Talk:Sarah Palin/Archive 53

Archive 50

Archive 51

Archive 52

Archive 53

Archive 54

Archive 55

→

Archive 60

Wikibook?

Looks to me like there's a few people who are interested in learning or writing a lot more about Sarah Palin than what's really appropriate for an encyclopedia article. Has anyone floated the idea about perhaps making a Wikibook about her (and her career, etc.)? There seems to be a surprising amount of interest in her, at least enough to say that she's a figure worth writing about. Notability has a different bar when it's a whole book rather than an article. --SB_Johnny | ^talk 15:45, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

This is an inappropriate place to discuss this. The talk page is for discussing this article. I suggest, if you are interested in a wikibook, you contact editors directly and do not use the article talk page for this purpose. Thanks! KillerChihuahua^?!? 19:45, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm not particularly interested, tbh :-). I brought it up because there seems to be a lot of things brought up which are far outside the relatively narrow scope of a Wikipedia article, so having a larger-scoped effort might help. For example, the father of SP's grandchild has repeatedly come up, and while he doesn't seem to meet notability requirements for either his own article or inclusion in this one, it could be incorporated into a broader textbook. It's just as valid as splitting off something into a sub-article. --SB_Johnny | ^talk 21:54, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Separate Sections on Gravina Island Bridge and Knik Arm Bridge

It has been proposed that the Knik Arm Bridge be removed entirely from the "Bridge to Nowhere" section and placed in a section of its own. (I had the KAB as only one sentence in the Bridge to Nowhere section with a footnote, but that proposal was rejected.) I have therefore written a new Bridge to Nowhere section which more accurately follows the section as it existed in the pre-Election consensus, with some modifications based on the comments made here and the wish that Knik Arm Bridge be removed from that section as much as humanly possible. Virtually all of the language I propose has been in the bio at some point in the past. I've also written a separate KAB section. Originally, I thought it best to do this one paragraph at a time, but as the first paragraph had taken more than a month without resolution, I thought I'd give one "last college try" with my suggestions for both sections. I also think, as written, this will explain why I believe that the controversy surrounding Palin's support for the KAB is important to the Palin bio, even though the KAB, like the GIB, was first proposed before she came in office. If the last paragraph of the GIB section looks familiar, you may remember it. It was a consensus paragraph agreed on in September 2008 and then moved from the bridge section to the campaign section in October 2008. Then the paragraph was deleted entirely in one fell swoop by a single editor after the Election (without any talk page discussion or warning). I'd like it back. I think the paragraph works better in the bridge section, but if people insist on it being back in the campaign section instead, I can live with that as long as there's a "see also" tag in the bridge section.

"Bridge to Nowhere"

See also: Gravina Island Bridge

In 2005, a federal omnibus spending bill included $223 million in earmarks for constructing a bridge to Gravina Island, the site of the Ketchikan airport. As Gravina Island has a population of only 50, the bridge became known as the "Bridge to Nowhere" and received nationwide attention as a symbol of pork-barrel spending. Following an outcry by the public and some members of Congress, including John McCain, Congress eliminated both this Alaska bridge earmark and a separate $230 million earmark for the proposed Alaskan Knik Arm Bridge (discussed further below), instead giving the $453 million to Alaska as part of its general transportation fund with no strings attached.

[RETURN OLD PRE-ELECTION CONSENSUS CAPTION FOR PICTURE] As a candidate in 2006, Palin said in Ketchikan that the Gravina Island Bridge was essential for prosperity, but later canceled it.

In 2006, Palin ran for governor with a "build-the-bridge" plank in her platform, supporting the use of state and federal funds to construct the Gravina Island and Knik Arm bridges. With regards to Gravina Island, Palin said she sympathized with members of a community that had been characterized by the press as "nowhere," and that she would "not allow the spinmeisters to turn this project ... into something that's so negative."[5] She also urged speedy work on building the infrastructure "while our congressional delegation is in a strong position to assist."[6]

As governor, however, Palin cancelled the Gravina Island Bridge in September 2007 saying that Congress had "little interest in spending any more money" due to what she called "inaccurate portrayals of the projects."[7] She opted not to return the $442 million in federal transportation funds.[8] Palin did maintain her support for a controversial 3-mile highway on the bridgeless Gravina Island, committing $25 million in federal funds to the project that has been derided by critics as a “Road to Nowhere” because it would have gone to the proposed bridge but now does not connect to the mainland. [Add picture] Alaska state officials said if the money were not used for the road it would have had to have been returned to the federal government.[9]

During the vice-presidential campaign, controversy erupted over differences between Sarah Palin's positions as a gubernatorial candidate and her position as a vice-presidential candidate. While campaigning for vice-president, Palin touted her stance on "the bridge to nowhere" as an example of her opposition to pork barrel spending and earmark abuses.[5] 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."[12] Although Palin was originally a main proponent of the Gravina Island Bridge, McCain-Palin television advertisements asserted that Palin "stopped the Bridge to Nowhere."[13] These statements have been widely questioned or described as misleading or exaggerations[14] by many media groups in the U.S., with critics arguing she had repeatedly expressed support for the spending project and even kept the Federal money after the project was canceled. [11] [15] As Newsweek put it, "Now she talks as if she always opposed the funding."[16]

Knik Arm Bridge

The Knik Arm Bridge, proposed to cross the Knik Arm of the Cook Inlet to link Anchorage to the Matanuska-Susitna Borough, received a $230 million earmark in the same controversial 2005 omnibus spending bill that included the Gravina Island Bridge. That bill dictated the Knik Arm Bridge be named "Don Young's Way" after Alaska's Congressman Don Young). As with its more famous cousin, the “Bridge to Nowhere,” the Knik Arm Earmark was eliminated along with the Gravina Earmark due to the criticism by John McCain and others. (John McCain called federal funding for the project a "monstrosity" and "terrifying in its fiscal consequences.") The Knik Arm Bridge has been derided by some commentators as a second “Bridge to Nowhere.”

Unlike the Gravina Island Bridge, which Palin canceled after changing her mind, Palin continues to support the Knik Arm Bridge and federal funding for it. Although less controversial than the Gravina Island Bridge, Palin’s support of Knik Arm has also been criticized as pork-barrel spending. Some critics have even claimed she favors the bridge because it would provide an alternate commuting route to her hometown of Wasilla, the largest city in the Mat-Su Borough. Supporters of the Knik Arm Bridge counter that the bridge is primarily useful to open land across Knik Arm for further development of Anchorage, Alaska’s largest city, and to provide easier commuting for several Alaska cities and towns. In April 2009, Palin opposed the steps by taken by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration to designate the Cook Inlet as a “critical habitat for beluga whales” under the Endangered Species Act on the grounds that, among other things, it might interrupt the development of the proposed Knik Arm Bridge.

Obviously this is just a draft. It may have typos, and I know it lacks sources and wikilinks, which will be put back in if we can come to an agreement on language. I care more about content than any specific language. Finally, I realize the first paragraph of KAB is somewhat repetitive of the first paragraph of GIB. I think that's the necessary evil of separating the two bridges.GreekParadise (talk) 18:08, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

How many times are we going to circularly discuss the same things over and over? The above just ignores all of the discussion we've been having here for weeks. No, no, no on the KAB being included in the article. So far as the GIB, yes, a mention is appropriate but I still support Paul's shorter version above, which neutrally captures the facts relevant to Palin. Kelly ^hi!

Please give a reason. "No, No, No" doesn't count and leads me to my reluctant conclusion that only formal arbitration will resolve this. You support removing about 85% of the material on GIB and 100% of the material on KAB, including information that has been in the article since Sept. '08 when Palin was chosen as Vice-President. Specifically tell me why you think Palin's high school track status is more important than every one of the well-sourced facts relevant to public policy you want excluded from the bio above.GreekParadise (talk) 19:01, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Kelly is right that this completely ignores the previous discussions and any points or attemps to find a compromise on the part of the rest of us. Out of sheer frustration I find myself becoming much less and less inclined to compromise when my points are completely ignored, so I too will turn my full support to this paragraph, as written by Paul, to include wikilinks:

In 2005, a transportation bill included $223 million in earmarks for constructing a bridge to Gravina Island, the site of the Ketchikan airport. As Gravina Island has a population of only 50, the bridge became known as the "Bridge to Nowhere" and received nationwide attention as a symbol of pork-barrel spending. When Sarah Palin was named as John McCain's running mate, one of the lines she used in her stump speeches was that she told Congress "thanks, but no thanks, on that bridge to nowhere." It turned out that Palin had campaigned for building the bridge when running for governor in 2006, saying she would "not allow the spinmeisters to turn this project [...] into something that's so negative." As governor, Palin cancelled the Gravina Island Bridge, but the damage had been done, and opponents during the Presidential campaign accused her of flip-flopping and being very selective in her recollection of her involvement with the bridge.

Support Zaereth (talk) 20:19, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I support this version as well. I've already given reasons as to why I oppose GP's version, they're on this very page. I don't understand why a new section was started, completely disregarding previous discussion. Kelly ^hi! 21:37, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

The reason we have a new section is quite simple and not at all nefarious. Fcreid suggested that perhaps the way forward was in pulling the two bridges apart and writing a section on ONLY the GIB. Doing so might provide agreement on at least the GIB section and we could move forward from there. GreekParadise, in creating this section, was only responding to that suggestion. However now we have about 800 words about the bridges when we have only 400 in the article currently. I think this is opposite of the direction most editors have suggested the article ought to move.--Paul (talk) 22:00, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Paul, I did not mean to seem to ignore Fcried's suggestion, and am perfectly fine with trying to get a fresh start, but this seems to bump us all the way back to the very beginning without consideration of the valid points made by so many. My main concern is that the KAB is portrayed for what it really is, and the suggestion that "Some critics have even claimed she favors the bridge because it would provide an alternate commuting route to her hometown of Wasilla..." sounds weasly, as if the rest of the state doesn't matter, and quite frankly so does, "Supporters of the Knik Arm Bridge..." I still see nothing relevant to Palin regerding these bridges except her famous quote, (which I'm not sure was hers or the campaigns) in which she clearly speaks of saying thanks but no thanks to the bridge to nowhere, (singular - not bridges, which doesn't indicate to me that she had ever revoked her support for both bridges). I think that your paragraph covers all aspects of the GIB, as it actually relates to her, with razor precision. That makes it simple and interesting to read, (we do want people to actually read through it right?), and because of the great invention of wikilinks, (read my comment in the section above), someone who really wants to know more can have instant access to that article, therefore we don't actually lose any information, but simply put it in its correct place. I would even be more than willing to go along with Buster's revision of your paragraph which would actually provide such a link. Zaereth (talk) 23:16, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

