Talk:Sarah Palin/Archive 35

Archive 30

←

Archive 33

Archive 34

Archive 35

Archive 36

Archive 37

→

Archive 40

Palin's Profession

The infobox currently lists Palin's "Profession" as Sportscaster, Homemaker, Politician. I think it should specify her primary profession and not include "Sportscaster" in which she worked for about one year over twenty years ago. I am not sure what the current PC status is on listing "Homemaker". In the VP debate, she referred to her business experience and because of the family fishing business she is currently a "Business Owner". IP75 (talk) 00:01, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Wow, that was ridiculous. Fixed so it now reads just "Politician". I'm not implying that this is the only label that applies, but "Homemaker" just seems sexist and insulting when she is a state governor. I mean, is that supposed to be a part time job or something? Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 00:26, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Many people list their professions as including "homemaker." I do not think that term is something to be ashamed of, is it? Obama is listed as "attorney." McCain as "naval aviator." Arnold is "bodybuilder" "actor" and "investor." Seems to me precedent is to include all professions in such articles. Collect (talk) 00:31, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

I guess, but if a man and a woman with a child both have full-time jobs, do both of them call themselves "homemaker"? Or only the woman? I guess I just think of child duties as being implied and when someone is designated as a "homemaker" I assume that means they work less than full time because of tending to their household/child duties. I see now that the Wikipedia article on homemakers lists two definitions. I just intuitively always thought of the second definition.Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 00:47, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Huh? Are you saying "Homemaker" is a dishonorable thing to list as "profession"? It is a title which Palin appears to have chosen in the past, regardless of your high or low esteem for it. Collect (talk) 00:50, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't even know where you are getting this. I simply thought it was a misapplication of the term, wrongly implying that she doesn't work full time as governor because she takes care of her kids.Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 00:55, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Again -- the normal way it is handled is that all the professions a person has had are listed. No implication about being concurrent is made in any of the articles I have found. Nothing about being full-time in all of them at the same time. Collect (talk) 01:07, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

I dimly remember we discussed this some time ago, but can't be arsed to dredge the archives. "Homemaker" is not a profession but an occupation. As her other professions are also occupations, an equitable solution would be to substitute "occupations" (plural) for "profession" if "homemaker" is to be included. Perhaps Dave Collect could point us to a qualifying source for Saint Sarah's use of the word in reference to herself? — Writegeist (talk) 01:14, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

"Profession" as listed in the template encompasses all "occupations." Parsing it to mean something else would mean that almost every such article would have to be changed. A susch is clearly absurd, let's just leave her "occupations" as "professions." I doubt anyone else would raise the distinction.

Online Etymology Dictionary profession c.1225, "vows taken upon entering a religious order," from O.Fr. profession, from L. professionem (nom. professio) "public declaration," from professus (see profess). Meaning "occupation one professes to be skilled in" is from 1541; meaning "body of persons engaged in some occupation" is from 1610; as a euphemism for "prostitution" (e.g. oldest profession) it is recorded from 1888. Professional (adj.) is first recorded 1747 with sense of "pertaining to a profession;" 1884 as opposite of amateur. As a noun, it is attested from 1811. Professionalism is from 1856. Collect (talk) 01:38, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Collect- Are you suggesting we refer to her as a prostitute? IP75 (talk) 01:59, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Nope. And making "funny" when the point is clear that, for WP usage, "iccupation" and "profession" mean the same thing inthe template at hand is not sensible. Collect (talk) 02:02, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Oil and gas regulator? Grsz^X 01:28, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

This is absurd. Jane Swift, Nancy Reagan, Barbara Bush, etc. What makes Sarah Palin more of a homemaker than them? Tvoz/talk 02:09, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

"Business owner" is what's absurd. That's like calling McCain a beer distributor. Of course, calling Palin a homemaker or sportscaster is like calling Biden a lawyer. How long ago was that anyway? --Evb-wiki (talk) 02:11, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

No, lawyer is a legitimate profession. "Oil and gas regulator" was a short-term political appointment, not a profession. "Business owner" is an exaggeration. And "homemaker" is no more her profession than "mother". Why the need to pump up her professional credits? Jane Swift was a governor, and that's what her profession reflects. The rest of this is ridiculous. Tvoz/talk 02:42, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree Tvoz. And one year as a "sportscaster" does not meet the connotation of "profession" - it was a short-term job. IP75 (talk) 02:59, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

One year is still an occupation, and it is what she has a college degree for. And Businessperson is absolutely accurate. And she is only a woman so "homemaker" means she was only a silly housewife. Not like it was a job, eh? I re-added the Sportscaster and Businessperson. And left out Homemaker because they don't count. Fine? Collect (talk) 03:43, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

The claim is made that there is consensus that Palin is only a politician, and she has no other jobs in her c.v. That is absurd, contrary to any logic at all. And since there is NO consensus that the only job is politician for ALL the other politicians on WP, I find this claim hard to swallow! Collect (talk) 03:46, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

I didn't say she had no other jobs, and this is not her c.v. Nor did I say that all other politicians are handled in any particular way - you claimed that the "normal" way it is handled is to include all other jobs, and I said that is not true. Once again, did Nancy Reagan have any other jobs than First Lady? Actress, perhaps? Yet her occupation is listed as First Lady. Jane Swift is listed as politician, yet she is a businesswoman, consultant, and was an executive with the Massachusetts Port Authority. I could go on. As for homemaker, you ought to check who you're talking to before suggesting prejudice against women. Tvoz/talk 04:04, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm shocked -- shocked, I tell you. That is...that the Harry S. Truman article would label Truman as a small businessman when that article itself reveals Truman merely co-owned a haberdashery but "a few years"! (I mean, how could Palin's ongoing work as a second-generation commercial fisherman possibly compare with that?)<snarkily rolls eyes>  $\sim$ Justmeherenow (  ) 04:06, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Your snark is not appreciated. There is is a real issue here, and it is about puffing up/down - in this case making her appear to be just one of the guys - for unstated reasons that aren't too hard to figure out. Tvoz/talk 04:18, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Wow! worse than I'd thought. This site reveals that "after two years, the business [Truman's haberdashery partnership] failed." (Whereas Palin's childhood and adulthood spent learning seasonal commercial fishing has only netted the family biz she helps run a mere $46,265 for 2007: which is chicken feed!)  $\sim$ Justmeherenow (  ) 04:48, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, even George W. Bush is identified as a businessman. (Ha!) I guess that term could apply to almost anyone. --Evb-wiki (talk) 05:06, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

I think this whole thing is a resulting of digging and undue weight. She's done nothing for more than a few years except hold office. It's different when Obama actually practiced law and McCain had a prolonged military career, but as for Palin it's a completely different issue. Grsz^X 05:01, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

That is my point. Politician. But some forces want to portray her as something else. How about maverick? Or hockey mom? POV all the way.05:33, 13 October 2008 (UTC)Tvoz/talk

I understand that argument, that it should be there pre-political profession...but let's face the fact that Palin doesn't have one. Grsz^X 05:40, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Again, there's no requirement that it be pre-political. There also is no requirement that the field be used at all. Some politicians have no "profession" or "occupation" field in their infoboxes, letting the position they hold speak for itself. (See Elizabeth Dole, for example.) We could avoid this entire argument by leaving it out. How's that for a compromise, seriously? Tvoz/talk 05:52, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Sarah's seasonal commercial fishing career might not be the same as if she'd been an "urban "professional" (fishing's involving exprerience and skills more of an elbow-grease kind). Still, Palin's work background is what it is. Nonetheless there appears to be just a whole lot of original research in some comments above. Of course Dubya was in the oil biz like his dad and famously ran a major league baseball club, so I don't see how that could be termed other than his having been a businessman. And Palin had until recently juggled helping run the family fishing business a month or two each summer alongside her political duties. (She'd decided to hire a city manager after she'd become mayor of Wasilla..... And it's said in Juneau she is more delegator than policy wonk, too.)  $\sim$ Justmeherenow (  ) 06:14, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

How about: (1) not listing a profession, or (2) letting her call herself what she wants - how does she describe it? Listing professions/occupations is always a funny thing and it's not always about politics, gender, bias or anyting else. I can't tell you how many people are listed as an educator, author, speaker, entrepreneur, performer, etc... because nobody can figure out exactly what they do. With politicians, there is definitely an off-wiki tendency to name what they are aside from being a politician, and often it's not precise or well-supported. Wikidemon (talk) 06:34, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Dave Collect writes: the point is clear that, for WP usage, "iccupation" and "profession" mean the same thing

Ah. I was never quite sure about iccupations.

It's rather lovely to think of Mrs Palin in her pinafore, dusting the moose antlers, vacuuming pet dander off the wolfskin rugs, polishing the souvenir fragments of Russian bombers shot down on family hunting expeditions, and baking hash brownies for the kids' birthdays: "homemaker" should definitely stay. — Writegeist (talk) 06:51, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

A pinafore and hash brownies. Now that is homemaking. :-)~ --Evb-wiki (talk) 14:19, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Amazing the amount of respect you have for such an important profession. Collect (talk) 14:08, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Wait, Nancy Reagan is listed as a professional First Lady? How does one have an occupation that isn't paid? Grsz^X 13:19, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

In the guv's words

I. "City mayor...manager...governor...commissioner...regulator"

[Katie]: "Governor Palin, since our last interview, you've gotten a lot of flak. Some Republicans have said you're not prepared[...].

"Well[...]I don't know who[...Kathleen Parker] is. So I won't take …

"But there has … "

" … her words necessarily to heart."

" … people have questioned your readiness since that interview. And I'm curious to hear your reaction."

"Well, not only am I ready but willing and able to serve as vice president with Sen. McCain if Americans so bless us and privilege us with the opportunity of serving them, ready with my executive experience as a city mayor and manager, as a governor, as a commissioner, a regulator of oil and gas, not only with my résumé proving that readiness, but I think the important thing here is that John McCain and I, we share a vision for America that includes energy independence. ¶ It includes securing our nation, first and foremost. It includes an environment where we are cherishing every child in this country and we are providing them good education opportunities. And top of our agenda, too, in getting our economy back on track[...]."

[Mac]: "Let me just … the end of that. This is not the first time that I've seen a governor being questioned by some, quote, 'expert.' I remember that Ronald Reagan was a cowboy. I remember that Bill Clinton was, President Clinton was a governor of a very small state that had no experience either. ¶ I remember how easy it was going to be for Bush I to defeat him.[...]."

II. "Sports reporting"

[Time Magazine's Jay Newton-Small]: "What got you involved in politics?"

"I studied journalism in college and always had an interest in the newsroom, which was of course so often focused on politics and government. I studied sports reporting, and that's how I started off in journalism. But even earlier than that, my dad was an elementary school teacher, so often our dinner-table conversations were about current events and about those things that an elementary school teacher teaches students — much about government and much about our nation, and so I had ingrained in me an interest in our government, how things worked. And then from there I just became more interested in more practical steps that I could take... Started off running for city council[...].

"Did being younger and being a woman gives you a better perspective on politics and government than a more traditional politician?"

"What's more of a challenge for me over the years being in elected office has been more the age issue rather than a gender issue. I've totally ignored the issues that have potentially been affecting me when it comes to gender because I was raised in a family where, you know, gender wasn't going to be an issue. The girls did what the boys did. Apparently in Alaska that's quite commonplace. You're out there hunting and fishing. My parents were coaches, so I was involved in sports all my life. So I knew that as woman I could do whatever the men were doing. Also that's just part of Alaskan life. ¶ But the age issue I think was more significant in my career than the gender issue. Your resume not being as fat as your opponent's in a race, perhaps — being able to capitalize on that[...]."  $\sim$ Justmeherenow (  ) 14:24, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

III. [Fisherwoman]

[February 2008 issue of Vogue Magazine]: "During the summer, she and her husband spend time commercial-fishing thanks to a permit that has been passed down on the native side of his family from generation to generation. It's the kind of brutal work that most Americans stopped doing generations ago, but Palin relishes the challenge. 'I look forward to it every year,' she says."  $\sim$ Justmeherenow (  ) 15:21, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Tvoz (above) said, "No, lawyer is a legitimate profession. 'Oil and gas regulator' was a short-term political appointment, not a profession. 'Business owner' is an exaggeration. And 'homemaker' is no more her profession than 'mother'. Why the need to pump up her professional credits? Jane Swift was a governor, and that's what her profession reflects. The rest of this is ridiculous."

