:55, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Didn't seem to be any on flickr. Calliopejen1 (talk) 09:26, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
Image:Palin with kitty.jpg should definitely be the lead photo. Awwww. --Evb-wiki (talk) 14:40, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
That photo of Palin with the kitten looks fabricated. Not good enough to easily fool.Mdoc7 (talk) 23:19, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
That was mostly the point, didn't want people getting confused. :) Calliopejen1 (talk) 07:36, 31 August 2008 (UTC)


All kidding aside, I actually think having a picture of her shooting would be a good idea, she is a hunter/fisher and it would show off her personality. We should use that picture. Pissed off starfish (talk) 21:46, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree. This photo illustrates her hunting/NRA/millitary background better than the photo of her drinking Coca Cola in an army camp in Kuwait. It is also high resolution (which wikipedia user Kelly insists on). Elwinda (talk) 22:38, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Well if that's the debate then why can't we do both? We could have a picture of her hunting... kitten's or just one where she's holding the trophy with the gun? Better yet we could have one that does everything. Someone load up photoshop and have her riding a Harley/Snowmobile(assless chaps optional), with hockey gear, holding an M4 in the left hand, a kitten in the right and a t-shirt that reads something about ANWR? or maybe something else about kittens?

Again, kidding aside I think something that illustrates her political views are always welcomed. --   ℗ papajohnin (talk)(?)  05:11, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia user "Kelly" keeps adding random millitary pictures

The wikipedia user "Kelly" is very persistently insists insering photos of Palin in millitary settings throughout this article. He replaces relevant prictures with seemingly irrelevant pictures displaying Palin in millitary settings. At one time 3 of 5 photos in the article was millitary pictures inserted by Kelly. In section "Governorship" he removed the picture of Palin and Alaska congressman Don Young and replaced it with Palin and a wounded soldier in Germany. And now he replaced another picture in section "Energy and environment" with Palin in Kuwait. This was just a few examples. The photos he insert seem to have little or no relevance to the text, and if they are removed Kelly just keeps inserting new millitary pictures. It seems that he does not care what picture is put in which section. His argument is that the photos he insert are of a highly superior resolution and quality. He does not seem to care if they are relevant for the text or not, and the picture text he inserts seem to have no connection to any of the text in the entire long article (search for Germany or Kuwait for instance). From the Kelly users site it seems he is related to the US Army. My impression is that this user is biased in his contribution to such a degree that is harms this article more than it helps. What can be done? Elwinda (talk) 22:07, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Just one is fine, like it is now. And it's a decent photo. rootology (C)(T) 22:10, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
The article says not a word about Kuwait (or The Middle East). What does the Kuwait army camp picture have to do with the "Energy and encironment" section in which it is located? There was also an adequate photo there before Kelly inserted the "Palin with Coca Cola" photo. Wikipedia has no requirement of 3200x2400 pixel photos or rule saying that the higher the resulution the more relevant the photo is. My main point is that user Kelly removes a relevant photo and replaces it with his own irrelevantphoto. This does not make the article better and should be discouraged. If the relevance of Kuwait with "Energy and environment" is clarified in the section text I will be satisfied, otherwise I suggest removing Kuwait army base picture and restoring the trade show picture that was there before. Elwinda (talk) 22:26, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
What did the crappy out-fo-focus trade show picture have to do with "energy and environment"? Kelly hi! 22:43, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
Nothing that I know of. But what is the point in replacing one irrelevant photo with another even more irrelevant photo? The right thing would be to move it to the relevat section or remove it. And your artificial criteria of photographic excellence is not warranted. Just because your millitar photos are perfectly focused 3200x2400 SLR photos it does not give you a manate to replace any other photo at your own discretion. E.g. the Don Young photo you switched with a wounded soldier in Germany. Please stop. Elwinda (talk)

There's nothing wrong with military photos, she has said herself that she's an avid hunter, and she is the commander in chief of the Alaskan national guard. A few military photos is fine. Sleeping frog (talk) 22:16, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