By the way, your suggestion that we take a break from the KAB may be a good idea, but I question it somewhat too. If such a small point such as the singling out of Wasilla in order to point a finger at the subject can not be resolved in less than 100 words I wonder if its such a good idea to break away from it, lest we have to go through all of these arguements yet again. (I think I may try copy and paste next time. My typing finger is cramping up.) Zaereth (talk) 01:00, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) To clear up any possible misunderstanding, I also support my one-paragraph summary of the affair of the "Bridge to Nowhere."--Paul (talk) 01:11, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Leave the Knik Arm Bridge section alone for a moment (as I still prefer one sentence over an entire section). Is there support for the Gravina Island Section above? If people think it too long, we can move the last paragraph back to the campaign section where it was originally.GreekParadise (talk) 05:34, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

I do not believe we can whitewash the "Road to Nowhere." Failing to dislose that fact is my most serious problem with Paul's version. There are other problems, of course, apart from the failure to disambiguate the Knik Arm Bridge, which, I've pointed out countless times to the evident surprise of some of you, has also frequently been called the "Bridge to Nowhere" in thousands of articles on Palin and these bridges and therefore likely to confuse the reader. Paul's version fails to mention McCain's strenuous opposition to both bridges or even that their earmarks were canceled. It removes Palin's mocking of the name "nowhere" which she later embraced, and does not mention that Alaska kept the $400 million plus in highway funds, nor even the McCain-Palin advertisements touting her rejection of the bridge she once fervently supported. There are other problems as well but no one has even discussed them here. I believe I could tighten this further while leaving in the salient facts.GreekParadise (talk) 05:34, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

But now no one wants to discuss these problems entailed in cuttinng 80% of the original article because everyone has said they're in "no mood to compromise." After spending two months on one KAB sentence and getting the agreement of Fcried and Collect (and largely Zaereth) before they changed their minds on it, now everyone wants to remove whole swaths of salient information about GIB as well, to dump three intricately-sourced paragraphs with no discussion whatsoever. The footnotes in these paragraphs alone were the work of more than a dozen editors carefully discussed over three months. And these editors will, rest assured, be back before Palin runs again. Not because I will invite them (I haven't and won't) but because I suspect when people look for facts, they'll wonder why the bio was bowdlerized. They'll wonder why the sources don't match the text. And I think they'll add it all back. After all, I was the original source of none of this material.GreekParadise (talk) 05:34, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Why don't we just admit this has all been a colossal failure? I have read and responded to every single argument presented. But have any of you responded to mine? Most of you just say you're opposed without even trying to make an argument. So why are we wasting our time? This is unachievable without mediation or arbitration. And we all know it. The Road to Nowhere on Gravina Island is even more important than the KAB. CNN did an entire investigative report on it. But I don't know why I spend my time citing sources to you folks. Let's face it: sources are irrelevant to y'all, right? You care more about Palin's high school track team than any legitimate criticisms of her actions as Governor.

At this point, I think virtually everyone (except me) has now said they refuse to compromise. Heck, at least that's honest. I'll stop wasting my time. KC, I hereby request permission to slap a POV tag on the bridge section and go to formal arbitration in whatever way you think appropriate. At least that way, I'll get some wiki-valid response to my arguments, which I'd really appreciate. Please take control, KC. Our attempts at compromise have failed.GreekParadise (talk) 05:34, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure how you classify the proposed sections above as a compromise, GP, or how you feel this approach embraces my suggestion to disassociate the two bridges. Just for now... for a single subsection on talk... forget you ever heard of a bridge named Knik Arm! Don't reference it under your GIB Bridge to Nowhere section. Don't use it in your train of thought to reach a point on GIB. Don't include elements in the Bridge to Nowhere section that rely on data or sources related to Knik Arm. Use simple math (and the myriad neutral sources available out there) to isolate GIB ($220M or whatever). Make the Bridge to Nowhere section stand on its own merits, so you can hammer out that section without ever mentioning (for now) the open sore that has become KAB here. Start with Paul's summary paragraph and introduce your specific points, case-by-case, that you feel warrants inclusion in a summary biographical article, i.e. recognizing that the niggling details are best left for another article should readers with to learn more. Personally, I have no particular points of interest or rejection with respect to GIB, and I believe that if you keep your proposed contents succinct, factual, neutral and relevant, others will probably agree. While I still have the open mic, and sincerely not trying to condescend or argue your case for you, but you'll gain far more support if you address these points individually with rationale, e.g. "I believe the Bridge to Nowhere section must include a statement on Palin proceeding with the construction of the Gravina Island access road, as this indicates her willingness to use federal funds for infrastructure projects of dubious value, with the only . My proposed sentence is, following the last sentence, is Despite the wide condemnation of the bridge and opposition from state officials, Palin awarded a state-level $10M project to fund construction of an access road the proposed Gravina Island site, claiming it would expand local development. Note how I avoided non-neutral attack language, e.g. avoiding the cutesy phrase "Road to Nowhere" which gained traction only in partisan circles during the election, but still convey some essential points? Bear in mind, I have no idea that whether what I wrote is either factual or defensible, but rather it is intended only as an example of how you might achieve greater consensus through neutral language despite being unfavorable to the Palin. Fcreid (talk) 13:38, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

If we throw out the KAB, we get a discrepancy between the 223 million and the 453 million (that discrepancy being the KAB), but for the sake of argument, I've pared KAB down to two words "and another" to see how it reads. (The fourth paragraph was originally in the campaign section and can be returned there though I prefer it here) I've also tried to tighten the language a bit to cut unnecessary words.

In 2005, a federal omnibus spending bill included $223 million in earmarks for constructing a bridge to Gravina Island, the site of the Ketchikan airport. As Gravina Island has a population of only 50, the bridge became known as the "Bridge to Nowhere" and received nationwide attention as a symbol of pork-barrel spending. Following an outcry by the public and some members of Congress, including John McCain, Congress eliminated this and another Alaska bridge earmark, instead giving the $453 million to Alaska as part of its general transportation fund with no strings attached. [PICTURE CAPTION: As a candidate in 2006, Palin said in Ketchikan that the Gravina Island Bridge was essential for prosperity, but later canceled it.]

In 2006, Palin campaigned for governor by supporting the use of state and federal funds to construct the Gravina Island Bridge, saying she sympathized with members of a community that had been characterized by the press as "nowhere," and would "not allow the spinmeisters to turn this project ... into something that's so negative"[5] She urged the bridge be built fast "while our congressional delegation is in a strong position to assist."[6]

A year later, Palin changed her mind. As governor, Palin cancelled the Gravina Island Bridge but did not return the $453 million in federal transportation funds.[8] Instead, $25 million of the federal funds were used to build a 3-mile highway on the bridgeless Gravina Island that has been derided by critics as a “Road to Nowhere” because, without the bridge, the usually empty road has no connection to the mainland.[10] [picture] Alaska state officials said under law, if the money had not been used for the road it would have had to have been returned to the federal government.[9]

During the campaign, both McCain and Palin frequently touted Palin for "stopping the Bridge to Nowhere" as a prime example of Palin's opposition to pork barrel spending and earmark abuses.[5] "I told the Congress "thanks, but no thanks, on that Bridge to Nowhere," Palin said in her nomination acceptance speech, and she frequently repeated this line in stump speeches and campaign advertisements. The line was widely described in the media as misleading or an exaggeration [14], with critics accusing her of flip-flopping and being very selective in her recollection of her involvement with the bridge. [11] As Newsweek put it, "Now she talks as if she always opposed the funding."[16]

I wrote this and got an Edit Conflict. Now I'm reprinting it and responding to Fcried's last comment. The trouble with excluding the "cutesy" phrase "Road to Nowhere" is that it, like the also "cutesy" "Bridge to Nowhere", is often how the the road is known and been used by media sources like CNN. You can view the CNN clip here: [[1]]. ("Road to Nowhere" has a wikipedia entry referring to this road on its disambiguation page that I didn't put there.) I think I've put it in proper context. True, we could phrase it thus: " Instead, $26 million of the federal funds were used to build a 3-mile highway on the bridgeless Gravina Island that has been derided by critics because, without the bridge, the usually empty road has no connection to the mainland" But the wikilink would still go to "Road to Nowhere."GreekParadise (talk) 14:16, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Sometimes I wonder if you're really just yanking my chain, GP. Fcreid (talk) 03:07, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

I have no idea what you're talking about, Fcried. I've been deadly serious the entire time. But I'm used to being responded to seriousness with frivolity here. I've worked very hard to compromise and provide NPOV. Why you -- who once agreed to compromise -- suddenly backed out without explanation, I'll never know. I suspect it's because you figrued -- quite rightly -- that the Palin hagiographers have completely taken over the article, and you know that, absent arbitration, any significant criticism will be squelched. That's OK. We all know that if Palin ever runs for anything again (which seems unlikely, as she's viewed as a national joke by a large percentage of Americans), those who oppose her policies will be back here calling attention to the legitimate criticisms that dozens of us raised before the election and I'm pretty much alone in raising now..GreekParadise (talk) 05:02, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

The word you missed above was the use of neutral language. I specifically mentioned that example above, as I already knew it was absolutely unnecessary to label this access road as "Road to Nowhere". The road was not commonly (in fact, very rarely) referred to as that. It is pure political rhetoric--partisan commentator "buzz" seeded during a campaign that zealots at Huffington Post seized upon and used to work each other into orgasm. Neutrality does not mean The Left mines every negative perspective they can find on a topic, and The Right finds "hagiographic" (as you like to call it) treatment of the same topic. It means that facts are presented using neutral language that allows the reader to draw their own conclusions from the presentation of those facts and without editorializing. The inpenetrable blinders you're wearning have made your treatment of the bridge topics impossible to resolve. Don't consider this a personal attack, and it will be the last comment I make on the topic before our moderators chastize me for focusing on the editor and not the edit. That said, I admire both your tenacity and your willingness to work hard towards your ends. I just wish you could take off the blinders and see something out of your other eye. Fcreid (talk) 11:47, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

With due respect, I would argue your insistence on labeling CNN as The Left, rather than an unbiased news source, shows your own blinders. Perhaps FOX News is the only news source in the country you consider "fair and balanced"? Do you believe that all of the millions of wiki-citations to CNN should be removed?GreekParadise (talk) 14:56, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