The space in politician's infobox for occupation is to give an idea as to their pre-political background -- as it's pretty redundant to say a politician's occupation is "politician." How in the world is relating that someone was a sports reporter and a fisherwoman if they really were those things fluffing their resume? It seems that it is actually contributors such as Tvoz who desire to remove factual information in order to align the bio with their preconceived notions about Palin's not possessing "professional" enough of a resume; whereas what would seem to be more the Wikipedia way would be simply to relate whatever the actual facts and allow readers to draw their own conclusions.  $\sim$ Justmeherenow (  ) 16:28, 13 October 2008 (UTC) While it might not be Wikipedia's place to comment on the legitimacy of subjects' occupations, it would still seem reasonable to reserve profession for area of formal training; so I've changed the infobox items to indicate "politician" and "businessperson" as Palin's "occupations" and "sports journalism" as the area of her professional training (and first career gig).  $\sim$ Justmeherenow (  ) 16:50, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Fluff can work in both directions, Justmeherenow - if you want to beef up your "regular guy" "not-a-politician" creds you might describe yourself as a fisherman. If you want to show that you're qualified for the office you might stress your history as a city councilperson, mayor, governor, politician. We usually do not decide how to write a biography based on how the individual refers to him or herself - we go for outside, verifiable sources. And your logic is faulty anyway: if I wanted to remove factual information in order to align the bio with their preconceived notions about Palin's not possessing "professional" enough of a resume, an offensive suggestion, why would I want to remove her occupation as fisherman? Please don't make assumptions about my motivation or desires - it is out of line as well as wrong - just read my words. And by the way - since there now is a discussion gong on here about this, I don't think you should have gone ahead and edited according to your preference. Tvoz/talk 18:53, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

As it stands now

Currently there is no "Occupation" listed. I think that's just fine. She's spent no meaningful time outside of elected/appointed office. Mayor 96-02, Oil/Gas Commission 03-04, Governor 06-present. She was 32 when she was first elected mayor, 28 in council. Considering she didn't graduate until 1987, that leaves 5-9 years of non-government work, in which nothing came to the top. If anything, she was predominantly a journalist. Grsz^X 14:43, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

The infobox currently lists her "Profession" as "Businessperson, Politician." --Evb-wiki (talk) 15:01, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

I think listing both occupation and profession is very confusing to the average reader. The purpose of an infobox is to readily provide clear, basic information. This is a simple matter that does not warrant this degree of complexity. IP75 (talk) 18:01, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree it is confusing to have both occupation and profession in the infobox. I support removing both as unnecessary and as per other politicians such as Elizabeth Dole. Tvoz/talk 18:56, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Maybe having both is confusing. I was trying to accomodate apparent queasiness with the "profession" label. Would it be OK in the meantime with everybody if I restored the deleted text here until we reach consensus?  $\sim$ Justmeherenow (  ) 23:17, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

"seasonal commercial fishing" is redundant -- all fishing is seasonal, pretty much. "Businessperson" covers other ventures, and is more accurate. Collect (talk) 23:38, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

"Commercial fishing" is more descriptive, but if "businessperson" is deemed to sound more substantial than "fishing...plus miscelleneous investments mostly in realestate and fishing rights" -- that'd be OK too.  $\sim$ Justmeherenow (  ) 02:59, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

After reviewing numerous political figure's bios, I confirmed that with a few exceptions, none listed more then two entries under profession. Some of these were featured articles like Barack Obama which does not list 'community organizer' as a profession. When I started this section, I felt that 'sportscaster' and 'homemaker' did not seem professional. After reviewing other articles, I am very clear that "Businessperson, Politician" are the most appropriate entries. IP75 (talk) 02:13, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Prospective veeps Palin and Biden, common men

Notable background material need only pass a realiability-of-sources test, no elitist one. One individual is a Rhodes scholar? Another "fella," a subsistence huntress? Both, fine. Just show us the sources!

1. Pp 37-38, How a Hockey Mom...: During the summers after graduation and throughout college, Sarah helped Todd fish commercially in Bristol Bay. They fished from a twenty-six-foot skiff with no cabin, a boat that could carry 10,000 pounds of salmon in eight holding bins below deck. It was the most physical and dangerous work Sarah ever had undertaken. On calm days, with Bristol Bay glittering in the sunshine, the surge of migrating salmon felt like a miracle. The work was staggering, however, and on stormy days, with cold saltwater spraying the deck, it took every fiber of Sarah's resolve to stay standing.... ¶ One day Sarah was holding onto the rail of their fishing boat as it sidled up to a tender to which they were delivering a load of fish. As the boats made contact, Sarah's hand was smashed against a railing. She broke several fingers. Todd skiffed Sarah to shore, went back out fishing, and returned to pick her up the next day. Even with a bandaged hand she climbed back on board to help. ¶ "I couldn't disappoint him," Sarah said. "No matter how cold or nauseous, you just didn't complain."
2. Oct 2 WaPo: A few years ago, he watched her pilot husband Todd Palin's commercial fishing boat in a storm. Todd was working at his oil-field job on the North Slope, and Palin and her father had been fishing on Bristol Bay. "It was the toughest work I've ever done, and it wasn't only hard, it was dangerous," Chuck says. At the end of the run, they had to get the boat on a trailer amid crashing surf. As cold, metallic-sheened waves tossed the trawler around, Chuck quailed. ¶ "I'm not doing that," he said. ¶ "Get out of the way," Palin said. "I'll do it." ¶ She did.
3. Aug 24 HuffPo: It was late on a Friday afternoon in the mid-nineties, and I had finished some work in Washington and was meeting my wife up in New York for the weekend. I was in the next to last row of an Amtrak car when Senator Biden took the seat behind me. Soon after we left the station, he got on his cellphone.[...]. ¶ This guy was working hard, and he was very, very smart. He had at least two conversations. [...]He had a deep and intricate knowledge not only of the subject matter of the legislation, but of how small changes in the bill could have huge impacts on what it was he was trying to accomplish. ¶ What he was trying to accomplish was central to his efforts. What I witnessed was an earnestness, and a total lack of cynicism, that took me by surprise. [...] The other thing that impressed me about this guy was how he talked to the staffer, and to the other Senator. The tone with each was the same. He was collaborative, conversational, practical, and he didn't pull rank. [...]At my law firm, we insist that everyone from our runners to our senior partners are treated with the same level of respect, so there is very little that impresses me more than to see someone who appears to operate under the same creed.
4. Oct 1 NYT: Mr. Biden’s Amtrak travel is the stuff of Washington lore. He started making the 90-minute trips each day to be with his young sons after his first wife died in 1972, and he has continued ever since. On the stump, Mr. Biden cites his commute as a way to connect with voters; last month he brought reporters along to chronicle a ride. ¶ At least by Senate standards, Mr. Biden does not have to try too hard to underscore his relative lack of wealth. He has long shouldered a heavy debt load; he obtained or refinanced mortgages 29 times since he was elected in 1972, and currently owes $730,000 on two mortgages on his home.

 $\sim$ Justmeherenow (  ) 22:54, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Justmeherenow, what is the point you are making here? Do you think you could try being less obscure and just make your point in plain English rather than posting a load of research for us to read, with no clear reason given? I'm confident you have a point - but some of us don't have the time to get into your head and try to figure out what it is. Thanks. Tvoz/talk 00:34, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Biden needs some Wikiluœv too!* (Sorry.) *Palin has dominated the coverage. The press section of Biden’s campaign plane is dominated by young television reporters who don’t get much attention from their producers....--R. Lizza  $\sim$ Justmeherenow (  ) 01:09, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Troopergate / Tasergate: section name

She calls it Tasergate, all the newspapers call it Troopergate. Should we consider renaming the section to "Troopergate/Tasergate" or something? Homunq (talk) 00:23, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Why exactly would we want to do that? Her spin doesn't get to distort this article. We go with verifiable sources, and, as you say, they all call it Troopergate. Tvoz/talk 01:47, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

That would be fine with me. I just think that nobody but us calls it "Alaska Public Safety Commissioner Dismissal". People who come here looking for that issue could well have a hard time finding it under that name. How about "Alaska Public Safety Commissioner Dismissal ("Troopergate")" ? (Honestly, I think "Tasergate" is transparent spin, but I included it in my proposal as an olive branch...) Homunq (talk) 16:31, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

I have no problem with renaming it Troopergate. Tvoz/talk 18:21, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

I think a heading should be more descriptive. People in the know will understand "Troopergate" but we're targeting people who aren't in the know. Same goes for "Tasergate". The real controversy now is not about the dismissal (which Branchflower admits was comepletely proper), and not about the workman's comp claim (which Branchflower admits was handled well), but rather the issue of whether (or not) the Governor pressured subordinates to fire a state trooper for personal reasons. So, the heading ought to be something like "Alleged pressure by Governor to fire trooper for personal reasons".Ferrylodge (talk) 19:21, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Branchflower report

The way the article handles it is fine right now, but I want to forestall future problems by pointing out two things: 1) the Legislative Council is not the legislature, it's a committee that is meant to manage routine business while the legislature is not in session; 2) the Legislative Council did not adopt the report, it merely voted to release one volume of it. Nothing should be read into this except that they thought it was a matter of public interest. So let's not have editors coming along later and inserting text that implies the legislature made some sort of adverse finding. -- Zsero (talk) 03:08, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Do you think it's likely that the material will get degraded? If so, how about proposing a statement for the FAQ that explains why the report is framed the way it is. That way, you can just point to the FAQ as an initial answer if someone proposes or makes a change. Wikidemon (talk) 06:28, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Does the legislative council derive its power from the legislature itself? If so, then if we make a point of explicitly saying the council is not the same as the legislature, we should make a point of explicitly saying that the council derives its power from the legislature, or is an extension of it, or whatever the case may happen to be.Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 16:14, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Sure, whatever the exact set-up we should be able to say it succinctly without much fuss. It's really a technical question. I'll go ahead and create an article about it if there is none already. Then we can just link to it. Wikidemon (talk) 19:35, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

 Done - see Alaska Legislative Council. Any mention of Sarah Palin is conspicuously absent. I didn't want to wade into that right now, but I did dig up an interesting old case involving fishing rights. Wikidemon (talk) 20:26, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

As I understand it, the Legislative Council is the body of legislators responsible for managing the business of the legislature when the legislature is not in session. Obvious they don't pass laws during this intersession period, but one of their roles is to prepare and receive reports, such as the one at issue here. Dragons flight (talk) 19:39, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

More important than the nature of this committee is the fact that it did not vote to adopt the report. Therefore the finding is only that of Mr Branchflower, not of the Legislative Council. -- Zsero (talk) 21:03, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Just out of academic curiosity, did it vote not to adopt the report?Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 23:16, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Also curious...is the Legislative Council in session?--Buster7 (talk) 23:46, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Picture caption

The picture caption in the bridge section indicated that Palin urged further federal funding during the 2006 gubernatorial campaign. However, the cited sourcedoes not say that, so I've edited the caption accordingly.Ferrylodge (talk) 18:35, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Unlawful is not supported

I have searched the Branchflower report and cannot find any reference's to Palin being unlawful. The word unlawful means she broke a law. I would think (and support) that if there is a reasonable charge that she broke the law, then it should be proven in a court of law. I am finding more and more POV and less and less respect for Wikipedia. This is a terrible tragedy to a potentially fantastic resource.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.236.112.195 (talk • contribs)

