Talk:Sarah Palin/Archive 21

Archive 15

←

Archive 19

Archive 20

Archive 21

Archive 22

Archive 23

→

Archive 25

Newsweek poll

This sentence: "A recent newseek poll discovered that of voters, "Sixty-nine percent did not know that she favors teaching creationism in public schools."" is about the public's lack of information about Palin's views. It MIGHT belong in the article about the 2008 campaign, but it doesn't belong in her biography. It is about the public, not about Palin. The section already lists her views on religion. Please discuss. Kaisershatner (talk) 17:09, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

This should be moved to such a page. LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 18:24, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

"..she favors teaching creationism in public schools..." and she doesn't. Her remarks around the issue make it clear that it's free of inclusion into curriculum's. That it was about the ability of students to "debate" the issue of creationism in the school room. The word use of "teaching" implies something that is officially in the curriculum - something she has never said. Theosis4u (talk) 19:43, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, I think her quote was "I don't think there should be a prohibition against debate if it comes up in class. It doesn't have to be part of the curriculum...Teach both. You know, don't be afraid of information. Healthy debate is so important, and it's so valuable in our schools. I am a proponent of teaching both." The words "teach both..." "I am a proponent of teaching both". If someone where to characterize that by saying "Palin is a proponent of teaching creationism in class" or "Palin is a proponent of teaching both evolution and creationism" or even "she favors teaching creationism in public schools" that would sound to be to be a pretty fair assessment. Also, since the Republic Party of Alaska has as part of its platform (which Palin helped develop, the platform she ran on to get elected as Governor) which says "We support teaching various models and theories for the origins of life and our universe, including Creation Science or Intelligent Design. If evolution outside a species (macro-evolution) is taught, evidence disputing the theory should also be presented."[1] Trying to say that she does not support teaching creationism in the schools would be disenginous. Okay, technically she has not said, exactly and precisely "I favor teaching creationism as part of the curriculum in the schools". Why is her stated position, a position she campaigned on, and clearly is quoted for advocating, a position favored by Millions of Christians, so controversial in this article? Atom (talk) 21:27, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

First term chronology

I would change this as it does not make chronological sense, but don't want to violate 3RR:

• "Despite the rocky start, by the end of her first term, Palin had gained favor with Wasilla voters. She kept a jar with the names of Wasilla residents on her desk, and once a week she pulled a name from it and picked up the phone; she would ask: "How's the city doing?" Term limits prevented Palin from running for a third term as mayor in 2002. Using income generated by a 2% sales tax that was enacted prior to her election, Palin cut property taxes by 75% and eliminated personal property and business inventory taxes. Tapping municipal bonds, she made improvements to the roads and sewers and increased funding to the Police Department. She also oversaw new bike paths and procured funding for storm-water treatment to protect freshwater resources. At the same time she reduced spending on the town museum and blocked construction of a new library and city hall. Palin ran for re-election against Stein in 1999 and won; with a plurality of 74%. Palin was also elected president of the Alaska Conference of Mayors."

The 2002-related bolded sentence does not fit here chronologically, before her first term tax moves and her race in 1999. It fits under "second term." Also, I don't understand why her policy on taxes would come after the first sentence. Please comment.LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 18:55, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

• Lama, you are spot on about the term limits sentence being out of place; I've moved it to the end of the 2nd term section. The reason that the the tax cut stuff belongs after the names in the jar sentence is because it is telling a story. Clearly the first few months of her tenure were rocky, but when she ran for re-election she got 74% of the vote. What happened? The apparent answer is that she had a hands on service-oriented approach to city government (the jar with the names) and she cut taxes, and made a lot of city improvements. Then it goes to her running again and being re-elected overwhelmingly. This is essentially the same story told in the provided cites.--Paul (talk) 19:05, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

I understood the implication that the sentence order was trying to get across, but conflating the turn-around in her public perception with her tax policy is WP:OR, original research. If you can find a reference which makes the connection, and begin the sentence with something like, "The Anchorage daily news says that the turn-around is due to her tax policy", that would be great. Otherwise, I don't think it will stand.LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 19:12, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

I see, you are suggesting that "Despite the rocky start, by the end of her first term, Palin had gained favor with Wasilla voters" is original research? It just seems to be writing to me. She had a rocky start, she did a bunch of stuff, she won reelection from 74% of the voters. I really don't understand the objection to this, and it seems a really insignificant thing to argue about. If we are going to argue over every sentence, this article is never going to achieve any kind of consensus. Have fun, all: I'm off to play in real-life for a few days.--Paul (talk) 19:49, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

• I agree that it looks to violate WP:OR. The terms 'rocky' and 'gained favor' are both supposition that are "assumed" by the writer, not quoted by a reliable news source. They have no place in the biography of a living person, even if partially accurate, because that in itself constitutes a violation of WP:SYNTH. Duuude007 (talk) 19:57, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

It is not original research. The cited reference for the sentence has the following material:

The documents, combined with accounts from her hometown newspaper, show how Palin's first year as mayor could easily have been her last.... But the situation calmed, and rather than being recalled, Palin was re-elected. She later acknowledged, "I grew tremendously in my early months as mayor."

This sentence "Despite the rocky start, by the end of her first term, Palin had gained favor with Wasilla voters." is entirely consistent with the source material. If it were more consistent it would be plagiarism.--Paul (talk) 13:28, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Religious perspective section is WP:UNDUE

This section seems way too large for a bio. That a politician has had a religious upbringing and, on occasion, invoked God in discussions of public policy is hardly notable. This section is leaning towards WP:COATRACK. Detailed discussion of religious philosophy is WP:SYNTH in the absence of evidence linking policy decisions to that specific philosophy. Poorly done all-around. Ronnotel (talk) 04:21, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

There was much discussion above about whether to have a separate religion section. There was no consensus to insert such a section. So, I've just reorganized the article a bit, without removing any content at all. I've put some of the religion material in the "political positions" section, and some in the "personal life" section, as appropriate. Presumably, WP:SS will eventually be applied to all of this material.Ferrylodge (talk) 06:10, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, if you had read more carefully you would have seen that there was a consensus for putting in such a section, and then people like yourself who disagreed, and so an effort to build consensus that the section should be removed. In any event, many editors working to find consensus. But -- then you decided to "reorganized the article a bit". Before they finished that process. You will note that in many places it is discussed how much detail is appropriate for the political positions, or the personal life sections. That was part of the process underway that you distrupted. Atom (talk) 14:38, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Should be removed fully as there was no consensus for inclusion. Hobartimus (talk) 07:07, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Disagree. There is no consensus for its removal. Religion is a major aspect of Palin's appeal to the Republican base, and is a salient issue of the campaign. Leave it. Arjuna (talk) 09:33, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Its relevance to a political campaign does not equal relevance to a biographical article. Take it somewhere else. Fcreid (talk) 09:48, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Read Biographies of living persons, particularly the restoring deleted content section. As soon as this material was in contention, it should have been removed pending a consensus to restore it. Or, as soon as it was removed, a consensus was required to restore it. On BLP's, consensus is required to restore. WTucker (talk) 12:12, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

No, the material under contention should have been removed. All of the preceding material in the section that had been properly cited from reliable sources, and was largely favorable to Palin was removed also, under false pretenses. Look at his edit, if you don't believe me. [2] I am a strident BLP enforcer myself. I see two things towards the end of the section that I would have removed (they were not there last night when I went to bed.) The remainder of the article had not previously been contested. Hobartimus acted improperly, and is falsely trying to use the guise of BLP as justification. The appropriate action would have been to remove the recently added material that violated BLP. When he disrupted the article, there had been a long discussion about this on the talk page which Hobartimus did not care to participate in. There was a survey that would have ended at midnight (sixteen hours from when Hobartimus deleted the section) and fifteen editors had given their viewpoints on deleting the section, or not -- an attempt at consensus. Hobartimus, rather than participating in the consensus, decided that his opinion on the matter was more important than all of the other editors. The consensus seemed to be to be headed towards not having the section. Yet, all of the editors who expressed that a religion section should not be in the article managed to resist deleting the section. Atom (talk) 14:38, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

They did not all manage to resist (see [3]. WTucker (talk) 18:59, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

I do nott understand why the well sourced and neutral material is repeatedly deleted. BLPs do not preclude the inclusion of well sourced material. The only interpretation possible is that some editors consider that material to be negative to the subject of the article, but that, I am afraid, is not how Wikipedia articles are developed. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:59, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

The material is definitely not neutral, Jossi. As an admin, you are aware that simply having a source is not sufficient to meet WP:BLP. Your edits violate WP:UNDUE, WP:SYNTH and WP:NPOV. As someone repeatedly accused of inserting POV edits on this article, I'd like to suggest that you may not the best person to judge what is POV and what isn't on this particular article. Ronnotel (talk) 16:38, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Ronnotel is spot-on here. Kelly ^hi! 19:11, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Material in an article is not required to be neutral. The overall balance of the article needs to be neutral. Any given statement can, and often expresses some POV. POV edits are allowed, if accurate, cited from reliable sources, and on topic (and don't violate other things like BLP) Atom (talk) 19:43, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Basketball

basketball

Wasilla High currently has a boys and a girls basketball team. I assume (but don't know) that it was the same way when Sarah Heath played there. The way the Wik article on Palin now reads, one could fairly, but probably incorrectly, infer that there was only one team. Kdammers (talk) 01:39, 13 September 2008 (UTC) I'm putting this back in, since some-one apparently erased it. And I am making a change in the article based on my assumption. Kdammers (talk) 04:35, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

NATO and war with Russia

"Palin leaves open option of war with Russia in the event of Russian invasion of a NATO signatory country." I believe this is a statement of the obvious and should be removed from the article. --72.191.29.188 (talk) 04:52, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Dispensationalism?

"Some churches she has attended embrace dispensationalism, which is a theology that includes a literal interpretation of the Bible and highlights man's dominion over the earth as well as an end times theology.[175]"

Is there any reliable source indicating Palin herself embraces such things? If not, it's irrelevant to her biography. I'm sure the Obama article does not include a list of everything his church of 20-odd years embraces, correct? Fcreid (talk) 09:08, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

You are correct. The Obama article barely mentions that topic and has no direct qoutes about "US government invented AIDS to kill black people" or other sensational qoutes from Obama's church even though the qoutes could be sourced to an unlimited number of reliable sources. The Obama article also has nothing about Black Liberation Theology. This article should follow the same standard. Hobartimus (talk) 09:27, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

I have removed the description of Dispensationalism as per WP:SYNTH. Discussing a religious view she may or may not hold, and has never been shown to impact her policy decisions is absurd. Ronnotel (talk) 13:12, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

@Hobartimus...Why do you make such an outrageous jump as the one above? I'm gonna ask you to present some of the "unlimited number of reliable sources" that you claim exist. Otherwise, it would show good faith to remove your sensational entry to this talkspace.--Buster7 (talk) 13:38, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Buster7, if you are new to Wikipedia, check out the article Jeremiah Wright controversy for the sources you seek. (However, if you aren't new, please do remove your non sequitur directly above!)  $\sim$ Justmeherenow (  ) 17:26, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Ref list in talk page

It kept on jumping out of sequence, falling into disuse, so I removed it. If we need it again, we can add reflist with the {{ brackets, but for now it appeared to be more of a distraction than a functional tool. Duuude007 (talk) 16:00, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Picture that was lost by accident

Palin addresses the 2008 Republican National Convention

The following picture was lost by accident as a result of the following two edits [4] (moves picture to be main picture in the lead) [5] (restores the old Palin photo in the lead). I think this picture was pretty much uncontroversial and could be restored to the section of the VP campaign. Hobartimus (talk) 17:25, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Or alternatively we could replace it with another image but it's place is pretty barren right now. Thoghts? Hobartimus (talk) 17:29, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

The existing image Image:Palin1.JPG is a closer view, and she seems more charismatic. Also, your proposed image looks/is political. The article is a Biography, not a political ad. Doesn't the closeup look better than the long range view? Atom (talk) 18:07, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I think this photo would be appropriate for the section on the campaign. Isn't that where it used to be? Kelly ^hi! 18:08, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

I've re-added to the section on the campaign, seems non-controversial. Kelly ^hi! 18:46, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes Kelly got it right the image was in the campaign section from where it was lost by accident. I never said replace our main picture, the lead picture with this, I said let's put it back into it's original section. Anyway it's all resolved now the image is back in it's original place. Maybe I didn't clarify enough in the original post? Guess I thought diffs would explain it. "Doesn't the closeup look better than the long range view?" Of course, this is why we have the close-up as our main picture. I never wanted to replace our long-time main picture Zizi wanted to do that in this edit [6] Hobartimus (talk) 19:19, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

My apologies. I looked at the first diff you provided, and I thought we were talking about for the lede. I think his picture would be good for the political section. Atom (talk) 19:39, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Forward thinking

I think her years as governor of Alaska should be shortened. Why? Because 1. this is summary style. 2. this is a two year period, and if she does become VP this page would need a lot more room. If she does not, then there are at least 2 more years in office to deal with. Thats not including her future career. It is already 80k. Can we try to boil down the first section of governor to two paragraphs, then two paragraphs for each of the subsections? Otherwise, this page will be far too large in the end. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:55, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Nope. LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 23:11, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Its not something you can just say "no" to. Its something that will need to happen. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:05, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Hockey mom

We're bickering over how much of her religion should be covered, and at the same time the article mentions that she refers to herself as a hockey mom? Checked your priorities lately? Grsz^talk 21:01, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

• chuckles* Apparently there is even controversy about her being a Hockey Mom. I have heard that she never was a Hockey Mom, or that she was only very, very briefly when Track was younger. Well -- She has certainly described herself as a hockey mom, so that's good enough for me. Atom (talk) 21:10, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

The couple - plural or singular

A question which should be less controversial than some of the discussions that go on here and should be easy to answer. But, you never know.