No, I consider Fox News a significantly right-leaning news source and CNN a slightly left-leaning one. I can't comment and could care less about the political leanings of specific editors and commentators on either station, though. I don't want opinion from the news. I want fact. Anyway, my opinion of CNN or other news sources is irrelevant here. It is the lack of neutrality in your wording of the bridge section. I won't reiterate everything I wrote above, as I believe you understand it perfectly. Suffice to say there is absolutely no need to include the phrase "Road to Nowhere" just because you heard it somewhere. It adds no factual content to matters on the Gravina Island access road. Balance your tone and language. If something seems intended to be derogatory, it probably is. When formulating your own opinion, if you need someone else to interpret facts for you before formulating your own opinion, listen to both CNN and Fox News... something in the middle is closer to a correct perspective. Above all, this article is not a vetting ground for insignificant opinion... it should be factual. If public opinion regarding those facts are significant to an issue, then state so without editorializing as you have been doing. If you wish to say something like, "A majority of residents felt the access road was not a cost-effective allocation of resources", then state so (with sources of course). Don't seed your negative opinion of the issue in the stream of something you're pretending to assert as factual. In this particular instance, using "Road to Nowhere" is clearly intended to induce a negative conclusion by the reader, and you have no business leading anyone to that conclusion. What you and I or Wolf Blitzer think about the access road is irrelevant... it is not WP's job to force opinion on anyone. Fcreid (talk) 19:13, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

I never said what I think. I said "derided by critics as a 'Road to Nowhere' ". Is that not accurate? In the section on "estate tax," wikipedia says that opponents of the estate tax call it the "death tax." Should that comment be removed because it suggests that the author of the article is against the tax? After all, there is no such thing as a "death tax" anywhere in the law. So is this mention POV? In fact, should all critiques -- and the words they use -- be removed from wikipedia? How about "pro-life" and "pro-choice"? Both terms are POV-pushing. Should both terms be removed in any article on abortion? Does it "force opinion" to tell readers what side of an opinion thinks? I think you know the answers to these questions, Fcried. I suspect only in the Sarah Palin article -- unique among biographies of controversial political figures -- do people actually argue that you should not present both sides of a question but only the non-critical side.

But it doesn't matter. You've refused compromise even with the substitute language I had put above ("a 3-mile highway on the bridgeless Gravina Island"), right?GreekParadise (talk) 19:45, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm glad you recognize you're pushing a POV. I'm certain you'll find objections from others to your proposed wording in other areas that also pushes a POV. This is not my argument, so proceed as you see fit. I'm done with it. Fcreid (talk) 22:05, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

A call for perspective

I’ll try to keep this as short as I can, but I wanted to call for a little perspective here. Keep in mind that this article is intended to summarize Palin’s whole life, from birth to present.

This article, and its talk page, seems frozen in the 2008 campaign, with the battles being endlessly rehashed. This has resulted in a serious lack of perspective in the article, with relatively minor issues that, as is typical in campaigns, get blown up into campaign talking points that are reflected in media coverage. Just looking at the present content, the GIB, which was never a significant issue until the campaign, has four subparagraphs. Her tenture at the AOGCC, which made her political reputation in Alaska, gets four sentences. Of her early signature accomplishments as governor, the gas pipeline gets one short subpara, while ACES and ethics reform legislation get no mention at all. For now I won’t even get into the long Troopergate section, which is of vastly undue weight.

Not only is the bridge stuff undue weight now, it will become even more insignificant as time goes on. There are new sources and developments occurring with Palin every day (though I haven’t seen it reflected in the article.) A new biography, “Trailblazer” by Lorenzo Benet, was published with a wealth of information on her early life. The head of McCain’s VP search team has come forward with details on how she was selected to run. Palin herself gave a long interview to John Ziegler about the media coverage during the campaign, and she gave a deeply personal speech in Evansville, Indiana last week about the birth of her youngest son.

Her political career is still intensely covered by the media, both at a state and national level. She’s had epic battles with her state legislature this year over the economic stimulus, her selection for Attorney General, and her appointment to a vacant Senate seat in Juneau. She’s dealt with a humanitarian crisis in the Lower Yukon. She testified on climate change before the Secretary of the Interior, and has been pushing for an in-state natural gas bullet line and consolidation of Railbelt utility corporations. She advocated parental notification/consent legislation for girls under age 17 to have an abortion, and faced controversy when she appointed a Supreme Court judge who had been a board member at Planned Parenthood. She’s racked up $500,000 in personal legal bills fighting frivolous lawsuits and ethics complaints, and has received literally thousands of invitations to speak before groups and public events.

I give the above just as a sample of events within only past couple of months that are more noteworthy than her position on the GIB, much less the KAB. People editing this article need to be thinking of summary style, putting information first into the subarticles, then bringing summaries here. Pretend you’re writing about Palin a hundred years from now and you’re picking out the most significant facts. The detailed stuff belongs in the subarticles. Kelly ^hi! 18:14, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you Kelly, for when I watch the news at night I wonder why there's no mention of her current events here. I think your statement is fairly concise and illustrates a fundamental problem with the Never-Ending Bridges saga, and how it sits in the entire scope of her career. Zaereth (talk) 18:51, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

I have been watching the discussion on this topic for months, waiting to see where it would go, and I have come to two conclusions. First, I agree with Kelly's assessment that the perspective of this topic is slightly skewed, however I also feel that Kelly is no longer an acceptable neutral third party on the matter. The list of topics that she has shown on the matter is decidedly Pro Palin, and I think therefore that any calls for arbitration on the bridge issue have merit.

I remember the discussion on several issues which dissolved into minutia, framed away by tireless defenders of the governor to the point that I no longer felt it was worth my time to pursue them, which, I believe was ultimately the point.

Thus, to me 'the perspective' is that the person who I thought was most neutral several months ago and who was acting as 'reasonable mediator' appears quite Pro Palin in her attempts to call for perspective. I understand that it is Wikipedia policy to avoid personal attacks. This is not an attempt at a personal attack.

Rather, it is an attempt to say that I find Kelly's perspective, over the course of time, to be as skewed as those she is attempting to moderate, and therefore feel that anything as contentious as the Bristol Palin and Bridge issue should be handled by formal arbitration. Manticore55 (talk) 04:13, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Writegeist's beautiful comment on my talk page has given me exactly the help I was looking for: peace, validation and absolution.GreekParadise (talk) 06:32, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

The only question left is whether to put a POV-tag on this article before I go, in honor of all of those there who believe that Palin's track star status is more important than her public policy choices.

I had been leaning toward it. But at the moment I'm leaning not, at least not by me, in order to get a clean break from the mental chains that cause me to go back and keep checking the Sarah Palin bio to decry its slow but certain slide from balanced article to Sarah Palin press release. I would welcome anyone else who wants to put such a tag up -- after all, the article is unbalanced and we're not allowed to modify it -- and it's not just the bridge section. People think I'm fixated on the bridges, but I always saw the bridges as a microcosm of the larger problem with the article. The idea was I would study one area of Palin and get to know all the sources backwards and forwards so there would be no question in my mind about the facts. That way I could argue with authority on at least one issue, while leaving most of the other issues largely to others. If I ever could past the "Bridge to Nowhere," I could then focus on other issues. But the Bridge led....with perfect irony...to (wait for it...yes it's coming...can't resist...) NOWHERE.

God has granted me the serenity to change the things I can, to accept the things I can't, and the wisdom to know the difference. I know there is no way to implement wikipedia policies of NPOV and verifiability and scholarship and banning own research and assuming good faith and balance and truthfulness in this bio in the face of a determined group of hagiographers who refuse to engage in give and take or compromise.

Luckily, Sarah Palin doesn't matter any more. When she was new to the scene, people flocked to wikipedia to find out about her. Now she's a national joke, thanks to her own ridiculous campaign interviews and the deft skewering by Tina Fey. If Sarah Palin ever starts to matter again, rest assured I'll be back and, if my fellow travelers who want a balanced bio aren't there, I will insist on formal arbitration on all disputes, particularly if they're with the same people who control the article now. If this happens, my first step will be to return all of the detailed, verifiable, and relevant content in the Election-Day Consensus which has been and will be deleted by the Sarah Palin Image-Protection Propaganda Office.

I would hope a POV tag would be left up, in recognition of the fact that this bio is rapidly transforming from Election-Day Consensus to Palin Hagiography. Just because Sarah's determined minions are able to spend more time on this bio than those of us who believe in NPOV doesn't mean anything in this article meets wikipedia standards. But I'll leave that battle for others to fight. Most everyone who believes in NPOV has left already. And I, like them, have much better things to do than hit my head against a brick wall.

I again thank Writegeist from the bottom of my heart for freeing me from my mental chains. If others want to bring this article, or any portion of it, to arbitration, please notify me. Use my email address newly added to my talk page. I will be happy to help in any way I can. But I hereby absolve myself of any obligation to ensure the SP bio is truthful or accurate or balanced or even makes sense. I am content to let it return, slowly but surely, to the fetid quicksand from which YoungTrig brought it forth from the very beginning of the time when Sarah Palin actually mattered.

Orwell was right. Big Brother gets to write his own bio. I love Big Brother. I love Sarah Palin.GreekParadise (talk) 06:32, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

What will fertilize the ground enough for this to take root is blind allegiance to ideology on either side of the spectrum... not just the one that happens to be opposite of yours. Fcreid (talk) 12:50, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Possible grammar error?