But what does the Alaskan national guard and hunting have to do with wounded soldiers in Germany or army camps in Kuwait? Elwinda (talk) 22:34, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
All I'm saying is that we don't have to erase everything military related. I think we can still have a balanced choice of photos even if one or two are military related. Sleeping frog (talk) 22:47, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
I do see your point though, we want both relevent photos and a variety of photos, it can be hard to strike the right balance sometimes. Sleeping frog (talk) 22:51, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
The right balance is no military pics, several threads here agree. Fee Fi Foe Fum (talk) 22:57, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
Don't think so. Barack Obama has two military photos - I think this is fine. A photo makes no statement about foreign affairs experience. Kelly hi! 23:00, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
I think that last comment from user Kelly explains his point of view all too well. My point is that Wikipedia is not a place for political campaigning. What pictures the Barack Obama biography or Joe Biden biography or Mitt Romney biography has is irrelevant. This is the Sarah Palin article. If your reasoning is that biography X has N photos with theme T therefore biography Y must have equally many with theme T you should refrain from editing directly and instead post your suggestions on the discussion page first. Elwinda (talk) 23:55, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
Please take your bad faith assumptions and place them where they belong. My point all along has been that I went to some work to research good-quality images for the article, and it's a shame to let them go to waste. You know nothing about me or my politics, so please stop making stupid assumptions. Kelly hi! 23:59, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
Until more free pictures of her become available, I don't see the problem in using the ones we have. And let's try to keep this polite and assume good faith. Coemgenus 00:26, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
I have no problem with using all the Kuwait or Germany photos, but then the text in the section they are being used should reflect them. Photos are there to highlight information, and are not there just to spice up the visual appearance of the article. Take any other picture - each one is relevant to the section in question. Elwinda (talk) 00:35, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
Independent of Kelly's bias (and it seems obvious to me what his bias is, but that's no reason to suspect him of wrongdoing) the pictures themselves strike me as biased. These are the types of photos that I would expect in an ad. They are clearly casting Palin in a complimentary light (eating with soldiers, giving a gift card to a soldier's child) particularly in connection with the US military. This is fine and I think its very good for Palin to show such a positive connection with her constituents; but it seems somewhat irrelevant. Wikipedia, as has been stated, should not be seen to favor any candidate on any side. Ignore the bias of the poster, photos are media and can carry bias and I would definitely say that these do. Its not about the foreign affairs experience its about the overly biased viewpoint of the photos. The photo with the kid is, to my mind, the more propagandish and emotionally provocative of the two and really ought to come down; anytime I see something on Wikipedia that looks or sounds as like an ad brochure as this I cringe. I don't really think we need a picture there at all; layout-wise it certainly would work without one. Kelly, I don't know that much about Palin, but as I think you are a supporter perhaps you know something about her Kuwait trip. Was the sole purpose to visit the Alaskan troops? If she was there to talk to someone about oil or some such energy related thing then the photo would be relevant to the section and the caption ought to be changed to reflect that. If she wasn't its probably best to move the picture to a different section of the article as its too easy to incorrectly correlate energy and Kuwait and infer a connection where there is none.Joshua Skrzypek 08:24, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
I didn't add the gift card photo to the article, though I did upload it at Commons along with many others. I didn't add the eating with soldiers photo to the article - I had earlier added a cropped version that showed only her, but someone else changed it later. I've uploaded hundreds of military photos of politicians and celebrities - for example, I also uploaded a ton of photos of Barack Obama from his overseas trip. All I know about this particular trip is from the picture captions - she visited wounded soldiers in Germany, along with Alaskans serving on active duty in the Air Force - then she spent a day or two visiting the Alaska National Guard unit deployed in Kuwait. I still get why the pictures are supposed to be biased, even when they're cropped to only show her. Are the soldiers offensive? Kelly hi! 08:47, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
If the pictures were cropped to show only her, what would be the point of even including them? How many photos of her by herself do we need? I thought we'd settled this when we got it down to one military photo, but now we're heading back up apparently (though at least we're finally down to one in Political positions of Sarah Palin, which had similar problems). I understand that Palin is the ultimate commander of the Alaska National Guard, but exactly what fraction of her time does she spend doing that? Having more than one military photo in the article gives unwarranted emphasis to that aspect of her life. Let's delete or replace one of these and get back to one and stop trying to turn this into a campaign brochure. —KCinDC (talk) 08:55, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
Go look at the number of photos in Joe Biden. Should we keep the number of pictures about equal? Kelly hi! 09:01, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
It's not about numbers/quantity; It's about quality and therefore we have to wait to get proper pictures. meanwhile we'll be stuck with those we have and I'm fine with the way it is now. There is just nothing we can do about it at the moment. --Floridianed (talk) 09:20, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
  • @Joshua Skrzypek. You should point that to me, since I was the one taking out one of the Iraq-pic and I was the one inserting "The photo with the kid" as the best possible option right now. I'm sure we'll have soon more up-to-date and more proper pictures available but till then I think it's fine to have those in there. Regards, --Floridianed (talk) 08:51, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
There's nothing wrong with just waiting until more photos are found. There's no requirement that there be one photo per section or something. If there's no photo available except for yet another military brochure photo, then just leave it with fewer photos until one becomes available. Why is that a problem? —KCinDC (talk) 09:31, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
There is no "problem" for a while here (regarding pics) so what else should be said? --Floridianed (talk) 09:44, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Main picture again