You apparently didn't try very hard. Branchflower's finding number 1 alleges that she broke the Alaska Executive Branch Ethics Act, which is a state law in Alaska. Obviously, it would have to be proven in court to be affirmed as factual, but she is clearly alleged to have engaged in unlawful conduct. Dragons flight (talk) 19:29, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Without assigning anything to Palin one way or the other, I want to point out that "lawful" typically has a slightly different meaning than "legal". If someone's actions are "lawful" then that means they are accordance with both the spirit and the letter of the law and that they involve an effort to abide by the law. In that sense "lawful" is more a synonym of "law-abiding" than "legal". If someone's actions are "legal" then they are not prohibited by law but there is room for interpretation as to whether the actions were respectful of the law and represent an attempt to remain in harmony with the law in both spirit and letter. Thus it's possible for someone's actions to be "legal but not lawful". Food for thought.Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 19:48, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

www.dictionary.com - Unlawful (various definitions) 1. not lawful; contrary to law; illegal. 1. Not lawful; illegal. 1. not conforming to legality, moral law, or social convention; "an unconventional marriage"; "improper banking practices" [syn: improper] 2. contrary to or prohibited by or defiant of law; "unlawful measures"; "unlawful money"; "unlawful hunters" 1 : not lawful : not authorized or justified by law Most folks I know consider "unlawful" to mean breaking the law. If one twists and turns the meaning of "unlawful", then I it could be true in some small choices. However, This is an exact quote from the document, …“was a proper and lawful exercise of her constitutional and statutory authority”… Yet the part that gets put into wikipeida is ..."which found that Sarah Palin unlawfully abused her power as governor and violated"... How does the use of the word "lawful" in the report get ignored, but the word "unlawful" is not used and is put into wikipedia? I guess it depends on what the meaning of "is" is. :) The real world and not some erudite rueings. More food for thought, but of the steak variety. (reference General Patton)—Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.236.112.195 (talk • contribs)

These two definitions you posted are the ones I'm talking about.. "1. not conforming to legality, moral law, or social convention; "an unconventional marriage"; "improper banking practices" [syn: improper]

2. contrary to or prohibited by or defiant of law." I have no objection to putting the fact that her firing of Monegan was lawful in the article. I could swear it was already in there.Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 22:04, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

I read the report. The report does not say Palin did anything she could be prosecuted for, nor does it recommend any action. It states that she should not have allowed her husband into her office where he met state employees, and that she had an obligation to stop all contacts even if she did not know any contacts were made. The report also says that people who make complaints should be able to find out what is happening, and that this was why the contacts were made. Further, Palin's actions regarding Monegan were legal acts of a Governor. I commend everyone to read the full report, by the way. Collect (talk) 20:40, 13 October 2008 (UTC)— Collect (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Conclusion #1 in Branchflower's list is that she violated the state Ethics Act, for which she could be prosecuted. You are right that it did not recommend whether or not she should be prosecuted, or recommend any other course of action, but the report clearly asserts that the action regarding Wooten was illegal. Nonetheless the report also asserts that her actions regarding Monegan were legal. Two different aspects of the same situation, two different conclusions, all in one report. Dragons flight (talk) 20:47, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

The "conclusion" was basically a pointer to Section IV, which is where the meat of the report with regard to Palin is found. Note particularly that it boils down precisely to the two points in my precis above, and the exoneration about the legal treatment of Monegan. In general, the meat of the report is more valuable than the summary, though few read the whole report. Collect (talk) 20:51, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

This mornings headline: "State Ethics probe finds Palin "abused power." "......she was found in violation of a state ethics law that prohibits officials from using their office for personal gain." 'nuff said.--Buster7 (talk) 22:26, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Curiously enough, I tend to find the actual report to be a better indicator of what is in the report than a news article written by a person who did not read the entire report. I am funny that way. Collect (talk) 23:57, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

please, Collect...I beg to differ...You are NOT funny in ANY way!--Buster7 (talk) 00:04, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Buster, was that really necessary? Erik the Red 2 ~~~~ 00:23, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes--Buster7 (talk) 00:33, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

I am the one who first argued against the use of the word "unlawful". I find the current revision to be more accurate and worthy of Wikipedia. Thank you for maintaining a wonderful resource, albeit a constant and never-ending struggle to avoid POV and just the facts. I am a Palin supporter, but more than that I am a truth supporter. Please everyone, let's not be Neville's and make sure all the facts are known, and not wished...

bad templates

I think something might be wrong with the template layout. The page looks funny. Is this just my browser?76.194.202.77 (talk) 00:18, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Looks fine in Safari and Firefox 3. Erik the Red 2 ~~~~ 00:22, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Monegan's dismissal

The section on this subject is pretty big now, and has recently gotten bigger following the Branchflower Report.

But actually, I think the Branchflower Report establishes that some aspects of this controversy are really not very controversial or notable, and so we can actually cut back this summary a bit. For example, Branchflower indicated that Palin's firing of Monegan was a proper and lawful exercise of her constitutional and statutory authority to hire and fire executive branch department heads. Likewise, Branchflower says that Wooten's workers' compensation claim was handled properly and in the normal course of business like any other claim. So, we can mention these two items earlier on in the summary, and not dwell on them, I think.

Since the dismissal is not really the controversial thing anymore, I think we ought to modify the heading of the section to something like "Alleged pressure to fire state trooper" instead of "Public Safety Commissioner dismissal".Ferrylodge (talk) 18:47, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

And I think it should be changed to "Troopergate" or "Abuse of Power". The "Alleged" you are offering doesn't quite jibe with the finding that the pressure was not alleged but was real, and was an abuse of power as well as a violation of the state's Ethics Act. So we can talk about changing the heading, sure, but let's be careful about not introducing POV. Tvoz/talk

Tvoz, if Palin denies that she was pressuring Monegan to fire Wooten, then who are we to call her a liar? Maybe she's lying, maybe not. The word "alleged" does not imply that she is lying, and does not imply that she is not lying. I am very surprised to hear you argue that the word "alleged" is POV. Is that really what you meant to say?Ferrylodge (talk) 19:04, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Maybe you see it differently, but the impression I got was the Palin didn't dispute that pressure was applied by her husband and staff to fire (or otherwise remove from field work) Trooper Wooten. The impression I have had is that she and her lawyers dispute that applying pressure in this way, or allowing her husband to apply pressure, was illegal. She seems to still suggest that Wooten is unfit. If they aren't objecting to the assertion that efforts were made to remove Wooten, then I'm not sure "alleged" is necessary when discussing the "pressure". It would be necessary in discussing the point of whether or not she broke any laws, but that seems subtly different. Dragons flight (talk) 19:19, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

The issue is whether she violated any law or did anything wrong. If it was just her husband, without her connivance, then she's off the hook.Ferrylodge (talk) 19:27, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

[ec] And the finding of "abuse of power"? Her husband doesn't have power to abuse - she does. Tvoz/talk 19:35, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

The finding is an allegation. It is not a determination by a court of law.Ferrylodge (talk) 19:37, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Ah, so your lawyerly assessment that she's "off the hook" was .. what? Tvoz/talk 19:45, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

You really tempt me to say soemthing here that I shouldn't say.  :-) Tvoz, my words above were: "If it was just her husband, without her connivance, then she's off the hook." Thus, I was obviously not giving an assessment that she's off the hook. I was describing circumstances under which she would be off the hook. Call that lawyerly if you will. But personally, I don't think people should go to jail for things that they had no knowledge of. I'm a stickler that way.Ferrylodge (talk) 19:57, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

OK, I missed the "if". I don't think people should go to jail for things they had no knowledge of either, nor do I believe that she had no knowledge of her husband's actions, or her own phone calls and email. But you're right, you said "if". I stand moderately corrected, on that one point of your assessment. Tvoz/talk 20:05, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but I'm addressing that "pressure to fire state trooper" is a more appropriate section header than "alleged pressure to fire state trooper", because the existence of pressure is apparently undisputed (as best I can tell). Dragons flight (talk) 19:31, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Look, whether she lied or not is not for us to judge - the commission did that for us. They found she violated the ethics act, period. They found she engaged in an abuse of power. Plain and simple. To change the head to "Abuse of Power" would be consistent with other articles in which people of her stature were found to have abused power as the commission found she did.LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 19:32, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

[ec] Ferrylodge, you are the one introducing the word "liar", not me. I am talking about what the report says, not how she is portraying it. She said that she was cleared of any ethics violation, yet the report said she was in violation of the state's ethics law. She says she didn't pressure, they said the pressure that came out of her office and her failure to stop it was an abuse of power. I don't want to interpret it, nor do I want to spin it in any direction - hers or anyone else's - I merely am saying that the report's findings don't jibe with your proposed title. We should therefore be careful how we word it. "Alleged" is neither prima facie POV nor NPOV, I agree, but the context matters. So why not use "Troopergate"? This section should not be retitled based on what the latest news reports say - it should be a stable title that reflects how people would be looking for information in the encyclopedia. Tvoz/talk 19:30, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Branchflower concluded that Palin's "claims of fear were not bona fide and were offered to provide cover for the Palins' real motivation: to get Trooper Wooten fired for personal family related reasons." So I suppose one could reductively state that he is calling Palin a liar. I am not a lawyer and I don't know when something goes from "alleged" to "actual". Common sense suggests that when an independent, bipartisan government investigation reaches a conclusion, things have advanced beyond the realm of speculative allegation, but whatever. "Troopergate" seems to be the name adopted by the media to reference the whole affair, so that may be the best and most compact title. MastCell ^Talk 19:35, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, I never said that the title should say there was a "speculative allegation." Branchflower is making an allegation that has not been adopted by a court of law. Just like stuff that Sam Ervin said, and just like stuff that Joe McCarthy said. It may be correct, and it may be incorrect, but at this stage it is only an allegation.

I'm against "Tasergate" in this section header, and I'm against "Troopergate" in this section header. A heading should be more descriptive. People in the know will understand "Troopergate" but we're targeting people who aren't in the know. Same goes for "Tasergate". The real controversy now is not about the dismissal (which Branchflower admits was comepletely proper), and not about the workman's comp claim (which Branchflower admits was handled well), but rather the issue of whether (or not) the Governor pressured subordinates to fire a state trooper for personal reasons. So, the heading ought to be something like "Alleged pressure by Governor to fire trooper for personal reasons".Ferrylodge (talk) 19:41, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

This is somewhat true insofar as, if someone is saying Palin committed a crime, it is still an alleged crime until she is proven guilty in a court of law. However, statements about non-criminal conduct do not need to be confirmed by a legal conviction in order to be non-"alleged". Remember that the report is the finding of fact on which the Alaskan prosecutors will base their decision of whether to bring charges against Palin. It's hardly preliminary. If the report says she used undue pressure, it's no longer an allegation to say so here. However, a statement that Palin violated the law would still be an allegation, because she hasn't been convicted of anything.Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 19:52, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

This section of this article says that the Branchflower report concluded that she "unlawfully abused her power as governor and violated the state's Ethics Act." That's not an allegation? Of course it is. For this Wikipedia article to say or imply that it's an objective fact would be preposterous.Ferrylodge (talk) 20:05, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

I never said anything about what's in the article. I made points about how to word whatever is said. Read it again, more slowly this time, and let the words sink in. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 20:25, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

The comment to which you were responding (i.e. the comment immediately before yours) only discussed what the heading should be. In your reply, you said that some statements "do not need to be confirmed by a legal conviction in order to be non-'alleged'." This seemed to me to be an assertion by you that the heading need not include the word "alleged." If I was misinterpreting what you said, it's not because I did not read slowly enough, but rather because you did not write in a clear manner. And that's about as politely as I can say it.Ferrylodge (talk) 20:51, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Troopergate is the clearest, easiest to find title. ANY other title is an attempt to hide the hurtful results of the Branchflower report. My second choice would be The Branchflower Report...--Buster7 (talk) 21:54, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Uh, so The Branchflower Report is an attempt to hide the hurtful results of the Branchflower report?Ferrylodge (talk) 22:54, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

be so kind, let me clarify for you, ferrylodge. What I mean to say is that YOUR title is an attempt to hide the hurtful results of the report. Hurtful to the candidate that you clearly and continuously support. I support the title "Troopergate". (I believe that is the question before us). I also suggest...if Troopergate doesn't pass the sniff test...the new title, "The Branchflower Report". I hope this clears up what I was trying to say. Actually, I think you knew what I meant...you were just trying to be funny, right? --Buster7 (talk) 00:01, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

The heading I suggested was "Alleged pressure by Governor to fire trooper for personal reasons". I don't see that that would hide anything, really. It tells an uninformed person a lot more than the bare word "Troopergate". Anyway, I guess we'll leave the heading like it is for the time being, until a consensus emerges.Ferrylodge (talk) 00:28, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

But, the bare word "Troopergate" would, more than likely, be a/the buzzword that would assist the reader in finding the topic they are searching for. I know that when I search the contents here, It is easy to find "beluga suit" or "book banning" or "the wink". The other, wordier, content items are slightly harder to locate. I also know that Gov Palin prefers Tasergate since that title throws the attention to the trooper rather than the Gov. But, considering the prevailing and troubling level of shielding the candidate from any critique of her propriety, it really has become unimportant.--Buster7 (talk) 13:22, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

I have no problem at all with using the term "Troopergate" as well as the term "Tasergate" in the section, so people can easily do a word search.Ferrylodge (talk) 15:41, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

What I said applies perfectly well to the heading as to any other text. If the statement says Palin "committed a crime", it's an allegation until she's convicted of that crime. If the statement doesn't say she committed a crime, a criminal conviction hardly seems necessary to drop the terminology. If the report says that it is a fact she pressured people to fire Wooten, that's no longer an allegation. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 22:12, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

If you're suggesting that the Branchflower Report is a reliable source under Wikipedia policies, and that we should treat everything it says (except criminal accusations) as verifiable fact, then I would disagree with you.Ferrylodge (talk) 23:29, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

I'll ask again. Is it too much trouble, to wait until after the US prez election, to add/remove these controversys at this article (and the Biden, McCain, Obama articles)? Are people gonna jump off a building, if we do wait? GoodDay (talk) 23:07, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

The political moment should not dictate what goes into wikipedia, when. Can you please explain your rationale? LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 23:10, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

'Cause, it won't hurt anybody to wait & they'll be less intensity after the election. I promise you, waiting won't do any harm. GoodDay (talk) 23:13, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Actually, it would do a lot of harm. If there's a moratorium on including material about controversies until after the election, anybody reading this article before the election (which will probably be the majority of people that ever look at this article) will be wrongly getting the impression that there are no controversies. Meanwhile, all manner of positive and supportive material would be fair game, and the article would take on a promotional tone. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 23:18, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Very well, continue with the never-ending this should be added/no it shouldn't disputes. Guarenteed, you all won't be any farther ahead, come November 4. GoodDay (talk) 23:23, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Weird redirections?

Why does Sarah Plain redirect here THROUGH levi johnston? I was searching because I remembered some book like, sarah plain and tall or something to that effect but yeah, I wound up here, and it said I had been redirected and if I was looking for the football player levi johnson blah blah... weird. 75.163.17.206 (talk) 06:01, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

This has been fixed. By the way, it's Sarah, Plain and Tall for the book. Tvoz/talk 06:30, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

And its themes will surely resonate with Sarah, Plain and Short after the election. :~) Writegeist (talk) 06:34, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Levi Johnston: New Information

As a wikipedian for several years, I was shocked and a little disappointed to see that all the information available on my favorite encyclopedia for "Levi Johnston" was one sentence. As the editors of this article know, when I searched for his name, I was redirected to "Sarah Palin's personal life."

This seems very illogical, and believe me, I'm not trying to make it political.

Here's a news story from today [1]. Perhaps this could be used to beef up this young man's information?

(Gary Seven (talk) 15:49, 14 October 2008 (UTC))

Why? Material about this man belongs in the national enquirer, not here unless something dramatic changes. He is non notable and material about him isn't really necessary here. Maybe in a sub article about Palin's children's partner's or future spouses could work? Cheers, --Tom 15:54, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, entirely non-notable, to mention here or his own page. WP:1E. Grsz^X 15:57, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps that's what I mean in a nutshell. When does someone become famous enough to have their own page? Gary Seven (talk) 16:09, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

See WP:N. Thanks, --Tom 16:12, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Dismissal of Public Safety Commissioner

There are some references in this part that don't seem to belong here in this article:

1 1st para, last sentence. It doesn't seem relevant to this article why Monegan's replacement resigned.

2 3rd para, last sentence. The text doesn't say why Sarah and Todd Palin didn't testify in the end after the subpoenas were found valid. Were the subpoenas withdrawn? An explanation of Sarah Palin's conduct in this context seems important to the article.

3 4th para, last sentence. What the finding was re Colberg seems irrelevant to the article on Sarah Palin. Obviously it needs to be mentioned in the context of the articles on the Monegan dismissal and the Branchflower Report, but I'm not seeing how it belongs in this article.Corlyon (talk) 15:56, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

As to point three: if you really believe that Palin had nothing to do with Colberg not turning over her emails, I have an important transwater infrastructure project for you that only needs one more private investor to qualify for federal matching funds. 216.106.170.195 (talk) 04:04, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it's at all relevant what I 'believe'. I am a reader of articles as well as an editor. I am Canadian and have no direct involvement in the outcome of the US election, so I think I have some degree of objectivity. When I read this part of the article I don't find any explanation of the connection between Mr. Colberg's conduct and Ms. Palin's life story that is sufficient for me to appreciate why the information is in the article on Sarah Palin. The reader should be able to follow the point of a paragraph without being a 'Troopergate' geek.Corlyon (talk) 23:12, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

As to point one: The Governor appointed a cabinet member who resigned two weeks later because of allegations of misconduct in a prior job. That's worth noting in the Governor's bio article. It's in this section because this is where the office of Public Safety Commissioner is being discussed, so readers would logically look for it here. The alternatives are to give it its own section or to remove from the article this significant event in her administration. The current setup is preferable to either alternative. JamesMLane t c 06:05, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Ought we list all appointees of all officials who resign? I think that would be unwieldy for many. Or is this simply a convenient way to indirectly accuse Palin of backing sex offendrers in office? Collect (talk) 12:11, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Breezy accusation of misconduct. It isn't just the misdeed, it is that it is pushed a little further. Anarchangel (talk) 17:51, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

What I actually wrote was, "The Governor appointed a cabinet member who resigned two weeks later because of allegations of misconduct in a prior job." I thought my point was clear. Should we list all appointees who resign? No. Should we list all top-level appointees who resign after an extraordinarily short tenure in office because of allegations of prior misconduct? Yes. JamesMLane t c 18:31, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Thus all "top-level" appointees who resign after less than a month for whatever reason should be listed under anyone who appointed them, no matter the party or office, without exception? Collect (talk) 18:39, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Straw man. And a timewaster Anarchangel (talk) 17:51, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

I say that such people who resign "because of allegations of misconduct" should be included. Does that mean that such people who resign for any reason whatsoever should be included? No, it quite obviously does not. If a cabinet member discovers after a couple weeks that the commute to the office is too tiring, or that s/he doesn't like the restrictions of the public sector and wants to go back to running a hedge fund, that resignation probably wouldn't be all that big a deal. Do you hae a specific case in mind? If it's another Palin appointee who resigned, bring it up here. If it's a Governor X appointee who resigned, bring it up at Talk:Governor X. JamesMLane t c 20:50, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

But by including it in this fashion, then, aren't we asking the reader to draw conclusions about Sarah Palin's ability to pick people for the positions to which she is appointing them? Again, as I said above, I am writing as someone who reads the article and wonders what the connection is to the article. If this appointment had been commented on by a verifiable source as an example of bad decision-making on Ms. Palin's part, then perhaps if it was notable enough, it ought to get its own section; otherwise it just seems to be a fact inserted where it 'fits best' (but doesn't really fit well) to push the reader to making a judgment. I don't think that's appropriate. As to my second point, is there any explanation for the failure to respond to the subpoenas? It seems to me this is either a serious contempt of the process or a non-issue, if the subpeonas were withdrawnCorlyon (talk) 23:12, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

I removed one sentence which incorrectly put the issuance of subpoenas before the start of Palin's Admin reneging on her promised cooperation with the AK legislatures bi-partisan investigation. Subpoenas were issued on Sept 12 [2] and Van Flein (Palin's attorney) attempted to remove the case from the Legislature's jurisdiction on Sept 3 [3] beginning a week of challenges to, not cooperation with, the investigation that culminated in subpoenas - not vice versa. BeBopnJazz (talk) 19:17, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Palin's comments after being found in violation of Alaska's Ethics Act: I am again adding the phrase "Although implicated in the report," since her comments are completely untrue. This is not "cute" or "point of view" as per Collect's comments, it confirms that Palin's comments were not misquoted or mistyped, she really did make the untrue statement.Facts707 (talk) 17:52, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

As Palin was commenting on the action officially being investigated -- the reassigning of Wooten -- it is clear that her words are not contradictory to the report. If I recall correctly, the report said she did not reassign Wooten contrary to any law. Collect (talk) 18:47, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Your memory serves you ill. Its major finding was she was guilty of ethical violations. Anarchangel (talk) 17:51, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Palin said she was "very very pleased to be cleared of any legal wrongdoing, any hint of any kind of unethical activity there.", but the Branchflower report found that Palin "permitted Todd Palin to use the Governor's office...to continue to contact subordinate state employees in an effort to find some way to get Trooper Wooten fired." and "Governor Palin knowingly permitted a situation to continue where impermissible pressure was placed on several subordinates in order to advance a personal agenda, to wit: to get Trooper Michael Wooten fired." (both quotes from Branchflower Report, page 66).Facts707 (talk) 06:42, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

I actually read the entire volume 1. The statement is made that she should not have allowed Todd Palin into her office with access to any state employees, and that she failed to take action to prevent anyone contacting Monegan. That is the total extent of "violation." The report makes no claim whatever that she acted improperly otherwise. The report also suggests that this was due to a natural frustration for people who make a complaint, and then are given no report back on what has been done about the complaint at all. I coomment everyone to read the appropriate sections in their entirety -- it should only take an hour or so for most. And again -- read the report, not just the news articles. Collect (talk) 20:13, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

With your record for reporting, I seriously doubt that is the total extent. And that is an ad hominem, but I feel that the need to cast doubt on your statements, giving as it will someone else reading this the much needed chance to take what you say with a grain of salt, outweighs the negative. Anarchangel (talk) 17:51, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

As well as reading the Branchflower report, people should read the transcript (or listen to the audio) of Palin's response to the report.Facts707 (talk) 06:42, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Support for Alaskan independence

Why no mention of this American Patriot's (sic) previous support for Alaskan secession from the United States? She attacks Obama for being unpatriotic for the most oblique reasons. What can be more unpatriotic than trying to leave the Union? 86.17.211.191 (talk) 00:40, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Maybe when Obama starts a "guilty by association" smear campaign, we can add a comment about her association with her husband and the AIP to Obama's article. --Evb-wiki (talk) 00:49, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

I believe that was debunked a few weeks ago. There was some claim by a member of the Alaskan Independence Party that Palin had been a member, but it turned out to be a false or mistaken statement. You might search the talk page archives for that, or just google. Wikidemon (talk) 00:56, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Also got a rare New York Times retraction, to boot. Collect (talk) 02:52, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

...And, wouldn't you know it, wrong again, as proven by... Anarchangel (talk) 18:15, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't know what "retraction" you're thinking of. The NYT routinely corrects articles when mistakes are found, which is one reason they are considered so reliable. They issued a correction about the AIP article here: [4]. The paper recently issued a correction to a 40-year old theatrical review, which listed the wrong actor in a part. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:07, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

I usually think of corrections as fixing spellings, correcting picture captions. The "correction" on Palin reads:

"Correction: September 5, 2008

An article on Tuesday about concerns over Senator John McCain’s background check of Gov. Sarah Palin of Alaska, his choice of running mate, misstated the history of her political party affiliation. As The Times has since reported, she has been a registered Republican since 1982; she was not for a couple of years in the 1990s a member of the Alaskan Independence Party, which advocates a vote on whether her state should secede. " Collect (talk) 04:33, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

I believe that a "retraction" is when they take back an entire article. Retractions are rare, but corrections are common. IIRC, the NYT corrections section has 5-10 items a day. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:48, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Most people would regard "a disavowal or taking back of a previous assertion " as being a "retraction" and not just a "correction" in normal English usage. Almost all NYT corrections are of trivial importance. Vide "An article on Friday about the stock market’s plunge misstated the number of shares that were traded on the New York Stock Exchange on Thursday. It was nearly 8.3 billion — not million" which, I posit, most people would consider a typo. Collect

(talk) 04:54, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Right. Not. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;^dissera! 14:42, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Here's some information on how the Alaskan Independence Party helped Sarah Palin come to power: http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2008/10/10/palin_chryson/ I don't know if folks trust salon as a source but perhaps you can find some well-sourced information in the article you can use. Interestingly, this same Mark Chryson was quoted by the Anchorage Daily News after the Palin-Biden debate, praising her performance.GreekParadise (talk) 15:29, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Hell, this lady is palling around with Todd Palin. From 1995 to 2002, he was a registered member of the Alaskan Independence Party. [5]. I wonder how close they really are. --Evb-wiki (talk) 15:48, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Which means what? Sorry -- trying to pile Ossa on Pelion is not logical. Unless you can find a quote of Palin in favor of secession, there is no way that putting such a claim in here is proper. Being praised by a person whome you think has a position on something does not make you have the same position. Really. And last I looked, no one has found Todd Palin speaking for secession either. Collect (talk) 15:50, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Would be hard to verify. The great likelihood is that she just denied membership. However, the same author's claim on Democracy Now that S. Palin nominated 'Black Helicopter' Steve Stoll, of the AIP, for the position she vacated on the city council to take the mayorship, would not be. That it was for services rendered would I think have to be inferred, as there won't be documentation of that either. Anarchangel (talk) 18:15, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Todd Palin was registered member of the Alaskan Independence Party. See http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26524024/ :

"ST. PAUL, Minnesota - Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin's husband, Todd, twice registered as a member of the Alaskan Independence Party, a fierce states' rights group that wants to turn all federal lands in Alaska back to the state. Sarah Palin herself was never a member of the party, according to state officials."

Regards.Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 16:44, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

So...Obama waves to Ayers at a community picnic and is considered a 'terrorist' But Palin's husband is politically aligned to a faction that wants to succeed from the Un ion and its not worth a mention. Interesting polarity.--Buster7 (talk) 22:59, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Obama did not "wave to Ayers at a community picnic". They have been close political allies for well over a decade. And Ayers is a terrorist; neither Todd Palin nor anybody connected with the AIP is a terrorist. The AIP is a mainstream political party, a legitimate part of the Alaskan political scene. It has never sought the violent overthrow of the USA, and there's nothing disreputable about Todd Palin having once been a member. Hey, Ronald Reagan was once a Democrat! -- Zsero (talk) 02:26, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

In any case, what's wrong with supporting a state's peaceful secession? Since when did that become a crime? -- Zsero (talk) 02:28, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

@Zsero...It is not a crime...never said it was. It IS worth mentioning...here if not in the article. The Ayers connection is an over-blown out-of -proportion attempt to create something that never existed...a friendship. They were never "palls"...they were never "buddies" they were never allies. They lived in the same city, involved in local politics, and Ayers had a coffee for Obama. That's it! Your claims of friendship are matters of opinion not matters of record or fact.--Buster7 (talk) 04:18, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, Buster, that is just not true. Kurtz and Diamond have extensively documented the relationship. Their relationship goes back to before Obama even went to law school. Ayers chose Obama as chairman of his baby, the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, and they worked closely on that for Obama's whole time there. And it wasn't just "a coffee", it was the launch of his political career, and it didn't just happen to be in Ayers's and Dohrn's house by accident. Obama gave a rave review to Ayers's book. They've been close allies for years, and there's no point in pretending otherwise. -- Zsero (talk) 06:12, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Zsero, I'm confident that's not true. Former Reagan ambassador Annenberg chose both Obama and Ayers (Now-Professor Ayers was "rehabilitated" as Chicago's 1997 man of the year.) I don't think you can find any reliable source that says what you said.(Rush Limbaugh doesn't count.) As for the AIP, it's founder Joe Vogler, according to his wikipedia entry, said: "The fires of hell are frozen glaciers compared to my hatred for the American government. And I won't be buried under their damn flag." Also from the wikipedia article on him: "Vogler disappeared under suspicious circumstances in May 1993[4], just weeks before he was scheduled to give a speech to the United Nations on Alaskan independence, sponsored by the government of Iran.[5][6]." AIP members said he was executed by the US government. That's pretty harsh. And Todd was a member of the AIP. Obama was never a member of the Weather Underground. In fact, Obama has harshly condemned the Weathermen, who bombed property (avoiding people) in protest against the Vietnam War when Obama was 8 years old. Obama, like most Republicans and Democrats in Chicago, had mistakenly believed Ayers had reformed himself in the 1990's. Compare this to Sarah and Todd Palin who have never to my knowledge condemned the AIP or Vogler. Of course, Sarah Palin gave the opening address at the AIP convention. Imagine if Joe Biden or Michelle Obama had given the keynote address at a secessionist convention. I think FOX News would play it every day until election day. GreekParadise (talk) 14:38, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Cite for your claim Walter Annenberg personally chose Ayers? I didn't find a source, but I am sure you have one? Collect (talk) 16:13, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Do you ever say anything without a condescending tone of sarcasm?Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 17:05, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Might you actually answer questions instead of casting aspersions? My aim is to improve the article, not to be accused of being "not nice" to you. Can anyone at all find a direct cite for Annenberg choosing Ayers? Thank you most kindly. Collect (talk) 23:17, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

That would be the question mark at the end of "but I am sure you have one?", for future reference. Doesn't go with the "sure" part, dead giveaway. Anarchangel (talk) 18:15, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

1. There's no reason to suppose either Palin ever met Vogler. Nor did he ever harm anybody. The AIP is a legitimate participant in Alaskan politics. It is unacceptable to compare it in any way with the Weather Underground, a terrorist group in every sense of the word. They did kill people, and that they didn't kill more wasn't out of any sense of humanitarianism but because they were too incompetent. The Fort Dix attack was foiled before it happened, and the attempt to assassinate Judge Murtagh and his whole family failed, but that doesn't absolve the terrorists of their guilt. Their attacks started when Obama was 8, but they continued until he was 25. Ayers has never given anybody reason to believe that he had changed his views, so why would anybody assume it? -- Zsero (talk) 19:26, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Regardless, it's acceptable to mention any documented associated with AIP, although not acceptable to include any unpublished OR analysis about what this might mean.Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 20:23, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Your problem will be that Palin has no "documented associat(ion) with AIP." Just like she was not a Buchanan supporter. Just like she is not Trig's grandma. Saying someone she knows has been a member is McCartyism pure and simple. Heck, one person even wanted Todd Palin's DUI from 1986 included. Collect (talk) 20:46, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

That she associated with members of the AIP (not including her husband) is well sourced. In the end, I expect that as more and more sourcing on her association is done, it will become a part of her biography. Aprock (talk) 21:55, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

It's not my problem, buddy. What I said stands. I can bicker all night if you want to, though.Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 23:12, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Who is "buddy"? "What I said stands" is hardly an indication of consensus seeking, by the way. Collect (talk) 23:20, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

(removing personal attacks. Discuss the article, not yourselves. Tempodivalse (talk) 18:43, 14 October 2008 (UTC))

CNN source

I don't know if my saying this will count, but CNN did a full report on this, if anyone saw it today. Ah, who am I kidding, it's pointless. --Crackthewhip775 (talk) 00:52, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Do you have a link? --Evb-wiki (talk) 00:55, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Not directly from CNN, (found through cnn.com, though) but here's this one from CBS news and also this from the L.A. times. Plus this clip of her speaking to her peeps on YouTube (don't know if that matters, though). --Crackthewhip775 (talk) 02:25, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Clever. Say that you're referring to a report from today and linking us a story from 9/2. You remember, the time when everyone reported that she was a member of the AIP and then had to print retractions/corrections? Oren0 (talk) 02:35, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

So CNN didn't do "a full report on this"? The links you provide are hardly "in depth" analysis. --Evb-wiki (talk) 02:33, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

CNN did do a full report, I'm not the only one who watched it, in fact go ask some users around here, or your friends, or your family, or basically anyone you could possibly know. John McCain's people even sent CNN an email asking not to make a report on it. For some reason, I can't find this stuff on the web, even when I google it, but you can look for yourself on the web. --Crackthewhip775 (talk) 02:39, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

A-HA! http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/10/14/151519/61/145/630389. --Crackthewhip775 (talk) 02:40, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Lots of pov sources seem to be quick on the draw. We may have to see if CNN has the balls to post it online. Or see if it picks up traction. --Evb-wiki (talk) 02:53, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Google it yourself if you want to find more sources. Or use any search engine you want if Google doesn't turn up enough results for you. --Crackthewhip775 (talk) 02:57, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Yeah. like I said, "Lots of pov sources . . . ." I find zero I believe would qualify as a reliable source, yet. --Evb-wiki (talk) 03:06, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Well then I guess it'll wait until CNN posts on their site. But even on the web site that you deem unreliable, that video certainly isn't made up. --Crackthewhip775 (talk) 03:10, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Transcript. miranda 16:39, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Is it really necessary?

Do we need the "Citations" section at the bottom? Why can't people just give a link to the source instead? Erik the Red 2 ~~~~ 00:24, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

The change was made by someone who, I hope, was wise in that action. It is not really something I worry about too much, to be sure, Collect (talk) 02:08, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

It really is annoying, though, to have to scroll down all the way to the bottom to add a new section, or having to move a section after clicking the "new section" tab. Erik the Red 2 ~~~~ 02:11, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Can we move the citations section to the top of this talk page? Homunq (talk) 03:36, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Not really. Do you see any citations in this diff? I have moved them to the bottom where they have to be, to function. Crummy design? Probably. Perhaps you could go complain to the Wiki heads about it. Oh, I forgot, you don't like having to scroll to the bottom of the page. Get over it? Or add outside links in protest of the Wiki regulation: "WP is not a collection of links." Senseless, and easy too. What fun. Anarchangel (talk) 17:04, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Rogue

Dictionary: rogue: a dishonest or unprincipled person, a mischievous person, an inferior or defective specimen among many acceptable ones.

Palin: Rogue isn’t a negative term

A notable view, if ever there was one. Writegeist (talk) 07:55, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Good point, writegeist, but that question has not been the focus of any news reports I've seen. Homunq (talk) 08:47, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

What has been the focus of news reports is that Palin and her supporters have argued that "rogue" is not a negative term. I can find no dictionary format that defines "rogue" as remotely positive. But, in PalinLand it is a term of endearment. Does this mean we will need to all have a copy of The Alaskan English Dictionary to be sure of what she and her cronies mean?--Buster7 (talk) 13:42, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Rogue Ales? Rogue river? Rogue wave? Perhaps it is like "pirate" or "rebel" a term of endearment when used metaphorically and affectionately. It also has a connotation of going against the grain, being beholden to none, standing up to the powers that be. She obviously meant it in that latter sense, and not in a good way in connection with Monegan because in this particular case she was the powers that be. Wikidemon (talk) 14:17, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

As I said, I've seen no reports which focus on this aspect, rather than the "cleared of any hint of unethical activity". If you want to discuss such reports, it would help if you provided links. Homunq (talk) 14:28, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

The term "rogue" does not always imply dishonesty. Writegeist accidentally forgot to supply a link to the definition, which includes this: "playfully mischievous person; scamp: The youngest boys are little rogues." In any event, Homunq is correct.Ferrylodge (talk) 15:30, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

So she was calling him a playfully mischievous scamp. FL you sometimes exhibit more of a sense of humor than you're given credit for. Writegeist (talk) 19:06, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I'm quite a rascal, just like Monegan.  :-)Ferrylodge (talk) 19:10, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

So wait a sec...is Gov Palin now saying that she is somekind of modern-day Pirate? ...That she "palls around" with Jonny Depp? And, is she the rogue or is Monnegan the rogue. I'm confused. He's a rogue in her cabinet..and that's bad. But she's a rogue politician...and that's good. Do I have it right???? some links, as requested...[[6]] and [[7]] more if needed--Buster7 (talk) 20:12, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Palin hired Charles Fannon to replace Stambaugh as police chief

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

I can't edit no access but this line is repeated in the main article and should be removedTarzanlordofthejungle (talk) 20:53, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

ThreeAfterThree removed almost all of this section, saying "see talk", but there is no talk here. Restoring section.Facts707 (talk) 16:50, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Please see the section right above this one. Thank you. --Tom 17:02, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

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

NPOV - lede

I have added a POV tag for obvious reasons - but particularly due to the unwillingness of a few editors to see the lede include any mention of any relevant controversy whatsoever. Until the dispute is resolved, do not remove.LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 04:59, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

You often say "Do not" do this and "Do not" do that. You might get better traction with a "please" now and then. Also, what is the most important particular thing that you think is lacking in the lede? And is there a consensus supporting your view that the lead has NPOV problems?Ferrylodge (talk) 05:12, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry that my tone is not so obliging. In the past I have made major efforts to say 'please' and 'thank you', but I should mention that I'm from Israel and over there we consider a 'please' when one is actually quite fed up, very rude:) Where I come from, politeness can be instead considered quite patronizing. But I'm dealing with a US article here, so I will try to be smoother, out of respect. As far as there being 'consensus' to place an NPOV tag - well, clearly if there was consensus of any kind there would be no need for such a tag. Please - it is clear that there is no consensus that the article, in many areas, is NPOV. Much of Ferry's work has indeed helped to shape the article nicely, that I will grant, as have the edits of many other editors. However, Ferry has also singlehandedly removed info about the NRA, rape kits, and religion, and then posted here afterwards, without consensus to remove, and then claimed there was a need for consensus to include the information. Many of us have had a big problem with that -- it has made us feel that the article is skewed away from including compromising info about Palin, save that which has five hundred articles associated with it. I am putting the tag back in, and please, let it sit for a week and let's see if anyone other than the three pro-Palin editors on this page, removes it. LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 17:00, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

The following is moved from below. I took the liberty of striking out what no longer applied. Homunq (talk) 16:12, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

The lede here is far more neutral than the lede at the Obama article. I have actually brought this up over there and there seems to be tacit agreement as they are now changing the lede, even if ever so slightly.LedRush (talk) 15:17, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Is that supposed to be a response to my comment?Ferrylodge (talk) 15:19, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Nope...just an observation. It looks like this article has chosen to be NPOV by being brief...inserting just the facts. I think that is preferable than cramming too much into the lede, as it will be more influential than the rest of the article and therefore the target of more attacks from both sides of the issue.LedRush (talk) 15:33, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Okay. But your comment's placement is incorrect. When someone makes a comment, and it's immediately followed by another comment that is further indented, that means the latter comment is in response to the former.Ferrylodge (talk) 15:37, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

concealed handguns

LLLL, in addition to putting a POV tag atop the article, you have reinserted into the article that Palin supported a bill to allow concealed weapons "in schools and bars." You know there is no consensus for this. We had a long discussion about it here.

Governor Knowles vetoed a concealed handgun bill on October 16, 1996. His veto message specifically mentioned the police chief of Wasilla. Further info about the bill is here. The May 3, 1996 version of the bill said: "A permitee may not carry a concealed handgun into or possess a concealed handgun within...or on school grounds." It therefore appears that Palin supported a bill that explicitly forbade concealed weapons on school grounds. So why should this article say the opposite? Is there some reason why Wikipedia should deliberately present false information to readers?Ferrylodge (talk) 05:26, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Bravo LamaLoLeshLa; totally justified and long overdue. And highly amusing to see one of the Palin campaign ops whine about being pushed around. Thank you. Writegeist (talk) 06:30, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

True to form a Palin acolyte has deleted the tag, without discussion and for totally bogus reasons, evidently to maintain the Palin-pushers' stranglehold on the article. Oh my ribs! Writegeist (talk) 08:10, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Writegeist, are you here to help or just to be sarcastic? That tag was added for the vague notion that the article lead lacked critical content - without specifying exactly what critical content should have been added or why. The critical addition that the editor in question had already made was demonstrably false, which does not add credibility to his/her argument that the lead is biased. Your ribs notwithstanding, no justification has been given for passing a blanket judgment over the quality of the entire article. I would suggest that you try to demonstrate the least amount of good faith in editing this article, rather than continuing on your present course of sniping at anyone you perceive as disagreeing with you. If the lead is biased, explain exactly what is wrong with it and propose an appropriately amended version for consideration. »S0CO^{(talk|contribs)} 08:30, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Wait until after the US prez election, before adding controversial stuff to this article & the Barack Obama, John McCain & Joe Biden articles. Guarenteed, it won't hurt. GoodDay (talk) 12:01, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

GoodDay - that depends on your ends, doesn't it? People who are just here to help or hurt Palin are perfectly justified in being here, as long as they agree that the only acceptable means to that end are improvements to the article according to Wikipedia principles including NPOV. I personally am one of those people: I think that Palin is dangerous, but I'm not here to libel her because I believe "the truth shall set you free". Homunq (talk) 14:55, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

I ask this in all sincerity: do you people even care if this article includes blatantly false information?

Waiting 3-weeks is not the end of the world. Editors & readers will not commit suicide over it. GoodDay (talk) 19:15, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

This article presently says that Palin supported a bill to allow concealed weapons in schools and bars. That is FALSE. I quoted from the bill above in this section, and the bill explicitly says the opposite. Does anyone care? Apparently not.

Per the cited source: "One big issue, Stambaugh said, was that he and other police chiefs had opposed a state-legislature bill to permit concealed weapons in schools and bars, which Stambaugh called 'craziness.'" Stambaugh was fired by Palin and he sued her. Why are we providing this Wikipedia article as a platform for him to lie?

I am going to include the actual language of the bill in the article, because I have already been reverting enough. But I am very disappointed that no one seems to have any qualms about this article becoming a propaganda piece. This stuff about guns and schools is a blatant lie, people, as I explained above. Is no one going to even respond?Ferrylodge (talk) 15:10, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

It seems pretty obvious that the sentence in question has been twisted around.Zaereth (talk) 17:39, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree with FL - the real text of the bill should be what is presented. »S0CO^{(talk|contribs)} 18:14, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

I am not convinced that the bill did not say that she supported a bill to allow concealed weapons in schools and bar. Sorry, you did not convince me. LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 16:53, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Do you have any reliable sources which reported in these terms? Or is this just your own opinion?--John (talk) 18:31, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

The argument was twisted on both sides. Read the bill language carefully. It does prohibit guns in schools 'as per AS 11.71.900' which you can find at , at least if no one has moved the citations to the top again. As you can see there, that law does not define colleges as schools. Apparently the bill opponents did, which is sneaky, and the bill proponents didn't, which is sneaky. Neither discussed guns in colleges, and so we are here having this argument. Fix it and be done with it. My proposed edit is, "SB 177 did still prohibit guns in schools, but allowed them in colleges, bars, and many other public places."

Note the language in the bill which prohibits guns in places where signs prohibiting them are hung in stores. So a store owner has to declare themselves anti-handguns in a heavily handgun supporting town to keep guns out. It was a big shift, and Stambaugh as police chief, the guy who has to clean up when there's trouble, didn't like that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Anarchangel (talk • contribs) 22:38, 16 October 2008 (UTC) If I remember correctly, my edit summary for my paragraph immediately above, was IQ test. Ferry goes on to fail it. See if you can spot what he missed. More of an observation test really, but IQ fit in the summary better. I think I have established pretty well that Ferry has on at least one occasion spent more time attempting to knock down other's assertions than reading what they write. Anarchangel (talk) 08:58, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Would you please explain what AS 11.71.900 has to do with this? SB 177 was vetoed by Governor Knowles and never became law. AS 11.71.900 was an entirely different bill.

Governor Knowles vetoed a concealed handgun bill on October 16, 1996. His veto message specifically mentioned the police chief of Wasilla. Further info about the bill is here. The May 3, 1996 vetoed version of the bill said: "A permitee may not carry a concealed handgun into or possess a concealed handgun within...or on school grounds."Ferrylodge (talk) 22:44, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

No, I won't. You've used up your reservoir of credibility by repeatedly diverting the discussion by asking people to go do your legwork for you. Read what I said and go look at AS 11.71.900. Anarchangel (talk) 23:23, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

SB 177 was vetoed by Governor Knowles and never became law. AS 11.71.900 was an entirely different bill. I have no idea what AS 11.71.900 has to do with this conversation.Ferrylodge (talk) 23:28, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

The wink

The Los Angeles Times is giving us a front page story tomorrow on the wink.

I was surprised there was nothing about it already in her entry.

During the debate against Joe Biden, Palin winked at least six times at the television audience of 70 million.

Since "the wink" is very much part of her popular appeal, why no mention of it? — Esotropic Flautist (talk) 05:39, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

We're having a hard time with English 101 here. Don't ask too much of us.Ferrylodge (talk) 05:41, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

I've added a line which I believe is accurate and reflects NPOV: "During the debate, Palin winked at least six times at a television audience numbering 70 million." It is sourced to the LA Times article. — Esotropic Flautist (talk) 05:53, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

One sentence isn't making enough of the issue. You should explain that "the American woman no longer whistles, even to wink is seen as unbusinessperson-like." Ottre 06:37, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree that a full sentence on the wink is way overkill. However, a sentence on her folksy image could include a detail like this, as well as "joe six-pack" or "you betcha" or similar verbiage. And such a sentence (no more than one) would not be out-of-place in the VP campaign section. Homunq (talk) 12:45, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I think its trivia at bestZaereth (talk) 17:23, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Obviously. Move along people. Ottre 19:55, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

She smiled a lot too. And what about those g's at the end of those words she was sayin'?Ferrylodge (talk) 19:57, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

It (all her mannerisms and folksy ways) was newsworthy because it was kwirky and different and unexpected from a VP candidate. Her homespun quality and sayings were interesting then and they still are. They set her apart from the typical National candidate. I think they are worthy of mention but, (thinking about GoodDay's concept of "what's the hurry")it can go in after November 4....--Buster7 (talk) 20:02, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Wink-wink-nudge-nudge!--Buster7 (talk) 19:40, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) All politicians smile, and some have even been known to employ folksy vernacular even when it starkly contrasts with their patrician, some might even say elitist, upbringing. Not many wink during a debate, though Nixon did tend to blink rapidly and dart his eyes about. Nonetheless, I would be saddened to see our encyclopedic biography descend to the level of covering "The Winks Heard Round The World" - just because it's in the L.A. Times one day doesn't mean it's automatically BLP material. MastCell ^Talk 20:03, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

I think it should be in a sub article (since her mannerisms are indeed widely mirrored by SNL) but not the main article. Manticore55 (talk) 20:48, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Experience

Where did the mentions of the debate over Palin's experience go? Grsz^X 18:35, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

IMHO: Probably deleted, because under the US Constitution? Palin is qualified for the Vice Presidency & Presidency. GoodDay (talk) 19:18, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Probably deleted because somebody felt it made Palin look bad.Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 19:24, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Nay! I think it's the Constitional reason. GoodDay (talk) 19:26, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

You have a good, kind heart, GoodDay. It balances out the cynical ways of the rest of us. Thanks.--Buster7 (talk) 19:33, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I'd have to go with Factchecker on this one. How bout reinstating it? The debate over her experience is front and center to who she is and why we all are working so feverishly on her biography. Tvoz/talk 23:25, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Why not start with Palin's proximity to Russia equating to foreign policy experience claim. IP75 (talk) 00:00, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

(undent) How about if you put a draft here first so we can understand what's being suggested? Thanks.Ferrylodge (talk) 00:48, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

The following recent Rasmussen poll should be included:
"Poll: Majority Think Palin Is Not Qualified To Be President
A New Rasmussen poll shows that 56% of the voters do not think Sarah Palin is qualified to be President. Women's views of her are especially noteworthy: 36% have a very unfavorable view of her, vs. 16% for Biden. One of the reasons she was selected was her supposed appeal to disgruntled Hillary supporters. It doesn't seem to have happened." IP75 (talk) 16:24, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm concerned with the rush to add each new poll as they come out. It's too recentist. Polls change daily or weekly. If the issue is Palin's readiness to be President, surely we can find more stable sources discussing the issue rather than relying on today's poll numbers. MastCell ^Talk 17:53, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

I share your concern about polls. In this case, it is the most recent of many polls that show a decline in Palin's popularity. The campaign section currently contains only the initial favorable polls when little was known about her. I would support the removal of all polling in the campaign section. I also find it unusual that in a campaign section there is no mention that McCain-Palin are trailing. This has been reported by almost all MSM sources and mentioned yesterday by McCain at a rally. IP75 (talk) 19:45, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Poll schmoll. The US Constitution has the final say & it says Palin is qualified. GoodDay (talk) 21:53, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

No, the Constitution only states that Palin meets the minimal requirements to run for office but does not address her experience or qualifications. The voters have the final say. IP75 (talk) 05:11, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Talk page etiquette

There was some discussion about whether the article ought to mention a proposed "adult" movie parodying Palin. While I fully support the overwhelming consensus that it does not merit mention in the article, I don't see any need to expunge the discussion, let alone to expunge the discussion of whether to expunge the discussion. Since this Talk page is already overlong, a simple Archive would have sufficed. And if there is to be a further discussion of whether to expunge this section I a have just added, let me pre-emptively vote to Keep. jnestorius^(talk) 22:59, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Ok, but in future insofar is this is done I think it would be nice if the archiving could also include the section header so that doesn't remain listed on the page, readily identifying the titillating content and sort of eliminating the purpose of hiding it in the first place. I won't delete comments anymore but I think we should keep this page clear of the reference.Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 23:55, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Note the section currently following this one to see why this does not belong on any talk page about anyone at all. Collect (talk) 12:41, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

There is no reason for trash like that to remain in the archives. There is zero chance that such things are going to be included in the article. The only recent contributions of ths user who created the section - WhipperSnapper (talk · contribs) - have been to post attacks about Palin on this talk page. This user also has hilariously biased contributions like [8]. Trolling suggestions can and should be removed from the talk page. --B (talk) 12:56, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

FYI: The user in question un-archived the content at least once to my knowledge, perhaps more. If they had been willing to accept having it archived, we would not have been forced to expunge it. Homunq (talk) 13:05, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

This page is not a forum where anything can be discussed. Also, I am not a fan of youtube and blog external links, but that goes without saying :) --Tom 13:24, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

I see no need what so ever to keep it.Zaereth (talk) 16:20, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Already way too much noise and too little signal on this talk page. This stuff should be removed, as B suggests, per the talk page guidelines. This isn't a forum to expound on anything vaguely related to Sarah Palin, but rather a forum for material which has a legitimate chance of being deemed encyclopedic and incorporated into the article. MastCell ^Talk 17:52, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree completely with jnestorius. The expunged material was proper for the talk page because it represented a good-faith suggestion concerning how to improve the article. I don't agree with the suggestion but disagreeing with an editor is no basis for expunging his or her comments. The better course is to leave the discussion in, let it be archived in the normal course, and refer to it if someone raises the subject again in the future (as may well happen). As for a user un-archiving an old thread, that's improper regardless of whether the thread is about an adult film or Troopergate. The user should be instructed in how to link to an archived thread. A consensus reflected in an archived thread can be re-opened for reconsideration but the old thread shouldn't be dug up. If a user persists in disruptive conduct, he or she can be blocked, and again that applies whether the substantive issue is one that virtually everyone agrees on (omit the film) or one where there are significant issues to be discussed (how to present Troopergate). JamesMLane t c 22:45, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

I am against expunging. Questionable or not, all editors have a rightful claim to be able to see what is happening here especially considering this pages prominance overall. Except for obvious vandalism, I say leave stuff in (on Talk pages). We don't need to save paper.--Buster7 (talk) 00:08, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

I saw one instance of what could be referred to as a good-faith effort to discuss the article. I also saw at least one instance of what was blatant spam designed only to draw attention to the video without attempt to discuss its relevance. Comments posted in this latter form (pure spam) should be deleted without hesitation in my opinion.Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 15:39, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Edit warring

I've just blocked someone for edit warring on this article, even though they did not violate 3RR. A few notes:

1. 3RR is not an entitlement. If you know something is controversial, don't revert and say "see talk", discuss first, particularly if it's been reverted before.
2. Removal of material that doesn't have consensus is not protected by 3RR, so those of you constantly removing stuff as "no consensus see talk page" are not protected from accusations of edit warring. Share the load; if there is truly no consensus for it, other editors will remove it.
3. Slightly altering the material each time so you can say that you aren't reverting to the same version will protect you from WP:3RR, but not from edit warring. If you repeatedly add material with a comma changed here and a period changed there, this is edit warring in my book.

--barneca (talk) 18:40, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Although there is an air of lawlessness in edits to this page, laws have to be done right. And that includes including all the facts. See WP:BRD and WP:CCC for exceptions to the above.

Also, can you provide some diffs for clarity? Anarchangel (talk) 22:54, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Bridge to nowhere image and link

I removed the Bridge to nowhere image and a link that links only to another section in the article. Firstly, there doesn't need to be a link in the article that links to this same article. Secondly, the image is obviously a negative POV image. The Obama article has no such image and I find it hard to believe someone could justify the image as WP:NPOV. Would you say my edits make the article more NPOV or not? If so then the edits were justified. Usergreatpower (talk) 04:06, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Firstly, internal links are done all the time. Secondly, the image conveys Palin's support for the bridge. Grsz^X 04:11, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

The image shows what it shows. It cannot be pov. --Evb-wiki (talk) 04:13, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Removing the image strongly tilts the article to POV because it takes out a clear image of Palin's prior support for a bridge that Palin loudly pretends she never supported. Hiding the facts is POV. Presenting both sides is NPOV. So removing the picture would be POV.GreekParadise (talk) 07:15, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

The internal links are also necessary because there is more discussion of the use of the bridge in the campaign in the campaign section. Many (dare I say most?) wikipedia readers do not read an entire article. Instead they go to the part most relevant to them. In this case, if someone wants to know about the relationship of Sarah Palin to the Bridge(s) to Nowhere, they might go to this section and never know that that there is more information about Palin and the bridge in the campaign section rather than in the bridge section. Now one solution is simply to move the information in the campaign paragraph about the paragraph to the bridge section and I highly support this but the consensus at one time was to put this stuff in the campaign section. (There is a long discussion of this in the archives.) But once the decision is made to put information about Palin and the bridge outside the bridge section of the Palin article, it's vital to have the internal reference. If you don't like the internal reference, Usergreatpower, I would support repeating everything in the campaign section on the bridge here in the bridge section. Indeed, I think that's the only reasonable alternative.GreekParadise (talk) 07:15, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Proposed compromise - Remove internal reference AND place following paragraph, currently in campaign section, back in bridge section where it originally was:

While campaigning for vice-president, Palin touted her stance on "the bridge to nowhere" as an example of her opposition to pork barrel spending.[104] In her nomination acceptance speech and on the campaign trail, Palin has often said, "I told the Congress 'thanks, but no thanks,' on that Bridge to Nowhere."[154] Although Palin was originally a main proponent of the Gravina Island Bridge, McCain-Palin television advertisements assert that Palin "stopped the Bridge to Nowhere."[155] These statements have been widely questioned or described as misleading or exaggerations[156] by many media groups in the U.S.[157] Newsweek remarked, "Now she talks as if she always opposed the funding."[158]GreekParadise (talk) 07:23, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm against moving stuff from the 2008 campaign sectin to the bridge section. A cross-refernce link is fine.Ferrylodge (talk) 20:27, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Quousque tandem abutere, Catilina, patientia nostra? How many times shall we see the same discussion iterated? Collect (talk) 20:32, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Quamdiu etiam furor iste tuus nos eludet? Quem ad finem sese effrenata iactabit audacia?Ferrylodge (talk) 20:53, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Your mom had you take 4 years of Latin, too? Forsan et haec olim meminisse iuavabit. (Yes the quotes are relevant) Collect (talk) 22:11, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Nope, but the internet is a good translator. Perhaps someday we will look back upon these things in that way.Ferrylodge (talk) 22:18, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

More rape stuff

I've tried to fix up the rape material again. After my edits, it says:

Palin hired Charles Fannon to replace Stambaugh as police chief. Fannon subsequently opposed an Alaska state sexual assault law that placed new requirements on local police departments.[51][52] According to Stambaugh, the Wasilla police during his tenure had paid the cost of rape kits out of a miscellaneous fund, and that budget line item (which did not explicitly mention rape exams) was cut by more than half during Palin's tenure.[53] Fannon has said that he charged the cost of exams to the victim's insurance company when possible.[54] Palin's spokeswoman has stated that Palin “does not believe, nor has ever believed, that rape victims should have to pay for an evidence-gathering test.”[55]

I've reinserted the last two sentences, because it does not seem NPOV to just cite the fired police chief who sued Palin. We also ought to cite her, and his successor.

I'm very ambivalent about including this material in this article, but if we're going to include it, then let's try to be NPOV. Even now, the stuff about the budget line item still seems kind of slimy, because we have no idea how much of that line item was devoted to the rape kits (e.g. if the rape kits were only 5% of that line item and she cut the line item by 50% then there would still be plenty of money for that purpose). Anyways, I hope that the paragraph is now more NPOV.Ferrylodge (talk) 18:13, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Is this stuff in the article? Talk about stretching it to achieve POV. What do the police department's rape kit practices have to do with Palin? Not much I would say. Thanks for keeping an eye on this kind of thing Ferry. The campaigning to portray people in a positive or negative light seems to be well underway on these biography pages, but is better kept out.(Wallamoose (talk) 18:42, 13 October 2008 (UTC))

The constant effort to turn this article into promotional campaign literature is equally annoying. Regards.Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 19:00, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

At one rape per annum, how much money is involved? Collect (talk) 19:10, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

The talk page is not for debating the subject of the article.Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 19:54, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

No one is improperly debating the subject of the article. The question is whether it's ridiculous for this artuicle to mention that a line item was cut in half, given that there's no indication whatsoever that cutting it in half would affect whether the town pays for only one or a few rape kits per year out of that line item.Ferrylodge (talk) 20:01, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Do the math. There were 10 rapes a year minimum. Rape kits cost $300-$1200. There was never more than 4 grand in that allocation in -any- year, and in 2000, it got cut to $1000. It's all at Wasilla City Document Central They weren't paying for them at all at worst; at best, a few. My bet is that they just passed the women on to the hospital, which is why the legislative committees mention hospitals charging (and their expert who was testifying might have had something to do with that also). Oh, and btw, the committee mentions the Mat-Su valley as a place they have problems with. Up at the top of your Frontiersman page you will see the words Mat-Su. In that area, the largest community is Wasilla. Anarchangel (talk) 22:47, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Alas -- the Official Crime Reports show only 1 rape per year. Are you saying the stats are faked? With only 1 per year, the figures all jibe. And no significant amount was ever charged to any victim at all. By the way, the law covered a lot more than just rape kits -- did you read the law? In short -- tempest, teapot. Collect (talk) 22:53, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

At the time, I confess, I thought you were coming up with a plausible number and then claiming you had already cited it. What I think now that I have seen the cited page, you obviously do not know. And yet you have attributed an argument to me based on the knowledge of the info on that page. Is this a failure of understanding of causality? Or is the white rabbit at your shoulder telling you it knows what I am thinking? If so, tell it is wrong.

In fact, I now contend that the 'Official Crime Reports'[9] as you call them, is lacking in three important respects. Firstly, it is rapes investigated, not rapes committed, and secondly, it only covers one of the 6 years that Palin was mayor. Lastly, it is information submitted, or not, voluntarily by cities to the FBI, and there is a disclaimer of their completeness in the middle of the page: "By 2006, over 15,000 law enforcement agencies submitted crime reports to the FBI, but since not all jurisdictions provide reports there is a possibility that you won't find complete data on some of our agency crime report pages.". It is not a government site itself; following the link to the main page, http://www.disastercenter.com/ , there is an ad for "Mormon 72 Hr Survival Kit Help Family Survive 1st 72 Hrs Food, H20, Radio & More-Buy Now". Anarchangel (talk) 08:58, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Um -- "rape kits" are for reported rapes. That is what the crime stats report. Not prosecutions. The report was not made by the site on which it is found, so that part of your argument is simple flummery. http://www.dps.state.ak.us/statewide/Docs/UCR/UCR_2000.pdf no ads. 1 rape total in 2000. http://www.dps.state.ak.us/statewide/Docs/UCR/UCR_2001.pdf no ads. 1 rape total in 2001. http://www.dps.state.ak.us/statewide/Docs/UCR/UCR_2002.pdf no ads. 2 rapes total in 2002.

Looks like complete agreement with the cite given. Collect (talk) 15:28, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

We don't decide whether a given controversy, such as the rape kit controversy, is legitimate or not. That's what reliable sources are for. The talk page is not a place to conduct your own original research and analysis. Play with the wording all you like, though.Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 20:33, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Look, I've been at Wikipedia long enough to know what a talk page is for, thanks. If people want to discuss how Wikipedia should present the rape kit business, then it's necessary to discuss what aspects of it to mention. One of those aspects is the budget line item, and Collect's comment was very relevant to determine notability of that line item as compared to other aspects of the controversy. So please don't suggest that Collect's comment was out of line here. Thanks.Ferrylodge (talk) 04:29, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

To me, it looked like the crafting of original research.. unpublished analysis of published material appearing to advance a position.Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 19:03, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) Maybe add this material to the Fannon bio? Thanks, --Tom 16:39, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Is it true these kits had emergency contraception in them like this comment says: [10]???- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 01:09, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Is that what all this is really about?- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 01:09, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Rape kits: Palin said she's like a community organizer, only with real responsibilities

If Palin has real responsibilities, why isn't she responsible for hiring and firing decisions? Or for knowing the results of hiring and firing decisions? Or for knowing what budget items were cut (including a miscellaneous fund as Mayor of Wasilla)? Unless someone comes up with some good answers, previous edits will be restored not on a Fannon biography but here.Jimmuldrow (talk) 04:39, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Jim, you're evidently referring to her 50% reduction of a "Miscellaneous" budget line item, which her fired Police Chief now says was used to fund rape kits. Let's assume, for the sake of argument, that this article ought to mention something about the rape kits. The question then leaps to mind: why focus on this particular aspect of the rape kit controversy? There are several reasons why this question leaps to mind. For example, how do we know that the 50% reduction affected the ability of Wasilla to pay for rape kits? For all we know, the cost of the rape kits would only amount to .01% of the Miscellaneous Fund that she cut by 50%. Another reason why the aforementioned question leaps to mind is because the information is exclusively sourced (without corroboration) to a person whom Palin fired and who responded by suing her. If this article is going to cover the rape kit issue, then I think a better summary of the sub-article would not include this stuff about the budget line item, but rather would include other stuff from the sub-article.Ferrylodge (talk) 05:03, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Not Miscellaneous, but Contractual Services. I assume you don't work hard at being wrong, although that fits the results pretty well, but you really have to work harder at being right. The Contractual Services allocation included funding for, and "still referred to "medical testing, road maintenance, equipment rental, airport snow removal" as of fiscal year 2000. The link at that page goes to FY2000.pdf.That seems a lot of services to fit into $1000. The link at that page goes to FY2000.pdf. This of course also renders your assertion that it is unsourced invalid, as you should very well have known, as you were the one who claimed that HuffPo was unsuitable for citation. Lest you begin all that again, I might point out that the information linked to on that page comes from the City of Wasilla own webpage at: . Anarchangel (talk) 08:19, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. But if others feel that Palin isn't responsible for her hiring and firing decisions, they can explain here if they think I'm the one that's missing something on that issue.Jimmuldrow (talk) 11:15, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Jim, I see that you've reinserted material about the rape kits. I think that giving Fannon's position ought to be balanced by giving Palin's position too. After all, this article is about her, not him. And if we're going to give his position, we ought to explain it clearly. So, I've added a couple sentences. Doubtless, some editor will delete what you inserted and what I inserted, seeing as how you did not build consensus for it.Ferrylodge (talk) 16:36, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

And so it came to pass.[11]Ferrylodge (talk) 16:39, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Jim, I don't understand what your issue is about. The executive of an executive branch of government, be it mayor, governor, or President, has the right to hire and fire any member of their staff without given cause. There is no affirmative action in these cases for a very good reason. The leaders we elect need to have total trust in their subordinates, and any perceived lack of trust is grounds enough.Zaereth (talk) 17:53, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with whether it's legal for Palin to hire and fire.Jimmuldrow (talk) 22:30, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) Can't the "rape kit" material be left in a sub article because its pretty sketchy at this point as far as the details go? Who knew what when, where and how, ect.? Maybe add it to a Fannon bio if relevant at all. This bio is already beyond cluttered. Thanks, --Tom 19:21, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

How about a brief explanation here, and details in the sub-article?Jimmuldrow (talk) 22:30, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

The details might be sketchy, but it is among the top 4 or 5 issues that affect her campaign for those that oppose her. I have, and still see, this piece of data widely in circulation. Her side of the story should be included though. Manticore55 (talk) 20:51, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Huh? If top 4 or 5 issues that affect her campaign for those that oppose her is true, what does that say about those that oppose her? Anyways, if this becomes some huge story, maybe include it in the proper sub article but not here. --Tom 13:36, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

The 2000 budget for sexual assault evidence gathering, and snowplowing the airport, and a few other things lumped into one category was $1000. Do you still feel inclusion in full of Fannon's statement that he just wanted to save the taxpayer money, and that he really would have preferred to charge criminals, is notable? Saving what was left of $1000 after diesel was paid for?
If the cost to the budget was so low that it could afford to pay for between 1 and 10 rape kits (comparing the stats for rape on the equally flawed FBI and City of Wasilla Crime Stats pages) -and- all the other items that category covered, with the $1000 budgeted for 2000, then do you agree that Fannon's argument, that he just wanted to save taxpayers money, is bogus? However, you were the one that crafted the 'citation as quote' that has trumpeted Fannon's fiscal responsibility. You have been careening from defending this issue as one thing, with one set of conclusions, to another with a completely different, and incompatible set of conclusions; you now have to choose between them.

Or, there is another alternative. There is a story here, and its relevance goes to Palin's ability to lead, to get involved in a crisis situation and/or her true support of rape victims. For six months, between the time HB 270 was proposed, to when it became law, she watched Fannon light a political fire in her town, and did nothing whatsoever about it. The one thing Fannon did do, without any shadow of a doubt, is oppose impending legislation requiring police depts. to pay for sexual assault evidence gathering. Other facts we pursue will probably never come to light, but it is the one sure truth of this whole mess, and we can tell that story. We have his own quotes saying that, we have video of Croft saying it on CNN. We have the statements of experts before the Committee in the state legislature deciding on HB 270. Anarchangel (talk) 08:19, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

This "rape kit" topic is now all over the map! Someone suggested rape kits contained "morning after" pills, but that's been pretty thoroughly refuted based on the chronology and availability of the drug (albeit entirely by deductive OR, but one would certainly expect the mainstream media would run with the story had these kits actually contained them--easily verifiable by the press--and given her stance on abortion). Now, you seem to be suggesting Palin herself had some kind of vendetta against rape victims?! That's utter nonsense, inconsistent with every other known dimension of her character and a completely synthesized conclusion. This was a trivial budget decision by a police chief who felt the taxpayers shouldn't be billed for something he could get from health insurance. Whether you agree with that or not is irrelevant, as it's not the topic of this biography. Fcreid (talk) 00:55, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

NPOV in General

Where is it?—Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.92.193.250 (talk • contribs)

Uhm, could you be more specific? »S0CO^{(talk|contribs)} 01:21, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Deletions of any mention whatsoever of: 1. Rape kits 2. Role of NRA in her decisions 3. Religious view on public life. These repeated deletions by just a few editors (sometimes just one editor) constitute POV-pushing. LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 04:00, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

This is the pot calling the kettle black I would say. What is your agenda? --Tom 18:20, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

While I don't see mention of the first item, the other two are represented in this article with appropriate weight, and further information carried in the subarticle detailing her political positions. I'm not really seeing what out of this warrants a blanket judgement that the article is lopsided. »S0CO^{(talk|contribs)} 04:09, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Look at the archives: this talkpage is sometimes archived weekly. LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 03:18, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

It is interesting that some folks conception of a neutral point of view means including any scurrilous charge that anyone makes regardless if it has merit. This is what allows people to satirize Wikipedia.--Paul (talk) 04:14, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure anyone here is intent on including any scurrilous or merit-free allegations.Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 15:36, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Really? Erik the Red 2 ~~~~ 20:22, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Perusal of the multitude of "issues" raised in the archives is either instructive or amusing. WP is best served by being cautious in attacks, generous in praise, solid in facts. Collect (talk) 20:26, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

@ Collect...Perusal of the multitude of contributions that an editor makes is also interesting but not always amusing. Some editors are as phony as the clown at my grandaughters birthday party...to wit....[[12]]...it will be hard for me to assume good faith in the future without a verifiable explanation!! The humor tags were added by admins...not you!--Buster7 (talk) 20:42, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Well... while I agree that that page may warrant an explanation, I can't say it's very relevant to this line of discussion. »S0CO^{(talk|contribs)} 21:32, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

I had not mentioned the page in any public posts at all. If you will notice, it is based on WP:GAMING, a page which has been around for a long time. Perhaps Buster7 has not looked at as many WP pages as I. In any case, it is joyfully irrelevant here. If Buster7 is affronted, he should indicate it on WP:GAMING. I had not thought that such a page would be so objectionable to him. Collect (talk) 21:37, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

@ SOCO...The line of discussion took a turn when Collect presented himself as the paragon of WikiPedia etiquette.......by being cautious in attacks, generous in praise, solid in facts....Give me a break!!!.. Anyone that has edited at this article knows different in regards to Collect.--Buster7 (talk) 21:50, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

I would be willing to bet that being cautious in attacks, generous in praise, solid in facts refers to WP:BLP, and WP:NPOV, good advice which has unfortunately occasionally been ignored on this article (and a few others related to this election). It would also be wise to WP:AGF when dealing with long-term editors, especially when working on controversial articles.--Paul (talk) 22:00, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Two wrongs don't make a right - personal attacks will not offset tendentious editing. If you legitimately feel that Collect has been editing disruptively, there are places you can go about that. I personally haven't seen it. But in either case, this is not the place to discuss it. »S0CO^{(talk|contribs)} 21:58, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Fixed / Needs Fixing

"on a platform targeting wasteful spending and high taxes,", and a few others all called Johnson 2008 ; the links are broken. Anyone want to chase that down?

"She kept a jar with the names of Wasilla residents on her desk, and once a week she pulled a name from it and picked up the phone; she would ask: "How's the city doing?"". Worldshaking events in the busy life of a world shaker. And you can bet that should she become VP, she will have plenty of time to be calling up US citizens, asking how the country is doing. Maybe she'll call you! Oooh!
I'm sure many of us can just see ourselves at that desk making that phone call and thinking what an enlightened and responsible way it is to approach government, but it doesn't actually do much for anything other than public relations, and doesn't measure up to the standards of the merest snowplow allocation in importance to the tenure which it purports to describe. Also, popularity with voters is a massive misstatement when the following cite is considered. Certainly she became so before the second term, but that sentence doesn't belong at the top. The top of the Second Term section, perhaps, or the bottom of the first? Anarchangel (talk) 00:30, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Sigh. The sentence about the jar with the names was originally the lead sentence in the LAST paragraph on her first term. It was grouped with a list of accomplishments which as a whole were meant to describe how she was re-elected with such popularity. Never-ending edit-warring has messed up the writing beyond belief.--Paul (talk) 01:05, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

There was as of 10/15/08 a duplicate cite on the sentence describing the "would you consider banning books if there was a crowd of protestors outside" question (not that the sentence says that, but that line of questioning is what it refers to) The last of the citations, quotes Palin as characterizing the questioning as 'rhetorical'. There is a USA Today interview that directly refutes that at this page: I would like to add that.

I don't know who added the above comment (was it Anarchangel?), but the USA Today article does not refute Palin's claim. All it says is that Emmons's version of events is different. It gives no reason to prefer that version. Unless you're using "refute" to mean "contradict" or "deny", as I hear so many half-literates do lately. -- Zsero (talk) 00:59, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

I won't apologize, it was an honest mistake and you've done quite enough abusing that I am quite sure that I no longer need respect your feelings pretty much ever, as you obviously come from a tougher school where insulting people whose identity you aren't even clear about is de rigeur. However, I will point out that I completely agree that refute was the wrong word, I meant 'address' or even some such word as those above. Anarchangel (talk) 05:50, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

characterization of Hannity interview

NPOV, original research:

"Her interview five days later with Fox News's Sean Hannity went smoothly, with Hannity focusing on many of the same questions from Gibson's interview."

Citation 168 has no mention of Hannity interview; characterization is subject to dispute.

Avocats (talk) 07:51, 17 October 2008 (UTC)