I do not know enough about grammar rules to be sure of this, but I think that in the "Public Safety Commissioner dismissal" section, the following "Monegan stated he learned an internal investigation..." could use the word "that" either after 'stated' or 'learned'. I do not know if it is grammatically incorrect, but I do think it would read easier with this addition. Luminite2 (talk) 21:45, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

I stuck it after "stated" and it does read more easily... I don't think there's contention for you to make changes of this nature, but who knows... maybe even a grammar debate will break out here too! :) Fcreid (talk) 22:11, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Created Levi Johnston article

In case SP editors are interested. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 15:48, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! It is a bit overdue. I will try to add to the article. Thanks again. Ism schism (talk) 16:07, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

"Wikipedia is not a newspaper. The bare fact that someone has been in the news does not in itself imply that they should be the subject of an encyclopedia entry. Where a person is mentioned by name in a Wikipedia article about a larger subject, but essentially remains a low-profile individual, we should generally avoid having an article on them. If reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a particular event, and if that person otherwise remains, or is likely to remain, low profile, then a separate biography is unlikely to be warranted. "

Emphasis added. How does Levi Johnston meet the bar for his own article? Just my 2 cents. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 20:31, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Numerous reliable sources have commented on multiple events related to Levi Johnston. Whether you like him or not, he has passed the test for notability. His pre-election coverage alone is enough to establish his notability, not to mention his post-election coverage. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 20:49, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

He doesn't meet the bar per WP:BLP1E, but if the article went to AfD now, enought ILIKEIT people would turn up that the vote would be 'no consensus'. Best to wait until his 15 minutes is up, then nominate for deletion. Kelly ^hi! 23:12, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

State Personnel Board

In the spirit of BRD, I reverted an edit that described the State Personnel Board as "Governor-appointed", which was added in the section regarding the fact that Board cleared her of all wrongdoing in the Troopergate investigation. The adjective seems intended to imply some kind of corruption - in fact, the majority of the Board was appointed by Palin's predecessor, Frank Murkowski, who was defeated by Palin. I'm not seeing how that would make them friendly or biased toward her. Kelly ^hi! 17:50, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

One member of the board was appointed by her. The other members had terms of fixed duration (unlike, say, a judge who's appointed for life). Although originally appointed by Murkowski, they would be dependent upon Palin's good will for reappointment. Contrary to your ES, it's not "some kind of corruption implication"; it's simply a recognition that many (probably most) readers would think that the members of the Board, being human, might well have a bias when it came to judging the officer who appoints Board members. Even if you don't see a bias, you don't need to, because we're not asserting that there was a bias; we're reporting facts, from which some readers will see a bias and some will join you in not seeing one. JamesMLane t c 17:10, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

If we put in there that the board is governor-appointed, then we need to add that the majority of the members were appointed by Murkowski, IMHO. Otherwise it gives the impression the board was appointed by her. But this article is only supposed to contain a summary, the details are in the subarticle. BTW, is there a reason you added the material back while discussion is ongoing? Kelly ^hi! 18:07, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Was there a reason you went ahead and made the change without attempting discussion or checking the archives in the first place? This was discussed throughout the archives before you arrived. The news sources all seem to mention that the SPB are gubernatorial appointees and that one was actually appointed by Palin. I think one even mentioned that it's within her authority to fire ALL of them at any time. I don't see a need to selectively eliminate mention of this in order to promote the opinion of some Wikipedia editors that there could never have been any potential conflict of interest. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 20:28, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

There's no problem with reporting facts. It's the selection of the facts that is problematic. The Personnel Board is a three-member panel appointed by the governor, and confirmed by the legislature.[2] Members serve a six-year term,[3] and not more than 2 members may be of same political party.[4] The three people on the current board were first appointed by Frank Murkowski (R), Palin's gubernatorial predecessor; Palin reappointed one member in 2008.[5] Another member donated $400 to Palin's 2006 campaign for governor.[6] As governor, Palin has the authority to remove members of the board, for cause.[7] Et cetera.

This article also says: "On October 2, a court rejected Colberg's challenge to the subpoenas...." Why not mention that the judge was appointed by the governor?Ferrylodge (talk) 18:10, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

There seems to be agreement on the result of adding this qualifier; "members of the Board...might have a bias" is an implication of corruption. The question appears to be whether that implication is more neutral than its absence. Since we don't have a reliable source reporting the implication, I'd be in favor of leaving it out. Celestra (talk) 18:47, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

The original sources reported the basic fact of the appointments without directly drawing an implication. That's what I would call "inviting the reader to draw his/her own conclusions", and it's something we ought to preserve -- leaving the basic fact out would be inappropriate editorializing, IMO. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 20:28, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Would it be factual to add the following: Of the three member Personnel Board, Debra English was reappointed by Palin and Alfred Tamagni donated $400.00 to Palin for her 2006 race for governor.Jimmuldrow (talk) 19:33, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Sure, it would be factual. It would also be factual to say that the three people on the current board were first appointed by Frank Murkowski.[8] But I don't think this level of detail belongs in the present article. It can go in the sub-article.Ferrylodge (talk) 19:45, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

It should be possible to include the most relevant facts in a concise one sentence addition. Palin was their boss at the time. If Murkowski was their boss in the past, that's not quite as relevant to the present.Jimmuldrow (talk) 22:32, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Who appointed them seems no less relevant than who reappointed them. Anyway, that level of detail belongs in the sub-article, IMO.Ferrylodge (talk) 22:38, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

The difference is between who used to be their boss in the past and who currently can reappoint or fire Personnel Board members at the time. If you still think otherwise, please point out what I'm missing. I believe Murkowski's ability to appoint, reappoint and fire Personnel Board members ended when he ceased to be governor.Jimmuldrow (talk) 10:31, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

They can only be fired for just cause, meaning that once Murkowski appointed them Palin could only fire them under very limited circumstances.[9]Ferrylodge (talk) 14:56, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

It would be almost as concise to mention Murkowski along with the rest. A sentence or two should do it. Probably one sentence.Jimmuldrow (talk) 15:24, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Nah, it would be best to just let it go. Not suffiently notable. It's all in the sub-article. See WP:Summary style.Ferrylodge (talk) 16:00, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

No more or less notable than the fact that the Personnel Board was pro-Palin, as mentioned in the article. This is true regardless of how they felt about Murkowski, although adding the part about Murkowski is ok if you think it's significant.Jimmuldrow (talk) 16:41, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

This article could also explain that Branchflower's wife was best buddies with Monegan, she worked with him at the Anchorage police department, and helped Monegan get his job as police chief of Anchorage. Insinuating bias goes both ways, Jim.Ferrylodge (talk) 16:54, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Edit request

Please edit this article as follows: "A spokesman for Alaska's Department of Transportation made a statement that it was within Palin's power to cancel the road project, but also noted that the state still had plans to complete the bridge project, and that in any case the road would open up the surrounding lands for development."

I don't think that the cited source mentions anything about the state still planning to complete the bridge project.Ferrylodge (talk) 23:40, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

That happened because somebody decided a source needed to be listed for that sentence, but didn't do a very thorough job. I've added a source for that particular claim and changed the language to clarify that there are no definite plans as of yet. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 17:32, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

The reason I did an edit request is because the section says at the beginning: "THIS SECTION IS UNDER DISPUTE. PLEASE DO NOT EDIT AT THIS TIME, BUT JOIN THE DISCUSSION ON THE ARTICLE TALK PAGE." You may want to revert your edit before something very bad happens. Not that it necessarily will happen, but just in case.  :-)

In any event, I think we should say that the state is still considering "cheaper designs" to build the bridge. It would not be the same bridge proposal.Ferrylodge (talk) 17:51, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

There being no objection, I took care of it.Ferrylodge (talk) 16:01, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Bristol Palin

At this point both Bristol and Levi have given multiple interviews. They have been a 1/2 dozen press releases from on her status. There have been hundreds of of news articles and editorials in reliable sources regarding her. She has become a major point of reference in the abstinence debates. It is my opinion that we can't not cover this. That at this point she is notable, there is verifiable information regarding several controversies she is involved in and she is a figure of public interest. I'd like to open up a discussion regarding:

1. Unprotecting (or semi protecting) Bristol Palin to create an article and not having it be a redirect
2. Having Bristol palin redirect to Bristol Palin and not Sarah Palin's article.

jbolden1517^Talk 04:20, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Why exactly is Bristol Palin noteable enough to have her own article? I did read your post above, but I am still not convenced she meets the threshold for inclusion per WP:BIO. Tom (talk) 04:34, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

The criteria is that she have independent 2nd source material written about her in RSes. That's it. She clearly meets that criteria. In fact she blows it away. I just googled Bristol Palin and ( Results 1 - 10 of about 3,410,000 for Bristol Palin. (0.13 seconds) ) which probably puts her in the top .1% of wikipedia articles. Just grabbing some at random: Washington Post Times London People NYTimes Boston Herald AP Daily Mail Time magazine US News and World Report and I could go on and on and on. jbolden1517^Talk 05:21, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

She's notable for one thing. That is being Sarah Palin's daughter. That is her only notability - and its being a relative of a famous person. We do not create BLPs on relatives. Is there any other argument for her notability? Did she become a movie star, or win a science award while I was not paying attention? If her "claim to fame" is still Sarah Palin is her mother, then any content will need to go in this article. KillerChihuahua^?!? 11:57, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

From what I've seen in the past, people will normally draft an article and post it for discussion on the talk page of the protected redirect. Kelly ^hi! 04:52, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

He asked Gwen, who protected the redirect, and she suggested here, so as to involve the parent article's editors. I concur. He also claimed he was dropping the subject, when he was declined his second request, made on RFPP, unless I misunderstood him. KillerChihuahua^?!? 11:55, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Kristin Gore and Chelsea Clinton have articles. Near as I can tell they both have done little more than step up on the national stage to support their famous relations. Same as Bristol.Ozarkhighlands (talk) 19:50, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Does "minor child" mean anything? Last I checked, Kristin Gore and Chelsea Clinton were very far from being minors. Collect (talk) 20:25, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Bristol Palin is no longer a minor, at least according to this article: [10].   Will Beback  talk 

We still have the WP guidelines about children (noting, of course, that the acts which are sought to be noted were before she reached majority). Can you show me all the WP articles on Al Gore III? [11] Bristol has zero notability outside her mother. Collect (talk) 21:39, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

What guideline says that things an adult does when a minor cannot be mentioned on Wikipedia? Such a policy would shorten the Macaulay Culkin and Shirley Temple articles considerably.   Will Beback  talk  21:44, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

As for Gore, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Al Gore III (8th nomination). The article was deleted because the subject wasn't notable. If Bristol Palin isn't notable either then an article about her will be deleted too.   Will Beback  talk  21:49, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

We had the discussion about Al Gore III in this context last month. Google searches for "Albert Gore III" and "Al Gore III" combine to generate fewer than 30,000 hits. "Bristol Palin" is just under two million. I don't know why my number differs from jbolden1517's, but it's clear that these two celebrity offspring are not comparable in terms of the extent of the media attention paid to them. It's also relevant that Bristol Palin chose to be interviewed on nationwide television. JamesMLane t c 21:55, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

One problem is that most people do not search on "III" they search on "son" --- there was a lot more in the Gore article on the son that exists on Bristol to be sure. "Al Gore" and "son" get well over a million real hits (that is, hits about his son, not just random articles) . More to the point is that most of the Bristol hits are from political blog sites, not from news sites. "Al Gore" and "son" get well over 10,000 NYT articles. So much for the "only 30,000 hits on the entire web"-sort of claim, to be sure. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Collect (talk • contribs) 22:08, 10 April 2009

This discussion is excessively hypothetical. If someone thinks Britol Palin is worth an article then write one. If other editors think it isn't worthwhile then they can nominate it for deletion. There's no point in comparing Ghits, which aren't a measure of notability anyway.   Will Beback  talk  22:12, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

I tend to agree with Will on this point. While I do not think the notability of Miss Palin extends beyond the scope of her mother, this is not the place to discuss it. Create the article and we will have a place to discuss its merits. I also fully agree that counting google hits does not provide an accurate measure of anything, especially notability. (The question I ask myself is what has Miss Palin done that would provide us with sufficient non-gossip column quality material to warrant an entire article. Is she a rock star, Pulitzer prize winner, or served in a public forum in some way, or is she just a daughter of someone notable who had a baby but is not married? All roads to her notability, in my opinion, lead back to her mother.) In matters related to this article, we still have a Knik Arm Bridge discussion going on above, and appear to have concensus, unless someone has something else to add up there. Zaereth (talk) 23:04, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Collect, the earliest notable Al Gore was a U.S. Senator (Albert Gore, Sr.). His son was Vice President. Your search would pick up some articles about the Vice President's son that would otherwise be missed, but it would also pick up articles about the Vice President that mentioned he was the son of the Senator. That applies also to your assertion about the New York Times coverage (e.g., "Gore was the good son groomed by a famous pol to be president", from this Maureen Dowd column). I strenuously doubt that the Times has run 10,000 stories about Al Gore III, with or without his Roman numeral. If you have a search that supports any such contention, please provide a link. Furthermore, I don't think young Gore has sat for any interview on national television; Bristol Palin has done so.

In any event, in the discussion I referenced I expressed my opinion that the Al Gore III article should have been kept. Those favoring deletion followed the course of nominating it again and again and again until they achieved their goal on the eighth try. That's unfortunate, but we have no principle that says an ill-advised deletion of the bio of someone connected with a Democrat must be balanced by an ill-advised deletion (or blocked creation) of the bio of someone connected with a Republican. Raising the Al Gore III deletion doesn't help us at all in editing this article or in considering whether there should be a Bristol Palin article. JamesMLane t c 06:17, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Will, look at the proposal. The problem is the article is blocked. You can't write one. jbolden1517^Talk 04:19, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

The redirect was protected due to vandalism, etc. If someone wants to write an actual article I don't think there'd be a problem with unprotecting it. If you want to do so, I recommend developing it in your userspace. Once it's reasonably complete it can be moved over. Just ask me or another admin to help.   Will Beback  talk  04:59, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Started discussion for what should be in the article at User_talk:Jbolden1517/Bristol_Palin.

I think that's a sensible plan...develop an article in userspace, then post a note here for people to look at it. Frankly I'm dubious right now that the sources exist to establish independent notability. Bristol Palin seems to have been seized on as a political tool to bash her mother with, particularly on the issue of abstinence-only sex education. (Incidentally, a lot of those sources incorrectly state that Governor Palin espouses abstinence-only education, which is incorrect.) But I'm certainly willing to look at any good-faith effort at an article. I would suggest that such an article would fall under the terms of the probation on this article, however. Kelly ^hi! 16:16, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

The sources exist to establish independent notability, no doubt about it. She's arguably one of the more notable young people in the world right now in terms of not only the chatter (which doesn't concern us) but more importantly mainstream media coverage.Ozarkhighlands (talk) 03:29, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm - what notable things has she done besides being the daughter of Sarah Palin? Kelly ^hi! 03:50, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

That question is almost a kind of feedback loop. The opening couple comments in this thread from jbolden1517 lays it out pretty clearly. In normal political campaigns the children are out of bounds. This was not a normal political campaign. Gov. Palin and Sen. McCain rolled out the Palin family far into the stream of public discourse. Gov. Palin herself continues to create the notability you deny through spokespeople paid either by the office of the governor of the state of Alaska or out of Palin family funds, which are ostensibly controlled by Todd and Sarah Palin. You have said those releases were not from Gov. Palin but from Bristol. Doesn't having a spokesperson whose releases make international headlines count for notability of their subject? Furthermore, Bristol has willingly participated in this activity whose scope is the grounds for notability, giving interviews and making public appearances.Ozarkhighlands (talk) 13:05, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

I think she's given a grand total of exactly one interview. Kelly ^hi! 17:50, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Just wanted to add my 2 cents re: Bristol's independent notability. She is now a spokesperson- more specifically, "Ambassador" for the Candie's Foundation. This is very much independent of her mother's political career. I think once somebody is considered notable enough by the general public to be a spokesperson, that person is notable enough to get a wikipedia entry. 216.194.7.176 (talk) 22:22, 7 May 2009 (UTC) (ChristopherStansfield who forgot to log in.)

redirect check

Might be a good idea to check to see if readers who reach this article through one of the the numerous redirects will find what they're looking for. --SB_Johnny | ^talk 18:08, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

I see that there were over 7 thousand hits on Bristol Palin on one day in March.[12].   Will Beback  talk  17:00, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

That's interesting. Did something happen that day? Hits were pretty low before then. --SB_Johnny | ^talk 17:04, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Over a hundred day isn't that low, but seven thousand is a very large number.   Will Beback  talk  17:08, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

I believe that was the day the tabloids broke the story that her engagement had been broken off. Kelly ^hi! 17:48, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Yup. [13] I'm sincerely hoping no one is going to suggest we sink to BatBoy levels here. KillerChihuahua^?!? 19:51, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure who "BatBoy" is, but the Chicago Tribune is not a tabloid.   Will Beback  talk  02:16, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

for background see Bat Boy. The Chicago Tribune is not a tabloid but this is hardly "hard news". Even good papers have gossip columns.Ucanlookitup (talk) 02:51, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't think that Bristol Palin is in any way equivalent to Bat Boy:

• Bat Boy is a fictional creature who made several appearances in the defunct supermarket tabloid Weekly World News.

For starters, Bristol Palin is a not a fictional character. I question the neutrality of anyone who'd compare them.   Will Beback  talk  03:19, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

<sigh> I don't think KillerChihuahua meant it as a literal comparison. The point was that a spike in hits corresponding to a salacious item in the press doesn't make the case for notability. If you want to attack neutrality, understand that I'm a liberal that would love to post negative information about Sarah Palin, but it needs to stand up to scrutinty. And in my opinion, this does not.Ucanlookitup (talk) 03:34, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Notability is reflected in sources. Let's see what jbolden1517 finds and adds to his draft. In the meantime, it doesn't do much good to give opinions. Ultimately, the notability of B. Palin can be judged by the AfD noticeboard, as with any topic.   Will Beback  talk  04:17, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

So you acknowledge the notability? I agree that Bristol's interview by Greta Van Sustern for Fox's "On the Record" (broadcast in two segments), and numerous other coverage in mainstream sources, seems to be kind of high profile in line with wiki's notability parameters. Thanks for acknowledging Van Sustern's interview; after your mention I looked it up. It can be found at this link: <http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,494205,00.html>.Ozarkhighlands (talk) 17:55, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Just thought I'd note that I've gone to the change-protection page and have requested a bump down to semi-protected Purplebackpack89 (talk) 05:14, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

consensus/Levi Johnston

After having my edits reverted, I took a look at the edit history for the last month(ish) and in particular the edits that involved the removal of all references to Levi Johnston -

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sarah_Palin&diff=prev&oldid=284498715

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sarah_Palin&diff=prev&oldid=284339818

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sarah_Palin&diff=prev&oldid=283720813

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sarah_Palin&diff=prev&oldid=281983472

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sarah_Palin&diff=prev&oldid=276889425

I had my edit reverted by Kelly, who claimed there is no consensus to have the name of Levi Johnston in the article.

Considering that she has had to revert five different editors who all wished to include that name, I would suggest that there is obvious consensus. There are no BLP issues as the name is available in many sources. No privacy issues. Seeing the amount of media coverage, it is obviously notable.

All I see is an editor who has made a lot of edits on the Palin article, thinking that they own the article.

カンチョーSennen Goroshi ! (talk) 11:22, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, Sennen, you are right. A certain "XXX" in particular, who, contrary to the principles of Wikipedia, decided I was a malintentioned fringe person, "labeled" me as that, and then just edited the thing the way [XXX] wanted, withour "stooping" so low as to give a rational explanation beyond easily refuted superficialities, the labelling and bullying. Thankfully, other pages have better editors who do not resort to name calling and bullying right off the bat, and as a modus operandi, except among themselves -- rather they assume the best intentions and give a rational reason, for something as objective as my concern, which involved the way to reference a fact that has no basis at all anywhere in this whole wide world except from Palin's family and press office. Personally I think that XXX is under the employ of Palin herself. XXX gives every show of being objective and balanced, but is always editing in Palin's favor. It is blatant and obvious -- just look at the editing history. Just what you'd expect from the Palin camp. I won't stoop to naming names myself, it is not polite. But... YOU know who you are!AtomAnt (talk) 20:05, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure who you're piling on with here, Ant. Your edits a few months ago had nothing to do with Levi Johnston, but rather attempted to refute that Palin's grandchild had yet to be born. You challenged the press release from the governor's office as carefully crafted to provide deniability when the child would later be born. This, we later learned, was in pursuit of a conspiracy that Palin's youngest child was actually her grandchild, which Palin took as her own, and then coerced Bristol to have a second child to cement the cover-up. Ah, fringe anyone? Fcreid (talk) 20:48, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

There you go again, with your "fringe" labeling. Well, it just goes to show you, when people run out of ideas for rational discussion they simply revert to name calling, and think they have made an argument. Such people seem to imagine themselves as being pretty smart, but really it is a reflection of vacuity. I stand by my original suggestion, that there should be in-line running-text mention of source where there is no source other than a person's family and staff. AtomAnt (talk) 02:26, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

You might wish to reread the AGF rule. Collect (talk) 10:33, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I just reread the Assume-Good-Faith rule, and I assure you, I have always assumed good faith, even when my first suggestion was summarily dispached by people who apparently haven't read it, who instead of reason resorted to name calling, thinking that would solve things. We assume AGF, but what about editors who constantly defy it, and then run for cover behind it? In the case in question, for example, Levi Johnson is now a household name in connection with Sarah Palin, yet Sennen's objectively written report about their relationship is not allowed, and is zealously deleted by heavy-handed editing. Not allowed? Can Napoleon's page mention Waterloo? I suppose not, if there were editors working the page for him, striving to delete any information that was "inconvenient." It is not a question of space. For example, in the question of my own suggestion, why is the birth date of Sarah Palin's grandchild even mentioned at all? If I go to pages of other politicians, are the birth dates given for their grandkids? Why only here? Answer that, in the name of AGF. Might it have to be that Sarah Palin would like this birth date to appear? There is a pattern here that makes a charade of AGF.AtomAnt (talk) 16:55, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

I'll reiterate... our past discussions had nothing to do with Levi, and I'll point you to the history here showing where I have been a consistent advocate of naming Levi as the father of Palin's grandchild (and for no other reason). Your "household name" characterization is nonsense. Except for the Jerry Springer crowd, most sensible adults could give a crap less about him. His 15 minutes are rightly past. Still, I contend he has and will always have relevance to Sarah Palin's biography as the father or her grandchild. That aside, I stand by my original assessment of your position on omitting the birth notice as fringe, and time has proven me accurate. To refresh, you asserted that we keep the birth notice out of the article because you felt we needed physical evidence of the birth. You never stated what, exactly, would satisfy that. The only possible reason for your reluctance was that you believed the child could not have been born when the family claimed, because you believed Bristol had given birth to Trigg just a few months earlier. (Do you still cling to that theory, despite the other sources corroborating the birth.) In any case, as I stated then, it is up to you to provide evidence supporting the fringe position for exclusion rather than for other editors to exclude legitimately sourced information to support your incredulous contention. For what it's worth, my anecdotal experience is that those who cling to fringe theories like that despite logic are usually a stakeholder in the original fringe theory. Is that your case as well? Fcreid (talk) 00:18, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Nota bene... If you hadn't gathered from my tone above, those who instigated, perpetuated or even fell victim to that despicable rumor that Trigg was really Bristol's child should be ashamed of themselves. It crossed the lines of decency. Fcreid (talk) 15:47, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

The secret of Levi Johnston

Can anyone explain why we shouldn't casually mention Levi Johnston's name? He's a public figure, and whether or not he's notable enough to deserve his own article has nothing to do with whether his name is worth noting here. TruthIIPower (talk) 18:17, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

We should probably merge the three lower sections, as they all pertain to this same matter. I don't know the WP rulebook well-enough to answer your question. Given that Levi himself has spoken publicly to discuss this, I don't see that his privacy is at stake. On the other hand, this is a biography of a completely different person, and I understand the perspective of some others who feel he's not relevant to Palin (and, if I understand the situation correctly, will become even less relevant as time goes on). His (not so honorable) mention here may not stand the test of time. Fcreid (talk) 18:32, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

I've "demoted" these threads under the "Bristol" heading. As per my previous suggestion, I think the best thing would be to develop a Bristol Palin article. Johnston would certainly be relevant there. That'd take the pressure off of this article.   Will Beback  talk  20:10, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

I concur. It makes perfect sense. While I don't have time to participate, I'm sure there are many who will ensure it maintains factual content and decorum. I can't imagine Bristol alone polarizes people the way Palin seems to achieve that! Fcreid (talk) 20:16, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree that he would be relevent to a hypothetical Bristol Palin article...though I'd like to see what any such article would include, I still don't think she's got any independent notability outside of her mother. Kelly ^hi! 23:49, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Luckily, we don't have to make a decision about that here. That'll be up to the AfD board. I think the draft was being worked on at User_talk:Jbolden1517/Bristol_Palin, though by the looks of it maybe there isn't that much interest after all.   Will Beback  talk  00:02, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

(undent)We already have an article for Todd Palin. Why not broaden the coverage of that article to cover the immediate family of Sarah Palin? Either the Todd Palin article could be re-named, or instead the stuff about Bristol could just go in the Todd Palin article as it is currently named. In the great scheme of things, details about the daughter are relatively notable in a Todd Palin bio, and less notable in a Sarah Palin bio, because there are so many things in Sarah Palin's life that are more notable than in her husband's life.Ferrylodge (talk) 02:59, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Isn't Barack Obama's extended family covered in a similar fashion? Kelly ^hi! 17:01, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, see Family of Barack Obama. There is no article for Malia Obama or for Natasha Obama, both of whom are daughters of the President (and thus members of the First Family).Ferrylodge (talk) 18:08, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

I think that Levi Johnston is notable enough to be mentioned in the Todd Palin article, considering the comments made by Todd Palin regarding Levi recently, I agree that random family member of someone famous to not deserve to get an article, however once they are paraded in front of the media and comments are made to the press regarding those people, they should be deemed notable, Levi is mentioned by the Palins, Levi is making statements to the media. I think with regards to BLP there are a few major issues - 1. Is he notable? - yes, he is - the amount of hits for Levi Johnston confirms that. 2. Would any harm be done by revealing his name on the wikipedia article? - No, none at all. His name is all over the press, unless you have been living under a rock, you are well aware of who he is - he isn't an anon victim of a crime. 3. Is it relevant? yes, it was a major issue in Sarah Palin's campaign. BLP, notability and reliable sources should be the only issues - BLP should be there to protect those who requested privacy, those who made no attempt to gain publicity or those who are having irrelevant details about their personal life revealed - this is not the case on this article. I'm sure that there are some obscure wikipedia rules that can be quoted in order to remove his name, but spirit of the rules is always the most important. カンチョーSennen Goroshi ! (talk) 04:21, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm not aware of any statements made by Todd Palin about Levi Johnston, and I've followed the story relatively closely. Are you sure you're not thinking of Chuck Heath? And what do you mean by "paraded in front of the media"? In regards to notability et al, see WP:BLP1E. Johnston is known for one thing - his relationship with Bristol Palin and the resulting child, that became an issue in the campaign. BLP1E says "cover the event, not the person" - and the event is covered in the article about the 2008 campaign. Kelly ^hi! 16:57, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, my mistake - it wasn't Todd Palin. カンチョーSennen Goroshi ! (talk) 04:40, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Levi Johnston's notability had done nothing but increase of late, while Bristol's has arguably decreased.

--Gebl Gebl Gebl (talk) 19:59, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Palin Legal Fund Ethics Challenge

I typically steer clear of the purely politics stuff, but this bit was added in good faith today: "Palin set up a legal fund to defend herself against a dozen ethics complaints. Some charge that the fund itself is an ethics violation.[213]" First, the use of "some" doesn't jive with the source, which states this is an individual (Kim Chatman) filing suit, and the article doesn't list other plaintiffs. Thus, "one person" (or naming the individual directly) would more accurately reflect this source. Next, unless I'm missing something, there isn't yet any determination of merit on the suit itself, i.e. no legal entity has ruled there is grounds for complaint. Therefore, at this juncture, the story has no legs. Given that the story first broke today (4/28/2009), it seems we're into the WP:NOTNEWS realm until something develops. Just my thoughts... Fcreid (talk) 19:55, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. Probably a slow news day at Associated Press. Not every AP story makes it into Wikipedia, and this ought to be a case in point.Ferrylodge (talk) 20:08, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

• At least a dozen other ethics complaints have been filed against Palin, most since she returned from the vice presidential campaign last fall. Most complaints are confidential unless a public accusation is filed or the accused person agrees in writing to make it public.

According to the AP article, mere complaints aren't uncommon. If the ethics board acts on the complaint then that may be notable. Even then, it may be more suitable to the "governorship" article unless an investigation turns up significant wrongdoing.   Will Beback  talk  21:10, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

That does seem like a disproportionate number of complaints for just a few months time frame! In any case, recommend that blurb be removed until some validation of the complaint itself is reported. Fcreid (talk) 21:18, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

None of the complaints has so far been upheld by the Personnel Board - to my recollection, 6 were dismissed, one was settled concluded (presumably that was the Troopergate complaint), the rest are pending.[14] This was before the last couple of complaints, one of which was that the speech she gave in Evansville was an ethics violation (filed by Sondra Tompkins),[15] the other that her legal defense fund was an ethics violation (filed by Kim Chatman).[16] There were also complaints filed because her press person answered a question about her schedule (filed by Andree McLeod)[17] and that she wore a jacket with a logo (filed by Linda Kellen Biegel).[18] The Governor's office itself has basically called the complaints frivolous and a political smear tactic.[19] Kelly ^hi! 14:11, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

The topic seems neutral to me, including the fact that the fund is the subject of another ethics complaint. It doesn't belong in the Post VP section, though. I think we should move it to the end of the "Governor of Alaska" section and tie it in with the expenses incurred defending herself in regards to the Public Safety Commissioner dismissal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Celestra (talk • contribs) 20:26, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

It unfortunately reaches from the sublime one step too far with all the "complaints" -- next we will hear a complaint that she overtly drank Coca Cola at a restaurant ... Collect (talk) 15:03, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree about the "dozen complaints;" it smacks of McCarthyism. I was talking about the ethics complaint about the legal fund to fight ethics complaints. It seems to me to be an interesting ironic detail. People may think it is a typical example of the ridiculous complaints, or that the fund is one more unethical act, depending on their predisposition, but the fact itself is interesting in a neutral way. Let me see if I can think up some wording. Celestra (talk) 19:42, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I was thinking about this after the "State Personnel Board investigation:"

"====Financial Aftermath===="

Palin has accumulated $500,000 in legal expenses defending herself in Troopergate and other complaints. Kristan Cole, a Palin supporter, has set up a legal defense fund to help Palin defend against these ethics complaints. This fund, the Alaska Fund Trust, has itself become the subject of another ethics complaint.

What do you think? Celestra (talk) 21:02, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree on the "interesting" dimension of this, regardless of what's decided regarding inclusion (which article, what detail, etc.), but I just can't envision this suit passing muster at the bench. That's why I suggested waiting for an initial ruling of merit before even speculating (or documenting it here in this biography). It's actually kind of a silly suit, and the precedent would be chilling for both current and potential public servants. (Imagine a legal precedent establishing unethical or even unlawful behavior to use anything except personal funds to defend against frivolous lawsuits resulting from execution of official duties... man, there aren't enough book-deals to pay the bills even some recent presidents would have had to pay out-of-pocket! :) Fcreid (talk) 21:50, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm still not sure about adding this here (as opposed to the governorship article), but in the meantime two points come to mind. First, the fund is undoubtedly an separate legal entity, so we should say something more like, "A fund created to defend Palin has accumulated ...." Second, what are the sources that we'd use for this?   Will Beback  talk  21:25, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

This seems most relevant to Alaska Public Safety Commissioner dismissal. I've started a thread at Talk:Alaska Public Safety Commissioner dismissal#Alaska Fund Trust.   Will Beback  talk  21:34, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm fine with that. Just FYI, though, the $500k is personal debt predating the fund. The fund is a response to that problem. Celestra (talk) 03:22, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

My inference from what I've read is that the debt accrued in legal services during her defense against Troopergate (actions while serving in an official capacity), as opposed to debt accrued in private ventures. I am also not suggesting the future ruling is a "lock" in her favor, as some judge may still rule it was personal, self-serving and non-official behavior that precipitated the need, but the precedent for public officials would be no less significant (and chilling). Fcreid (talk) 09:55, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

External links

Just curious - what external links do we typically add to biographies? Palin started a Twitter account today[20] and was already on Facebook.[21] Kelly ^hi! 03:53, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Despite the contest between Ashton Kucher and CNN, I still haven't bothered to find out what Twitter's all about. But if she has official sites on Twitter or Facebook or wherever, then it seems appropriate for the external links.Ferrylodge (talk) 04:08, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

There is currently a banner ad thingie on http://gov.state.ak.us/ (already an EL) for her twitter account, so no need to add it. WP:ELNO #10 sez NO on ELs like these, though they are added if they are the only official web outlet for a person, and have been added when the twitter is exceptionally notable, as in the case of Stephen Fry (2nd most followed after that of the US prez). Amusingly, there is already a WP:TWITTER shortcut, linking to sourcing issues. 86.44.23.31 (talk) 02:20, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Actually I possibly overstated things, since ELNO says Except for a link to an official page of the article's subject ... 86.44.23.31 (talk) 13:52, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Bristol Palin, notable abstinence advocate

• Comment Recent coverage of Bristol's advocacy for abstinence has now made her a notable individual in her own right. Like Meghan McCain, she has passed the non-notable "child of..." mark. Now seems like an appropriate time to create a Bristol Palin BLP. Any thoughts? Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 19:30, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Nope. She is not a "notable person" in her own right at all ("child of" was disposed of as not even reaching BLP1E), and your argument would be that any person who appears in an ad campaign is automatically notable -- which is not the case. Collect (talk) 16:47, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

I have a thought: please don't create an article. Meghan McCain authored a book (and has an ongoing book deal), writes for a major news outlet, and takes an active role in politics. Bristol Palin is someone who was thrust into the spotlight under somewhat unfortunate circumstances. If WP:BLP (particularly WP:BLP1E) means anything, it's that we don't write an article on someone just because they've been mentioned in the news. MastCell ^Talk 16:58, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

• No. As MastCell and Collect have stated, Bristol is "child of" only. No article. KillerChihuahua^?!? 17:10, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

How about a Wikipedia article for child's ex-fiance?Ferrylodge (talk) 17:18, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Are you trying to give me an ulcer? I got as far as "celebrity teenage father" as an explanation of notability. That article should not exist. MastCell ^Talk 17:21, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you Mastcell. There shouldn't be articles about either Bristol Palin or Levi Johnston.Ferrylodge (talk) 17:22, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

• Fixed. KillerChihuahua^?!? 19:29, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

This is a decision for AFD. KC's use of admin tools in this regard is worrisome.   Will Beback  talk  19:49, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

as it has already been to Xfd, as I told you on my talk page, I fail to see why you are so worried. I suggest a page which has been deleted belongs at Drv, NOT recreated. I followed policy; if you are worried, Will, I suggest you remember that Wikipedia:The world will not end tomorrow and there is no deadline, and nothing deleted cannot be undeleted. I also suggest you take a break if something this simple causes you worry. Stress is bad for you; bad for the 'pedia, too. KillerChihuahua^?!? 20:00, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

• Notable. The assertion that Bristol is "child of" only is manifestly false. Sasha Obama is "child of" only. Bristol Palin has chosen to take on a very public role as an advocate for sexual abstinence, in the course of which she has chosen to be interviewed for multiple media outlets. This is far different from Collect's straw man of "any person who appears in an ad campaign is automatically notable". JamesMLane t c 07:53, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

• I'm not at all sure that this is the best place for this argument. On the other hand I'm not sure that any particular alternative would be better. So: not notable. Being interviewed, even for "multiple media outlets", doesn't add up to notability. She may or may not have been a significant pawn in the election circus campaign; if she was, then her significance can be briefly described in an article on that. Ditto for her ex-boyfriend Johnston, who I think intermittently has his own article. At least until they achieve something. (And, irrelevantly, I wish them both well.) -- Hoary (talk) 15:13, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

• When we had this discussion a few weeks ago, the suggestion was to create a sample page. I started hosting a sample at User:Jbolden1517/Bristol Palin. If you all want to create an article go there or create another sample. I think there should be an article but I'm not an expert of Bristol. We need an actual example article though to move this beyond the "is to" / "is not" stage. jbolden1517^Talk 16:19, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

A Bristol Palin article? Am I the only who finds her role as abstinence spokesperson, a tad hypocritical? GoodDay (talk) 18:24, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Whether you are or not isn't relevant to this conversation (wp:notaforum).   user:j    (aka justen)   23:01, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

• I've been avoiding this topic, as I'm usually an advocate for the privacy of the children of public figures. However, as Miss Palin has chosen to open herself up to the spotlight, I can make no argument against with that regard. That being said, I'm not sure simply being a spokesperson for something within itself is particularly notable. Personally, I believe we should wait and see what Miss Palin does, and then make a judgement on notability. At this point I simply don't think we would have enough information to make an article that would read like a bio, and not a tabloid. But, since I don't feel as strong about this topic as I used to, I will leave you with this as my opinion, as something to think about, and will make no further comment on this topic. Zaereth (talk) 01:12, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Like with any topic, Bristol Palin is notable if noted. It comes down to the extent of sources about her. Without regard to those this is a poinltess discussion.   Will Beback  talk  02:15, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

• I do not feel there should be a Bristol Palin article. Being famous and being notable are not one in the same (IMO anyway). This is an encyclopedia - in theory, you should have to do something notable to get an entry. Bristol has not yet done anything notable, although she very well might in the future. Until that happens, a redirect is sufficient. --ThaddeusB (talk) 14:13, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

• Adding to the chorus, I too feel that there should not be an article on Bristol Palin at this time. As noted above by several editors, being famous ≠ being notable. Macaroni, the pony owned by the Kennedy family during their time in the White House, is famous, but not notable, and does not have an article. (There is a mention at the disambiguation page, though.) Horologium (talk) 21:09, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

• Ms. Palin is indeed a notable abstinence advocate. This statement is true if you read it as one statement or break it down into 2 parts. She is notable, and that is based on the various media reports about her over the last few months, and she is an abstinence advocate as demonstrated by her signing up to be a spokeswoman for a foundation that advocates abstinence. She is also a notable abstinence advocate in light of her recent Today Show and other circuit interviews on the abstinence advocating. She is now a noticeable abstinence advocate, it is pretty cut and dry and we should Call a spade a spade. TharsHammar ^Bits and^Pieces 21:27, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

See the thread at RPP. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:10, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

• There seems to be disagreement about where to discuss this. I don't have a clue why _this_ is a reasonable place, but in any case, I think she's clearly notable meeting WP:N and passing 1 event due to continuing coverage (based on one thing, but not solely about that one thing anymore) and not having a low-profile. So unprotect (or better, semi-protect) and allow creation. Hobit (talk) 15:45, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps I am misunderstanding something, but what's preventing anybody from creating this article in user space, and then presenting the material to the community? Such an article already exists at User:Jbolden1517/Bristol Palin. That article's discussion page would be a perfect place to hash this out without cluttering up this one. (By reading the content it has so far accumulated, though, seems to clearly illustrate my point above.) Zaereth (talk) 16:36, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Sure, but what does that gain us? Does anyone doubt that there are plenty of RSes on which to base an article? We generally require a userfied article when there is doubt that an article could be written. In this case, I don't see that as an issue. The real question is one of ONEEVENT which I don't see an article helping. In fact, I see such a thing bogging down the process as people will oppose based on that proposed article rather than on the topic itself. Hobit (talk) 17:21, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Then I was misunderstanding you. My apologies. I see your point, but I think that article demonstrates what a one event article looks like. If it had more information, (eg: something else), it might be a little more attractive to people such as myself. I don't doubt that someone could produce a thousand reilable sources, but what I suspect is that they would all say the same thing. It's really up to you, those who want the article (for some reason), to come up with that information. (Maybe do what I do, and go to the liabrary and rent some books on the subject.) But, as I've said, I'm really not that interested anymore, so you'll get no opposition from me, I was just trying to make a suggestion I thought would help. Zaereth (talk) 17:44, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

I think somewhere we are talking past each other as I don't get your point. What article demonstrates what a one event article looks like? The old Bristol Palin article? If so, I think I'd have to agree, but that was a while ago before sources existed in quite the diversity and quantity they do now. Hobit (talk) 18:28, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for the confusion. The only article I've been referring to is User:Jbolden1517/Bristol Palin. (Is that the old article? Is there a new one?) At any rate, if you have more info, my suggestion was to add it to that article, because, frankly, this topic bores me and I have no intention of going through your sources and doing it myself. (In other words, if you show us what you've got, you'll have a better chance of selling it.) Zaereth (talk) 18:42, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Levi Drv

Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 May 7 KillerChihuahua^?!? 20:09, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Now at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Levi Johnston KillerChihuahua^?!? 14:04, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Polls

Someone has just inserted a table of poll results into the Governor section. The present article already has a lengthy summary of poll numbers: "Polls taken in 2007 early in her term showed her with a 93% and 89% popularity among all voters,[63] which led some media outlets to call her 'the most popular governor in America.'[55][63] A poll taken in late September 2008 after Palin was named to the national Republican ticket showed her popularity in Alaska at 68%.[64] A poll taken in May 2009 showed Palin's popularity among Alaskan's was at 54% positive and 41.6% negative.[65]"

Plus the Huffington Post is not a reliable source. So, I'll remove the recently-inserted table, which is redundant, cites an unreliable source, and is not a summary of the sub-article. See WP:Summary style.Ferrylodge (talk) 03:54, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Huffington Post is frequently called an unreliable source, but it has fewer controversies than any major newspaper I am aware of. The three "controversies" are a commentator confusing the forum and news sections, linking to an NBC article which turned out to be innacurate, and publishing anti-vaccine pieces. None of these are objections are outstanding. Beyond that, they are deemed legitimate enough for many Democratic and independent political leaders to contribute articles and are granted press passes by the White House. It is frequently attacked as unreliable despite a proven record of accuracy. O76923 (talk) 00:30, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

First -- WP is not a newspaper. Polls which are added every month seem to violate that precept. In addition, HP is a source with specific editorial positions, while for poll results it may be reliable, it is not reliable for editorial opinions. Lastly, listing polls from various sources is misleading -- each poll is better compared with the prior results of the same poll than with other polls from month to month. On this the poll takers all agree, by the way. Collect (talk) 01:17, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Levi Johnston

The wikilink to the Levi Johnston article was edited out of the Sarah Palin article. As this individual is directly related to Palin's family life (and political life), I added it back. If any editor would like to discuss this, please state your opinions here. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 09:58, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

I think the burden is on you to present your arguments for changing consensus, just as the burden is on you to change that consensus before acting against it. Please revert your edit and present your reasoning. Celestra (talk) 13:25, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

I think it is an appropriate wording and wikilinking. I support Ismschism changes. TharsHammar ^Bits and^Pieces 13:30, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

OTOH, you are quite active in seeking to Keep the Levi article. Collect (talk) 13:36, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

How does on the other hand apply to this discussion at all. Do you know what on the other hand means? How is On the Other Hand appropriate when I am consistent in advocating keeping the material about Mr. Johnston in both cases? Also How is my keep !vote for Mr. Johnston's article relevant to this discussion of a few appropriately chosen words and a wikilink added to a much larger article? TharsHammar ^Bits and^Pieces 13:42, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Kindly redact me if I am wrong -- but did you not list Levi as an "organism" on one deletion list page? Collect (talk) 13:47, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Kindly redact me if I am wrong, but Mr. Johnston is a living thing. And I was following the suggestion of another contributor [22]. Again I ask how is this relevant, and how is On the Other Hand applicable? TharsHammar ^Bits and^Pieces 13:53, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Ah -- so you routinely list every BLP AfD as an"organism"? <g> And you routinely follow every suggestion proffered? OTOH meant that while you asserted it was "appropriate wikilinking" the article to which it would wikilink is one to which it would not wikilink should the article be deleted. Hence "on the other hand." Is that crystal clear? Collect (talk) 14:00, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes when you make a cogent point that now includes an actual discussion rather than pointing out I want to keep the Levi article OTOH makes sense. In its original context OTOH made no sense. TharsHammar ^Bits and^Pieces 14:07, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

That's enough, both of you. --SB_Johnny | ^talk 14:11, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

(←) As amusing as it may or may not be, this conversation doesn't seem to be going in the right direction... :P Back to the point, Levi Johnston is the father of Sarah Palin's grandson and it would not appear to be wp:undue to mention him in the context of the publicity he received during the campaign. If his article is kept, we should maintain a link to it, and until a decision is made on that matter we should maintain a link to it.   user:j    (aka justen)   14:03, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Well said. TharsHammar ^Bits and^Pieces 14:07, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

This looks like a fairly cut-and-dry MOS issue (see here). It's very unlikely that the AfD on the target article will reach consensus to delete (at least in this nomination), so this is really a non-issue. --SB_Johnny | ^talk 14:11, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

This isn't about whether we should link to the Levi Johnston article, it is about whether to mention Levi Johnston in this BLP at all. More practically, it is also about reaching and respecting consensus. It is a sign of maturity to respect the group's decision, even when one disagrees with it. That is offset by having others return the favor regarding decisions to which they disagree. That way we have time to do useful things and not simply rehash the same arguments over and over. The decisions can be revisited when time has passed or new information is available, but why waste everyone's time every few weeks? Celestra (talk) 00:00, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

@IS: How can we proceed from here to a consensus that you would be willing to respect? Celestra (talk) 00:00, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

• Straw poll To answer Celestra's question, "How can we proceed?" - I suggest a straw poll. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 00:56, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

• Notable This wikilink is notable, well sourced, and directly related to the article at at hand - per multiple reliable sources for multiple events. This wikilink should remain. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 00:56, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
• Notable He should be mentioned in the article in the context in which he is mentioned, and perhaps in other places too. As long as he has an article where he is first mentioned he should be wikilinked. TharsHammar ^Bits and^Pieces 01:07, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
• Mention Johnston in Palin bio with wikilink if Johnston article survives AfD. I'm not sure it was correct to say there was a consensus. Johnston was named in this article until a few months ago, when his name was removed without prior discussion on the talk page. In any event, what's happened since then is that Sarah Palin, whose political importance rests considerably on her popularity among social conservatives, has been accused of knowing that unmarried teenagers were having sex under her roof. The accusation isn't from some wild-eyed lefty blogger, but is from someone who knows Palin and who has first-hand knowledge. That person is Johnston. JamesMLane t c 05:19, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
• Mention by Name I continue to support mentioning Johnston by name in this article. My opinion is based on the fact that he is undeniably and permanently a significant part of Palin's life as father of her grandchild. It has nothing to do with this kid's abuse by the media of this dishonorable mention, his misguided decision to latch upon his "fifteen minutes of shame" on the Jerry Springer circuit or that misguided partisan zealots and hypocrites seize this as some opportunity to undermine Palin. I personally hope that in five years, after the boy's matured, his link at the top of the Internet search will be a constant reminder to him and everyone who knows him of how he abrogated his paternal duties to this child. It 20 years, as his son becomes a better man than he, I hope it is a constant reminder of what he lost in his life through his greed, selfishness and immaturity. Fcreid (talk) 10:37, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
• Do Not Mention This is the BLP of a politician. Mentioning her husband and children briefly in the personal life section seems appropriate, but that's where I'd draw the line. Including spouses or offsprings of her children seems unnecessary for a politician's BLP. Levi's media-driven notability is moot. The fact that some of the arguments concern the political impact shows that it has no place in a section about her personal life and that we need to be careful including the event elsewhere in the article. Past coatrack problems with mentioning Levi should help anyone who is on the fence to agree that it is better to leave his name out of this article and simply cover the event and its political impact in the Political positions of Sarah Palin article, if at all. Celestra (talk) 13:59, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
• Here's another topic I've been avoiding. My question is simple. What exactly does Mr. Johnston have to do with Mrs. Palin, directly? If the only connection is through the daughter, then I would say Do not mention. I would hate to see a presidence set where any friends, (boyfriends/girlfriends etc...), of a person's children become "fair game". I believe Celestra is right that the line should be drawn at only a brief mention of those closest to the subject. If Bristol Palin gets an article of her own, then a mention there would definitely be appropriate. Zaereth (talk) 17:15, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

On many occasions the governor, or her people, have seen fit to release press releases that mention Mr. Johnston. See [23] then [24] and [25] then [26] and I'm sure theres more. TharsHammar ^Bits and^Pieces 17:28, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Manticore55 (talk) 23:54, 13 May 2009 (UTC) Ah "Consensus." What, precisely does Gravity have to do with Newton exactly? How then does Mr. Johnson have anything to do with Ms. Palin?

Inevitable Palin Fan - "Clearly the relationship between Newton and Gravity and Palin and Johnson is exaggerated. After all, Levi Johnson is merely the father of the child of Palin's oldest daugther whereas Newton is most known for his theory of gravity. I fail to see the relation."

Manticore55 (talk) 23:54, 13 May 2009 (UTC) You fail at a lot of things.

Inevitable Palin Fan - You are in violation of wikipedia policy. You are insulting me.

Manticore55 (talk) 23:54, 13 May 2009 (UTC)No, I'm insulting a fictional person who symbolizes the tone over the last six months.

Inevitable Palin Fan - Aha! You are using a straw man argument and I am the straw man.

Manticore55 (talk) 23:54, 13 May 2009 (UTC) Sort of. Your head is indeed full of straw.

Inevitable Palin Fan - Go ahead and change it. I'll just wait three weeks and come back here with three friends to establish 'consensus' to remove it again.

Manticore55 (talk) 23:54, 13 May 2009 (UTC) Touche.

That is fairly amusing, so I will indulge. Gravity has quite a bit to do with Newton based on the fact that he was the first to devise a decent mathamatical solution to the question that still persists today, (and greatly interests me), what is gravity? Not to mention that gravity is a highly notable subject in physics, mechanics, areonautics, astronomy, achitecture and so on, where as Newton is also highly notable in his own right for explaining the mechanics of motion and creating calculus. Levi Johnston on the other hand is some nobody who knocked up Sarah Palin's daughter and does very little to answer the question, who is Sarah Palin. To respond to TharsHammar, if such offical press releases have been made by Palin or her staff then it seems obvious that the appropriate place for such a mention about this is in an offical section and not a personal one, as Celestra also suggested. Turning to the notability of the young man, I could not really care less about him, or where and when his name is mentioned, and so will return to avoiding this topic like the plague. Zaereth (talk) 00:33, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

• Comment Per a deletion review, and an Afd, the Levi Johnston article is notable. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 01:47, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

  Correction: Decision of the recent Afd is that Levi Johnston is notable enough for his own article. No decision whatsoever was made in the Drv, which I closed early to change venue to Afd. The article is not "notable". KillerChihuahua^?!? 21:14, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

  Agreed. The only thing that matters is whether he's an important figure in the life of Sarah Palin. The fact that there is now an article about him does resolve the "redirect problem", but the issue here is just about his relevance to SP, nothing else. --SB_Johnny | ^talk 22:34, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Stumbled across this and don't participate in this page and don't intend to. The independent notability of johnston is completely irrelevant to whether his name is mentioned here or not. I would probably lean towards thinking that so long as the campaign and the limited controversy over the daughter's pregnancy and aftermath are mentioned it should be mentioned BUT there isn't much loss if the name is NOT mentioned. His name is mentioned and linked at the Bristol Palin article; anyone wondering "who the father is" will click on the Bristol Palin link to figure it out. If they're not that interested, reading the proper noun in this article won't add anything to their level of knowledge and understanding (nor does the absence of the proper noun limit their knowledge and understanding in any meaningful way). There are far more relevant disputes that this talk page already has trouble resolving. The presence or absence of johnston's name seems a very low-priority question for the BLP of this politician.Bali ultimate (talk) 01:04, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

• Comment My personal feeling is that the Johnston article ought not to survive an AFD, thus IMO in the meantime the question of Wikilinking is putting the cart before the horse. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 18:58, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
• Comment "Good Bye, Levi. