Talk:Sarah Palin/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 10

Article should specifically note that she has 5 children.

While the names of the children are given, the total count of 5 children is a significant piece of information that should be noted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.22.24.5 (talk) 22:01, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I was just thinkig that too. More info on family, etc. Anyone? --98.243.129.181 (talk) 22:08, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

It says three sons and two daughters, which I think is enough (3+2=?). It's discussed in the family section at the bottom. Calliopejen1 (talk) 22:14, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh.. my bad. I didn't see it down there. Why is it sandwiched in between "Politics" and "Electoral.." ? Shouldn't it be elsewhere, like next to early life or something? Just a thought. :) --98.243.129.181 (talk) 23:23, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Because this will be deleted over and over again

Resolved per above religion section
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
A section that I just added and that survived around 30 seconds even though it was referenced and from a source who himself (Alan Wolfe) has a Wikipedia article. It discusses whether or not Palin's western evangelism type would sit well with southern evangelics. From the BELOW, it may appear that the choice of names was one one of the things they might disapprove of - in fact, within the article, Wolfe makes it clear that this was one of the MAJOR things they would get suspicious of. However, for NPOV reasons I toned it down a little. Apparently I should have been MORE direct? In a blog entry for ''[[The New Republic]]'', [[Alan Wolfe]], a researcher comparing southern [[evangelicals]] with western evangelicals (like Palin), noted that adherents of the southern type of evangelicalism might be suspicious of Palin's religious credentials, amongst other reasons because of her choice to give two of her children names generally connected to [[witch]]es.<ref name="What The Palin Pick Means">{{cite news | last = Wolfe | first = Alan | url = http://blogs.tnr.com/tnr/blogs/the_plank/archive/2008/08/29/what-the-palin-pick-means-for-evangelicals.aspx | title = What The Palin Pick Means For Evangelicals | work = [[The New Republic]] | date = 2008-08-29 | accessdate = 2008-08-30 }}</ref> Anyone have objections to his passage? And why? Lets clear it up. rootology (C)(T) 22:59, 30 August 2008 (UTC) The "witch" thing apparently originates with a joke by Andrew Sullivan about Willow and Piper being witch characters on TV series. Apparently Alan Wolfe took it a little too seriously. I don't see how any reference to it belongs in the article. —KCinDC (talk) 23:02, 30 August 2008 (UTC) The claim that a girl born no latter than 1994 was named after a character from Buffy the Vampire Slayer (TV series), a TV series that debuted in 1997, is just not credible. --Allen3 talk 23:32, 30 August 2008 (UTC) Your wanting to form a debate conclusion and not actually state any facts. This is an informational page not a poll parseing forum. PRNN (talk) 09:42, 31 August 2008 (UTC) I don't think this is relevant. There will always be diffences between charasmtic non-denminational evangelicals and southern baptist evangelicals. They all agree on abortion and gay marraige though. --98.243.129.181 (talk) 23:30, 30 August 2008 (UTC) Also.. this is blog. Hardly reliable. Some persons seem to be on a controversy witch hunt... it's kinda nice to have a candidate with so little controversy that you have to start making junk up. :) --98.243.129.181 (talk) 23:36, 30 August 2008 (UTC) Indeed. Although I don't really support any candidate I lean democratic (just to be clear), this witchhunting for dirty facts is getting stupid. I intend to enforce BLP on this article and I invite others to, as well. This is "serious business" as ED like to call it. --mboverload@ 23:53, 30 August 2008 (UTC) It is not relevant and engages in speculation. It is also sourced from a blog. That's three strikes and its out. :) --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:16, 31 August 2008 (UTC) It would be wise to instead present this type of information for review at Snopes. Biographies are no place to play games with rumors. See WP:BLP and WP:REDFLAG.   — C M B J   03:55, 31 August 2008 (UTC) Irrelevant...if you want to do this start talking about black liberation theology on Obama's article....yup I thought so. the religion of candidates is relevant. Some "expert's," who from all appearances, is neither a southern nor western evangelical, speculation on how those groups think, is not. when people start saying they won't vote for her, due to the names of her kids, then it will be relevant. Rds865 (talk) 04:17, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Three Revert Rule Broken

resolved, click show
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
User:Fee Fi Foe Fum has just broken the three revert rule by removing a picture three times. Two seperate user have tried to add the picture back, and I also believe it should stay. Sleeping frog (talk) 23:05, 30 August 2008 (UTC) I haven't seen any logical argument for the repeated removal of the photo. I even cropped it to eliminate the offensive military people... Kelly hi! 23:10, 30 August 2008 (UTC) The military photos were definitely getting out of hand earlier, but I don't understand the problem with having a single photo from her trip to Kuwait. If it were more than one, then I would say it was disproportionate. —KCinDC (talk) 23:22, 30 August 2008 (UTC) Look at the picture's description. She visited her own Alaska national guard troops to learn about their mission. How anyone has a problem with that I have no idea. Hobartimus (talk) 23:24, 30 August 2008 (UTC) Since she's visiting her own troops I don't feel we should have to crop them out to make the picture less military like. Uncropped would probably show the context of the picture better. Sleeping frog (talk) I vote uncroppd to maintain context.--98.243.129.181 (talk) 23:32, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Death Penalty

An earlier version of the article said she opposed the Death Penalty, now it says she supports it, but the ref admits the link is dead. Can somebody find out? Fee Fi Foe Fum (talk) 01:18, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

In the final election for governor, the Anchorage Daily News asked the three top candidates "Would you introduce - or, if introduced by a legislator, would you support - a bill to adopt the death penalty in Alaska? If yes, which crimes should it apply to?" Palin answered, "If the Legislature were to pass a bill that established a death penalty on adults who murder children, I would sign it."[1] They also wrote, during the primaries for governor, "In extreme cases such as the murder of a child, Palin said, 'My goodness, hang 'em up, yeah.'"[2]

It seems that she supports the death penalty as a punishment for the murder of children. I want to get involved in this article like I want a punch to the face though, so feel free to do as you wish. Cool Hand Luke 07:13, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Todd Palin, Beauty Pageant Judge

Can anyone explain why the info about Todd Palin being a 2008 Beauty Pageant Judge keeps being reintroduced? I don't see how this info in anyway relevant to the Sarah Palin article. (It could go on the Todd Palin page though). --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:37, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

It seems irrelevant to me. There's some conversation about it in the section above. I've deleted it three times, so I won't do it again. I've warned the editor who adds it about the consequences of 3RR on his talk page. --Coemgenus 01:40, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Its about as relevant as including Malik Abongo Obama who is a militant islamist on Obama's page. You would *NEVER* see mention of Malik Abongo's affiliations on Obama's page, and including this on her page is irrelevant. Again note how the hawks who protect the Obama article from anything that is trivial and controversial are the first in line to stuff this article with it. If it sounds negative, and puts Palin in a bad light...the hawks are eager to include it using the name of "NPOV" as a fasad. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.18.108.5 (talk • contribs)

Sentence about downs syndrome baby needs to be edited

I was just about to ask that the "allowed a fetus to become a child with down syndrome" sentence be removed. What a twisted sentence, and a twisted way of looking at her heroic decision. Thanks for removing that sentence! Csmadore (talk) 02:53, 31 August 2008 (UTC)Christian S. Madore

Having children is heroic. Great. (it has been removed. You saw a version that some POV pusher made. Sorry about that) --mboverload@ 03:24, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

There are some twisted minds who go beyond non-sense in this world, but there is balance and comfort to know people like Sarah Palin, an exceptional woman who had her baby knowing he was going to have downs syndrome. It takes more than courage to do that, it takes a true woman's wisdom and love. Whoever don't respect that, has not respect for humanity.--Cefaro (talk) 04:28, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

main photo

The main photo has been changed, but the new one is grainy when blown up, could we change it back? Sleeping frog (talk) 03:01, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Yeah serious.. where'd the old pic go? Can we get it back? --98.243.129.181 (talk) 03:04, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Cool thanks. That outside, sweater picture is nice. --98.243.129.181 (talk) 03:06, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

"Palin for Governor" External Link

"Palin for Governor" External Link should be removed. It now forwards to the same URL as the first External Link. Bigware (talk) 03:40, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I removed it a few minutes ago. —KCinDC (talk) 04:36, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Todd Palin's business

{{editsemiprotected}} He owns a commercial fishing business. <ref>William Yardley, "Palon, An Outsider Who Charms." New York Times, August 30, 2008. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/30/us/politics/30palin.html?pagewanted=3&ref=politics.</ref>

The edit suggested above should replace the text in the "Personal Life and Family" section that currently reads ". . .and works as a fisherman in his hometown in the summers." The suggested edit is more specific and accurate.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Dzothub (talk • contribs) 03:56, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Updated --ThaddeusB (talk) 14:57, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Birthdate of eldest son Track

Track, Palin's oldest son, appears to have been born April 20, 1989. This date was reported by Alan Colmes, http://www.alan.com/2008/08/29/conservative-family-values/. An edit to this effect was deleted as unsourced and irrelevant; however, it was added just after Track's age (currently 19). The birthdate doesn't go out of date, making it a better statement of his age.

The fact that her eldest son was born less than eight months after her elopement may represent a political problem for her, and it is therefore a relevant addition to this article. Maxbox51 (talk) 10:58, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

ooo scandal 20 years ago 2 people had sex, what would Bill Clinton think. I can't help but think that woman are going to get pissed off at this constant attempt to trash her without context maybe we should point out what obama was doing back then mmm drugs, not fun is it. Folks you let pelosi pick your VP and I can't help but notice that the Mountain of scandals Hillary was involved in have been "cleansed". How about we let the full truth be known of all these candidates and if they are lacking we judge them so in a ballot booth instead of trying to murder their rep to advance an agenda.PRNN (talk) 09:54, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

It is a scandal only when your party platform vehemently states it is wrong. This does represent a major political issue for her going forward and is pertinent to the article.66.186.173.180 (talk) 12:52, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Are you claiming to have inside information on her sex life? Some kids are born early. Some folks have sex before marraige. Do you know which hapened here? No matter how you answer.. I don't think this article would benefit from your findings. --98.243.129.181 (talk) 05:27, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

I have removed this out of concern that it may violate WP:NPOV. I don't think a blog post by Alan Colmes alone justifies its inclusion. Has this fact been widely reported, and if so, has it generated controversy over a possible out-of-wedlock conception? Switzpaw (talk) 06:21, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Wow, Alan Colmes really rocketed straight into the gutter on that one. For some reason I thought he was more classy than that. Guess not. Kelly ^hi! 07:38, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

There has been scattered discussion of the timing of her wedding and first child's birth. Good sources for dates of marriage and birth should help resolve the question on a factual basis, not violate WP:NPOV. Track's age was recently changed from 19 to 18, despite the reference provided clearly stating he is currently 19. Facts should not be sanitized out of this WP article! Maxbox51 (talk) 10:56, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

In Alaska, birth and marriage records are confidential for 100 and 50 years, respectively. It will be difficult for anyone to get a primary source that confirms or denies this rumor. --Coemgenus 14:03, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

A blog post is not a reliable source of information (Alan heard the date some where & reported it as fact, but that doesn't make it fact) and as per above I guess we'll never get a reliable date so the date needs to stay out as a "fact" without reliable source. --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:02, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Agreed about blog posts; it would be interesting to know where Colmes obtained the date. However there are other statements about Track's age, such as that he was 18 when he enlisted on Sep 11, 2007. These don't provide any better information than what is currently referenced, that he was 19 when his mother was added to the McCain ticket. It would be much better to have a reliable source of information referenced here than to prolong speculation based on the incomplete information currently running around. Maxbox51 (talk) 16:16, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

College

For her first semester as a freshman in 1982, Palin attended Hawaii Pacific College in it's Business Administration program before transferring.[3] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Booksnmore4you (talk • contribs) 04:26, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Blog nonsense about Buchanan

This article includes a whole paragraph about whether or not Palin is or was in cahoots with Pat Buchanan. The source is merely a blog. Another blog (not cited in this article) clearly indicates that Palin supported Forbes in that election, not Buchanan.[4] So, I'll remove the paragraph in question. It's not notable, and it's just an attempt to smear Palin by association with Buchanan.Ferrylodge (talk) 06:35, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Delete on sight. If reinserted there is a thread above where possible admin assistance is discussed. Hobartimus (talk) 06:55, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

The Palin bump in the polls

The latest polls show a surge of McCain due to picking Palin as veep, McCain/Palin stand at 47%, compared to 45% support for Obama/Biden. source Hobartimus (talk) 06:53, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Zogby Interactive is a web poll, (compared to Zogby, a traditional telephone poll). Zogby Interactive was the most inaccurate of all multi-state pollsters in the 2008 primaries.[5] While single polls do not typically merit encyclopedic inclusion, a clear polling trend evinced by polling averages, perhaps coupled with news reports on that trend, may merit inclusion. 72.244.207.149 (talk) 07:22, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Switzpaw (talk) 07:37, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

You are being irresponsible by not stating the margin of error and pointing out that it's a dead heat, within the margin of error. From the text: The online survey was conducted Aug. 29-30, 2008, and included 2,020 likely voters nationwide and carries a margin of error of +/- 2.2 percentage points. Switzpaw (talk) 07:35, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

It should be deleted anyway: As stated above, a single poll, especially from the most inaccurate multi-state pollster, is not of encyclopedic merit. Individual polls can say anything. Also, this poll was mislabeled as a Zogby International poll. 72.244.207.149 (talk) 07:40, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Response to Running Mate Selection

Among the responses to Palin's selection as McCain's running mate, I believe the response from the Obama campaign merits inclusion, probably immediately after the response from local Republicans, if not first. Currently, all responses are from Republicans, which seems unbalanced. Here is the quote from Obama spokesman Bill Burton[6]:

Today, John McCain put the former mayor of a town of 9,000 with zero foreign policy experience a heartbeat away from the presidency. Governor Palin shares John McCain's commitment to overturning Roe v. Wade, the agenda of Big Oil and continuing George Bush's failed economic policies -- that's not the change we need, it's just more of the same.

72.244.207.149 (talk) 07:12, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Obama and Biden then issued a joint statement congratulating Palin. It goes both ways, better to leave both out. Happyme22 (talk) 07:20, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

It should go at least two ways, and currently it's all Republicans. Comprehensive information is preferable to selective information in an encyclopedia. 72.244.207.149 (talk) 07:28, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

I understand that, but there was much controversy surrounding the Obama camp's response, first with a sarcastic and negative press release then a more lighter and complimentary one. Happyme22 (talk) 07:30, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

You can include both. But the Obama campaign's reaction is of more significance than, say, Jodi Rell of Connecticut's, right? Why was Rell's particularly significant, anyway? 72.244.207.149 (talk) 07:43, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Suppose a Republican staffer called Obama a "former state legislator". Would that be worth quoting? Certainly true, but carefully phrased in a way that implies something he knows to be false, that the person doesn't hold their current job (Governor and Senator, respectively). Yes, I'm calling the man a liar, and quoting him without calling him out is serious bias. A.J.A. (talk) 07:57, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Biased Media Opinions

Please address both sides of the issues and not solely post biased opinions in supporting your own beliefs. Lajolla2009 (talk) 07:15, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

I second that. The quote from the Fairbanks paper needs to be explained, i.e. why it must be included to better our understanding of Sarah Palin. Happyme22 (talk) 07:28, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

The explanation is from Wikipedia:Neutral point of view#A simple formulation, which states: "Assert facts, including facts about opinions—but do not assert the opinions themselves." (emphasis in original) We can't quote every opinion anyone has ever expressed about Palin, but we quote a representative sample of notable opinions. That's why it's proper for us to include, as we do, the completely expected praise from Republicans. (I don't think that adds much to the reader's knowledge, but it should be included for completeness. Jodi Rell isn't necessarily the best representative spokesperson but her praise of Palin shouldn't be deleted unless and until it's replaced by a better example of Republican praise.) The "Reaction" section should also include other politicians' views. Beyond politicians, complete coverage of the reaction to her selection includes significant newspapers (and the Fairbanks paper is significant here because its writers are familiar with her) and major interest groups (evangelicals happy, environmentalists disgusted). JamesMLane t c 08:05, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Page broken

This page is not rendering correctly on FF2/Linux. (The rest of wikipedia looks fine.)

Text is all over the place instead of being arranged correctly.

86.142.174.230 (talk) 07:47, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Ditto with Firefox under windows XP —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cwmagee (talk • contribs) 07:50, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

I think you're talking about the messed-up refs at the bottom (chunks of the text erroneously being included in a footnote). That's fixed now, but likely to be broken a few more times as AddDeWitt's edit war goes back and forth. —KCinDC (talk) 07:55, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

College

I believe she Graduated from the University Of Idaho in 1987

or that is what the local paper is saying. Look at www.lmtribune.com for August 30th 2008

(Lonetealeaf (talk) 07:55, 31 August 2008 (UTC))Lonetealeaf

New York Times agrees, as does the Anchorage Daily News from well before McCain picked her. Cool Hand Luke 08:02, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Budget

It should be noted that Sarah Palin refused to use the private jet purchased by former Governor Frank Murkowski. He purchased the jet after Alaskan's voiced opposition to the idea. After she took office, she put it up for auction and never used it. She is against waistful spending. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.237.37.184 (talk) 08:17, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Huh - it used to be in the article, along with the fact that she had the jet sold on eBay. Not sure why it was removed. Kelly ^hi! 08:23, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

This isn't the first time someone asked it to be reinserted, so I just did. I toned it down a bit & left off the eBay part, which seemed irrelevant. --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:20, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

In the "Personal Life" section, the sentence about Trig having Down syndrome has a footnote (# 95) that links to an article that doesn't mention anything about the syndrome. This should be fixed. I can't edit the page though! Atroche (talk) 09:19, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Approval Rating

Current approval rating seems to be from various sources with editing wars going on. Can someone look up some official media sources on this topic and put it in instead of having multiple users debating and deleting each other's edits? Do help on this issue. Lajolla2009 (talk) 09:48, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Jim Dobson very excited about Sarah Palin

Dennis Prager Show

Prominent conservative Jim Dobson supports Sarah Palin

Palin Speech: "It was electric" Palin Candidacy: "She is the nightmare of the Democrats"

http://townhall.edgeboss.net/download/townhall/audio/mp3/5145e17b-c6f2-4201-bcaf-6060077e29ef.mp3 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.175.76.91 (talk) 10:08, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

The photos look like political advertisement

Some of the photos look like they came straight from a political campaign advertisement. Wikipedia should strive for a neutral point of view, and selecting photos is an important part of that. Examples: "Governor Sarah Palin presents a gift-card to 7-year-old Charline Fager" "Governor Palin in Kuwait visiting soldiers of the Alaska National Guard" "Governor Palin visiting a wounded soldier in Germany" If Palin is widely known for offering children gift cards and discussing energy/environmental issues in Kuwait and helping wounded soldiers in Europe, we should use these photos. But from what I read in the biography I do not see the connection. The pictures paint one biography, the text another. Section text and section picture should match. Elwinda (talk) 10:40, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

I dont like her either (nor do I hate her), but dont be too pettifogging-these photos make no difference. However, if you do have more authentic photos of her (with public license)-for instance, photos of mrs. Palin in her house garden that were taken by you-and I sure you do have these kind of photos, please share it with us here. --Gilisa (talk) 12:20, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

The Kuwait picture is pertinent, since her "foreign experience" is in question. It's not up to Wikipedia to make the case for her foreign policy experience, but this picture does broaden the scope of the article and enhances the presentation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.175.76.91 (talk) 12:15, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

I disagree with Elwinda. If these are the good pictures we need for the article and they are avaible, we should use them. Your request doesn't seem NPOV to me. Str1977 ^(talk) 12:46, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Senator Obama's article has a picture of him playing basketball with servicemen in Iraq. Steve Dufour (talk) 13:34, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

You folk could try using this one- http://gov.state.ak.us/photos/PalinFamily_Outside_v01.jpg. I have not researched it, but it being posted on a state government website makes it at least possible that it is public domain. Worth looking into. 65.189.146.128 (talk) 14:28, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Unlikely to be public domain. While works of the U.S. Federal Government are in the public domain, works of the individual state governments are not. Kelly ^hi! 15:12, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Biased Editorial.... valid ??

This quote...... http://newsminer.com/news/2008/aug/29/palin-has-much-prove/?opinion

In Alaska, the Fairbanks Daily News-Miner opined that Palin "is not ready for the top job."

Is obviously biased..... why include it ? I mean it is not even signed. --CanadianLinuxUser (talk) 13:12, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

If the Daily News-Miner is a major newspaper in Fairbanks we should include their opinion. Steve Dufour (talk) 13:33, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Yeah... ok... sure.... major newspaper.... biased opinion nevertheless. --CanadianLinuxUser (talk) 13:52, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Generally speaking newspapers express their opinions about candidates in their editorials. I would think that should be notable enough if it's a major paper in the state. Hardly anyone down here would have heard of it however. Steve Dufour (talk) 13:56, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

This is discussed above at #Biased Media Opinions. Wikipedia policy calls for reporting facts about notable opinions. My understanding is that the Fairbanks paper has the second-largest circulation in the state, so their opinion is notable (more so than Jodi Rell's, IMO, and less biased). JamesMLane t c 17:02, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Of course you would lookup the circulation of that paper. Dork. ;) --kizzle (talk) 19:41, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Unsourced sentence removed

I took this sentence off since the article cited as a source did not say anything about Republican leaders "grooming" her for higher office:

"At this time, state Republican leaders began grooming her for higher office."

Thanks. Steve Dufour (talk) 13:33, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

• I don't know how the source got changed, but here is one from 2006 that clearly states it: [7]. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 18:46, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Mention of attractiveness?

Would it be appropriate to mention that commentators have referred to her as "telegenic", "photogenic", "attractive", "gorgeous", "pretty" etc ? As runner up for Mrs. Alaska she has proven that her looks are better than the average person. In the television age could "hotness" not be viewed as an asset? Maybe it will make some men more likely to vote for her ? Or jealous ugly women less likely etc ? 72.91.214.42 (talk) 04:05, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Palin prefers her beauty queen past not be emphasized, she said in a taped segment from earlier this year.  $\sim$ Justmeherenow (  ) 03:33, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

is it really up to her ? I thought we were the editors ? 72.91.214.42 (talk) 04:27, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Just: where on that page is this? Tvoz/talk 04:00, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that we remove it from this article, or add this to the article, which would have an affect of drawing attention to it? I'm perplexed why this was worth mentioning... —  X  S  G  03:55, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Just a FYI for contributors, since I believe subjects desires should be taken into account in BLP's (namely, by not emphasizing the beauty pageant stuff etc too much, as she'd prefer).  $\sim$ Justmeherenow (  ) 04:25, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I am asking about her "hotness" not her beauty pageant past. I think her good looks are an asset. All the other candidates are ugly - and people sometimes vote on looks alone. 72.91.214.42 (talk) 04:32, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

In terms of biographies, we have a special obligation to the subject that is Miss Palin, that we avoid inserting or over-emphasizing (WP:weight) our assertions of them. Especially since they are still alive and publications of them continue to be made, we have to maintain an objectivity that usually means following the source itself (the person). What you are proposing while true, does leave the encyclopedic realm into triviality such as say a columnist article (unspoken facts that do not necessarily need to be spoken about). .:davumaya:. 04:37, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

But I am giving her a compliment. Why can we not compliment McCain's genius in picking such a pretty running mate (I'm sure he noticed) ? It will likely win him the White House. 72.91.214.42 (talk) 04:43, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Also let's be honest here, she is a great pick for soon to be President McCain because she is so hot ! beauty pageant winners usually have great speaking skills and good looks for the cameras. This works great with 24hr news networks. 72.91.214.42 (talk) 04:59, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Please stop this is not a forum to discuss this trivial topic. .:davumaya:. 05:11, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

pageants are not trivial ... and are notable. Have you ever won one ? It's sexist for males to call beauty pageants trivial. Miss Alaska is a big honor. Also I am not merly discussing, I am saying it should be added to the article, the purposeof this forum 72.91.214.42 (talk) 05:13, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Newt Gingrich just told Greta Van Sustren on Fox News: "She's had 5 kids and looks this good" --- you see her looks are a plus. 72.91.214.42 (talk) 05:23, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

What Gov. Palin may mean -- and what's journalistic practice, is to do as this WSJ blogger does and, if a serious commentator notes something fun/trivial,

eg the WSJ here's "At the NGA [National Governor's Association] conference she demonstrated her fun side—she appeared at an energy session in glittery platform heels and Pennsylvania Gov. Ed Rendell said she had been 'first on the dance floor' one night, leading governors in the Electric Slide."

--such stuff should be an afterthought rather than a leading obserservation. (I think?)  $\sim$ Justmeherenow (  ) 05:30, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Charm has a lot to do with politics and I glark there'll be lots of reliably sourced commentary to be had on this. Gwen Gale (talk) 05:35, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Maureen Dowd, Aug 31 '08: As she once told Vogue, she’s learned the hard way to deal with press comments about her looks. “I wish they’d stick with the issues instead of discussing my black go-go boots,” she said. “A reporter once asked me about it during the campaign, and I assured him I was trying to be as frumpy as I could by wearing my hair on top of my head and these schoolmarm glasses.”  $\sim$ Justmeherenow (  ) 15:54, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

That last one is actually a fairly useful quote for this article if it can be reliably sourced (Dowd won't do). A sentence or two on how she has dealt with that kind of thing can mention beauty in a larger context that gives the reader some real understanding. I think that would be an excellent way to include it. -- Noroton (talk) 16:30, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

As a politician who's chosen to place herself in the public arena, she doesn't get to decide which aspects of her life we report on. Something that's been given significant attention in the corporate media is generally considered worthy of inclusion in a Wikipedia article. In this case, quite a few commentators have mentioned her good lucks (in conjunction with her youth, in comparison to McCain) as one factor in assessing what she brings to the ticket. There seems to be a widespread consensus that this factor is politically relevant, i.e., will influence some votes. I agree with Noroton's suggestion of a comment about how she's dealt with it, but it would also be appropriate to include something about the perceived political ramifications. As for Dowd, she would do as a source for some things, but here the issue doesn't arise because she's clearly relying on another source, which we can cite instead. JamesMLane t c 17:10, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

In addition to her good lucks, she also has good looks as well ;) ... Couldn't agree more. Palin does not get to state what goes in her page. The issues about subjective things like that are whether or not they are reflective of how she is generally portrayed, and like James says, it's mentioned all the time. How we include this in the article is another matter. --kizzle (talk) 19:32, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Article hacked (briefly)

Although nothing shows in the edit history, I thought it ought to be noted that the article was apparently hacked into and vandalized at approx. 13:20 GMT, and reverted to normal some minutes later. The following text, in fairly large lettering, appeared in the middle of the first Election box: "This is the Zodiac speaking. Do you still think you can stop me? Do you still think I have a soul? I do know that you people do not have souls, for I have destroyed them." That was followed by a very long string of numerals, all of this inside a squarish box. Cgingold (talk) 13:53, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

This is a well-known template vandal. He's done this a lot of times in the past, to various high-visibility templates. All the same zodiac message. Calliopejen1 (talk) 20:46, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

No Foreign Policy experience

Please make more reference to her lack of ability to deal with foriegn policy issues

That is opinion, not fact This is an encyclopedia article not a place for opinion or speculation. --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:37, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Without even looking, I'm sure that the Wikipedia article contains links to newspaper articles discussing this matter. If readers want more information on the matter, they can follow those links. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 20:38, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Semi protection

Given the constant slander spamming on this page, I have filed a request for semi protection. I know that is unusual but not even commenting on this talk page is possibly due to the constant disruption. Thanks. Str1977 ^(talk) 15:47, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Second major female VP candidate? discussion (consolidated

Gov. Halin is described as an ultra-conservative, pro-life politician. She does not believe in condoms, birth control pills, and other contraceptives. She also believes that women who are raped and children who are molested by family members should not have abortion as an option.

Now cited
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
First Major Female VP Candidate Could we have a link to Geraldine Ferraro where it says "second female Vice Presidential candidate", as it took me a long time to find out the identity of the first by myself. The article says, "making her the second female vice presidential candidate representing a major political party...." The implied reference is to the Libertarian and Democratic parties. Saying the Libertarian Party is a "major" party is hardly defensible by any objective measure. If it is major, then so is the Communist Party USA and it had a female Vice Presidential candidate (Angela Davis in 1980 and 1984), as no doubt have many other minor parties in 200-plus years of US history. Semaj3 (talk) 14:15, 30 August 2008 (UTC) Huh? Libertarians not implied. Geraldine Ferraro (Dem) first, Palin (Rep) second. Wasted Time R (talk) 14:18, 30 August 2008 (UTC) I disagree respectfully. Millions in fundraising and succesful aquisition of electoral votes makes it a major party, no? If a party has never recieved electoral votes I'd agree with you. --98.243.129.181 (talk) 19:44, 30 August 2008 (UTC) Is Libertarian not a major political party? I made an edit noting that the first woman to be run as VP and win electoral votes was the Libertarian VP candidate. The second was the democratic candidate and here we have the third woman in a major political party to run for vp. Why then did it get reverted to say that this is only the second woman to run when this is clearly not the case? Thanks! --98.243.129.181 (talk) 19:42, 30 August 2008 (UTC) No, a party that gets 1% of the vote is not major. Having a faithless elector vote for someone doesn't convert a minor party into a major party. —KCinDC (talk) 19:58, 30 August 2008 (UTC) Ok, can I get some citation with that? --98.243.129.181 (talk) 20:05, 30 August 2008 (UTC) Check out the major party article. If the Libertarian Party in 1972, which got fewer than 3,000 votes across the whole country, counts as a major party, then what would a minor party be? How about a citation from you that describes the Libertarians as a major party? This is just common sense. If the party were getting 10% or even 5% of the vote, then maybe there'd be some argument, but it's not even getting 1%. There's no reason to mention it in this article. —KCinDC (talk) 20:12, 30 August 2008 (UTC) What I did in the article was let electoral votes be the guide (as explained in the footnote). For which she will presumably be the third. Maybe it would be notable that she is like the 32nd (or something) woman to run for vice president in all of American History. It makes sense as it is, I was just trying to put it into a more clear perspective that it's not a new concept and niether reps nor dems were the first. --98.243.129.181 (talk) 20:18, 30 August 2008 (UTC) You make an odd sort of sense. Heck, even The Green Party beat The Republicans on this one! 71.233.230.223 (talk) 01:43, 31 August 2008 (UTC) I will say major, look Perot - i think it fair to call a libertarian - pulled 18.8% nationally in 1992. United States presidential election, 1992 Charles Edward 17:44, 31 August 2008 (UTC) Ross Perot never run as a Libertarian. He was an independent in 1992, and in 1996 he represented the Reform Party. The Libertarian Party fielded their own candidates, and their platforms were quite different from Perot's. And even if he were, what matters is whether the Libertarian Party was a "major party" at the time they had a woman on the ticket, not merely at any point in the past or future. Mycroft7 (talk) 21:17, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

campaign or family edits ???

Just wondering. The User Young Trigg has been a user just since yesterday and has only contributed by editing this article. On top of that, one edit is headlined in a rather familiar tone, quoting: - Sarah returned to office three days after giving birth -.

The edits are rather positive in tone, as well.

Someone who knew the pick was coming, prepping the article??? Or am I just too suspicious?

Isn't Trigg the name of one of her sons? The edits certainly seem politically motivated. I noticed that her quote mentioning that she has gay friends has been removed just before the big announcement.Kevin mckague (talk)

[[User talk:Name|Talk]] (talk) 16:22, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Probably nothing. There are plenty of Palin fans who have been advocating this pick for months. Kelly ^hi! 16:23, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Neither is it relevant. Talkpages are for improvements in the article, not for general forum-like discussion. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 16:32, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Seems relevant to me. Just don't think it's worthy of alteration. MonkeyPillow ^pop 16:50, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

How about running or requesting a wikipedia:checkuser on user:youngtrigg. The edit history seems to indicate some proficiency with wikipedia. The information edited gives a POV spin or slant that is partisan. There are many questions raised here. Given we are talking about edits to our information about someone who might end up VP or President I don't think it would be unreasonable to know the facts of the matter. Rktect (talk) 09:25, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Plenty of Palin fans have been advocating this pick for months? Yeah. Fucking. Right. Outside of Alaska, she's a political nobody. Her nomination was a complete surprise. You sound like you're covering for the astroturfers. 76.254.35.154 (talk) 20:29, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Look guys, I realize that this is a hot-topic thing right now, but try to remember that this talk page is for discussion on how to improve the article on her, it's not for discussion about her.--danielfolsom 20:31, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

It would appear that the edits are also consistent with general scrubbing of other sites that mention Palin's previous relationship with indicted Sen. Stevens. In view of this, it appears the edits are entirely partisan in nature, an intended to harm truth to favor the GOP. Could a Wikipedia Editor restore this article to its original tone and content 48 hours prior to the announcement, leaving the relevant factual evidence of her nomination intact? Erichd (talk) 16:57, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Per NPR the page was locked because of campaign/family edits. Were the suspiciously favorable edits left in or removed, or ??? Girlgeek z (talk) 20:34, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Um, learn the nomenclature of Wikipedia. The page was semi-protected due to a large number of non-productive edits by IP or newly registered accounts. Not due to "family" or "campaign" edits, despite the suggestion of foul play by NPR. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 20:39, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I think the entire family section needs a rewrite. Do we need to know how many miles (and kilometers) north they live from Anchorage? Can't it just be stated they live north of there? The way the entire thing is written just seems odd overall, way to conversational, as stated above. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.78.32.200 (talk) 15:50, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Inside VP Knowledge

I do not understand Elliskev's comment. I can put a link to the actual history page where lobbynoise identified McCain's running mate before McCain announced it. I feel it is important that this information made it out in Wikipedia, because it seems that no media outlet was able to uncover it. --Bertrc (talk) 22:05, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Original research aside, we have no way of knowing whether lobbynoise had special knowledge or was just trying to prank people. cf. Chris Benoit; cf. also the pranksters who sent false VP reports to the press ahead of Obama's announcement of Joe Biden. - Jredmond (talk) 22:06, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

It is original research and unverifiable claims. It does not belong. Happyme22 (talk) 22:06, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Wasted Time R's Tim Pawlenty links convinced me that many wikipedians had been posting guesses of the VP nomination as fact, but (for future reference) how was my addition original research? I was referencing something that is clearly documented in the Wikipedia History pages: posting . . . Or were you complaining that Lobbynoise had posted was original research? --Bertrc (talk) 03:18, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Besides which, I read the time/date incorrectly. It wasn't Lobbynoise that spilled the beans Thursday night. It was from an IP address. --Bertrc (talk) 03:59, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia editors had even more inside knowledge about McCain picking Tim Pawlenty for veep: this edit and this edit and this edit and this edit and this edit and this edit and this edit and so on. And also this edit told us that McCain had picked Mitt Romney for veep. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:00, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

The Mitt Romney link doesn't quite equate, (it states that rumors had been floating around, not that Mitt had been chosen) but the Tim Pawlenty links make your case. --Bertrc (talk) 03:18, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Just for future reference, a note on my talk might have helped. I just kind of stumbled across this. Anyway, I can't add anything to what's in the answers above. --Elliskev 00:39, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Can ask a really stupid question? Is anybody really surprised that the article was edited? I would be probably be more surprised if it was not modified. If anybody is truly interested in what the article said 2 days before the announcement they always have the option to look at the history of the article. Do not think for one second that Obama's team is not constantly watching the Obama pages for changes, good or bad. Think about it this way. When you apply for a job, don't you read over your resume before sending to your potential boss? The American people are the President's boss. Any wikipedia article is part of their resume. 01:44, 31 August 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.120.135.108 (talk)

Yes, I did edit the Wiki to put in the information that Sarah Palin was the selection. I did have inside information. I had the information from someone I trusted and I corroborated it against the private charter flight records. You can see where I digged a blog post of mine ( http://digg.com/politics/Sarah_Palin_Picked_For_VP ) as well. Notice the time stamp on it. Don't blame me and others for coming here and editing the Wikipedia with information we already knew when it was the media that was fast asleep and not doing their job. I posted nothing that the media shouldn't have already known and confirmed at the time. If a lowly person like me can do it, why can't the media? --Lobbynoise (talk) 01:43, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Busted

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/08/29/AR2008082902691.html?hpid%3Dtopnews&sub=AR

This is just dumb. Here name was already ~ #2-3 most speculated about by last night. This speculation is likely what led to the edits, not McCain/Palin aides updating in advance of the announcement.--ThaddeusB (talk) 00:57, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

They don't know what they're talking about, at least relative to the McCain page. The spike at 5 pm yesterday was due to me and Ferrylodge going around on the Naval Academy record and Ferrylodge and someone else going around on which way an image should point, neither of which had anything to do with veep. The only veep edit was this one accouncing that Hillary was the pick. I did do a bunch of editing to the Biden article a few days before he was named, on a guess that it would be him, no inside knowledge whatsoever. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:04, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

If you look at the edit history from the day before she was announced, a massive overhaul was done on the article in the morning and afternoon, by one account, Young Trigg, which was apparently created just to edit this article. I think it's pretty clear that this was done by Palin's or McCain's staff -- if it was a Wikipedian who just wanted to improve the article, why would they create a sock puppet for it? I don't think there's actually anything wrong with this, since the edits appear to be of an acceptable standard of quality, but far from being dumb, it's fairly clear that this is what happened. Politicians do know about Wikipedia. 201.236.144.99 (talk) 01:42, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Miss Marple. --Elliskev 01:45, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Hey, what about me? Don't I get any credit for the massive overhaul?Ferrylodge (talk) 01:51, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, of course you do. 201.236.144.99 (talk) 02:02, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, just for the record, I had no idea Palin would be the pick. I assumed that the recent controversy over the firing of Walt Monegan would make her radioactive, either fairly or unfairly. That's why I started overhauling and expanding that section of this article a couple days ago, before Young_Trigg ever showed up. I wanted to figure out if this was a real scandal, or just an insignificant tempest, that was shaping the course of history. Then Young-Trigg showed up just as I was getting ready to hit the sack. Bleary-eyed, I worked with Young-Trigg to substantially upgrade several sections of the article. I have no connection to any political campaign. I did donate to McCain, and will very probably vote for him, but I never met him (saw him in person once in Connecticut but didn't shake hands or get autograph). His staff has never contacted me, nor has Palin's nor the RNC, except to the extent that they contact everyone who they think they can squueze for money. I hope that addresses the matter. I'm just a hopeless Wikipedia addict and political junkie, and none too proud of it. Cheers.Ferrylodge (talk) 02:09, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, you get no attention for being a normal editor. :( I'm just piqued because of how much expertise Young Trigg had on a new account. --\/\/slack (talk) 02:38, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

NPR story

There is an NPR story (Flash audio, about 5 minutes) about possible COI edits to this Wikipedia article.[8]

Yes. We are definitely in NPOV region. Witness User: Young Trigg, a single-purpose user, whose only contributions have been to make this article more favourable to the subject. Seriously, keep your politics out of my encyclopedia, thanks. EvilStorm (talk) 14:54, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Scrubbing of Sarah Palin's Wikipedia Entry

Well, let's be honest. It's no mystery. There's almost no doubt that either the McCain campaign or somebody close to Palin is responsible for the unethical whitewashing of history just hours before her candidacy was revealed.

This is of course a major no-no for Wikipedia. And their source is unimpeachable: a pro-Palin Wikipedia editor.

See http://www.jedreport.com/2008/08/the-mysterious-scrubbing-of-sa.html

NPR also ran a story on the topic in their All things Considered segment on friday the 29th. [9]. I believe that there has been sufficient media coverage and controversy related to the topic that it warrants a mention on the article.O76923 (talk) 17:37, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree it warrants mention and also justifies close monitoring of the entry to ensure further manipulation doesn't take place. Benzocane (talk) 17:52, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I second Benzocane's opinion. Cyrusc (talk) 18:00, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I third. Movingboxes (talk) 18:07, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Of course, there was a scrub effort but not by McCain or Palin campaign officials directly as far as I know. It was organized by one or more commenters early Friday morning to the Draft Sarah Palin for Vice President blog. EvWill (talk) 20:01, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, true or not, it *is* a news item. NPR and others are reporting it, so it deserves a mention in the article. Something like "On August 30th, 2008, NPR and other news sources reported that thirty mostly favorable changes were made to Palin's Wikipedia biography, one day before her official nomination." This doesn't say that Palin or her supporters made the changes, but does (accurately) state that the changes were mentioned in the news. -- Gaius Octavius | Talk 21:27, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Ugh... I love how it now says that "either her or her supporters" scrubbed the entry. Seems that she might have been too busy to do so herself :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.170.104.140 (talk) 21:44, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

"Don’t Like Palin’s Wikipedia Story? Change It", The New York Times, August 31, 2008, Accessed 31 August 2008. This is a news story. Should mention of that fact be witheld from the article?--Wetman (talk) 05:01, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree that there should be at least a mention of this somewhere in the article. It's reached a national level — I discovered all of this controversy via the front page of Google News. The story has now been reported on by legitimate new organizations like The New York Times, NPR and The Washington Post. Shamrox (talk) 06:00, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

What Wikipedians do to a Wikipedia article has everything to do with Wikipedia and not the particular article they are editing. If it belongs anywhere, it would be in an article about editing Wikipedia. Switzpaw (talk) 06:03, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

We have a standard way of dealing with this - it's to mention it here on the talk page. That's already done here. See the template box above, "This article has been mentioned by multiple media organizations...". That documents the issue without adding irrelevant WP:NAVEL stuff to the main page. Wikidemon (talk) 06:48, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

That's not the standard. If the articles had been about general editing procuedures, or conflicts between multiple standards of editing I could see it. These articles are directly about Sarah Palin and the editing of her own article, and so they belong as mentions within that article. Talk page references vanish quickly in a highly edited article, so they don't only belong here. Wjhonson (talk) 16:11, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Wait, what? You're actually saying that Sarah Palin was editing her own Wikipedia article? LOL. Do any of the sources say that, or is there any evidence of editing by her campaign aside from some idle speculation in some opinion pieces? Kelly ^hi! 16:16, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Consolidate the "omg conspiracy" posts?

Anyone mind if I start consolidating the posts related to the NPR or Blogosphere suggesting bias in our coverage of Sarah? Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 20:41, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I beat you too it! not quite finished though. Calliopejen1 (talk) 20:43, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Heh. Brilliant minds think alike. :P Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 20:45, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Yeah I was considering archiving, but all this 270kb is since yesterday! This talk page is insane. Calliopejen1 (talk) 20:54, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Mention in article

The article currently read "On August 30th, 2008, NPR and other news sources[76] reported that thirty mostly favorable changes were made to Palin's Wikipedia biography, one day before her official nomination, leading to suggestions that either her or her supporters had 'scrubbed' her entry." The statement is neutral enough, but is it really relevant? Is this sort of speculation featured in any other article? Also, is anyone disputing that the changes made were relevant and NPOV? --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:45, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Also it is currently sourced to dailyKOS, which is clearly not a reliable source. If the comment is to stay, it must at least be properly sourced. I'll resource it to NPR now, but the relevance question remains.--ThaddeusB (talk) 21:56, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I do not believe this should be mentioned in the article. Of all the things that could and should be said about Sarah Palin, wiki editing? This is a minor to-do with brief media coverage, nothing more. Calliopejen1 (talk) 22:13, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

What scrubbing?

Has anyone actually looked at the edits I made, which included negative and positive information about Palin using biographical sources that were absent from the article before I added them? The article was filled with "cite needed" tags and I provided cites. I received a barnstar for my hard work. The claim I "scrubbed" the article is not true. NPR had its facts wrong, and Daily Kos doesn't know how to read an edit history, attributing dozens of edits from other people to me, and both jump to silly conclusions, even though I made my edits before McCain had even decided on a pick. Vandals make thousands of speculative edits that are wrong, but when one accidentally gets something right, the Washington Post thinks it's a conspiracy. I hope the New York Times fact-checks before its story. But I'm going to stick to the Whiskey Rebellion and other articles about sutff at least a century old from now on. This has been a scary experience. Young Trigg (talk) 09:16, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't have to be a conspiracy for edits to be inappropriate and a conflict of interest. Frankly, I would have chosen a different nome de plume than an obvious variation on her youngest son's name. Care to disclose if you've edited on wikipedia under any other names? Your obvious familiarity with wikipedia, in conjunction with using a brand new user account used exclusively to edit the Sarah Palin article (and your own talk page) is prima facie evidence of shenanigans and a suspect agenda. Frankly, I have massive biases regarding the individuals involved in this election That is why I choose to NOT edit any of those articles. You will find a handful of various edits of mine in the past, but I have learned that it is not productive, nor honest, to edit articles on people with whom I have strong, personal, biases. --Quartermaster (talk) 18:49, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Please.. if you had not interest you wouldn't edit in the first place. That's how I look at it anyway. So trig and a handful of others got an inside scoop. Good for them to edit it ahead of the wave instead of us all playing catch up. And good for trig if she's (or he's) a more professional editor than I. I've gone through several names (not at the same time) but instead of trying to keep up with the names I just stay anon now. :D Anyway, I'm glad those few or howevermany editors hit this page the night before. It helped us as a wiki community get ready for all the lameness that folks like NPR and washington post would fling at us. They are so far out in left field everything looks like a foul ball. I hope everyone one from all sides continues to edit in good faith as long as they are doing it in the spirit of a BLP article. --98.243.129.181 (talk) 22:08, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Man you are going to have to tough it out. I have read one bomb drop after another on here and I think this page needs to be locked down and ALL of us taken out of the loop. The News is going to demonize this woman at all costs and whats going on here is the "reference" for national scandal. Want to see wiki's creditablity go to crap keep letting the Move On's edit this page.PRNN (talk) 09:37, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Sure Trigg or should I say SPA. Creating an account for the *sole* purpose of editing this article, redirecting your User page to your talk page, and then citing a biography with no page numbers and claiming you no longer have the page numbers? So the book appeared and then vanished off your desk in one day? Very bizarre if you ask me, which you didn't. Frankly I think we should remove all the refs to this biography until it can be verified by another party. I'm considering it.Wjhonson (talk) 16:16, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Young Trigg, Sarah Palin's nomination and this election are matters of huge global importance. The edits you made were clearly partisan, and read not like an encyclopedia entry but like a Hallmark Channel biopic, viz: "She played the championship game despite a stress fracture in her ankle, hitting a critical free throw in the last seconds." That you made these edits temporally so close to the VP announcement under a single-purpose username suggests inside knowledge and a clear conflict of interest. Perhaps you should identify yourself.

Is there a WP precent requiring that Young Trig identify himself/herself? Shouldn't our concern be whether the information is factual and supportable? We should be thankful that someone with encyclopedic knowledge took the time to contribute, should we not? Fcreid (talk) 20:26, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Gay friends

Not included into article
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Is the note about how she has gay friends really relevant to the section detailing her political positions? I tried to remove it due to it being unencyclopedic, but it was replaced. --NeuronExMachina (talk) 22:33, 30 August 2008 (UTC) I thinking keeping it shows a more rounded picture of her as a person. Just saying she doesn't believe in gay marriage makes her sound like she dislikes gays, rather than showing that she simply doesn't believe in gay marriage for religious reasons. I think it's fairer to keep it. Sleeping frog (talk) 22:40, 30 August 2008 (UTC) Her self-stated opinion on gay people should be as important as her opinion of marraige because it's pertinent now-a-days. It's pretty widely reported that that she is against gay-marraige but not against people who are gay.. youknow the whole Christian ideal of loving people even if you don't approve of what they do? :) It's relevant. --98.243.129.181 (talk) 23:27, 30 August 2008 (UTC) You're right, NeuronExMachina, it's not relevant. The section is supposed to be about her Political Positions, not about offering "a more rounded picture of her as a person" or about mitigating any appearances of nastiness or narrow-mindedness that might be provoked by the anti-LGBT politics she supports. Catuskoti (talk) 00:00, 31 August 2008 (UTC) I agree wholeheartedly.207.237.198.152 (talk) 00:03, 31 August 2008 (UTC) I think the way it's currently worded in the article though it sounds rather silly, to make it seem like she's using that as part of the reasoning for her stance. Would we also have a hypothetical article say, "Such-and-such politician has said he has African-American friends, although he opposes such-and-such affirmative action legislation"? The cited link doesn't include the exact quote from Palin, so it's impossible to say how much it factors into her reasoning. --NeuronExMachina (talk) 00:07, 31 August 2008 (UTC) I'm glad someone brought this up so that we can reach consensus. First, the fact that she has claimed to have gay friends has been a part of this article for a long time. I know this because I've been working on this article for months and months. That being said, this particular issue goes all the way back to her 2006 race for Governor, which is when the cited source was written. The facts are clear. When asked how she felt about the constitutional amendment (banning gay marriage), Sarah Palin herself said that she has good friends who are gay, doesn't judge anyone, yet supports the constitutional amendment. She choose to claim this at the same time that she gave her opinion on the issue of the amendment. She herself tied that claim to her opinion. While it's true the cited source does not use exact quotation marks and quotes, it's clear that they are using Sarah Palin's own words. She volunteered this claim, it's sourced, she said it in context to this particular social issue (the constitutional amendment) and it think it should stay. PanzaM22 (talk) 01:14, 31 August 2008 (UTC) Mike I'm actually not sure if we can assume the context in the cited source is the same as the context of the information as Palin volunteered it. For example, they may have been in different parts of the interview and the writer may have put them together, there may have been any amount of additional discourse in between, or the writer may have asked about gay friends separately. Honestly, I can see it going either way, but I'd think we'd want to be more certain about the information before including it in such a high-profile article. If we are patterning after the cited source, would it also be appropriate to incorporate the "she doesn't judge anyone" text? In any case, the relevant bit of text doesn't seem to be in the Sarah Palin article anymore, but is still in Political positions of Sarah Palin -- what's typical procedure for moving a discussion to a different article (if needed)? --NeuronExMachina (talk) 07:50, 31 August 2008 (UTC) I understand that you make a valid point, in that we do not have quotation marks to show Sarah Palin's exact words, however, the newspaper article put the 3 things together (the amendment, claim she has gay friends, and the no judging comment) and I think it's safe to assume that they would not have done so if the words were not linked in the first place. This isn't some second rate source, this is a large (if not the largest) well respected newspaper in the state of Alaska. Additionally, Sarah Palin is the only person in the article quoted as saying she has gay friends. Even the candidates against the amendment did not claim that. I also understand if this seems trivial to you. However, when someone is researching a politician's stances on LGBT issues, it's important see every bit of information possible. The fact is, Governor Palin herself claimed that she has gay friends. That is a fact that cannot be disputed. While I recognize that this article is now high profile, this bit of information has been in the article for a long time, before Sarah Palin was considered high profile. As for the bit about not judging anyone, I think in theory, it should be included in the article. Part of the discussion in the 2006 Governor's race was about people choosing to be gay, or being born gay. Governor Palin said she's not out to judge anyone, and did not elaborate on her opinion beyond that. I have not re-added the gay friends claim or the no judging claim because I wanted consensus to be achieved on this page before I took any action. I have a strong opinion on this issue but I recognize that consensus is how things are done here on Wikipedia. As for the second article (political positions of Sarah Palin) I would think that the talk page on the main article (Sarah Palin) covers both articles, at least for now. I do respect your opinions on this, so please continue the dialogue. I also would appreciate it if anyone else would chime in on this, so we can reach some consensus. PanzaM22 (talk) 17:28, 31 August 2008 (UTC) Mike Hi Mike. Thanks for continuing the discussion. I hear what you're saying, but I guess I just don't understand how declaring one "has gay friends" in any way indicates a subtlety in a person's political stance. No matter who their friends might be, people who endorse these policies seem to appeal to one form of alleged justification (e.g., LGBT forms of life are metaphysically perverse, sinful, unnatural, etc.) in order to advocate a singular set of policy recommendations. In contrast, consider how a person might be pro-choice and opposed to abortion because they object to federal regulation of women's reproductive organs. In that case, they might promote increased funding for education about fetal development, etc., while resisting pro-life activists' efforts to restrict legal access to reproductive medicine. A note that a person describes herself as "pro-choice but personally pro-life" might then be informative. In comparison, Palin's declarations about who she is (supposedly) friendly with seem to have had NO influence on her policy choices, and to have been designed, understandably or not, to help to window-dress or sugarcoat her support for an uncompromising anti-LGBT political agenda. It is wholly uninformative, and only serves to encourage relatively more positive feelings (i.e., non-NPOV). Catuskoti (talk) 20:40, 31 August 2008 (UTC) It would be unfiar to suppress her views, she obviously felt that showing her tolerance was an important part of the issue. The Alaskan media also focused on this aspect of the issue. I feel it should remain. I myself am gay, I'm not trying to include this information to sugercoat her views, but I do believe she has the right to have her personal argument be included on this notable political issue. Sleeping frog (talk) 22:09, 31 August 2008 (UTC) Thanks Mike. My current thinking is that it might not be right for the main article (which seems to only have a very succinct summary now of her political positions), but may be worth a mention in the expanded "Political positions" article. I do think though that in the offshoot article we should also incorporate the "not out to judge anybody" text from the source to provide a fuller context, but I'm having difficulty thinking of a wording that is encyclopedic and NPOV. I should also add that part of my initial concern was that the original article wording ("She has gay friends, but...") seemed to make her seem rather more "shallow" than in the cited source. --NeuronExMachina (talk) 22:19, 31 August 2008 (UTC) I feel that explaining the thought process of a candidate helps to explain the position they hold on issues, and prevents POV. We should reword it, yes, but still include it. And nothing requires us to have the section as condensed as it is right now. We should only worry about size if her list of political positions becomes too large, right now even her "reactions" section is bigger than it. That doesn't make sense though, because her political positions are much more important. Sleeping frog (talk) 00:38, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Constitutional scholars "stunned"

I'm removing the comment about constitutional scholars being "stunned" by her selection, sourced to this Politico article. The scholar who stated that, Joel Goldstein, is an Obama supporter and has contributed to his campaign.[10] Kelly ^hi! 23:26, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Agree with removal. Also she has more actual experience in an executive position a decision making type position than her rivals. If talking about experience at all this must be noted. Hobartimus (talk) 23:29, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Truth be told, under the Constitution both Obama and Palin are qualified for the Presidency, in addition to McCain & Biden. GoodDay (talk) 23:36, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Both McCain and Obama have been running national presidential campaigns involving many thousands of volunteers and hundreds of millions of dollars for longer than she's been governor. I think they've been making plenty of decisions, even if you somehow think people don't make decisions in legislatures. Singling out executive experience as the most important qualification is POV (besides the fact that it implies McCain himself isn't qualified). —KCinDC (talk) 23:47, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

You don't seriously suggest that running a campaign courting donors ,thinking about ads is somehow good training for the presidency itself? McCain was also a high ranking military commander but you are right that he has the same type of legistlative background as a politican. I never implied that being a senator is not enough qualification just that governorship (which let's admit it is a bit more similar to the presidency than voting on laws) should not be discounted at all. Hobartimus (talk) 23:56, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Excellent point, which strikes at what is to me the most obvious, and the only nonconstitutional requirement for someone to be president, which is that they simply win the presidential campaign. the vp choice is one more weapon in the candidate's arsenal. Governor Palin doesn't need any particular experience, she only needs to provide what Senator McCain feels is needed from her as vp pick for him to win the campaign. Any references to candidates' experience must be put in context of who is stating it, and not assumed as a requirement, to maintain NPOV. If I can find a quote from a public commentator that reflects this idea, I will suggest it as content. (this is my first post to a talk page, and i welcome comments about its relevancy)Mercurywoodrose (talk) 06:38, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

LOL was just about to post about that quote, good catch Kelly. Politico articles mix opinion pieces with straight political reporting, so it's important to verify that a given article is journalism and not opinion pieces. Like I said, agree totally with cutting it. Wellspring (talk) 23:43, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and the other "shocked" historian who says she is unqualified, Matthew Dallek, is a former Dick Gephardt speechwriter.[11] Surprise, surprise. Kelly ^hi! 23:44, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for protecting this article from hawks that want to slant it with biased sources....you will need to be diligent about it because the "NPOV" facade (insert biased controversy in the name of NPOV) will be relentless. a lot of wikipedians want nothing more than to slant this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.18.108.5 (talk) 01:19, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Those people like Dallek, need to read the Constitution (above). The not qualified stuff in this election, gets flung around too easily. GoodDay (talk) 23:47, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I just searched the Barack Obama article and it doesn't contain the word experience in any shape or form there is no section or even a sentence dedicated to discussing if Obama is experienced enough or not. So it seems the question is whether to discuss this at all in this article? Hobartimus (talk) 23:48, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Of course you wont find that word in there...and it will never get in there...the guardians of the Obama article are absolutely relentless. But the wiki hawks will try to stuff that word in this article...they will persist without rest to slant this article as much as they can in the name of "NPOV". They will come up with all kinds of logical ploys why this article needs to be stuffed with their 'controversey', but call it for what it is- spin and slant. HEre is a good rule of thumb to be fair and neutral: if in principle Obama's article would forbid such comments that would otherwise equally apply to him, then it has no place here as well. Wiki, as a whole, should not show any bias towards any candidate.

Agreed - McCain, Palin, Obama & Biden are all qualified. GoodDay (talk) 23:50, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

No one is suggesting that anyone isn't constitutionally qualified, but if that's the only criterion then we might as well flip a coin to decide which candidate to vote for, since all natural-born Americans who are over 35 and have lived in the US the last 14 years are equally qualified. "Qualified" has meanings other than "constitutionally qualified". —KCinDC (talk) 00:11, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Of course, KC is correct about what is meant by qualified in this context. And we should certainly think about including well-sourced, critical commentary by non-partisan sources if there are some. Tvoz/talk 00:22, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

It is irresponsible to decide what we should be saying, especially based on the politics of the commentators. Where are we going to find commentary on Palin which has no alignment at all? and including only Republicans is a recipe for POV, even if we limit ourselves to responsible Republicans. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:25, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

The real problem is that this article is being presented as a consensus among academics, and that is not true. Criticism and praise are both welcome in a biography, but this is the only source that claims that "scholars are stunned" and it is already being called out for being false. Sleeping frog (talk) 00:45, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

KCinDC's points are definitive. Tvoz makes a good point in principle, but finding citable reliable sources that are completely untainted by any political affiliation or opinion is going to be next to impossible. There is nothing at all wrong with the original "stunned" quotation; it does not violate any Wikipedia policy other than - perhaps - WP:NPOV. On the other hand, it's a bit early to suggest that a consensus has been established as to her qualifications (non-constitutional sense), although things are quickly moving in a certain direction. Here's what's going to happen. A mainstream media consensus will likely emerge as to her qualifications/merits; if and when it does, is it legitimate to put this in the article, and other dissenting opinions need to go in but not with equal weight. Until then, I suggest leaving this material out of the article. In short: patience, Grasshoppers. Arjuna (talk) 01:57, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

"Stunned" may be a loaded term, but there's no controversy over their collective opinion that Palin is the "least experienced, least credentialed" candidate on a major party ticket since 1908. That claim is based on objective measuring criteria mentioned in the article. Nor are these fringe historians; say whatever you want about their personal political affiliations, but they are well-known, mainstream, and respected in their field. The people here objecting to the inclusion of the Politico article are doing so on the basis of ad hominem attacks against the scholars themselves and do not address the substance of their relatively uncontroversial conclusion that she is the least experienced candidate in modern history. That's not a compelling reason to exclude this material from the article. Right now, the "Reaction" section reads like a total whitewash of the significant debate/controversy over Palin's experience and fitness.-PassionoftheDamon (talk) 03:04, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

What was the same analysis about Barack Obama? Who has more executive experience, running things Obama or Palin? I tried to look up the Obama article but it doesn't contain the word experience in any shape or form there is no section or even a sentence dedicated to discussing if Obama is experienced enough or not. It seems there is no discussion in the Obama article whatsoever about the experience or credentials of Obama. You say that there was less of a debate/controversy about Obama's experience? How about Hillary stating that "Obama has a speech he gave in 2002" as all of his experience? Yet there is no mention of any controversy in the Obama article. This strongly suggest that having some sources and alleged "controversy" is hardly enough for inclusion. Hobartimus (talk) 03:20, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Without addressing the merits of your perspective or lack thereof, I only profer as evidence that you are unable to see what constitutes a POV violation your question that "How about Hillary stating..." Ms. Clinton's statement was obviously not a scholarly statement but made in the heat of a partisan campaign. It is unfortunate that you are unable to recognize this, but it does speak in some way to the general quality of your line of reasoning. Arjuna (talk) 04:55, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Please refrain from further personal attacks and instead try to make constructive contributions that relate to the betterment of this article. Hobartimus (talk) 05:30, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Criticising your line of reasoning is not a personal attack, and incorrectly asserting that it is is considered disruptive editing. Arjuna (talk) 11:10, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Please stop, comment on content not contributors. If you continue I will be forced to report you. Hobartimus (talk) 14:51, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

You seem not to have read the policies carefully: commenting on an editor's argument is not a form of personal attack. I ask you to please refrain from unfounded accusations, which is itself a violation. Arjuna (talk) 21:19, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

"It is unfortunate that you are unable to recognize this, but it does speak in some way to the general quality of your line of reasoning. Arjuna (talk) 04:55, 31 August 2008 (UTC)" I agree with Hobartimus; I really don't see how a comment such as the one I've quoted serves any purpose other than being a personal attack on a contributor. Please stop. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.107.143.191 (talk)

• UPDATE to the article "After reading this article, the McCain campaign issued the following statement: "The authors quote four scholars attacking Gov. Palin's fitness for the office of vice president. Among them, David Kennedy is a maxed-out Obama donor, Joel Goldstein is also an Obama donor, and Doris Kearns Goodwin has donated exclusively to Democrats this cycle. Finally, Matthew Dallek is a former speech writer for Dick Gephardt. This is not a story about scholars questioning Gov. Palin's credentials so much as partisan Democrats who would find a reason to disqualify or discount any nominee put forward by Sen. McCain."

That sounds like the Soviet-style attempt to delegitimize well-credentialed scholars. That a scholar has a personal political opinion or has made donations to a candidate does not in any way undermine the credibility of their professional assessment; any attempt to suggest that it does is an anti-intellectual argument that has no place on Wikipedia. Arjuna (talk) 04:55, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Except it isn't a "professional assessment" at all. It's a political assessment, the kind of sleight-of-hand thing academics do all the time when they stick their nose into electoral politics. Their professional expertise in the Constitution is pretty much meaningless when it comes to something like this. It's the kind of political attack a campaign does with academics who don't mind overstating what their credentials should mean. Soviet-style? any attempt to suggest that it does is an anti-intellectual argument that has no place on Wikipedia? I don't think skepticism is anti-intellectual or Soviet-like. -- Noroton (talk) 05:27, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Um, I don't think they were professing to say anything at all about constitutional issues, since no one at all is questioning anything about Palin's legal qualifications. What those scholars are addressing are questions of comparative history regarding presidential candidates, and for which scholars are uniquely qualified over, say, the average Joe standing in the street. You are certainly entitled to your POV, but it has no place in the article (nor does mine). Cheers, Arjuna (talk) 11:07, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

UPDATE: Here's a beaut from a scholar [12] Sarah Palin named two of her children after witches. So glad we could fact check the director of the Boisi Center for Religion and American Public Life at Boston College with People magazine: Willow is a community there in Alaska. And then Piper, you know, there's just not too many Pipers out there and it's a cool name. And Trig is a Norse name for "strength." [13] -- Noroton (talk) 05:53, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

And this is relevant to any thing at all because.....? Arjuna (talk) 11:07, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Maureen Dowd, Aug 31 '08 re Palin kids' names: "Track (named after high school track meets), Bristol (after Bristol Bay where they did commercial fishing), Willow (after a community in Alaska), Piper (just a cool name) and Trig (Norse for “strength.”)"  $\sim$ Justmeherenow (  ) 16:08, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

(ec)Because your idolizing of scholars could use a reality check. Those scholars are actually no more qualified than an average Joe on the street to check back through history to see what experience past vice presidential candidates have had. It ain't rocket science. Nor does it take scholarship to weigh the differences between someone with executive experience (more than the three men on the major-party tickets combined) and the experience of legislators. The word "shocked" is telling as to their credibility as disinterested observers, coming from supporters of Mr. Nevermind-Experience-I-Have-Judgment. Doesn't one of these eggheads sit in the Claude Raines Chair of "Shocked, Shocked" Political Pontificating? Please refrain from unenlightening, emotionally charged statements like: the merits of your perspective or lack thereof, you are unable to see what constitutes a POV violation, and it does speak in some way to the general quality of your line of reasoning (from your 04:55 post). I wouldn't mind a range of opinion about her experience represented in the article, but no leg-up for slumming scholars trying to convince us that the Latin framed on their walls means they have more common sense than the rest of us. Ask Archimedes (μή μου τούς κύκλους τάραττε for the erudite). Let's just say that scholars have no particular standing in political circles outside questions that really call for their expertise. -- Noroton (talk) 16:20, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Fortunately, Wikipedia does not use "scholars", it uses WP:RS. Victor Davis Hanson and Paul Krugman are both scholars also, but you can't cite their opinion articles as fact any more than you could cite Ann Coulter or Michael Moore. Having read the article, they came up with arbitrary criteria. She has more raw years in public service, and more executive experience than Senator Obama. Their argument is that small city / state experience doesn't count (or counts less). They're certainly entitled to their opinion, and you to yours, but they don't belong in an encyclopedia article.

As I said earlier, Politico is a special case. They do real journalism with real editorial oversight, but they also do opinion and blog pieces that can't be cited. We have to scrutinize their content carefully to make sure that we aren't using someone's campaign mouthpiece.

Wellspring (talk) 16:47, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Wellspring gets it right. But when an argument has no credibility whatsoever, attempts to cite spurious sources are all that remains. Arjuna (talk) 21:23, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Palin and Abortion in Rape/Incest cases?

"... She opposes the use of abortion even in cases of rape or incest[81]"

The citation provided comes up dead. I've heard from various news outlets that she SUPPORTS abortion in rape/incest cases, and have found no references that this is not the case. I suggest this be deleted or modified.

The only source I see is under the Political positions of Sarah Palin in which she states that she would choose life if she were raped and became pregnant - This is a personal view, and not a political view.

this info was added as spin. You wont see mention of Obama's vote against the born alive act on his article....this quote needs to be removed. Simply saying she is "pro life" is enough. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.18.108.5 (talk) 01:32, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Someone actually used a NARAL press release for the source on that. It's been removed pending a more reliable source. Kelly ^hi! 01:42, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

I believe she does support abortion when there is a threat to the mothers life. Sleeping frog (talk) 01:56, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

That may be true, Sleeping frog - That needs to be clarified with sources, also, if needed.

http://www.naral.org/elections/election-pr/pr08292008_palin.html may be the source you were referring to, Kelly? Coming from a deathly pro-choice site, I think it's accuracy is questionable... Political stances should have multiple solid sources. —Preceding unsigned comment added by VaughanTheSpawn (talk • contribs) 02:07, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, there's this from the Anchorage Daily News coverage of the gubernatorial debate: http://dwb.adn.com/news/politics/elections/2006/governor/story/8372383p-8266781c.html

The candidates were pressed on their stances on abortion and were even asked what they would do if their own daughters were raped and became pregnant. Palin said she would support abortion only if the mother's life was in danger. When it came to her daughter, she said, "I would choose life."

Her spokesman confirms the view here. I didn't put that link in because it's just the spokesman but someone can if they think that's a good idea. http://www.juneauempire.com/stories/101906/sta_20061019031.shtml —Preceding unsigned comment added by Neiladri (talk • contribs) 03:35, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

I guess that since the reference to rape and incest has just been taken out, we might as well link the spokesman piece and put it in.

Thanks for the reference, Neiladri. Whether to put that citation and comment back in? If her views have changed since then, it would be a good idea to leave the current statement. I think for now, it should be re-instated with the reference noted above. —Preceding unsigned comment added by VaughanTheSpawn (talk • contribs) 04:11, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

By the way. I am really sick of the expression "rape or incest." If by incest they mean the rape of a young girl by a close relative (and I do think this is what is meant) then they should call it "rape." Steve Dufour (talk) 13:53, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

This isn't the place for discussion of what people are or aren't sick of. Please stick to the purpose of this page. -- Jibal (talk) 18:54, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

What happened to the old pro-choice/anti-choice section that was in here a couple of days ago? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.249.0.66 (talk) 23:34, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

The section on abortion that takes it's information fromthe Juneau Empire should be summarized in a more accurate manner. Palin was never quoted directly, but her positions were given by her spokesperson - Curtis Smith. Also, it should include this context from the article - "Smith said the important thing about Palin's abortion views is that she wouldn't be proposing new anti-abortion legislation, and that while her views on the subject are firm, she's not running for office to advocate for them." Theosis4u (talk) 18:58, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Start throwing some blocks, please

Could an admin watching this page start blocking folks for libelous speculation like this edit? I'm getting sick of removing this Daily Kos garbage. Kelly ^hi! 01:47, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree. As much as I love Wikipedia, I'm not going to stay up all night to enforce WP:BLP. --Coemgenus 01:51, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, the article needs more admin attention. A LOT more, we have BLP for a reason. Hobartimus (talk) 01:54, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

4th'd. I imagine this page is getting a hundred hits a minute. That's 100 people who read speculation and violations of BLP as something noteworthy. That is not acceptable. I authorize the use of the ban hammar. --mboverload@ 02:09, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

The first half of the referenced edit, about her pregnancy coming as a surprise to many and the flight from Texas to Alaska, is sourced from legitimate, established media, however. I'm all for removing the Daily Kos speculaation, but I think care should be taken to ensure legitimate information isn't removed in the process. Llanwar (talk) 02:12, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

The Kos stuff was meant to only be mentioned, in the same way that pro-life groups' enthusiasm for Palin's willingness to carry Trig to term, was mentioned by another Wikipedian. But in hindsight, I do agree that, given the conservatism directed by BLP, the Daily Kos stuff doesn't deserve mention until / if it has some more established basis. But in the meantime, Kelly, will you please restore the uncontroversial, properly sourced material (the vast majority of the edit) that you reverted? I do understand your frustration, but think that in this instance, you might have been overly hasty. With thanks and all best wishes, Catuskoti (talk) 02:31, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your well articulated post Catuskoti. To be more clear could you give us the diff that you wish reverted/modified? If you don't know how please leave a note on my talk page and I'll help ya out. --mboverload@ 02:39, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

The "uncontroversial bits" seem irrelevant by themselves and serve only as a lead-in to the speculation. (Think: why would it be noteworthy to say Palin's pregnancy was a surprise? Most pregnancy announcements surprise those who hear them and it also a trivial bit of info.) I suppose the flight might fit in somewhere, but I don't really see where.--ThaddeusB (talk) 02:43, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

I think it's perfectly noteworthy. A person who may need to be counted on to make good decisions for the country makes the decision to keep her pregnancy secret until very late, and then makes the extremely questionable decision to take a cross-country flight while nearly in labor with a baby she knew had Down Syndrome. I think every instance of decision-making that any of the candidates in the election make is noteworthy and should be included in their wiki bio simply as insight into their personality and decision-making style/ability. Llanwar (talk) 03:00, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't Election 08 coverage on a major news network. It is an encyclopedia, and it has no obligation to provide anything like what you are describing. If someone comes here looking for her political positions, we have those, but we cannot provide a deep political analysis; that is for each person who reads this article to make.jstupple7 (talk) 17:15, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Daily Kos is a blog, not a credible source. I haven't heard any medical professionals write or talk about this through a credible source. Besides, everything must be verifiable, that's wikipedia policy. Sleeping frog (talk) 03:04, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

The above comments were regarding facts from sources other than Daily Kos. In the case of those edits, it's an issue of WP:WEIGHT. Switzpaw (talk) 03:09, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm not exactly sure how you see the flight and pregnancy announcement as a matter of WP:Weight when it's not a viewpoint, but purely factual information, verified by reporting from legitimate, established news sources including quotes from Palin herself: http://www.adn.com/626/story/382864.html You could certainly argue that it's not worthy of inclusion under WP:Notability, but that's a different argument.Llanwar (talk) 03:24, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

From WP:WEIGHT, The principle of undue weight applies to more than just the way descriptions of viewpoints are worded in the article; undue weight can be given in various ways, including, but not limited to, depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements. Switzpaw (talk) 03:25, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Also, so you know, from WP:NNC: Undue weight, which is formulated in the neutral point of view policy, applies to factual content and not just viewpoints. Switzpaw (talk) 03:48, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

I'll try to be more specific about the material I'd like to revert in a little bit. But in the meantime, the weight concern is, I think, inapplicable. While pregnancy announcements are often surprising, announcements in the third trimester rarely (though sometimes) are. Plus, traveling from one end of the country to another and delivering a big speech while knowing that labor is imminent IS unusual, as is being fit enough to return to work just three days after delivery. These events could indicate that Gov. Palin is unusually strong, cool-headed, and committed and don't necessarily imply the Daily Kos-sourced speculations. Given how unusual the circumstances are, the events seem to me to meet the Weight wiki-editing guidelines. Catuskoti (talk) 03:43, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree -- I think the facts do show an unusual circumstance that are telling about her character which would justify the weight of reporting on that incident, and it is supported by a reliable source. Though I'd be careful about how you write it. Switzpaw (talk) 04:04, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Okay -- thanks to all of you for your diligence and patience. I've revised the edit. Please re-edit as you all see fit. With best wishes.

(outdent) PLEASE NOTE that the link to DailyKos is an independent diary entry is and NOT AN OFFICIAL POST. It is at the same level as a post on blogger.com. Please do not cite DailyKos as being the author. This is the author --mboverload@ 03:30, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Goodness. There's absolutely no way on Earth that a blog, diary entry, or Daily Kos is a suitable source for this kind of claim to make its way into Wikipedia. I have a feeling this issue will be investigated further. If it makes its way into reliable sources, then there could at least be a discussion, a la John Edwards, but at this point it's just an egregious WP:BLP violation. If someone inserts the claim with Daily Kos or equivalent sourcing, revert them (3RR does not apply) and leave them a note clearly indicating the inappropriateness of the edit and referencing WP:BLP. If they do it again, then please notify an admin (you can leave a note on my talk page or go elsewhere) and they will be blocked. MastCell ^Talk 03:50, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

re: the "rumor"/noise

For anyone who feels duty bound to put this noise in an encyclopedia ...

• (1) The rumor is false. See 3/6/08 photo: http://alaskareport.com/images31/palin_pregnant.jpg
• (2) (Even if true, "white lie" positives would cancel negatives = 0 effect)
• (3) "Only" newsworthy angle: if "story" was planted by e.g. Turd Blossom
• (4) Hi, Turd Blossom :) (Kidding, but you never know, these days) Proofreader77 (talk) 09:28, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

While I don't think Wikipedia is the right place to include (most) of this discussion, the photograph you posted is from a story on April 18th, taken at a press-conference where she announces that she had the baby - http://alaskareport.com/news48/x61145_trig.htm - and I don't think it can be presented as conclusive either way. V krishna (talk) 17:43, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for correction of the date (and link to article). Yes, elsewhere is where "this" should resolve. Proofreader77 (talk) 18:27, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

DATE CORRECTION: (follow-up) Since photos are not always directly associated articles (i.e., stock photos), I contacted the photographer to verify when the photo was taken. The date/location: "3/14/08 at the Republican convention in Anchorage, Alaska at 9:16 am" Proofreader77 (talk) 22:51, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Some more information: In this article [14] the writer clearly states that Palin was pregnant when she met her in April 2008. "...Of course I had to check out the “Hottest Governor in the US” and quickly turned to see her pregnant (she has since had her baby) with bags and daughter in tote."

Any woman can appear pregnant in bulky sweaters (like the one worn by Ms. Palin in that picture). This doesn't disprove the rumors. That said, rumors have no place on Wikipedia.--Thalia42 (talk) 07:41, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

clarification

When informing me of date, time, and location of the photo, the (newspaper) photographer was clear on the matter: the rumor is false. (NOTE: Below, Kelly has provided [a better photo]) Proofreader77 (talk) 09:09, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Wording in the Intro

"after Geraldine Ferraro." Are these three words really important for this article? I mean there's allot of important things to mention, especially in her intro, but does this little bit of trivia really fit there? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.243.129.181 (talk) 04:33, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Whenever you say someone or something is "the second", people's immediate thought is going to be wondering who or what the first is, so I'd say it's worth three words. —KCinDC (talk) 04:43, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

By that logic it would say who came before her in the Miss Alaska thing.. but that would be too much so it says simply that she was runner up.. the end. But this is the intro, limited space available. People reading wiki can just click the link if they really want more in depth info on another topic. --98.243.129.181 (talk) 04:48, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Would someone remove the phrase, please? It doesn't need to be there. --98.243.129.181 (talk) 22:02, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Sure it belongs, for the reason already stated above. What is wrong with it? It takes up 3 words and provides useful, relevant information to the interested reader. Rlendog (talk) 22:53, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

This isn't the place for making a trivia sheet of historical facts. The wiki link is clearly activated so that the discerning reader wishing to know more about which parties nominated which women can easily click and read. On the other hand, if we want full historical context don't just take the two parties, lets give it a REAL historical context and include the first women who recieved electoral votes. As it is it looks like a piss fight between reps and dems over who was first when really neither were..--Oi!oi!oi!010101 (talk) 22:59, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

POV bias in enviro section

It kinda goes without saying that environmentalists oppose oil development near natural settings. The phrase "despite concerns from environmentalists." adds nothing to the article but POV. Could someone pease remove the POV? Thanks. --98.243.129.181 (talk) 04:53, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

It's not POV to report facts about notable opinions. It may go without saying to you, but people learn such things somewhere, and a Wikipedia article is as good a place as any. JamesMLane t c 05:26, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, facts are good. But this: "Palin has strongly promoted oil and natural gas resource development in Alaska, despite concerns from environmentalists." is just a weak POV sentence. It's a fact that environmentalists hav concerns about oil promotion. We agree on that fact, but that fact is misplaced. Inserting a reminder to the reader that environmentalists usually oppose oil is inserting POV. Would you mind moving that fact to the article on environmentalists? Thanks. --98.243.129.181 (talk) 05:34, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually, there are sources that specifically say her policies were opposed by Alasakan environmentalists. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 05:40, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

yeah someone somewhere else used a point of view once so its ok to slip them in to sway opinion here... May want to rethink that reasoning. Its bias it needs to go.PRNN (talk) 09:58, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Not including notable opposing views is unfair, all articles do this. I say keep it. Sleeping frog (talk) 21:54, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Sleepingfrog, this is a BLP. You can't just throw up everyone's opinion of her no matter how well sourced. Go look at the article on AL GORE for a good example. There are no "opposing viewpoints" like that up there and it's rated as a good article. --98.243.129.181 (talk) 22:01, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

I was the person who added the "despite" text. I agree, it is somewhat awkward as I had it, but strongly disagree that it is POV. I think that a reasonable reader could read the sentence without that phrase and not understand that it had anything at all to do with the environment. It is clear that the whole debate about ANWR drilling is generally considered to be environment-versus-resources, and it seems incumbent upon us to somehow get that point across to the uninformed reader. Anything which refers directly to the environment, and not to environmentalists (by some name) is going to be even more POV.

It's not a matter of presenting opposing viewpoints, just a matter of conveying to the reader why there is even a debate. If there were no reason for opposition, the information that she favors something would be useless. Homunq (talk) 03:24, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Regarding reference 29 and her having helped pass a tax increase on oil companies (I think I have that right), I looked up the reference, and while it does support the statement, the source itself is not well sourced publically. I am sure there is a better source available, but I canot find it. Pig Dog (talk) 11:56, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Meaning of Trig's name

Here (the source used in the current version of the article) Todd Palin says "Trig is a Norse name for 'strength.'" Here Palin's spokeperson says "The name Trig is a Norse word meaning 'true' and 'brave victory.'" I guess we go with Todd, especially since it doesn't make much sense for one syllable to simultaneously mean both "true" and "brave victory". But I'm not sure we need the explanations for the children's names anyway, or how reliable what we have is. —KCinDC (talk) 05:09, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

OK, so my name has old Irish roots her boy's name has old Germanic roots. Whats the point?--98.243.129.181 (talk) 05:14, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Yep, I agree. The name info seems inappropriate. Catuskoti (talk) 05:32, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

The children have unusual names, and because they're unusual (how many "Trigs" have you ever heard of? How many "Tracks"?), readers are likely curious about that. This is how they named their kids. It seems a lot more revealing than eating mooseburgers, for instance. There's already been some misinformation out there [15] that she named two kids after witches. -- Noroton (talk) 05:41, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi Noroton. I agree that the mooseburgers reference is trivial. But it is at least brief. Personally, I don't feel that the space you've given to the kids' names is proportional to the degree that readers might be curious about them. The witch-talk you mentioned doesn't appear to have gained traction among established sources (you've linked to a New Republic blog). With all best wishes, Catuskoti (talk) 06:51, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Lots of one-syllable words can mean multiple things. In Chinese, "ma" has five meanings, depending on the tone. The English word "love" can mean respect because of good properties seen in someone, romantic attraction, self-sacrifice for someone without romantic overtones or respect for their characteristics, affection for a family member, and so on.

Consensus seems to be against me here, but let's give it a decent interval. Can we wait, say, another eight hours from this timestamp (then it'll be a bit under 24 hours), and then remove it unless consensus changes? Let's just give editors a chance to see what they think. It's not important, either way, although I still think what parents name their children tells you something about the parents (at least what things they consider important symbols). -- Noroton (talk) 16:49, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good, Noroton. With all best wishes, Catuskoti (talk) 21:07, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Name meanings are not important, these are not significant facts or well known facts, about Sarah Palin. Adding them fills the article with fluff. Sleeping frog (talk) 21:50, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

I can't believe this discussion is even occurring. It is utter fluff and unworthy of an encyclopedia. Delete. Arjuna (talk) 21:55, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

DELETE this is a BLP. We don't throw crap at the wall and see what sticks. Delete everything that is slanderous, non-neutral, not well cited or unreliable. Peace. --98.243.129.181 (talk) 22:00, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

A different source [16] says the name Trig was chosen to honor the baby's great-uncle. Dragons flight (talk) 07:21, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

The Truth is... SHE SMOKED WEED!

She smoked weed. it was likely that she was smoking weed while she was holding public office. http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/08/29/politics/politico/thecrypt/main4397109.shtml

in spite of the fact that several "controversial" TRUE FACTS about this woman were present on her Wikipedia page this morning, they have suddenly disappeared and now the page is locked. i guess someone is hiding a lot of skeletons . I can understand scrubbing untrue statements from Wiki sites, but when the truth is posted, with references, it should not be deleted. Whoever is scrubbing her image and hiding her skeletons should be ashamed of themselves. Scottf43 (talk) 19:55, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

If you're really concerned about articles being scrubbed clean of skeletons try looking at the Obama page sometime. Rreagan007 (talk) 20:03, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

That source does not indicate that "it was likely that she was smoking weed while she was holding public office." You're about one more violation of the biographies of living persons policy away from being blocked. If her prior use of marijuana is widely covered in the mainstream press, then it will likely end up with at least a brief mention here. In the meantime, do you have any other interest in this article or the encyclopedia besides featuring this tidbit as prominently as possible? MastCell ^Talk 20:07, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I love it when people say things like: "True Facts". It is funny because a 'fact' is 'true' by definition. This demonstrates the lack of thought behind the words.--An-Alteran

I'd just like to point out (with no particular agenda or specific changes that I'm promoting) that there's a danger in restricting this articles sources to items "widely covered in the mainstream press." Palin wasn't widely covered in the mainstream press until her name came up as a potential VP pick, and even then she was widely discounted until today. As of today, what the press chooses to report on will begin to erode the thin details that were previously available and if that's Wikipedia's focus, then it will be a potentially different perspective than that which was available a few months ago. That transition itself is notable. I'm not advocating giving equal weight to fringe publications, but if a lesser-known media outlet in Alaska is our only source for some detail, that might not be sufficient reason to exclude its mention. -65.116.132.250 (talk) 21:54, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I'd just like to point out (with no particular agenda) that the national news media (CNN, MSNBC, ABC News, USA Today, AP, etc) is not the same as "mainstream press". The national news media is certainly an important part of the mainstream press in the United States, but they do not hold a monopoly on the term. We have a list of newspapers in Alaska, a list of television stations in Alaska, a list of radio stations in Alaska, and even a Category:Alaska media. I'd say that for a subject that until recently was mostly of Alaskan interest, many of the news sources in those lists and category would be the best "mainstream press" sources to find information on the subject of this article. I'm sure many of them would even qualify under our reliable sources policy. Don't get lazy and expect CNN to do our jobs for us. Gentgeen (talk) 09:19, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I would like to point out another source (from the day before yesterday's version of the article). http://dwb.adn.com/news/politics/elections/governor06/story/8049298p-7942233c.html It will be interesting to see if this becomes a major issue considering Obama's admitted drug use --D3matt (talk) 00:43, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, and Bill Clinton "didn't inhale," and G.W. Bush acquitted for possession of cocaine, if it's a cited fact (from a legitimate source,) what's the big deal.

Agreed. If drug use by Clinton, Bush, and Obama make it into their articles, what's the justification for deleting it here? Without it, why is her opposition to marijuana legalization even being mentioned? I doubt it's mentioned in the articles of 95 percent of politicians who have that position. —KCinDC (talk) 17:56, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

A few things. First, I think we generally don't compare what goes on at other articles to the content in this one. We can refer to Wikipedia policies as precedent, but each talk page has its own stuff going on, and they might be doing things that are just as incorrect as any other page. Second, I think Palin's alleged drug use has satisfied WP:RS, but whether or not it is noteworthy for inclusion is debatable. I personally think it should be included somewhere, but we have to be careful as to how it is included and not giving it anything more than just a passing mention. --kizzle (talk) 19:15, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm somewhat skeptical of these sources for these suddenly uncovered stories. GoodDay (talk) 19:19, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Why are you skeptical? Palin's nod is very recent, and of course people are going to go back and dig stuff up. Are you alleging the article located on cbsnews.com doesn't meet WP:RS?--kizzle (talk) 19:24, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Let's just say I'm skeptical. GoodDay (talk) 19:28, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

This dates back to 2006, as the article from the Anchorage Daily News shows, there is nothing new about it. This is a notable fact. - Epousesquecido (talk) 19:38, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict)GoodDay, Palin has admitted she used marijuana back when it was legal in Alaska (well, at a state level, it was illegal at a national level).[17] This has been known since at least 2006 when she mentioned it in response to her views on legalizing marijuana. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 19:42, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

This also sounds like a plausible thing she would say. Alaska is a pretty libertarian state, and saying you've smoked marijuana wouldn't be too terribly controversial. A 2004 ballot proposition legalizing the possession of small amounts of marijuana failed only by a margin of 44% to 56% (and largely because might have resulted in reparations for past convictions) - see Decriminalization of non-medical marijuana in the United States. 20:45, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually, Palin smoked weed when it was legal in Alaska and has said that she didn't like it. If you're going to mention it, mention what's true and known, and backed up by sources. Sleeping frog (talk) 21:43, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't really give a damn what she smoked, but it was not legal. Marijuana has been illegal nationwide since before Palin was born. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 01:05, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand why we are saying "She has said that she has smoked marijuana in the past, when possession was legal under Alaska state law; but did not like it." but neglecting to mention it was illegal under US law. As stated in the source article: "Palin said she has smoked marijuana -- remember, it was legal under state law, she said, even if illegal under U.S. law -- but says she didn't like it and doesn't smoke it now." Switzpaw (talk) 03:19, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Moved to political positions section, and since now it's being presented in the context of why she doesnt support re-legalization in Alaska, I don't think it's necessary to bring up the U.S. law point. Switzpaw (talk) 03:49, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Self described "hockey mom"

She descrives herself as a "hockey mom" politician. Why is this not mentioned somewhere ? 72.91.214.42 (talk) 14:00, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Sarah Palin + Hockey Mom = 41,000 results 72.91.214.42 (talk) 14:03, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Mention it then. You have to register as a WP editor first, but that's easy. Steve Dufour (talk) 14:11, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

BTW from her speech it sounded like she said that she was a "hockey mom" before she got into politics, not that she is a "hockey mom politician." Steve Dufour (talk) 14:13, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Registering as an editor still means having to wait for four days (and do at least 10 edits) before being able to edit semi-protected articles. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 14:24, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

You are right. I forgot about that. Still the election is not till November so there is plenty of time. :-) Steve Dufour (talk) 14:28, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

I think this might be relevant to add, but the question is where would it fit in? --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:33, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Sarah Palin#Personal life and family seems like as good of a place as any. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 19:28, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

While Mayor "she even pushed for a sales tax increase to build a pet project, a new sports complex for ice hockey." this might be added as part of that statement. Info found here [18]. - Epousesquecido (talk) 19:58, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

I worked the "hockey mom" description into the person info section. --ThaddeusB (talk) 22:27, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Catholic?

The articles cited did not say anything about her being baptized as a Roman Catholic as an infant, nor that her parents were Catholic. They seemed to say that the family belonged to the Assembly of God and that she was raised in that church. Steve Dufour (talk) 14:11, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

On a maybe related issue someone keeps adding the uncited "information" that she supports contraception. Hardly a hot political topic these days in the US. Steve Dufour (talk) 14:34, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

I've added that back with a citation. Sorry to say, but it IS once again a serious political issue. Despite very wide and strong acceptance by the mainstream populace, it's never disappeared as an issue for the Christian Right, many of whom make no distinction between abortion and contraception. And the Bush Admin. has taken steps in the last couple of weeks to undermine the right of access to contraception. So it most certainly is of significance that Palin "supports contraception". Of course, it would be nice to have more detail on that -- for instance, where does she stand on emergency contraception (aka the "day after pill")? Cgingold (talk) 01:36, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

It has been properly sourced again. It was originally, but someone removed the citation at some point. --ThaddeusB (talk) 14:49, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. It still seems a little odd that the LA Times said she was born Catholic but the National Catholic Reporter didn't mention it. Steve Dufour (talk) 15:00, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Not odd at all. And no reason for removal. Str1977 ^(talk) 15:03, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

See above religious section. She WAS baptised catholic as a babe and later when her family moved to AoG was re-baptised as lots of charasmatics are. Hope this clears it up. --98.243.129.181 (talk) 21:56, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Pro-Life

Is it accurate to describe Ms Palin as "pro-life" when she supports the death penalty? She is in effect pro-death. Incidentally, I understand that the RC church opposes the death penalty. Millbanks (talk) 12:44, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:No original research. Poppy (talk) 12:45, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

She's no longer a practicing catholic anyways. A lot of Christians, and catholics for that matter, hold views that aren't precisely what their denomination says, look at all the divorced Christians for example. And saying she's "pro-death" is quite a stretch. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 12:48, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Just fixed yet another whitewash

I can't go through the history right now, but the PSC dismissal section was a total joke when I just checked. Just 2 paragraphs, and Paragraph 2 was a discussion of Wooten's misdeeds (immaterial - the question is not whether he should have been fired, but whether Palin should have had any say in whether he was fired), not of the inappropriate contacts from Palins office. There was NO mention of any ongoing investigation. I put a band-aid fix, but this is totally inappropriate, and if it continues it could be grounds for investigating the offending accounts. Homunq (talk) 14:21, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

You need to give sources when you say things about individuals which could be harmful to them. And just about anything could be harmful to someone running for public office. Please see WP:BLP. Steve Dufour (talk) 14:30, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Homung, I thought Mrs Palin's authority to fire him was undisputed? Surely her reasons for firing him are part and parcel of the whole issue. Str1977 ^(talk) 14:35, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

I've expanded the section slightly, with a well-sourced, neutral sentence about the legislature hiring an investigator. That's absolutely critical information; otherwise, readers will think this is simply a "he said, she said" argument. But as for "Just 2 paragraphs", that is appropriate, I think - per the summary style approach, the details belong in the daughter article. If you contribute there, please avoid POV language, and keep in mind that every single sentence must be sourced. There is no reason to add unsourced information (to the main article or daughter article), given the widespread coverage by mainstream media. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 14:36, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for doing that. Steve Dufour (talk) 14:40, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

You're wrong. It's a question of how she handles personnel issues, and there's a difference between picking on someone for purely personal reasons and coming down heavily on someone with genuine disciplinary problems who also happens to have personal problems with your sister. You might not see it that way, but by removing the information altogether you're making that choice for the reader, which is the definition of POV. A.J.A. (talk) 18:45, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

I have no idea what you mean by "removing the information altogether". It's standard at Wikipedia to "spin off" a subtopic as a separate article - with all the relevant details in that "daughter" article -- because otherwise the subtopic takes up a disproportionate amount of space - see the guideline on summary style. The place to argue over what details should be in Wikipedia is the article Alaska Public Safety Commissioner dismissal, not the Sarah Palin article; you're simply not going to convince editors that more than two paragraphs is needed at the moment in the latter article. If there are further developments, then sure, the section might be expanded, but I don't see anything that has happened to date that needs to be used to expand that section. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 20:37, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

What I put back was two sentences, not a whole paragraph. It is written in summary style, because that's what summary style is: it summarizes, not omits. A.J.A. (talk) 21:03, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Would it makes sense to base the summary info here on the introductory section of the daughter article? I agree that the material currently included here seems disorganized and biased. Catuskoti (talk) 21:20, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

The lead section of the daughter article is even shorter (when you adjust it by removing duplicate information in the first sentence, and omit the last sentence ("Troopergate"), which is there primarily for disambiguation purposes.

Perhaps the most constructive thing at this point would be to suggest alternative wording. Saying something is "disorganized and biased", without providing any specifics, makes it tough to respond either by fixing the wording or by defending it. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 21:49, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm new here so I'm not sure how this works but I think its important to note that http://voices.washingtonpost.com/washingtonpostinvestigations/2008/08/mccains_vp_pick_palin_facing_e.html

states "The investigation is expected to cost about $100,000 and last at least three months, according to The Associated Press." Also http://www.bnd.com/508/story/454849.html states "The investigation is supposed to wrap up by Oct. 31, just days before the Nov. 4 general election." and "Sen. Hollis French, a Democrat and former state prosecutor from Anchorage who is serving as the project director for the investigation. The special counsel just this week was trying to arrange Palin's deposition, French said.

French said Palin's new role as vice-presidential candidate won't change the investigation." I apologize if this is not in the proper format. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MasterOfSparks (talk • contribs) 05:21, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Very brief Sprotection

I have semi protected this page while I ask this question; given the level of "doubtful" contributions by ip's, should this page also be semi-protected for a few day? LessHeard vanU (talk) 15:57, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the libel is really getting out of hand. Kelly ^hi! 16:00, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Absolute support for locking it down for at least a few days--48 to 72 hours, and we can review again after another day. rootology (C)(T) 16:01, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, that sounds like an eminently sensible idea. Kelly ^hi! 16:04, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Str1977 ^(talk) 16:07, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Totally agree. The sheer weight of BLP violations is getting unmanageable. Wellspring (talk) 16:09, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Do not protected this talk page. Some of us actually would like to help. Please see [19] and fix the article. 72.147.76.31 (talk) 16:10, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Semiprotection sounds good to me. —KCinDC (talk) 16:12, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

• I have been the target of IP vandalism since doing the 15 minute sprotect, which means it was obviously the right thing to do; I have therefore extended the protection to 72 hours. LessHeard vanU (talk) 16:16, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Agree with the semiprotection of the talk page for at least a week. Hobartimus (talk) 16:50, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

I also agree with the semi-protection. It is highly unfortunate, but necessary due to the constant slander posted here. --ThaddeusB (talk) 17:01, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Regrettable, but necessary under WP:BLP. --Coemgenus 17:04, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

In agreement with semi-protection. GoodDay (talk) 17:06, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with semi-protecting the talk page. If the tradeoff is that responsible editors have to do a little more work, to remove blatant trash, versus excluding newcomers from being able to contribute anything at all toward improving the article, I think the latter is far worse. JamesMLane t c 17:16, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

That's a legitimate point, but right now, concerns about libel against a family that's just been thrust onto the national (international?) stage should weigh more heavily. I support the semiprotect for a few days, then we can see what happens. -- Noroton (talk) 17:37, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

The protection expires in a couple of days; what is so important that it needs to be edited in now and couldn't wait for either the lifting of protection or having an account autoconfirmed? LessHeard vanU (talk) 18:17, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

I think it's the principle of the matter. Semi-protection is not something used lightly against sporadic inclusions of passages deemed violations of NPOV or WP:RS. If there's a GWB-worthy (or even half of it back in its prime) slew of vandalism, by all means bring it on, but lets use semi-protection as it's meant to be and not a pre-emptive measure of relief. --kizzle (talk) 19:04, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Look at the history of this talk page. There's been a truly hideous amount of gutter-slander thrown around. It's sickening. Kelly ^hi! 19:36, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

So we have our jobs cut out for us :) --kizzle (talk) 19:39, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

JamesMLane, I'd normally agree with you, but in this case we were getting hammered. I think we had a couple spammers buried in there hitting us with post after post. This was necessary, but temporary. Wellspring (talk) 20:56, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

I fear that a 'It's blogging/it's not blogging' argument has erupted. GoodDay (talk) 18:12, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

I must admit that I don't normally frequent hot political articles, but I happened across this one, and it sickens me. Blocking for BLP violations has little or no effect for people who commit drive-by libel. This talk page should indeed be semi'd for a little while. Also, if another admin decides to remove semiprotection from the main page again, they're getting hit with the trout. Cool Hand Luke 19:43, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Stop tempting us, man. Anyway, the ideal and largely even the practice is that protection is against our basic value of openness and should be used as little as possible. In this particular case, however, we have (a) an important subject that will draw a lot people here to learn about it, whether we like it or not, and (b) a WP:BLP matter. BLP for all you reporters out there stands for Biographies of Living Persons and is the fairly iron-clad rule that we have to be strict and authoritarian when dealing with such articles because all the alternatives are worse. I support extended semi-protection of the article but semi-protection of the talk page only for very short periods when we're not just getting a whole lot of drivel but cannot deal with it. Otherwise, the low ratio of babies to bathwater does not make up for the loss of the former. --Kizor 22:38, 31 August 2008 (UTC)