Is "the couple" plural or singular? The article currently reads "The couple have five children ..." but that sounds awkward to me. Shouldn't it be "The couple has ..."? And isn't there a better way to word "The couple"? WTucker (talk) 01:06, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

"The Palins have five children"? Kelly ^hi! 01:07, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Done. [7] Thanks.WTucker (talk) 01:14, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Levi Johnston

I apologize if this has been discussed before.

Should Levi Johnston's name be mentioned. I don't see that it adds anything to the article. You could replace that name with any other and the article will not have changed meaning at all since he is a non-notable.WTucker (talk) 01:29, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

On the same note, does this: "She likes to hunt, ice fish, ride snowmobiles and eat moose burgers.[183] In 2005, she completed a marathon in less than four hours,[184] and is a self-described hockey mom." add anything to the article. Grsz^talk 01:32, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I think it does Grsz11. It's info about her. Not crucial info, but nevertheless illuminating. It seems like info about her is more relevant than info about her daughter's fiancee.Ferrylodge (talk) 01:43, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

To make it clear, I am proposing to change "Palin announced on September 1, 2008, that her daughter Bristol was five months pregnant and intends to keep the baby and marry the father of her child, Levi Johnston." to "Palin announced on September 1, 2008, that her daughter Bristol was five months pregnant and intends to keep the baby and marry the father of her child."WTucker (talk) 01:57, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

That seems reasonable to me. Poor Levi, he certainly got more than he bargained for. I hope he can get some of his privacy back. I doubt it though.--Paul (talk) 02:43, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Waldman quote

What do people think about this removal of text and this subsequent further removal? The edit summary says: "rm per relevance, maybe put in sub article, who is this cite and why notable?" The removed material was at the end of the Political positions section. Here's the removed material:

After the Republican National Convention, all of Palin's views, particularly her perspectives on religion in public life, came under increasing scrutiny in the media.[1][2][3] According to Steven Waldman, president and editor-in-chief of Beliefnet.com, and former national editor of U.S. News & World Report, “Gov. Palin has said and done some things that go over the line of what we’ve long considered appropriate for politicians talking about faith,”[4] adding, “Almost any peep out of her mouth related to God will seem terrifying to those who fear the religious right — and magnificent to those who want to believe in Gov. Palin.”[4]

[1]Mostrous.Sarah Palin, the pastor and the prophecy: judgment day is not far away"; Times Online, September 10, 2008

[2]"Pastor: GOP may be downplaying Palin's religious beliefs"; CNN, September 12, 2008

[3]Steve Benen."Palin's beliefs draw closer scrutiny" Washington Monthly, September 9, 2008

[4]Waldman, Steven. “The Passion of Palin: Separating Real Concerns From the Hysteria”, Wall Street Journal (2008-09-09).

I think this is important material to keep in the article, in order to properly summarize the sub-article. The material describes Waldman as a notable person, and then quotes him summarizing what he thinks of Palin's religion-related statements. He's providing a fairly balanced view; on the one hand, he says that Palin has sometimes gone over the line, while on the other hand saying that some people have overreacted. Then people can go to the sub-article to get more detailed info about what she's said. Does that seem okay?

I'll try rephrasing so it puts it in our own words, rather than quoting so much.Ferrylodge (talk) 00:56, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi Ferrylodge, It just seems out of place coming at the end of that paragrapgh and also its in the section on political positions which I am not sure about. Anyways, --Tom 01:12, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Some rephrasing maybe to make it fit into the sub. I don't see the need of keeping it on her main article. (Surprised, Ferrylodge? ;) ). Regards, --Floridianed (talk) 01:29, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

What was needed there was a subheading reading "Religious perspective on public life". Then perhaps maybe it would stand.LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 16:45, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

The National Enquirer as BLP per Wiki Policy

A little confused , read earlier on , on this discussion page, a topic discussing the National Enguirer. The Enguirer has broken stories about John Edwards, Palins daughter pregnancy that turn out to be factual. However I gather on the Wiki this is not a reliable source.

Please expand on this and BlP --MisterAlbert (talk) 18:37, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

In order to be a reliable source, it's not sufficient that a publication sometimes contain stories that turn out to be true. The question is what its methods are and what proportion of its stories are true, and whether people generally consider it a reliable source. —KCinDC (talk) 18:52, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Like someone else pointed out, a broken watch is still right twice a day. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 03:26, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

It seems to me that the source of the article may be less relevant than the sourcing contained within an article. If a National Enquirer article is well sourced it should be valid (verifiable names and circumstances). Meanwhile, reportage from the NYT and Newsweek is often speculative with anonymous sourcing and biased opinion. So there you go. I would point out that reading an article you can usually tell whether it's legit by the standards of slander. (Wallamoose (talk) 08:54, 14 September 2008 (UTC))

FWIW editors at John Edwards strenuously resisted adding any mention of his problems while the Enquirer was the only source, including the time period when major news outlets were reporting that the Enquirer had such a story, but before those outlets independently ran the same info the Enquirer made public ahead of them. In short, if it's just the Enquirer the consensus there was not reliable enough for inclusion. Your mileage may vary. Kaisershatner (talk) 13:36, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Religious Perspective - discussion

I have a question for editors: What is the best way to include material that is relevant to this person's notability, and that it is sourced to verifiable sources? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:12, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

The best way to do that is to abide by consensus, and BLP guidelines. It seems abundantly clear that there was no consensus for reinserting this highly disputed text. "The burden of proof is on those who wish to retain, restore, or undelete disputed material".[8]

Not all relevant and sourced material about this person belongs in this article. See WP:Summary style.Ferrylodge (talk) 02:19, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

The religious sections purpose is to take material based on religion not relevant in other sections, and give them a place to be relevant.Atomaton 03:01, 14 September 2008[9]

The material in that proposed religion section is either personal in nature or political in nature, and therefore would be relevant to the already-existing sections on personal life and/or political positions. There was never a consensus to insert that new religion section into this article, so you are just imposing your will instead of the will of the consensus.Ferrylodge (talk) 03:15, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

There is also a big misunderstanding in the !votes above. All material in an article is "POV", and there is nothing wrong with that. What NPOV means is that we present all significant viewpoints about a subject. Please re-read WP:NPOV if you have not done so yet. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:15, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

My highlight:

content must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), representing fairly, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources.

≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:16, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

NPOV requires that material be presented in a balanced way, and without giving undue weight to any material. That was one of the reasons why many people (including myself) objected to creating a huge religion section that repeats things in other sections, and does not properly summarize what's in the sub-articles.

This article already contains a section on her "Personal life" and a section on her "Political positions". That is enough. If you think her religious veiws affect her political positions, then put it in the political positions section (or sub-article). If you, on the other hand, think there are aspects of her religious views that are purely personal, then put them into the section on her personal life. Creating a new separate section is redundant, unnecessary, and gives undue weight to her religious views.

Also, I'm not sure it really makes any difference what I think, but my opinion is that you ought not to have removed the Wall Street Journal material, which you did here and here. Yes, it is technically from a "blog" but Wikipedia guidelines say: "Some newspapers host interactive columns that they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professionals and the blog is subject to the newspaper's full editorial control."[10]Ferrylodge (talk) 02:52, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't think the blog quoted Palin. The opinion of others, about what Palin's values are, whether from a bad source like a blog, or a good source like the Washington Post aren't appropriate. Citations that report on what Palin said or did are appropriate. Atom (talk) 03:01, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Secondary sources are preferred to primary sources. This article is not supposed to be a long string of quotes of what Palin said.Ferrylodge (talk) 03:02, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

@Ferrylodge. Basically, Palin's religious views are a notable (if not the most notable) aspect of this person's life. As such we have an abundant number of sources that describe her religion and how it has shaped her. There is no element of WP:UNDUE, on the very contrary. Not including a substantial section on her religious background and religion influence in her life and her politics is the violation of WP:UNDUE. Search for "Sarah Palin" and "religion" in Google: 500,000 pages. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:48, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree that Palin's religious views are a very notable aspect of her life. Therefore, I have no problem giving them substantial coverage at Wikipedia. We can have a substantial discussion about her personal views in the Personal life section, and then a substantial discussion in the Political positions section, and an even more substantial discussion in the Political positions sub-article. We do not need to create overlap and redundancy by creating a separate huge religion section. What notable aspect of her religion is unrelated to her personal life and political positions? None, I would say.Ferrylodge (talk) 03:57, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Mmmm.... If one is to judge by the enormous amount of attention the national and international press is giving to her religious upbringing and what has manifested in her career as a politician, I would argue that we may need a separate sub-article just on this. Granted, it could be added to the Political positions subarticle, but most probably will grow big enough there to warrant a subarticle and a good summary here. So, I would continue adding material and invite others to do the same, and when we have too much, we summarize and spin off. meta:Wiki_is_not_paperWikipedia is no paper. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:40, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Spinning off a sub-article from the Political positions article would be fine with me. But to do that, you would have to add your tons of religious material to....Political positions of Sarah Palin. Why are you adding it to this article against consesnsus?Ferrylodge (talk) 04:55, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

So here it is in a nutshell then? Ignore consensus, ignore BLP guidelines, and now....shut down the discussion about removing the separate section. Brilliant.Ferrylodge (talk) 04:04, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

What consensus? Is there consensus for deletion of that material? Which one of my edits violate BLP? None, as far as I can see, as all are well sourced. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:43, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

There is a consensus not to insert a separate section in this article on her religion. And since you are inserting a separate section, you are going against the consensus, and violating the BLP guidelines that say (and you know this because I've quoted it before): "The burden of proof is on those who wish to retain, restore, or undelete disputed material".[11] If you think that Palin's political positions are affected by her religion, then put it in the article about Political positions of Sarah Palin which can be summarized here in this article. If you fill up Political positions of Sarah Palin with this religion stuff, then create a sub-article of Political positions of Sarah Palin. It's not rocket science.Ferrylodge (talk) 04:55, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

@Atom: Citations that report on what Palin said or did are appropriate. Not exactly. We do not report on what Palin says about herself; we also can quote what sources say about her, per WP:NPOV ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:51, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

I said (in many places all over tha talk page) facts that are supported by reliable citations. That inherently means that we are giving a reference to another source, not reporting ourselves. I don't know where you got the idea that I had supported addition of uncited, or unreliable sources of reporting. Atom (talk)

Rather than delete this section, and given the abundant sources on the subject, best would be to endeavor in developing this section to a point in which it can we can spin it off to a sub article and summarize it here when we are done. This will be a much better use our our time. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:01, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

I disagree, and lots of other editors disagree too. Please see WP:Consensus. You can add all this religion stuff to Political positions of Sarah Palin, and spin-off a sub-article from that article if you fill it up to capacity.Ferrylodge (talk) 04:55, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Again, another opinion. Having a consensus would have been even better than your opinion, my friend. Atom (talk) 14:06, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