Ferrylodge and else: The main pic in the "box" should be: her looking to the left or straight to the front. How can we fix this w/o changing the whole pic (which, you said, is against the rules) ? Any clue out there? --Floridianed (talk) 07:40, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

See above. I think the picture is fine as is. Kelly hi! 07:43, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
I don't understand what you're asking. You want to edit the picture? Cool Hand Luke 07:43, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
We just have to wait until more pictures become available. This seems to be the most appropriate one from the pics that are currently available to us.Ferrylodge (talk) 07:46, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
Guess so, Ferrylodge. And to respond to the other editors: A picture, especially of a person should always be "looking" to the inside of an article. That's called proper layout. ;) --Floridianed (talk) 07:57, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Inaccurate statement about the $1200

Resolved in article
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

"and in its place she proposed to send Alaskans $1,200 directly"

Again, this statement is inaccurate. Only Alaskans that applied and qualified for the 2008 Permanent Fund Dividend check will receive the $1200 and it will be included in the PFD check amount, not sent directly. This information is publicly available, so the editors of this article need to stop being lazy and look it up from reliable sources, rather than misinformed sources. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.74.113.13 (talk) 19:04, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

The only qualifications I see is that one must be a resident for at least 180 days and fill out the necessary paper work. Is that correct? How would you suggest rewording it? --ThaddeusB (talk) 19:58, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

That is not correct, the 180 days was a part of the original proposal, but in the final legislation, the legislature approved it only for PFD recipients. One qualification for the PFD is that you are a resident for a certain period of time, but that is not the only necessary qualification. Therefore, there is a small percentage of people that can be considered Alaskan residents or non-resident Alaskans, that have not qualified to receive the PFD or the $1200 additional amount.

I have a separate concern about this issue, that to be honest, first came to my attention during her VP rally speech. While the information is factually correct, it is very misleading in that it seems to imply a philosophy that is not entirely reflective of all the details. As stated above this was directly tied to the 1976 development of the Alaska Permanent Fund which mandates such rebates - inspired, in part, by the 1971 Alaskan Native Claims Settlement Act, which my family benefits from. It is hardly as if it was an original idea and the only real decision for Palin was how to distribute the excess funds that came in that year. I am not sure how, or even if it should be addressed in the article, but I feel I am unable to be unbiased on the topic and merely add this information to be used, if at all, as others see fit. Thanks OneHappyHusky (talk) 02:05, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Wolf discussion (consolidated)

Alaska's aerial wolf hunting program

Alaska voters, led by Governor Sarah Palin, defeated a ballot initiative Aug. 26, 2008 that would have ended the state’s wolf aerial hunting program. Governor Palin signed off on a $400,000 state-funded advertising campaign to promote the state’s aerial hunting program. Hoping to boost the number of wolves killed by permitees, Gov. Palin announced the state would pay $150 bounty for each kill. —Preceding unsigned comment added by greg2008 (talk • contribs) 19:43, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Sounds pretty cool - aerial wolf hunting might make a good spectator sport. Kelly hi! 19:56, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
This is really not that relevant to Palin, as I have described earlier. These policies have existed for some time and are mostly determined by the Alaska Department of Fish and Game. I'm not sure how Alaska voters were "led" by governor Palin to defeat the ballot initiative. Has Palin's stance on aerial wolf hunting ever been mentioned in a general profile about Palin (rather than an article on wolf hunting specifically)? I can't find any. This really is not that important to her governorship. I think it's fine if it goes in a subarticle, but it is undue weight to include it here other than a brief mention. Calliopejen1 (talk) 20:03, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
I heard Palin eats wolf burgers. Any sources on this? --98.243.129.181 (talk) 20:19, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

This whole thing was a bias load of crap. The governor is in charge of state income and tourism. hmmm why do tourists go to alaska? Maybe the super huge explosion in Moose and Caribou. The $150 is a small part of the $12,000 it costs to take one of those trips. This is wikipedia not a smash fest on everyone you disagree with. The Adjectives of the paragraphs should get the submitter removed from this discussion and any others on enviroment. Learn to present a fact and try some from the other side of an arguement instead of the ones that support your end goal. That is alaskans livelyhood your demonizing we don't come on here and say bad things about your taco bell job.PRNN (talk) 09:16, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

After doing a search through the discussion, and the phrase PRNN, it is clear PRNN has his/her/it's own personal agenda. You offer nothing but the presence of a pro-Palin biased troll and should be banned for violating Wikipedia personal attack policies. Please provide facts or go spend some time learning how to spell and the proper use of caps. greg2008 (talk) 12:22, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Animal Issues?

082908

Why is there nothing listed about Palin's basic massacre of indigenous wildlife in Alaska? To the point of putting bounties on the heads of wolves?

Please provide your suggested material with a source to back it up. --Elliskev 01:25, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
Note: Blogs and activist websites are generally not suitable citations for biographies of living persons. See Wikipedia:Verifiability Veriss (talk) 02:21, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Governor Palin offered $150.00 for the front forelegs of wolves (paid for by the state of Alaska) to be killed in any of several designated control areas. But there was no way to verify that the dead wolves were only taken fron these areas. The Defenders of Wildlife, the Alaska Wildlife Alliance and the Alaska Chapter of the Sierra Club went to court citing that Alaska's bounty laws were repealed in 1984 and the State has no current legal authority to implement the bounties. The judge agreed and Governor Palin was ordered to withdraw the bounty on the wolves.(1)

"Palin is on a massive extermination program for wolves across large swaths of Alaska to artificially inflate caribou and moose populations to pacify trophy hunters," says John Toppenberg, the executive director of the Alaska Wildlife Alliance. "It's totally illogical, it's extreme, it's the draconian manipulation of bears and wolves in Alaska." (2)

(1) defenders.org press release March 27, 2007 and Alaska State court records.

(2) Quote from www.newsweek.com on 8/30/2008. QuantumRedWolf (talk) 06:16, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Palin in support of aerial gunning of wolves?

[10]

From the page linked above:

"If Governor Palin steps in to authorize it, she will be using her powers to benefit just a few Alaskans against the will of the majority of Alaskans," said Dorothy Keeler who is against the helo wolf hunt."

"It's a slaughter. It can't be justified by science. It can't be justified by ethics. In fact, the department's own research said it's not the cause of the moose decline and it will do nothing to help, unless it is continued forever and forever, is a long time," said Keeler."

To read the history of the issue go here: [11]

I would like to see reference made of these issues in the article, especially since it raises the question as to whether Mrs. Palin may in fact be contributing to the problem of undermining scientific integrity:

"On May 11, 2007, in the final days of the legislative session, Governor Palin submitted identical bills, House Bill 256 and Senate Bill 176, to the legislature. These bills, renaming “Intensive Management” as “Active Management,” attempt to avoid successful litigation by Defenders by weakening the scientific standards to be used by the Board of Game’s in approving control programs. The bills would end the requirement that the Board must determine that “predation is an important cause” for a depressed prey population. Instead, the Board would merely need to conclude that same-day airborne or aerial shooting is “conducive” to meeting a population or harvest objective." --AmandaEP (talk) 14:46, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't disagree with including it if there is a consensus that it's important, I think it needs a link with more substance, to be written more neutrally (i.e. without the word "brutal", that's an opinion) and a more neutral source than "Defenders of Wildlife" though.GatorOne (talk) 01:50, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
IMO blogs and activist web sites are not reliable sources for a biography of a living person. Veriss (talk) 01:53, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
Agreed - needs reliable, neutral sources for claims like that. Kelly hi! 01:57, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
Current version looks good to me, except the article being cited says there's a loophole in the ban for Alaska. It's not violating the ban in that case.GatorOne (talk) 02:23, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure this is really relevant here. Maybe on the Political positions of Sarah Palin page. It has not be a major issue during her term as governor, and aerial hunting of predators was just endorsed in the most recent Alaska election on Tuesday. Her role in this debate appears to be exaggerated by these activist pages. How much of this is her doing, and how much is the legislature's or the ADFG's? This policy was in place long before Palin came to office. Calliopejen1 (talk) 02:40, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
If people think it should be moved/removed I'm not opposed, I was just fixing the facts in the posted version GatorOne (talk) 02:45, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Moved to issues page as per discussion above --ThaddeusB (talk) 03:09, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

One wonders how many biologists go hunting wolves with helicopters anyways. Seems like a nonissue to me. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 03:16, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
Wolves are dangerous to people. She was making Alaska safer. She also hunts large bears picture which I think is awesome ! What a woman, my new hero. 72.91.214.42 (talk) 05:09, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
Actually, the idea is to increase the number of prey animals such as moose and caribou, which are important for subsistence hunting in Alaska. Safety really doesn't have anything to do with it. Calliopejen1 (talk) 05:43, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Right now, it reads as if the program's sole purpose is to have hunters use helicopters to shoot Alaskan wolves for the hell of it. As controversial as the program is, I think some mention that it is an attempt to control the wolf population is necessary. --Andonee (talk) 06:07, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Someone needs to take a long swill of strong coffee, not koolaid, and offer some constructive edits. 06:12, 30 August 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Veriss1 (talk • contribs)

The biggest problem is how addictive this can be. I here some wolf hunters are up to two packs a day.--King Bedford I Seek his grace 06:25, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

If many of you would take a closer examination of my stance on this, it's not about the environmental aspect alone. It is the fact that the game herds' population declines have nothing to do with wolves, but this is the excuse used to cull the predators. Palin has presented two Bills in tandem seeking to bypass the scientific consensus in order to fulfill a private sector agenda. This is undermining scientific integrity. That, over and above the inhumane wolf gunning (I'd rather see normal fire arm hunters and bow hunters than this, what an unnecessary waste of taxpayer dollars), is the issue of ultimate import here, as well as, some might argue, the more important issue of her ignoring the will of her constituents as well as the judiciary of her state. --AmandaEP (talk) 14:46, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm still looking for an article that covers the fact that both judges AND voters did not support the ballot (they did in fact support measures aiming to STOP aerial gunning). And for those of you that still think about Little Red Riding Hood as the poster child of wolf behavior, try a brief study of biologists that have lived with wolf packs, so you can get a dose of reality, I implore you.

More "neutral" sources, as per request:

[12] [13] [14]

"March 23, 2004 in print edition F-3

Despite two popular votes to prohibit the practice, Alaskan hunters using airplanes have tracked and killed more than 100 wolves to increase moose and caribou herds.": [15]

"Voters in 1996 and in 2000 approved ballot initiatives banning aircraft-assisted wolf hunting, Joslin pointed out.": [16] --AmandaEP (talk) 14:46, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

The unintentional irony of Veriss1's comments notwithstanding, I'm happy to see that there's more context to this on the current version of the page. --Andonee (talk) 13:59, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I thought the edits I offered were very constructive, and that I addressed the matter very professionally by posting here for debate before editing the main article myself, especially now that the "neutrality" of the sources I propose are not questionable. I do not drink coffee or koolaid, and I'm pushing thirty, so the "irony" matter is entirely lost on me...unless I'm not the one being referenced there, and if that's the case, then good. Maybe I should log in so I can sign with my user account instead of anonymously. --72.185.241.40 --AmandaEP (talk) 14:46, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Are the "biologists who lived with wolf packs" kind of like that guy who lived with the bears until they got hungry and ate him? Kelly hi! 20:50, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Hunting from an aircraft is the most barbaric action ever. It somehow relates to the high-tech war tacticts of US in Iraq and Afganistan. The idea of intentional detachement of the killer/soldier/hunter from the prey/enemy/wolf etc. is unfair and leads to the cultivation of a new breed of killers, which are becoming part of the machine for killing ( sometimes called goverment). Why I am stating my opinion here? because the issue with the aerial hunting is important and shows her ( Palin's ) attitude towards justice ethics. Modern war is the US game and US army has a lot of dangerous "toys" which fly. In the hands of a president (or vise president in some cases) sometimes is the decission to "go ahead" with certain actions. Wolfs today, enemies of US and freedom tomorrow ? By the way - Vladimir Vissotsky had a song Охота с вертолетом http://www.vbox7.com/play:4c7b72a6 well that was (and maybe is still ) the reality in Siberia. If Alaskan citizens want to get closer to Siberia, then why not to vote for independance and reverse the history? the russians will welcome them! Peace!

Animal rights seems off

I think the section of Animal Rights Controversies seems a little biased; not neutral at all. it seems like it was done in hurry as well, having too many formatting errors and layout is not too well

most importantly, here are no citations to back up what it is claiming. Without such, it looks more like someone's opinion.

And it also got removed right away, thankfully, considering it wasn't objective in the slightest. - Cair

Wolves bit

I see the wolves bit has been reintroduced, and expanded, despite discussion to move it to political positions yesterday. This relatively minor event seems to be given undue weight in the current form. I think it either needs shortened or removed. Other opinions? --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:22, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

It has a bit of flair that it doesn't need to. Let's see if we can just shorten it. .:davumaya:. 16:46, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
Agree. Her role is minor - she only appears to have approved a measure that the legislature/Alaskan people wanted. It's not like she personally hired a helicopter and started machine-gunning wolves from the air personally. Kelly hi! 18:22, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
Are you sure? I thought I saw a picture of her with a machine gun somewhere. --Evb-wiki (talk) 18:26, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

That would be so cool, if she hunted wolves from helicopters herself, but that picture of her with the gun is from her visiting the national guard in Kuwait. Rds865 (talk) 19:26, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

There seems to be a scarce amount of public policy available for Gov. Palin and those that are controversial deserve to be noted. The successful campaign to reject the ban on aerial hunting, Ballot Measure 2 on August 26, 2008, was funded with $400K of Alaska state-funds allocated and approved by Governor Palin. Greg.cumber (talk) 12:03, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Outrage over censorship on Wikipedia

Miss Palin's page has been sanitized over night and that is an outrage. Important, relevant information about her stances on abortion, gay marriage and such has been removed, and that is clearly POV. Wikipedia is supposedly an encyclopedia, can't we at least pretend the part? Instead of succombing to the republican noise machine? 71.114.19.245 (talk) 04:16, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Be more specific. Provide links.--William Saturn (talk) 04:22, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

For example In 2007, Palin agreed with the Alaska Department of Fish and Game to allow Alaska state biologists to hunt wolves from helicopters as part of a "predator control" program which was allowed under a provision in a 35 year-old federal ban on the practice granting 700 permits to the state of Alaska. HUNT WOLVES FROM HOLICOPTERS!!! I believe that most people will find this stance unusual and is therefore fit to be mentioned in the article. The sick woman wants to shoot, maime, and destroy animals from helicopters! The use of helicoptors has to do with terrain issues, its not an apache gun ship straiffing the forest. Wolves are rapid breeders hunt in packs and are causing the Moose and caribou numbers to dwindle. This is a native food source guaranteed by the government. Please relocate the wolves to your back yard to play with your kids before you start a slam dance on an issue you don't live with daily. Once again there is a very clear bias by enviromentalists showing up in these areas. As for a cleansing from what I am seeing here it needed to be done. Discussion of the rights and wrongs of population control measures shouldn't be done from an individuals page just to make sure the Move on's( which is who linked me to these pages from an email blast) Please keep these sections non-biased. PRNN (talk) 09:29, 31 August 2008 (UTC) Added with sourcing here. rootology (C)(T) 05:05, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

So do 55% of Alaskans, as of the last election.[17] The idea is that we should be increasing the population of moose and caribou for people who eat them to survive. Calliopejen1 (talk) 05:49, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Incorrect. According to Gov. Palin statements on the subject, increasing the population of moose and caribou using extreme and cruel measures such as aerial hunting was to boost the hunting industry. 75.145.70.69 (talk) 11:41, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

the last comment is clearly partisan in nature =( Veriss (talk) 07:57, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
Good thing they're not hunting cute little kittens from helicopters (ZING!). Okay, seriously, I understand that people get riled up over this issue but in context of the national picture, its not very unusual that politicians from Mayors to Governors are necessitated to approve such actions. In Minnesota, we have approved sharpshooters to limit deer populations due to disease on both city and state levels, but it doesn't mean Governor Pawlenty is a sick man, it's unfortunately part of wildlife management (in reference to Calliope). As well, anonymous IP, you are proposing a synthesis that just doesn't work. .:davumaya:. 11:07, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

These things weren't 'censored' - rather they were moved to the political positions page, as per community discussion.--ThaddeusB (talk) 15:08, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Approval ratings

Included with cite on Sarah_Palin#Governor_of_Alaska.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.


The approval ratings paragraphs need some work:

Palin frequently had an approval rating above 90% in 2007.[25] A poll published by Hays Research on July 28, 2008 showed Palin's approval rating at 80%,[26] while another Ivan Moore poll showed it at 76%, a drop which the pollsters attributed to the controversial firing of Public Safety Commissioner Walt Monegan.[27]

A subsequent Rasmussen Reports poll from July 31, 2008 showed 35% of Alaskans rated her performance as excellent, 29% good, 22% fair, and 14% poor.[28]

I'm not sure what criteria are being used for choosing which polls to cite. In any case, the first sentence isn't supported by its ref. And it's not valid to compare the ratings between polls conducted by different pollsters asking different questions, especially with "very favorable / somewhat favorable / somewhat unfavorable / very unfavorable" versus "excellent / good / fair / poor". —KCinDC (talk) 22:27, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Reporter approval rating

The current article reads "According to Gregg Erickson of the Alaska Daily News, Palin's approval rating among reporters and legislators would be 'in the teens or twenties'." The guy making this estimate is clearly not a fan and it seems POV to include someone's opinion of a possible (and very narrow) approval rating, and in any case rather irrelevant. I think it should be removed. Other opinions? --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:25, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Maybe so. Some other sentences about approval ratings should probably be removed too. There are too many, and comparing results from completely different polls by different pollsters to say they went up or down isn't valid. —KCinDC (talk) 20:38, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Note for Flip Wilson

Flipping images is not kosher.[18] We had a similar issue at the John McCain article. See here.Ferrylodge (talk) 21:06, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

So, someone told you on some other page not to do it and now it can never happen anywhere else ever again? You'll need to do better than that, Ferrylodge. --I am not Paranoid (talk) 21:13, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
I'm working on it. Give me a few minutes. The point is, we're making the right side of her face look like the left side, and vice versa. That's not accurate.Ferrylodge (talk) 21:15, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
Ya, I see what you mean, the huge mole moved to her left side ;) --I am not Paranoid (talk) 21:16, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
Seriously, the person who gave me this guidance is one of the most respected editors on Wikipedia. I'll have more for you in a few.Ferrylodge (talk) 21:19, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
I feel uncomfortable with this practice too. There are little differences on each side of anyones face, making a flipped picture look slightly off. Pissed off starfish (talk) 21:36, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

(undent)See MOS:IMAGES: "Images should not be reversed simply to resolve a conflict between these guidelines; doing so misinforms the reader for the sake of our layout preferences. If an image is ever reversed or otherwise substantially altered, there should be a clear advantage to the reader in doing so (for example, cropping a work of art to focus on a detail that is the subject of commentary), and the alteration must be noted in the caption."

Special thanks to Maralia for this info.Ferrylodge (talk) 21:40, 30 August 2008 (UTC)


Governance Section

The Governance section should give a brief overview of what being Governor of Alaska entails. There's a lot of discussion about the size of the Alaska state workforce and budget, and this information is not as easy to confirm as one might think (it appears to be 24,500 employees and $11.5 billion budget).DarrylEKk (talk) 21:51, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I think it should be noted that of the four people presuming to take office, she is the only one with governing experience. --98.243.129.181 (talk) 21:53, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
Her being the only one in the race with executive experience has been strongly noted by the media, It would be okay to mention it if you can find credible sources (the more the better since a major candidate article is under lots of scrutiny) Sleeping frog (talk) 22:29, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Clean up needed

The footnotes (starting at #81) are in dire need of a clean up. Would someone who has editing rights take care of this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.101.154.145 (talk) 22:03, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

It was caused by a wiki error that I just fixed. --ThaddeusB (talk) 22:06, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Religion discussion (consolidated)

Cited on Sarah_Palin#Religion.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Palin a Pentacostal? Not according to Palin.

Palin's wikipedia author, no doubt in an attempt to pacify the typical GOP, has taken liberties in describing her religion, as seen in her bio. The author dubs her a Christian Pentacostal. Palin says she attends a non-denominational bible church. Which is it??? (http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1837536-3,00.html)

[1]

Crob67 (talk) 07:22, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Where's the contradiction? Pentecostalism isn't a denomination. —KCinDC (talk) 07:43, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
The rest of the interview makes it pretty clear though that she doesn't identify as Pentecostal. This source http://religionblog.dallasnews.com/archives/2008/08/is-sarah-palin-the-first-pente.html also shows that different sources are reporting different things. I've removed the "Pentacostal" bit for now. Hopefully as the news media gets a bit of time to do some research, the details of her religious affiliation can be firmed up. Calliopejen1 (talk) 08:58, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
What part of the interview? The word "Pentecostal" doesn't appear in it. —KCinDC (talk) 19:21, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I read somewhere she's an Evangelical Protestant. Maybe someone wants to research this more.

EDIT: Here it is: "John McCain's vice-presidential pick, Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, is an evangelical Protestant..." http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles_of_faith/2008/08/sarah_palin_on.html 69.122.100.82 (talk) 09:59, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

There was a section above this about this issue this area should be merged with...and, again, who cares? Religious affiliation is not under consideration for public office, or have you all forgotten.? See our Constitution for more information, you know, that "piece of paper" our fighting men and women are dying for overseas? --72.185.241.40 (talk) 14:03, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

If constitutional qualifications are the only things that can be included in the article, it'll be pretty short, consisting of only age and birthplace/citizenship. In any case, some people take candidates' religious beliefs into account when voting, and there is of course nothing in the Constitution preventing them from doing that. —KCinDC (talk) 19:18, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
The Wall Street Journal says she's Lutheran. --Coemgenus 20:23, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Is she Pentecostal?

The main article does not include any mention of her being Pentecostal, but the "summary section" on the right does. If she is, this should be included in the main article. rich (talk) 06:00, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Who cares? It's not a condition for public office. See our Constitution for more information. --72.185.241.40 (talk) 13:58, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Whether it is a condition for public office has nothing to do with the Wikipedia article. All facts on Wikipedia need to be verifiable or removed. CopaceticThought (talk) 18:30, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Where is the information that supports Palin's affiliation to the AoG? Without a source, isn't the alleged connection sloppy at best? I'm also not quite sure using blogs as a source is a good idea, as blogs are usually a collection of thoughts on a subject, as opposed to actual reporting from a trained and less biased source. 99.168.79.111 (talk) 22:28, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Religious Affiliation of Mrs.Palin

Anyone with citable info on this? I'd sure like to see some in the article. Thanks! --98.243.129.181 (talk) 21:52, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Discussed above--Coemgenus 21:56, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
THanks! --98.243.129.181 (talk) 22:07, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

http://religionblog.dallasnews.com/archives/2008/08/more-about-sarah-palins-religi.html According to that she attends "Church on the Rock" --98.243.129.181 (talk) 22:10, 30 August 2008 (UTC) http://blog.christianitytoday.com/ctpolitics/2008/08/is_palin_an_eva.html According to this.. she says she was baptised a catholic but now claims to be non-denominational Christian. --98.243.129.181 (talk) 22:12, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

"Today she sometimes worships at ‘the Juneau Christian Center, which is also part of the Pentecostal Assemblies of God.’ Her home church, however, is ‘The Church on the Rock, an independent congregation.’" http://poligazette.com/2008/08/30/palin-reassures-evangelicals/ Anyone want to edit some of this in? Thanks! --98.243.129.181 (talk) 22:14, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

..and then.. "The 44-year-old mother of five, who led her high school chapter of the Fellowship of Christian Athletes, was baptized as a teenager at the Wasilla Assembly of God Church, where she and her family were very active, according to her then-pastor, Paul Riley." http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5g4-w_DCWffagBaQb8Il9a0R2hkPAD92SL7E00 So she got re-baptised at an AOG church which is Charasmatic but she doesn't affiliate with that denomination now-adays but is non-denominationally Christian.. --98.243.129.181 (talk) 22:16, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I have sumarized this info into 2 sentences and added it to the personal life section. --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:31, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
Hey it looks nice, non-biased and well summarizing of the cites presented. Thanks! --98.243.129.181 (talk) 04:16, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Caution against making too many religious references

Obama is also religious and heavily involved in church, one thick with controversy. Obama has followed black liberation theology nearly his entire adult life. Yet Obama's article contains very little religious information. I'm asking the authors of this article to be very careful about going out of their way to start drawing up all kinds of evangelical associations and implications with Palin when no such attempts would be successful on the Obama page. Keep it fair please. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.18.108.5 (talk) 01:29, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

This request is unnfair. Obama had problems in that area. Palin doesn't seem to. She seems pretty happy about her church and her values seem integrated into her life and policiy. So I'm curious and she's not shying away from talking about it. I say lets keep the info up to date. --98.243.129.181 (talk) 04:14, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
  1. ^ http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1837536-3,00.html
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sarah_Palin/Archive_2&oldid=1142777081"