I disagree, too and I think policy disagrees. This is a BLP. Use a sandbox, a userpage, another article, an existing article, this talk page, a subpage of this talk or do it offline; but, do not include material on this page which has no consensus. WTucker (talk) 12:29, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Please keep up with the conversation, The discussion for consensus was regarding a section for religion, not on any particular quote or content. We did get consensus for having such a section at one point. The survey was discussion on whether there was consensus to not have that section. (to change consensus from before). People disagreed that there was a previous consensus. Nevertheless there was an effort to build a new consensus underway before Hobartimus unilaterally decided that our opinions were less important than his. There was no need for a sandbox, as the content that was within the section was small, but met all of the standards for inclusion. I think essentially, Hobartimus waited until someone added some uncited opinion to the section that violated BLP, and then deleted the whole section on the violation of BLP basis, including the content met the standards, as well. Removing the material that is in violation of BLP, and letting us finish the conseus process would have been more preferred. Atom (talk) 16:11, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

I believe I have kept up with the conversation. (see [12]). The restoring deleted content section applies to all content on a BLP at all times. The discussion involves the entire section. Maybe this is a baby-out-with-the-bath-water situation but so be it. This is to "... ensure that biographical material of living people is always policy-compliant ..." (emphasis mine). WTucker (talk) 19:13, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I should have stated that differently. I guess that you threw the baby out with the bathwater too. A good portion of what you removed was not in violation of BLP. None of it had been contested. If a person were to add one of the non BLP compliant paragraphs into the Political views section, would that have been justification to remove the entire political views section? Had I seen the article at the point where you removed the entire content, I would have removed non BLP compliant stuff, and left the non-contested information. Also, the discussion has never been about any of the content, it is about whether to have a section for Religious Perspective, not whether editors liked the content of any of a number of versions of the section. Of course, if we choose to have a section the content has to meet Wikipedia policies. No one suggested otherwise. Atom (talk) 20:00, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

All material is, by definition, in violation of BLP if it is restored "... without significant change ..." and without consensus after being removed. That is what the restoring deleted content section says. This material had been removed several times, by several editors. Consensus had been sought but not obtained, yet there it remained in the article. This is a BLP violation. It had to go pending consensus or significant change. I personally think this would be a very good policy to follow religiously (<smile>) in this and any other BLP.WTucker (talk) 23:06, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Are we back on this? I am with Ferrylodge and I think even with Atom to a large degree - there is clear, consistent, and now longstanding consensus here that a separate section on religion is not appropriate for this bio article. There is also clear consensus that due to the importance of religion in Palin's life, that well-cited secondary sources regarding the influence of her religion on her Personal life and Political positions should go into those sections. Jossi, you are passionately advocating what is a minority view here, but I think you are in the majority about wanting to add sourced info to the article - let's work on that rather than refighting the separate section question? Kaisershatner (talk) 13:42, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Front page of the New York Times

Material that could be added to this and related articles:

• "Once Elected, Palin Hired Friends and Lashed Foes - NYTimes.com". Retrieved 2009-09-13.

≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:16, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

One thing interesting about this piece, is its full of names, instead of unnamed sources. Should avoid the weasel word problem nicely.--Tznkai (talk) 15:53, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Maybe we should start a separate section about it in the main article, eh Jossi? And we don't need no stinkin' consensus either!  :-)Ferrylodge (talk) 04:19, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

I will ignore the sarcasm, as it is not useful. As for this source, material can be added to the different subarticles as needed. I just added a short sentence to the Reception section. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:35, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Wow, the Times is really getting desperate. You could change the names and places in this article and it would apply to basically any American politician. "Reform politician fires old bureaucrats and brings in new blood"? What's next - "Sky is Blue"? :) Kelly ^hi! 15:46, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

The article in question is full of remarks which a Journalism Professor would blue pencil in a flash. It is full of assertions without facts behind them, hearsay material, anonymous sources and the like. Example: "A former real estate agent, Ms. Havemeister cited her childhood love of cows as a qualification for running the roughly $2 million agency." The article fails to state whether this was the only qualification, or one comment among many. The use of "a qualification" rather suggests the latter. "Ms. Havemeister was one of at least five schoolmates Ms. Palin hired, often at salaries far exceeding their private sector wages. " is a definite "D'oh" moment. The article does not assert that anyone was paid more than similar employees of the state. "But an examination of her swift rise and record as mayor of Wasilla and then governor finds that her visceral style and penchant for attacking critics — she sometimes calls local opponents “haters” — contrasts with her carefully crafted public image." is blatant editorializing in what ought to be a straight news article. Ought WP allow such statements merely because they are found in the New York Times? Collect (talk) 18:49, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

• In my opinion, this is clearly an editorial by the NYT (which continues to degrade in quality as a reliable source) and should clearly be stated as such. -- Dougie WII (talk) 18:58, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

  Yeah, the NYT is having to lay off reporters and staff like crazy as their business model is failing and their stock price is dropping - I guess it's to be expected that their quality is really hurting now. Kelly ^hi! 19:29, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

• Something is amok. We now have multiple references to one NYT article, inclusion of editorial material about Palin, and even a strong statement that a Democratic party organization opposes her. And wholseale re-onclusion of material which was determined, as far as I can tell, by consensus not to belong. I suspect the next "TalkingPoints" memo will be in the article apace. Collect (talk) 22:43, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

The apologists for Palin go one lie and distortion too far. For example, the contributor who charges (falsely) that the NYTimes "editorializes" herself is editorializing, given that he/she (a) lies outright as to what the 9/14/08 article in question SPECIFICALLY notes the LACK OF RELEVANT EXPERIENCE, EDUCATION, and QUALIFICATIONS of Palin's appointees, and that her choices reflects grotesque examples of patronage of the worst sort and a sneering disregard for intellect, competence, and education--a typical Rightwing politique de resentiment and CRONYISM that undergirded the Republicans' immorally incompetent response to Katrina, let alone the fiasco of the Iraq invasion (b) said Palinista attempts to distort the record by suggesting that all politicians pay their state employees higher than the private rate; this is utterly unsupported by the statistics, and the claim is in itself a grotesque canard so popular with Conservatives in general, i.e., "government is the problem." No, a political figure who uses her Party's ideology to reward her unqualified, uneducated, and uninformed friends with important positions in government CREATES problems in government, n'est-ce pas ("D'oh"). Furthermore, one notes how, for example, the Palinista in question attempts to impugn the NY Times for REPORTING Palin's penchant for demonizing her opponents as "Haters" rather than refuting their positions on the merits; this is the AD HOMINEM logical fallacy on the part of Palin, one that by the rules of logic and rhetoric is considered FALSE in content, UNETHICAL in choice, and COWARDLY in execution. Had the NY Times included this, one could have charged the Times with "editorializing." As it is, the NY Times reported on a very disturbing, and al too inconvenient truth, with respect to Palin's style of governance. In the interest of truth, Wikipedia must run with what the NY Times has reported, asthe reveals quite a bit about Palin's character ( or lack thereof), her hypocrisy and untruthfulness ( of which there is ample evidence, e.g., her blatantly self-serving lies about the "bridge to nowhere," her "selling-the-jet-through-e-mail" fiction, etc., etc., and her blatant anti-intellectualism. In other words, " Ought WP allow such Palin propaganda merely because her supporters are found posting their distortions as "facts" on Wiki? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.22.243.148 (talk) 16:41, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

• I may not agree with Palin's policies, but this is not a forum, where a wall of text showing opinionated remarks is particularly welcome. Please edit down your comment to get your main points across in the future, or you may receive less "good faith" warnings in the future. Thanks. Duuude007 (talk) 16:45, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Dear Duuude 007: There is nothing "good faith" about your (not so) implicit threats, which you pass off as "warnings" but are in fact nothing less than censorship, your pleadings to disagreeing with Palin's "positions" notwithstanding. We can assume that Bill Clinton also "disagreed" with a number of Hillary's positions as well, but that did not make him a disinterested party. As it is, I have enumerated the facts, which neither you nor any other party can deny in good conscience (e.g., the hypocrisy of the aggrieved Palin supporter with respect to the so-called "editorializing NY Times when he/she blatantly editorializes on behalf of his/her preferred candidate in question; the blatant bias in summarizing what the the NY Times actually reported; the attempt to obfuscate Palin's replacing one "Good Ole Boy" network with her own, hers a network of cadres whose education, experience, and fealty to the people--and NOT the candidate--are dubious in the extreme. If Wikipedia is to promulgate the facts and not the Republican or Democratic Party talking points, its contributors must adhere to the program's supposed ethos, ideals, and rules-of-the-road in this regard. As it is, a discerning reader clearly finds logical fallacies, outright canards, shibboleths--and now "warnings"--that in sum can only generate outrage in the aforementioned reader. The facts stand for themselves. The tone of my response, for one, is commensurate to the assault on the truth on the part of Palin's supporters. Your "warning" --a thinly veiled threat to delete, censor, and silence --is thus, is ever so telling as to what and where your priorities reside... "Duuude." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.22.243.148 (talk) 18:35, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I highly recommend you refactor your comments for readability and relevance or they may be removed because of their soapbox like nature. Accusations against other editors are strongly discouraged.--Tznkai (talk) 18:39, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I think the anonymous ranter makes some of my points much more clearly that he or she realizes. Collect (talk) 20:23, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

America's Hottest Governor

Palin was declared America's Hottest Governor by Alaska Magazine (Feb. 2008). Thought it might be worth mentioning. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.197.139.124 (talk) 07:01, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Alaska Magazine of Alaska votes the Governor of Alaska "America's Hottest Governor"? That must be notable. Totally. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:39, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, she's definitely Alaska's hottest governor.  :-) Ferrylodge (talk) 17:48, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Umm, they clearly forgot about Alfred_P._Swineford when choosing a winner for this title. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.115.172.230 (talk) 06:05, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

From Swineford's wife's name -- Psyche Flower -- I tend to conjure up a mental image of a pretty fetching Victorian first-lady for the territorial of Alaska, then, too.  $\sim$ Justmeherenow (  ) 06:31, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Time to re-rate article?

Hello. I was wondering why this article is still rated as B-Class? I looked through it, and it seems to meet the criteria for an A-Class or even GA article status. Should it be reassessed? --Tempodivalse (talk) 14:47, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

GA requires that the article is stable and this is far from being such. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:55, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

My opinion is that it is too volatile at this point. As it is constantly changing and in a state of flux, it would fail to meet GA standards five minutes after it was rated. We should wait until we aren't getting fifty to a hundred edits a day. Atom (talk) 15:58, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Until after silly season, if not the election is over in otherwords.--Tznkai (talk)

I am sure that the article will go under massive changes as election day approaches. Now is not the time to even remotely consider a change in rating. Wait till the debates begin...changes will be fast and furious.--Buster7 (talk) 16:08, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm. I didn't think of that... Yes, it would be better to wait. Thanks for the feedback! Tempodivalse (talk) 16:30, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

This article still has a very unfair tone about it. This should be more objective and stay stronger to facts instead of cherry picking and posting quotes that appear out of context. Wikipedia has taken a beating lately for having a very biased tone it's everyone's responsibility to be fair. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.100.94.149 (talk) 23:21, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Cultural and political image of Sarah Palin

FYI, I've nominated that sub-article for deletion, and all editors are invited to comment here.

Also, I believe that the following material summarizes what is in Political positions of Sarah Palin and therefore ought to be moved to the "Political positions" of this article:

She has encountered some criticism for making remarks about religion that go beyond what a modern American politician typically says.[1] Palin has stated that she would not allow her personal religious beliefs to dictate her political positions.[2]

[1] Waldman, Steven. “The Passion of Palin: Separating Real Concerns From the Hysteria”, Wall Street Journal (2008-09-09). Regarding this WSJ source, please note: "Some newspapers host interactive columns that they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professionals and the blog is subject to the newspaper's full editorial control." See Wikipedia:BLP#Reliable_sources.

[2]Kaye, Randi. "Pastor: GOP may be downplaying Palin's religious beliefs", CNN, (2008-09-12)

Ferrylodge (talk) 22:06, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Per WP:SUMMARY we need to have summary of sub-articles in this article. I have restored the summary. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:09, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Jossi, how many times do you want the prayer thing mentioned in the article? You've duplicated it again. Kelly ^hi! 03:14, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

A politician's public image is akin to a painter's critical acclaim (/disclaimation). The artist perfects a certain technique and critics' react, "How innovative!" and "Hell, that's not art!" Whereas a notable politician gains or loses traction, in part through certain aspects of his background and image, to which the public's reactions are positive and negative.  $\sim$ Justmeherenow (  ) 04:07, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Removal Of Energy Subsection & Historic Lawsuit Info

Dear all,

Forgive me if I'm doing this wrong. I've never written anything in a Wikipedia discussion before. Since my original article for the Discussion section has disappeared (though I can find no evidence that it was deleted for any reason by the editors, or considered inappropriate) I am attempting to re-post it here, albeit in edited form.

If no one here thinks that the first ever vice-presidential running-mate to sue her own party's currently elected government during her run for the office of vice-president is not a fact of historical, necessary note about Palin, then I don't know what is. The only conceivable reason to object to this information's inclusion in this article would be a desire to willfully mislead the readers of this article via such a noteworthy omission, something I would never believe the Wikipedia editors to want. The historic nature of this lawsuit is worth mentioning, as is the fact that it has already been filed by Palin against the Bush administration.

The Political Positions subsection in the main Sarah Palin, has the following reference:

"and initiated a lawsuit over the federal listing of the polar bear[164]..."

So there is currently a mention of the suit, but no mention of whom it has been filed against. I feel this is an important omission that should be corrected, please.

The following link is yet another relevant citation regarding the lawsuit (along with Tag 164 and 165 that are already currently included in the main Wikipedia article on Sarah Palin):

http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/story?id=5689165&page=1

This information has been placed in an alternate Wikipedia article regarding Palin's positions (currently in the Polar Bears subsection) where it remains unchallenged:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Sarah_Palin

Since I am relatively new to Wikipedia, I do not have the authority to edit the article, since it currently remains locked under Semi-Protected status. I would appreciate someone with the proper authority looking at the text I have presented here, as well as the amended text in the alternate article, and then editing the mention of the suit to reflect whom it has been filed against. I would also appreciate someone adding a link to this "Political positions of Sarah Palin" article on the main Sarah Palin article, as it seems appropriate.

SolesGirlRachel (talk) 06:10, 15 September 2008 (UTC) 2:10am, 15 September 2008 - (I did a massive self-edit of my discussion article here to reflect that suit is now mentioned, but there is still no mention of whom suit has been filed against)

SolesGirlRachel (talk) 05:41, 15 September 2008 (UTC)1:40am, 15 September 2008

I am not sure exactly what the problem is. The article currently says "Palin has promoted oil and natural gas resource exploitation in Alaska, including in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR),[75] and initiated a lawsuit over the federal listing of the polar bear[164] and Cook Inlet beluga whale as an endangered species.[165][166]" That obviously mentions the lawsuit and her opposition to adding the two species to the endangered list (but incorrectly says that the lawsuit is over the Beluga as well). That's the main issue. As per our summary style we cannot go into every detail, and the ongoing status of the lawsuit is not terribly important to her biography. It may belong in the article on her governorship or in some other article. Also, please don't make too much of information being in or out of the article. Sometimes that is the deliberate act of one or more editors, sometimes it is an actual consensus, and sometimes that is just a result of rapid back and forth editing that goes on here. Stuff gets dropped when people make a lot of edits. Wikidemon (talk) 05:53, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

An appropriate edit would be as follows:

"...and initiated a lawsuit against the federal government over its Endangered Species Act listing of the polar bear [164][165]."

I cannot yet find any citations that would indicate the Cook Inlet beluga whale's status is involved with this lawsuit, and therefore that should edited also.

SolesGirlRachel (talk) 06:25, 15 September 2008 (UTC) 2:25am, 15 September 2008

Dear SolesGirlRachel, when you say "I've never written anything in a Wikipedia discussion before," did you forget when you posted this exact query here two days ago?[13] This one has been asked and answered. Best wishes, Kaisershatner (talk) 14:59, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Approval rating over 80%

It says in the article that Sarah Palin "has maintained a high approval rating throughout her term (as Governor of Alaska)". According to this video (0.34) her approval rating is "over 80%"... and that "it is videly seen as something of a phenomena". If that is true, I'd suggest the percentage figure also be included in the article. --Hapsala (talk) 03:56, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Go right ahead.LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 04:00, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Youtube videos are not considered a reliable source but if you'd like to include it you can find reliable sources. Regards, --Floridianed (talk) 04:15, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

The part seems to be from a CBS News show, and that should be rather reliable. The question is from where CBS News got the statistics. --Hapsala (talk) 04:22, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Once again: Youtube is not considered a reliable source! You need to back it up with a (reliable) 3rd party source to incl. a video as add on, otherwise it is WP:OR. --Floridianed (talk) 04:39, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

The Population Density for the State of Alaska is 1.1%. For All of the U.S. it is 79.6% (which, of course, includes the low Alaskan figure). Also, her approval rating her first term was 90%...so, it declined 12%. You might reconsider your effort to include.--Buster7 (talk) 04:43, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

What does population density have to do with anything? Are you suggesting a sentence like: Palin has maintained a remarkable popularity with the electorate, over 90% in her first year and 80% for most of her second year as governor, but there aren't as many people in Alaska as Manhattan so it really doesn't matter? Further, are you suggesting that a favorable percentage of 80% means she isn't popular because it is down from 92%?--Paul (talk) 12:17, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Surely population density is measured in people/area. How do you get 1.1%? Percent of what? I looked at population density and there are no percentages there. Thehalfone (talk) 14:32, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

First, I never suggested using the Youtube video as a source. Second, I have no "efforts" to include anything in the article. But approval ratings of 80-90% seem notable enough to be included. If the ratings are true, it shouldn't be hard to could come up with relevant sources. --Hapsala (talk) 11:38, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

• Here is another section of this Talk page advocating inclusion of these facts: Talk:Sarah Palin#High Approval Ratings. It includes a citation resource.--Paul (talk) 12:50, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

• Support. Approval ratings over 80% are usually not heard of outside countries such as North Korea. So I think Sarah's approval rating of up to 90% (?) is very notable and should be mentioned with a couple of proper sources. --Polipopo (talk) 23:50, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

@ Thehalfone...These are U.S. Census figures. The state of Alaska has 1.1 person per square mile. @ Paul The approval ratings are fine...above average. I merely pointed out there was a noticable decline.--Buster7 (talk) 12:40, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Why is this so filled with democrat talking points?

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

Closed per WP:TALK - general rants about Wikipedia and other editors are not appropriate for a talk page. There are blogs for this. This should probably be simply deleted. - Wikidemon (talk) 16:31, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Not surprisngly, Obama's wiki is wiped squeaky clean and filled with its own democrat talking points. How can wikipedia ever hope to have any credibility when it is nothing more than a leftist crank? William Ayers isn't even in Obama's wiki, for instance, an american terrorist who Obama calls "respectable" yet this wiki talks about Palin saying a certain Book didn't belong in a public library? Ebery time I come here this place is worse and worse, have the fascist leftist completely overran all the other amins here now? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.190.29.150 (talk) 06:51, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

There is no such thing as a "facist" leftist. Facists are by their nature "right wing." (this was not signed) I fear that when some people decide to make literally hundreds of edits, other than minor ones, that the temptation is for them to insert their own points of view to the exclusion of others. This is an excellent reason for fully locking a cleaned-up version of the page to reduce any such temptation. I would note that the Obama page has been locked for extended periods of time, and that some of those who might be editting here supported the locking of the Obama page. Collect (talk) 13:56, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

no, you are wrong. Fascism is inherently LEFT wing. That's one of many liberal lies, on of their sacred cows of misiniformation. Try educating yourself on reality. The Nazis were called a SOCIALIST party for a reason. But this is not a debate I'm interested in having. The only debate I'm interested in is the constant bias on wikipedia and the lack of the admins ever doing anything to stop it, and in fact going out of their way to help it along, particularly in leftist cause celebre, like getting Obama elected no matter hw many lies and half truths they have to spew out to achieve it, how many wikis they will have to distort. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.190.29.150 (talk) 16:17, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I just want to know why comment made about a book not belonging in a public library is notable for Palin, yet Obama's wiki leaves out mention of his letters written in support of Rezko's slum lord projects, a man convicted and mired in corruption. Why is there no mention of his association with ayers when Obama insists this American terrorist who bombed our own citizens and government is "meainstream" and "respectable". Why Obama says all he knows about Ayers is that he lives near him, yet the minutes of Anneberg groups various meetings show they had substantial contact with one another. Why is there no mention in Obama's wiki about his ties to ACORN??? Why are the admionstartors poisoning wikipedia to protect obama either directly or indirectly by sticking their heads in the sand. I want answers not more censorship. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.190.29.150 (talk) 01:46, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

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

edit please?

Could someone fix this section under Background and Family life:

"She has encountered some criticism for making remarks about religion that go beyond what a modern American politician typically says.[185] Palin has stated that she would not allow her personal religious beliefs to dictate her political positions.[186]

Palin has stated that she would not allow her personal religious beliefs to dictate her political positions.[186] Despite, Palin's religious views have come under scrutiny by the media.[187][188][189]"

There are all sorts of things wrong with it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.184.229.223 (talk) 12:14, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

You have not said what changes you would want, or why. Wikidemon (talk) 16:32, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

This has been discussed below.Ferrylodge (talk) 16:36, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Public Safety Commissioner Dismissal

Who turned what was getting close to an accurate synopsis into garbage? This "summary" needs a major revert. Spiff1959 (talk) 13:26, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Reception section

I think half of this section is WP:NOTNEWS and the other half belongs in the article on the 2008 campaign. Thoughts? And while I love that the American Jewish community is getting proper respect for its political influence (woohoo!) it strikes me as strange that her impact on Jewish voters on both sides of the aisle gets such prominent discussion in her biography article. Kaisershatner (talk) 13:50, 15 September 2008 (UTC):

Overall, the choice of Palin was well-received by potential supporters, with a series of polls suggesting that Palin gave a major boost to John McCain's campaign and excited the Republican base.[138] Since Palin was largely unknown outside of Alaska prior to her selection by McCain, her personal life, positions, and political record became the focus of intense media attention and scrutiny.[139][140] Some Republicans felt that Palin was being subjected to unreasonable media coverage,[141] and a poll found that slightly more than half of Americans believed that the press was "trying to hurt" Palin with negative coverage, a sentiment referenced by Palin in her acceptance speech. Polls conducted immediately after the speech found that Palin was viewed favorably by a majority of respondents.[142][143][144]

The choice of Palin polarized voters and energized the Republican base. The McCain campaign reversed its poll deficit, and Palin may have boosted support among white women.[145][146] A WSJ/NBC News poll taken September 9 indicated 34% of respondents were more likely to vote for McCain as a result of the Palin pick while 25% were less likely.[147]

Palin appeared on the covers of Newsweek and Time, which had been critical of the level of media access to Palin allowed by the McCain campaign .[148] Her first interview with the press, with Charles Gibson of ABC News, aired on September 12. In the interview, Palin answered questions about her experience, national security, Iraq and the Bush Doctrine.[149]

According to the Washington Times, Palin's faith has made her a "favorite with the staunchly pro-Israel neoconservative elements in the Republican Party." Palin displays an Israeli flag in her governor's office in Juneau. Palin has received a strong endorsement from the Republican Jewish Coalition,[150] but has also been called "totally out of step with Jewish public opinion" by the National Jewish Democratic Council.[151]

I was amazed that the Democrats do not support her. Well, this is one more case where I think deletion should be done. The entire section is rife with material not properly in this article. Collect (talk) 14:01, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Subarticles

There are two subarticles that have split and reorganized/merged into separate articles due to size constraints of this article. Because of this, per Template:Main policy, the template was added at the bottom of the primary Sarah Palin article, as designed. It was listed as such:

Main articles: Alaska Public Safety Commissioner dismissal and Gravina Island Bridge

Threeafterthree has reverted it twice today for the reason of "already linked above"... That shouldn't be the point. The point is, these are direct sub articles of the mother article Sarah Palin, literally split, but intended to link back to each other, because they are tied to the biography of a living person, and as such, should have a specific location on the article where they are referenced. Duuude007 (talk) 15:11, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi Duuude007, those sub articles are already linked in the main article where it makes sense to the related material. Why add these again under a see also section or elsewhere? TIA --Tom 15:15, 15 September 2008 (UTC)ps. To be honest, I am not that firmilar with that main template. Hopefully this is just a MOS issue. --Tom 15:17, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

• Our styleguide says that if a related article is linked in the article, it should not appear in a "See also" section. This rule doesn't apply to its appearance in navigation box templates (which should look the same on every page on which they are used), but it does certainly apply to creating a "Subarticles" text section, which is just a more limited form of a "See also" section. GRBerry 19:58, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

More Religion - "remarks about religion that go beyond what a modern American politician"

Someone keeps introducing this editorial comment into the Personal section, but it's not sourced properly from the citation. It appears to be an arbitrary conclusion of reading the referenced blog and certainly not everyone would arrive at, i.e. others would disagree that her comments "go beyond what a modern American politician" might say. Review Obama's address to a church congregation at [14] and it's clear the statement is inaccurate even among the current candidates. Suggest it be removed. Fcreid (talk) 15:37, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I removed it since it was stated as fact when its an editors opinion. Maybe reintroduce with quotation and supplied cedit to author. --Tom 16:01, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Looks like someone shortened it to "She has encountered some criticism for making remarks about religion." I like the shortened version. It's true, after all.Ferrylodge (talk) 16:01, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Truth is a good thing and so rare nowadays (particularly in this article!) Fcreid (talk) 16:24, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Ferrylodge, please don't tell me we are in agreement :) I must be getting soft :) Cheers, --Tom 16:02, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry.  :) Ferrylodge (talk) 16:04, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Ton of stuff

It looks like a ton of stuff has just been inserted into this article, without any talk page discussion or edit summary. I'd revert but don't want to get into 3RR land. The material repeats rather than summarizes what is in the sub-articles, so it does not conform to WP:Summary style. I do love the Beluga Whales and the Polar Bears, but the inserted material is excessive.Ferrylodge (talk) 19:19, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

So, uh, do MisterAlbert and Tpbradbury have any inclination to discuss anything at the talk page, or not?Ferrylodge (talk) 19:36, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree with your assessment that this is a duplication of the Political Positions article. Since I haven't reverted anything today, I'll do it. If it get's put back in, it should be reverted again noting the proviso that anything reverted from a BLP needs consensus to re-insert.--Paul (talk) 19:38, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I note that the political positions article was protected today due to edit warring over whether or not to have the images of the animals included in that article. Draw your own conclusions. GRBerry 19:41, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I cut those sections down by about 90%. I think it is arguable whether to include them at all as subsections, but at least they now pertain to Palin. Kaisershatner (talk) 19:49, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Waaaaay too much detail. There should not be any pictures of whales, polar bears, or wolves on this page, no matter how tasty Ferrylodge finds them :) Surely we can produce a concise summary of the endangered species stuff? Like a paragraph at most? MastCell ^Talk 19:50, 15 September 2008 (UTC) Addendum: The shorter version is a huge improvement. MastCell ^Talk 19:51, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Just for the record, MC, I love them alive and thriving.  :-) Ferrylodge (talk) 20:07, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Quotes out of context, tabloid dirt and more has been repeatedly inserted in this article. It needs a revert back for 24 hours, and a strong padlock to prevent those who might be easily tempted to continue the insertion of material which would not be allowed in other articles. Collect (talk) 19:57, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Category creep

The article has become a category magnet, with currently nearly two dozen various "Sarah Palin is..." categories attached to the article. I'm thinking there are a number of categories that aren't core identifiers for her, and should be considered for removal. I propose these be removed:

American hunters, American journalists, American sports announcers, Americans of English descent, Americans of German descent, Americans of Irish descent, American women mayors, Parents of people with Down syndrome, Mayors of places in Alaska

Which would leave...

Future election candidates, 1964 births, Sarah Palin, Alaska Republicans, American Christians, American women state governors, Conservatives, Governors of Alaska, Living people, Republican Party (United States) vice presidential nominees, People from Bonner County, Idaho, University of Idaho alumni, and 2008 Republican National Convention

That's still thirteen categories, but much more in line with what we would usually see on an especially notable politician's biography. Thoughts?   user:j    (aka justen)   02:09, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Ten categories removed. Erik the Red 2 (AVE·CAESAR) 02:16, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Brief Survey -- Religious Perspective

I am asking for a survey to poll views on the section "Religious Perspective". Another editor insists that there exists a consensus to remove that section, I will let him or others express their reasoning for that. This is an attempt to respect his needs and ask for a consnesus to remove the section.

After having to repeatedly edit out religious based information that editors kept adding to the personal section on the basis that it was not relevent to that section, I discussed and created a section specifically for religious issues. I feel that this benefits the article in many ways.

• As a matter of NPOV, allowing a place for the subject's religious perspectives to be expressed, rather than being not allowed in other sections on the basis that it is not on topic.

• A brief mention of a view, such as her viewpoint on Creationism on the political views section, only gives a brief summary of what she has said. Attempts at longer explanations have been surpressed, on the basis that the one topic could dominate the section, intended as a bried summary of political positions. The religious perspectives section allows for a deatiled, and therefore less biased description as to what she actually has said, instead of a brief summary like "Palin supports teaching of Creationism in schools".

• In the personal views section, it is intended to briefly give some pertinent facts about Palin, such as that she is married, her husbands and kids, hobbies, and churches she attends. Because the topic of church is mentioned, people take this as a convenient place to put quotes about her religious pserpective, opinions, when and where she was baptized, and a variety of other things that is more detailed than intended for the section. The religious perspective allows for those people to document (with cites) all of those things, and more in an appropriate place, dedicated to discussion of religious perspective.

• In other sections the same phenomena occurs, people begin to put religious related data about Palin in those sections, and then complain that even though it is a true fact, notable and reliably cited that it has been removed. Usually this is because the information is off topic for that section. A religious perspective section acts as landing pad for that information, protecting the integrity of the other sections.

• It is true that this section gives a place where strong bias can (temporarily) be placed. In the long run, non NPOV and incited information will be removed. In the meantime, the battle over whether it hsould be there or not is in one place, not spread thorughout the article.

Objections I have seen:

• Information is put in the article twice. For instance, in the political views seciton it mentions Creationism. And in the religious view it mentiones creationism again.

This is by intention. The summary is in one section, and the detail in a more appropriate section. The fact that the first reference is one sentence, and the second one or more paragraphs is the purpose of the section.

• We don't want to give out her religious viewpoints. Religion is a private matter, and not notable. We should not pre-judge her actions by assuming they are influenced by her religious viewpoints.

Although this is a valid opinion, there seem to be many people that think that her values, philosophy and integrity are notable, and something they want to know about.

• Expressing all of these religious viewpoints in one place makes her look like a fundamentalist, or some religious nutcase.

We can't help what opinions people choose to form. We can only insure that all information is accurate, notable, and cited with reliable sources. Also, that it is expressed in an NPOV way.

• Expressing her viewpoint on Creationism will bias people, and they will think negatively of her.

It is not our job spin an article. If we accurately express her viewpoint with reliable citations, some group of people will be positively influenced, and some of them negatively influenced, That is the nature of politics. We must endeavor to be accurate, fair and NPOV and let the cards fall where they may.

NOTE: This is a discussion of whether a section for "Religious perspective" should exist in the article. NOT a discussion of the current or some previous version of the content. Any content in the section will, of course, still need to meet all Wikipedia policies.

Please comment on whether you support that the religious section should be removed, or if you oppose deleting the section. This is not a vote, it is an attempt to gain consensus for removing the section. Your reasoning is more important that a specific agree or disagree vote. This survey is brief, and will end at midnight on 9/14/2008.

Please clearly state your position on removal of the section with *Support to remove it or *Oppose to keep it, then sign your comment with ~~~~.

• • Oppose We should allow people to express Palin's religious viewpoints, as long as they are documented in a NPOV manner, and citations from reliable sources are given for those viewpoints. I don't know what the content of the section will end up being, but I think that a section for such content should be in this article. Atom (talk) 22:01, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

This was already discussed for many hours, and the vast majority supported removal: TuckerResearch,[15] Hobartimus,[16] Kaisershatner, [17] Fcreid,[18] 66.214.173.46,[19] Kelly,[20] Theosis4u,[21] W Tucker,[22] and myself. Only three editors supported inclusion, as far as I recall. You have edit-warred to jam this material back into the article, where it currently remains, but "the burden of proof is on those who wish to retain, restore, or undelete disputed material."[23] You already created a section to poll about this.[24] Are you just going to keep creating these poll questions until you get the result you seek?Ferrylodge (talk) 22:13, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

This discussion is about the concept of whether a section on religious perspective should be in the article, not about some previous version of the content and whether you liked the content then or not. The discussions you bring up above are unrelated discussions about the content of this or other sections. The BLP reference does not apply, as we haven't been discussing content that anyone has objected to, we have been discussing my proposal to have a section for "Religious perspective". If we do have such a section, anyone trying to place content in it would indeed have to meet the BLP standards. Atom (talk) 20:21, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

• • Oppose While I have not participated in this discussion, I do monitor it. Our visitors come for information. "It's all part of the soup", said George Harrison.--Buster7 (talk) 22:20, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

The purpose of this survey is to form consensus. Obviously you and I have a difference of perspective. The survey focuses on the direction, by consensus, for the future, and not whatever past misunderstandings may have occured. BTW, I created no such previous poll. My "Arch Nemesis" FairyLodge did that.[25] I have no idea where you are coming from, or formed such outrageous ideas, and apparently you have a similar opinion. Again, this poll gives a clear idea of how editors feel, rather than any claim of their opinion by any individual. I would appreciate it if you would focus on the positive and desist in making negative claims as you continue to do as I find them uncivil, unfriendly, and don't see how they work towards consensus. Atom (talk) 01:44, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

• Support removal. I was looking at Joe Biden, and don't see any "religious viewpoint" section. For example, Biden believes that life begins at conception, but that killing that life is just fine. But that's a personal belief that may not really belong in an overview of his life. I think a similar perspective should apply here. Kelly ^hi! 22:07, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

This is a biography, not a political ad. Her religious views are notable, and an important part of her life. Some other biographies discuss the religious aspects. If the Biden article does not, and there is some notable aspect, it should be brought up in that article. Atom (talk) 20:21, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

• Support removal. The material in this section has many problems, the first being redundancy: the creationism stuff is already in the political positions section. Additionally, the material in this section is already summarized by the Waldman quotes in the last paragraph of the political positions section. See WP:SS.Ferrylodge (talk) 22:13, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

The survey on on whether to have a section on religious perspective, not on the current, or some previous revision of content. Atom (talk) 20:21, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

• Support removal -- As above comments plus not very well sourced, many assertions in the section have been challenged. -- Dougie WII (talk) 22:14, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

We are not commenting on the current content of the section, we are commenting on the purpose of the section. Some of the current content will eventually be removed. The section is for indicating her religious background, values and views based on comments she has made citing reliable sources. Opinions of others of her views are not on topic, and will be removed from the section. Atom (talk) 02:34, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

The survey on on whether to have a section on religious perspective, not on the current, or some previous revision of content. Atom (talk) 20:21, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

• • Oppose removal -- As stated before, the most important thing is that some heading reading dealing with religious views on political issues, with content intact, occurs somewhere in the article. As far as the fact that Obama and McCain and Biden do not have a religious section does not matter here. The reason that they do not is that they have not made controversial religious statements or crossed the private-public line. Bush, on the other hand, should have such a section - the fact that his entry does not have a religious perspective sectio reflects badly on the Bush entry, not well on efforts to omit relevant info about Palin's views on the religious rights in the private versus public sphere.LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 21:50, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

(by the way, the way Ferry formatted things makes it difficult to respond to all of his charges (since he won't allow people to insert comments point for point), such as his constant and misleading repetition of the charge that a certain section was repeated twice, when apparently it was only an editing mistake and no one actually argued with him for 1 single split second with the removal of the duplicate paragraph.)LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 22:29, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Please stop canvassing for votes.[26][27] See WP:Canvassing.Ferrylodge (talk) 22:42, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

I must agree. As I've learned from personal experience, canvassing for votes really does not help the discussion, but creates the appearance of impropriety. That said, anyone who looks at my previous edits will see that I would have found this discussion by myself and voted here anyway.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 15:36, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

• Support removal as stated above x 5. Oppose "landing pad" perspective; AGREE with presenting full information on religious views in personal life and political perspectives sections and allowing people to enter cited material about her religious views. Kaisershatner (talk) 22:26, 13 September 2008 (UTC) (nb I will be afk until tomorrow so you'll have to muddle on w/o me.) :) Kaisershatner (talk) 22:31, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

• • Oppose Removal - Religion is very important to Palin's political and personal life. Indeed it is the source of Palin's strong support among Christian evangelicals that are coming back to the McCain/Palin ticket, according to polls, precisely because of Palin's religious views. To exclude this section would exclude probably the most important part of Palin's draw to the ticket, as many of these evangelicals (e.g. Dobson) refused to support McCain until he put an evangelical on the ticket. Obviously, the section has to be NPOV. But it would be terribly wrong, I think, to remove the section, because it would hide the proverbial "elephant in the room": perhaps the single most powerful political draw of Palin and the primary reason why she was chosen to be put on the ticket. To hide Palin's religion would be like hiding Obama's race. Like it or not, these are the single greatest talked-about trait for both of them.GreekParadise (talk) 22:32, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

• Support Removal - Palin's religious beliefs are adequately and succinctly described in the paragraph within her Personal section in a manner appropriate for a biographical article. Further discussion would only be relevant if there were evidence her beliefs historically influenced her policy decisions. On the contrary, there are multiple obvious examples where she did not let her personal religious beliefs influence governance. Fcreid (talk) 22:50, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

An individuals value system, life philisophy and integrity do affect their decision making. The purpose of the section is to provide information for readers and editors on what her religious background and stated opinions have been. They want to know that because they most frequently choose people who are like themselves in terms of value systems. The section is not intended to make any statement about how she may make decisions, but to inform readers of what her value system may be based on her quotes form reliable sources, as well as actions and decisions related to religion that she has made. Atom (talk) 02:34, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

• • Oppose Removal.Her religious perspective is as much notable in her politics as in her personal life. This is an important and major issue in her life, now more than ever, and should not be omitted neither in her BIO nor in her/McCain's political sub-pages. There is just no question in my mind about it. Regards, --Floridianed (talk) 22:53, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

(add on): That's one of several reasons McCain picked here (to get the GOP base motivated). --Floridianed (talk) 23:08, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

While it's no fault of Floridianed, I would like to point out that he has been canvassed.[28] Also, I don't think anyone is suggesting removing her religious perspective from the article. The issue is whether it needs an entire separate section repeating everything on this subject that is in the sub-article on political positions.Ferrylodge (talk) 22:56, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

What's wrong with telling the voting public that "It's Election Day"...no mention was made as to HOW to vote....only that an important canvassing was taking place.--Buster7 (talk) 23:02, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

The intent of including this section is completely transparent. It's not to amplify her biography but rather to paint her as someone outside of the mainstream and, thus, give the reader pause to wonder whether this exaggerated (and improperly presented) religious perspective would be reason to reconsider her elected role. Unfortunately, you've provided no evidence that she is, in fact, outside of the mainstream. And, again, her record of governance provides no basis for such claims. Lose the section and take it back to your blogs. Fcreid (talk) 23:09, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

The purpose of the section is to indicate her position as stated by her, not to allow opinions of others. How can accurately quoting her with reliable sources paint her any differently than she really is? Opinions that others have about her religious views are not appropriate. Atom (talk) 02:34, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

One or two editors are not the same thing as the voting public. Floridianed was selectively canvassed. As I mentioned in my first comment in this section, many editors have already opposed inclusion of the section in question, but I have not canvassed them to express that opinion yet again. There has never been consensus to include this section, now the issue has been turned upside down into a search for consensus to remove, and editors are being canvassed to oppose removal. Wonderful.Ferrylodge (talk) 23:10, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Thus my comments earlier today about how the accuracy of this article has become laughable. This is particularly frustrating after all the time that many of us put into making it accurate and NPOV for nearly ten days. It should have remained fully protected until after the election, as the dKos Kids and Moveon crowd clearly have tasking to sway it. Fcreid (talk) 23:17, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

So you assumed I'll vote to oppose? --Floridianed (talk) 23:15, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes. Incidentally, the canvasser in question has been warned about this before.[29]Ferrylodge (talk) 23:32, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Let me explain you something about "real" canvassing. For editors that where just working on an article the same day and the day (night) before it is common to inform them about important issues/changes and I doubt anyone can call this canvassing. It is rather a polite message which is rare but common practice. And further, you ignored my post below and with your last remark about me... pretty bad judgment from your side. I honor your honesty but this doesn't make it much better. --Floridianed (talk) 23:41, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Floridianed, there were other people like yourself who were working on the article during the past 24 hours, and many of them opposed the section in question. They were not canvassed.Ferrylodge (talk) 23:46, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

You're right but also somehow wrong since I edited Palin's page yesterday and today and would've discovered this thread by my own in about 10 to 30 minutes since I was busy for a while editing another page. Check my contributions if you're not convinced. Regards, --Floridianed (talk) 23:03, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

I haven't criticized you in the least. It was the canvasser who did wrong here, not the canvassee.Ferrylodge (talk) 23:46, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Ok. No harm done. Regards, --Floridianed (talk) 00:02, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

• Support Removal - It is fairly summarized elsewhere and seems to have to use opinion pieces to make its points -- very POV. WTucker (talk) 22:58, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

The opinion pieces are not what ther section is for. Statements that Palin makes and are cited from reliable sources are fair game. Opinions of others about Palin should be removed. Atom (talk) 02:34, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

• Comment - also, someone has made what is essentially identical content the prominent first section of Political positions of Sarah Palin. Kelly ^hi! 23:10, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

• • Oppose removal: Basically, as long as she herself makes it a notable subtopic to the media, and the media finds it notable enough to discuss regularly, it's notable enough for here. We aren't to judge what we ourselves are supposed to find interesting, in the face of notability reactions outside wikipedia (as long as citations and reputable sources support inclusion, of course). --Kickstart70 23:41, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[30]

:You already voted once above, Buster. Only one vote per person, or did you forget? Fcreid (talk) 23:48, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

That is NOT me...Please apologize..I'm just moving votes for visul continuity...check it out B4 you jump!--Buster7 (talk) 00

06, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

• Support Removal The only reliable source on Sarah Palin's religious perspectives is... Sarah Palin. She hasn't said or written enough on the matter to include. Jclemens (talk) 23:47, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Precisely what the section is for. Reliably sourced statements about what Palin has said or done. Her quoted view on Creationism is an example. The current section quotes her exactly. Atom (talk) 02:34, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

• • Oppose Removal for the reasons already provided by users above. Bellagio99 (talk) 01:20, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

• Support removal. The use of WP for political purposes is improper, and virtually all of the "religion controversy" has been primarily politically inspired. The only person who can actually state Sarah Palin's religious views is Sarah Palin. All the other speculation and anger is of no relevncy to what she, herself, thinks. Looking at it another way, would such a section be considered proper for other political candidates, ascribing opinions of others in a former church to the person at hand? I trust not. Collect (talk) 02:00, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

As previously stated, we are discussing deletion of a section set aside for actual reliably sourced comments by Palin. Some of the current comments related to her pastor have been removed, and returned a number of times. " If we accurately express her viewpoint with reliable citations, some group of people will be positively influenced, and some of them negatively influenced, That is the nature of politics. We must endeavor to be accurate, fair and NPOV and let the cards fall where they may." Comments of the type you are speaking of should be immediately reverted from this, or any other section. Atom (talk) 02:34, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

• • !Voting is evil ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:08, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia does not work by votes, it works by applying content policies and seeking and establishing consensus by discussing the merits of an edit ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:10, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

It's not a vote. It's a measure to see how editors think and hopefully reach a consensus. --Floridianed (talk) 02:44, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

• Remove immediately as there was never consensus for inclusion. From WP:BLP, "In order to ensure that biographical material of living people is always policy-compliant, written neutrally to a high standard, and based on good quality reliable sources, the burden of proof is on those who wish to retain, restore, or undelete disputed material."

It's unfortunate that blatant BLP violations such as including disputed material without consensus, happen this easily. BLP states it outright that in this case material MUST STAY OUT form the BLP article until consensus is provided for inclusion. Hobartimus (talk) 07:38, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

This survey is not about the content. It is about whether to have a section on religious perspective, or not. Of course the content must meet Wikipedia policies. You act as if you reject the idea of a religious perspectives section based on some temporary non-BLP content that happened to be within the section at the particular time you looked at it. Sure, non-BLP content added to any section should be immediately deleted. But -- What is your opinion on the topic of this survey? See above -- "I discussed and created a section specifically for religious issues. I feel that this benefits the article in many ways."

Hobartimus, It would have been nice if you had not interferred and interrupted the attempt to build a consensus on the matter. As you know, there is a survey in the talk section that was running until midnight tonight. Taking a brief look, indeed I think there would have been consensus for removing the section. But, your interruption of the conclusion of the survey will now always leave that in doubtm rather than the consensus being able to be quite clear, which was my hope. Sure, it is unlikely tha there would have been a vast change -- but someone who wants to have it differently in the future will always be able to argue that the concensus was not clear because the survey was interrupted. Frankly, in the scope of the article life, I don't see how 36 hours of waiting to build a consensus is that huge a time frame, or unreasonable. The benefits of making the consensus clear are huge.

Your comments regarding BLP are complete nonsense. I monitor BLP articles myself. Material that violates BLP should, indeed, be removed immediately. However, had you bothered to read ther header to this survey, you would have realized that no one was trying to support the content of the section in question. That has been dynamic during this discussion. The discussion was on having a seperate section for documenting Sarah Palin's religious background, her viewpoints that display her opinions about religion and things of that nature. Of course, like every other article on Wikipedia, and every other BLP article any content in that section would have had to be properly sourced from a reliable source, notable and pertinent. If you check the article history, every time someone has added unsourced material to that section, or opinionated bias, it has been removed. Their WAS originally consensus for inclusion of a section for religion, despite your personal opinion to the contrary.N o one has claimed there was a desire for a section for biased opinion. Your interference in the matter was completely innapropriate. As there was something like fifteen people who indicated their perspective on this matter, how is it that you think your sole opinion should predominate over all of them?

As I said, had the survey gone to conclusion, it seems pretty likely to me that there would have been a consensus for not having a seperate section for religious perspective. Your interuption of that process will now make that arguably unclear. Unarguably clear would have been preferable. Atom (talk) 13:30, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

• • Oppose Removal/Merge With Personal Life Section. Sarah Palin's religious identification has become a political issue (she has made it one), and the information does not violate BLP. Instead, it is relevant, factual, cited, notable material. I am particularly upset about the repeated removal of information regarding Sarah Palin's baptism, and the fact that she identifies as "getting saved" at the Wasilla Assembly of God Church, and has appeared to use that fact as a political stance. It probably belongs in her political positions page as well. I would not oppose a similar section on Joe Biden's religious/spiritual/existential beliefs.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 15:43, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

How about on the Obama page? Does it have a section on Black Liberation Theology? Does it have a section on statements and discussion about Jeremiah Wright? That Obama's children were baptized there, Obama's marriage performed there, that Obama called Wright his "mentor", that he took the title of his book from one of his sermons etc etc...? These are all sourcable facts to thousands of sources but they were not considered important enough for inclusion in the Obama article. Why would facts that are essentialy trivia in comparsion be included here like qoutes about "getting saved"? How many qoutes in the Obama article relate to religion? Hobartimus (talk) 15:55, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Strawman. No one has suggested that a religious perspective section in this article, or the Obama article should contain innapropriate content, such as that you have described. We have consistently talked about describing Palin's religious background, opinions (as supported by her statements -- from cited verifiable sources). Material that DOES violate BLP should not be in this article, or the Obama article. Quotes about her being baptized, and being saved, indeed are not notable enough for most sections in the article. The purpose of a "religious perspectives" section is precisely for that kind of content, because some people DO care about those things. Would/do any of those kinds of "trivia" relate to how well she would perform in office?? No, but this is a biographical article, not an election advertisement. Although I don't care if she was baptized, or whether she was a Catholic once or not, or how long she has attended a particular church, apparently those trivia are of interest to a wide number of people of faith. That information is on topic in a religious section where it is not in a political views section. Atom (talk) 16:20, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose Removal at this point in time. Policy compliant content can not be removed because of how it reflects on the subject of the article. It is already obvious from this survey that there will be no clear consensus to either remove or include the section. Editors will have to learn to work together. IP75 75.36.70.205 (talk) 16:48, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

support removal Giving weight to religious issues like this is only useful for a psychological biography - which is nothing but a POV guessing game behind a person intent to show causation between a persons public persona and actions with their internal psychological life. Psychological biographies are necessary and important works, but wikipedia does not represent that form of biographical data. Proper cautions MUST be used when writing for that style.

Again, my example - It would be the same if someone pushed Obama > Obama#Cultural_and_political_image > Cultural_and_political_image_of_Barack_Obama > Cultural_and_political_image_of_Barack_Obama#Religion > Jeremiah_Wright_controversy > Jeremiah_Wright > Black_liberation_theology > Liberation_Theology > Marxism correlations into one off pages from Obama. It's a long road to get to the grounding of the theology that Obama has been participating in the last 20+ years and could be used in a psychological biography justly - but it's inappropriate for his bio on wikipedia.

Theosis4u (talk) 20:02, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Again, this is a survey about whether a section in "Religious perspective" should exist in the article, not a discussion of any particular content. It is a biography, so of course a background of her religious upbringing and stated views related to religion are appropriate. You seem to imply that religious details of a public figure are not appropriate in a biography. Some people are interested in a variety of religious based details. We seek to show accurately views that she has expressed and actions (related to religion) that she has taken. POV opinions or attempts to explain or imply her psychologically are not appropriate. Your example related to Obama is not applicable because we should not let that kind if information into this article, or the Obama article. No one has suggested that was the sections purpose. Of course proper caution should be given, that is the purpose of our BLP policies. The information that has been in this section in the past, and not disputed (other than to find the right wording) include her proclamation as Governor of "Bible Week" and "Christian Heritage Week". Also, she has given an opinion and expressed a view on Creationism in the schools. People have tried to find a place for how long she went to each church and when she was baptized. This gives a section where topics of that nature (properly sourced and cited, and NPOB, etc) may reside. Atom (talk) 20:38, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Again, much of that material already resides in the existing sub-articles. This article is supposed to summarize those sub-articles (see WP:SS), and I think this article currently does a pretty good job of that.Ferrylodge (talk) 20:47, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

There is a great deal of detail that is not given because it is not on topic in the section it resides. Where is the quote of what Palin actually said related to Creationism? The only article content on that is "Palin supports teaching creationism along with evolution in public schools, but says it does not have to be required" The section we had in the religious perspective section quoted what she actually said, and lets the reader form their own conclusion. Where does it talk about her proclaiming "Bible Week" and "Chritian Heritage Day"? That's right -- edited out of the article. Where does it discuss her baptism, why she was baptized a second time, her childrens baptism, the types of churches that she chooses to attend, Why she was Baptized Catholic as a child, but is now Pentasoctal? Where she described herself as "saved". All trivial? They wouldn't be in a section about her religious experience. They aren't appropriate for any of the currently existing sub-sections. So, when you say "already resides in the existing sub-articles" you mean, the information of interest to you are in the sub-articles. Atom (talk) 21:06, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Atom, let's take the Bible Week proclamation. It's currently mentioned in Political positions of Sarah Palin, and there's a discussion at the talk page there about whether it's even notable enough for that article. And you want to include it in this article? Please see WP:SS. This article is merely supposed to summarize what's in the sub-articles.

Thanks for pointing that out. I missed that. Atom (talk) 21:46, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Are you aware that "National Bible Week" began in 1941, when the first Bible Week proclamation was made by President Franklin D. Roosevelt? As of 1996, governors in 29 states declared National Bible Week. Governor Tom Ridge of Pennsylvania was in charge of the Governors' Committee for NBW.[31] Every president since FDR has done likewise. And yet you are asserting that this one proclamation by Palin, out of hundreds she has issued, must go here in the main article about her. You are certainly entitled to your opinion, but I hope you at least see why most other editors have respectfully disagreed with you.Ferrylodge (talk) 21:14, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't making any judgements on whether it was positive or negative. It is a fact, and religious in nature. I didn't see how FBI day and Amateur Radio Week was applicable to her religious viewpoints. And I didn't say that it must go in the article. I did not bring it into the article in the first place. You had said that the material removed from the former section had been relocated. I pointed out that I did not think it had. I hear what you are saying -- I don't think most other editors disagree with me. I certainly think that you do. Atom (talk) 21:47, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

• I support the permanent removal of this section. In the United States, religion is a private matter. We respect the rights of our citizens to worship whichever God they wish in whatever manner they may choose. Accordingly, any material on religion in a WP:BLP belongs in a section on the person's personal life, unless that person is professionally involved in religion. Governor Palin, while deeply religious, is not a person of religion, she is a politician. Despite the complete lack (so far in what I've seen) of any evidence that she has any desire to use the power of Government to further her religious views or force them on anyone else, there have been continual attempts to insert material in this article implying that she wishes to do so and is some kind of dangerous religious nut. The "religous perspective" section and especially the POV-pushing material in it has that exact goal. It is inapporpriate.--Paul (talk) 23:27, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

I have asked for an admin who has not participated in the article to close this survey so that we can all move on. Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard#Request_for_admin_to_evaluate_survey Atom (talk) 03:17, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

• not an admin, but....My take is there is not clear consensus due to a couple of items. 1) some commentors were still focused on the blp aspects of the information rather then on atom's simple question about sectionization/layout of the article, 2) the arguementation by atom of each person who disagreed with having such a section, and 3) POV of some commentors who would like this to be a political add, rather than a dynamic neutral biography. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 17:07, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Pregnancy with Trig

I apologize if this has been brought up already, however I propose the addition of this in the personal life section (added after "Palin's youngest child ... prenatally"):

Palin had difficulty coming to terms with Trig's illness and concealed her pregnancy, continuing to work up until she gave birth and returned to work three days after Trig was born. She has since been accused of exploiting her child's illness for political gain.

Normally I would go WP:BRD but this is article is quite contentious. Also, can anyone suggest wording to balance the last bit? The sources (New Zealand Herald New York Times) suggest that supporters are glad a child with special needs is "in the spotlight". Thanks, ~ AmeIiorate _{U T C} @ 11:13, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

The first sentence is unacceptable in a whole load of ways: how do we know (apart from human sympathy) that Gov. Palin "had difficulty in coming to terms" with her child's "illness"? in what way did she "conceal her pregnancy"? What does "return to work" mean for a State Governor?

The second sentence is simply not supported by the cited source. Physchim62 (talk) 13:49, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

"She was, it seems, struggling to come to terms with the fact that the baby would be born with Down's syndrome." "... some accuse her of exploiting Trig for political gain." You did actually look at the sources, right? ~ Ameliorate! _{U T C} @ 14:06, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

How much informational value does this add? A.J.A. (talk) 16:39, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I think it says a lot about her personal life. The world's media appear to agree. ~ Ameliorate! _{U T C} @ 23:49, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

"She was, it seems, struggling to come to terms with the fact This is supposition and in a WP:BLP it isn't allowed regardless of the fact that a WP:RS is doing the supposing. The second quote from the source is just repeating attacks. How does that help anything? What _is_ missing from the article is the quote from Palin that "she and Todd feel blessed and chosen by God" to have this child. Now that really does say a lot about her personal life and deeply-held beliefs.--Paul (talk) 00:21, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

IF, and only IF, there is consensus to include this information, there are quotes from Palin herself in People, the Associated Press, and Anchorage Daily about her being shocked, sad, and that it was challenging coming to terms with a Down's diagnosis. [32] [33] [34] Regards. FangedFaerie (talk) 22:17, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Parentage

I believe it may be appropriate to report upon the controversy over the parentage of the child. It is widely believed that the child is actually her grandchild. There is also the controversy over her claim that her water broke when she was in Texas yet she flew to Alaska to give birth.[35][36] I do not wish to commit slander nor do I wish to enter into an editing war.Dstern1 (talk) 01:20, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

There were continual unsubstantiated rumours that the child was her grandchild - possibly fuelled by the actual pregnancy of her child. But there's been nothing substantiated. Unless that appears, the only use we have for the rumour is to demonstrate that some people are prepared to circulate unsubstantiated rumour, and that's hardly news. Regards, Ben Aveling 01:40, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

It is probably as "widely believed" as Elvis Presley still being alive. Yet, I gather that an inclusion of the unsubstantiaded rumours in the article could be appropriate. --Hapsala (talk) 04:27, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I can attest that someone did, in fact, attempt this... and it was quickly reverted. Jennavecia ^(Talk) 18:27, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Never-the-Less, it is well sourced that she reported her water broke when she was in Texas, yet flew to Alaska to give birth. The events as she reported them have been highly criticized. I agree that the question of the child's parentage has not been well sourced.Dstern1 (talk) 13:32, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

The women has had five children, and I would dare to say that she is the world's greatest expert on the functions of her own reproductive system. Kelly ^hi! 01:24, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Further, it is irrelevant. The child was diagnosed before birth. Is there any medical evidence showing that the child was negatively impacted from Palin's travel from Texas to Alaska? Jennavecia ^(Talk) 18:27, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

I assume the point is to imply that flying from Austin to Texas after your waters broke is somehow odd and suspicious? Regards, Ben Aveling 09:05, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Just odd. We don't need to get into "suspicious". Some people find it laudable. It was mentioned on Meet the Press by a correspondent who called her "one tough lady" or some such. It was mentioned from the podium at the Republican National Convention in a similar context. It was prominently reported in the Anchorage Daily News after she delivered. Including it in our article is obviously correct, and would be a no-brainer except that so many editors got caught up in excluding the speculation about Trig's parentage that they wanted to exclude anything remotely relating to the circumstances of his birth. JamesMLane t c 03:07, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Many things do not belong in a NPOV biographical page. This is one of them. Just because you find it important, does not make it so. Collect (talk) 17:29, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't see any NPOV issue here. Several different versions have been suggested that discuss the subject neutrally (neither hailing Palin's "toughness" nor condemning her "irresponsibility"). As for importance, Collect's comment is correct that my personal opinion is of little weight. That's why I cited the judgment of several non-Wikipedia sources. JamesMLane t c 23:56, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I think this is perfectly appropriate. The fact that the lady got on an airplane after her water broke shows how shows her use of logic and reasoning and perhaps a bit of her personality. I can find no documentation of anyone recommending airplane travel after breaking water. Every reference I can find states that you should consult with doctors and head for a hospital as a birth is about to occur. What she did is far from normal. 71.97.196.191 (talk) 18:07, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Trig's Birth

MOVED BELOW

59+1=60

This article says: "According to a New York Times article, for which reporters interviewed 60 Republican and Democratic local officials and legislators, Palin has pursued vendettas, fired officials who crossed her and blurred the line between government and personal grievance."

I have no problem including most of this sentence, but I would remove "60 Republican and Democratic" because it tells us nothing. It could mean 1 Republican and 59 Democrats.Ferrylodge (talk) 00:56, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I haven't read the source,yet. Surely there is something that one of those 60 said that is positive. But, I agree, the "60" does not add to the text. It distracts me by making me think, "only 60" and "I wonder what the makeup was", etc.WTucker (talk) 01:37, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

read the source. That is what it says. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk)

Throughout her political career, she has pursued vendettas, fired officials who crossed her and sometimes blurred the line between government and personal grievance, according to a review of public records and interviews with 60 Republican and Democratic legislators and local officials.

≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:18, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Jossi, we have no idea if there there were 59 Democrats interviewed and only one Republican. Therefore, I'd like to re-phrase what's in our article. Do you object?Ferrylodge (talk) 03:23, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Sure. Just stay close to the source. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:26, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I believe that this portion of the article is biased and based on an article that does not cite its sources, and should therefore be removed. The wording is not npov. JenWSU (talk) 20:00, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

This proposed addition is ridiculous because all politicians do this. The bread and butter of politics is rewarding your allies and marginalizing your enemies. Almost all politicians-- across the entire political spectrum (Left, Right and Center) do this.

The New York Times, once a great paper, now has a bad reputation for articles like this.

Sean7phil (talk) 20:22, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

We have no reason to believe any such conjecture (indeed, are there 59 Democratic legislators in Alaska?); nor is it customary for newspaper articles reflecting general currents of opinion to cite their sources. (We must, because we do not have the professional credentials of the NYTimes.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:24, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Bridge(s) to Nowhere Redux

Bot Brought Bridge to NOWHERE! (seriously...) (I brought this section back here, because the bot that archived the old pages, at the exact same time I was commenting here, didn't put this section in the old archives or leave it in the current talk pages. The bridges were brought to "nowhere." (accidentally deleted). Ironic, huh?  :-)GreekParadise (talk) 03:22, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, we've done pretty good. The version that's there has stood, with minor stylistic changes, for almost a week now. Every now and then when someone deletes content, I bring it here to the talk page and the consensus is that the original version should stand. So for the, I dunno, seventh time? eighth? I ask you please do NOT delete content from the Bridges to Nowhere section unless you come to the talk page and give a reason why. The reason the Congressional earmark and reversal in 2005 is there is because it's relevant and notable and gives important history to explain the pre-history of the bridge. Further, there's no POV there, just fact. Why would anyone remove it? The reason why Newsweek quote is there is because it explains the criticism. It is only one quote, a compromise between the anti-Palins who wanted several newspapers quoted (and then at least just their names mentioned) and the pro-Palins who wanted no mention of the criticism at all. If you disagree with the consensus, come to the talk page and try to get your own consensus before willy-nilly deleting content that, thus far, has stood the test of time. Thank you.GreekParadise (talk) 15:39, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm not a big fan of the change of this sentence:

In 2005, Congress earmarked $442 million to build the two bridges but later reversed itself under strong criticism and gave the transportation money to Alaska with no strings attached.[90]

to this one (modified a short time ago):

In 2005, Congress passed the 2006 National Department of Transportation appropriations bill 93 to 1 [95] which included $442 million earmarks to build the two bridges, but later removed the earmarks under strong criticism tied to Ted Stevens' strong disapproval of the Coburn Amendment, which gave the earmarks national media exposure.[96][97] Congress still sent the money to the state for other transportation projects. Sarah Palin supported this transaction and agreed to it.[98]

Usually, I like detail, but I'm not sure what this one adds. That Congress made the earmark and reversed it is relevant to the story of Palin and the Bridge, but the details of why Congress reversed it and the adding of an unexplained detail (what the heck is the Coburn Amendment?, asks the reader) raises more questions than it answers. Obviously this belongs in an article on the Gravina Bridge, possibly one on earmarks, or even on Stevens, but I don't think it belongs in an article on Palin. So I will revert back. I know if I don't then someone's going to again complain this section is too long. Please let me know if you support or oppose this decision. And if opposition is strong, then obviously, put it back in.GreekParadise (talk) 22:19, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

• Apologies for not including citation for the amendment, it has since been added. This is simply a brief summary of the extensive information listed in the Gravina Island Bridge topic. If the information about the reason of the earmarks being removed isnt detailed, you are providing undue weight against congress, when the situation primarily was tied to Stevens and the coburn amendment, which was designed to strike the development of the bridges alltogether. It is still brief and it tells the whole story, without distorting the facts, why would we not want it like this? Duuude007 (talk) 10:36, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't feel strongly about it and won't fight with you any longer on it. While I still think it's unnecessary, as I said before, adding unnecessary (but accurate) detail bothers me far, far less than taking out necessary detail. But I'll tell you this: if someone else starts cutting this section mercilessly -- as has happened several times and may happen again -- I will argue that if brevity is what people want, these additions should go first. But if no one bugs us about the section arguing it's too long, I'm willing to let sleeping dogs lie. I did throw back in the "no strings attached" quote from CNN, however. It's not true the money went to "other" transportation projects, because the money allowed the Governor if he/she saw fit to spend the money on the bridges OR other transportation projects, but Congress didn't rule out the bridges.GreekParadise (talk) 03:01, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

New Issue: Bridge or Bridges or Bridge(s)

"Bridge to Nowhere" almost always refers to the Gravina Bridge. "Bridges to Nowhere" almost always refers to the Gravina Bridge and Don Young's Way. "Bridges to Nowhere" has been used tens of thousands of times (according to Google). "Bridge to Nowhere" has been used hundreds of thousands of times (according to Google). These are the facts. Still, I think it's confusing to have a heading "Bridge to Nowhere" and to then discuss two bridges. I don't want to change the content, which we've worked hard on, but I do have a question about the title, ever since a wikipedian removed my original

"Bridge(s) to Nowhere"

and replaced it with

"Bridge to Nowhere"

I don't like either "Bridges to Nowhere" or "Bridge to Nowhere" in the title, because I think either title is confusing and doesn't tell the full story.

I propose the following solutions in the title:

"Bridge(s) to Nowhere" -- This is how I put it originally and I still like it best. But there are other options:

"Bridge/Bridges to Nowhere"

"Bridge to Nowhere/Bridges to Nowhere"

What do other editors think?GreekParadise (talk) 03:01, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

• I personally have no issues with it being purely plural without parentheses. Duuude007 (talk) 04:02, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Both plural alone and singular alone are incorrect factually.  :-( Do you like any of the options above?GreekParadise (talk) 07:12, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

• My problem is the quotation marks. As far as I know, Palin has never used the term "bridges to nowhere". The only place I have found that the plural form exists is in a few news sources which are trying to clarify that two bridges were involved and here. Either it should appear as she has used the term ("Bridge to nowhere") with quotes or in one of the plural forms without the quotes.WTucker (talk) 14:04, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

The section is way too long and bogs down with irrelevant detail. The overall effect on the reader (on me, anyway) is entirely confusing. I think readability is being lost in the effort to squeeze in detail. The Coburn Amendment? WTF? I would propose a) shortening and b) focusing the paragraph. We already have articles on the 2 bridges themselves; we should focus a bit more here. I've made a proposed revision to the section; if you guys don't like it, feel free to revert and I won't reinsert it, but would prefer to discuss it further here. MastCell ^Talk 20:10, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

OK, it's been reverted... could someone explain how the new version is an improvement? To me, it's unfocused, it crams unecessary and irrelevant detail into run-on sentences; it rehashes a lot of unecessary information not related to Sarah Palin which is already covered in the bridge articles one click away; the tenses are screwy; etc. Reading the section, it is very difficult for me to follow either chronologically or logically what happened. MastCell ^Talk 20:39, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

• If you can explain away "congress earmarked the bill but then reversed themselves as anything other than a clear violation of WP:NPOV, I'd be glad to hear it. Facts at times are necessary to tell the whole story (instead of distort), and at any rate, this is an extremely brief summary of what is listed in the other page. The other page is a subarticle, not just a "for more information" page. Even if the info here is truncated, it shouldn't be distorted into something dubious. Duuude007 (talk) 20:52, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

What's dubious about it? What violates WP:NPOV? Congress did earmark the money and then reverse itself under strong criticism. The sources say that:

• "When the earmarks became a political embarrassment, Congress in 2006 formally withdrew them."
• "Under mounting political pressure over pork projects, Congress stripped the earmark -- or stipulation -- that the money be used for the airport."
• "Straining to show new dedication to lower spending, House and Senate negotiators took the rare step of eliminating a requirement that $442 million be spent to build the two bridges, spans that became cemented in the national consciousness as "bridges to nowhere" because of the remote territory and small populations involved."

Would you prefer wording which clarified that Congress, rather than "reversing" itself, lifted the restriction that the money be spent on the bridges? I don't see a huge difference, but I'm failing to see the "clear violation" of NPOV since I think the wording follows the sources reasonably. How does this "distort" the section into something "dubious"? MastCell ^Talk 21:26, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

perhaps because of the fact that the earmark itself was carefully concealed in the bill, and only exposed by the Coburn Amendment, and given massive media coverage by Ted Stevens' protest? The omission of that detail lays the blame purely on congress flipflopping over public opinion of the bridge, when there was a lot more behind it. We do not want to provide an OR assumption that Congress flipped out of popularity, do we? Just listing the facts. Keeping them brief. Letting the reader come to their own conclusion based on the facts. Is that not the intention? Duuude007 (talk) 22:03, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

It's not OR; the 3 cited reliable sources all indicate that Congress reversed themselves under the pressure of public opinion. It's a verifiable fact. The OR would be to assume that "Congress" as a whole were entirely unaware of the "carefully concealed" provision of a bill they had voted for (and thus, presumably, actually read). MastCell ^Talk 00:19, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

My point is that you are omitting facts relevant to the cause, and whether you think so or not, its distorting the origin of the change from a debate over the amendment, versus a whim popularity vote that changes the overall weight of the statement. Omitting one sentence could make all the difference in a paragraph's accuracy, and that is why I am so adamant in maintaining this simple fact. Because it clarifies that which the blame game does not. In closing: I believe that this is meant to be a summary of Gravina Island Bridge, not necessarily an alternate recollection. Duuude007 (talk) 00:38, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand, especially your last comment. The sources say that Congress reversed its decision under public pressure (which, incidentally, is how democracy is supposed to work - I'm not clear why you attach such negative significance to it). You're attaching a lot of value-laden terms to this very simple, source-based statement. I'm asking that we concisely reflect what the sources say. MastCell ^Talk 05:50, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Right. All of the sources. Including the relevance of the coburn amendment, which, since this debate has begun, has been expanded in the article by other people and cross referenced, because it is an integral part of the subject matter. I'm in complete agreement that the facts should tell the story, and that was a glaring omission that has since been fixed. Have a nice day. Duuude007 (talk) 16:37, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Other editors? The only other commenter in this thread raised the same issue I did, and ultimately gave up, stating that while he still found the level of detail unecessary, he didn't feel like "fighting with you any longer on it." That's hardly a ringing endorsement. I notice that nearly all of your edits here focus on the Bridge(s) to Nowhere, and I understand your perspective about the importance of detail. I'm asking you to consider that someone without a deep interest in the arcana of the Bridges may get an equally accurate and much more comprehensible view of the role of Sarah Palin by trimming some of your favored details in favor of brevity. The sources you're touting for the Coburn Amendment all discuss Ted Stevens, not Sarah Palin. This is an article on Sarah Palin, and you're employing borderline original synthesis to drag in these extraneous details. MastCell ^Talk 19:18, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, other editors, which you would have noticed if you had followed the history of the topic, and not just the talk. Kaisershatner and Jossi both contributed to the new consensus compromise, and I am perfectly fine with the edits that have been created. Kaiser has in fact cross referenced the coburn amendment, which I commend him for doing. I call bs on your OR allegation. Every drop of this is info that i am protecting from the [[[Gravina Island Bridge|gravina aricle]], and the [[[Gravina Island Bridge|gravina aricle]] IS a BLP [subarticle] merge of Sarah Palin. Accuracy is absolutely important, and this is not some sort of obscure bridge 'arcana' as you want to call it, it is the specific reason the USA even knows about the bridge. So it is absolutely notable. Duuude007 (talk) 19:54, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm not following the reasoning here. Instead of "protecting" your favored wording, can we see if we can understand each other? Do you follow why I think this might be off-topic (not agree with, but at least follow)? You're pulling a bunch of sources/factoids about Ted Stevens into an article about Sarah Palin. The correct place to handle the minutiae of Congress' dealings with the Bridge(s) are in the Bridge article(s). I'm asking that we summarize that info to focus on Sarah Palin, the ostensible subject of this article. I completely fail to see how summarizing that "Congress reversed itself in response to strong public criticism" violates WP:V, WP:NPOV, WP:BLP, or any of the other policies you're throwing out. There is no loss of accuracy here. MastCell ^Talk 20:18, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

• There is such a thing as becoming too vague in coverage of the facts, to the point where a mix of statements becomes misleading. Its just one sentence, which successfully summarizes the jist of two and a half paragraphs of the other article; And you want to omit it why? Because targeting the congress for full and complete blame of flipflopping on the earmark is the "easy way out"? That, my friend, is not accurate reporting of the facts. Duuude007 (talk) 20:33, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Please stop assigned value judgements - why would someone "blame" Congress for responding to the opinion of their constituents? Why the obsession with "flip-flopping"? I don't particularly care to "blame" anyone, especially not in an article about Sarah Palin. Could I ask you to cease speculating about my motives and respond to the content question? I'd like the passage to be readable; right now the prose is poor from both a stylistic and comprehensibility point of view. I've explained why I want to "omit" it several times now; it introduces tangential and off-topic factoids and compromises the quality of the section. MastCell ^Talk 20:59, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

If its tangential, then why did other people find it important to link it to a specific subarticle of Tom Coburn? The notability origin of a topic isnt offtopic, btw. How about considering rephrasing it, rather than omitting it alltogether. I'm sure we can come to a middle ground. That is unless, of course, you are the one trying to protect this text? Duuude007 (talk) 22:04, 16 September 2008 (UTC)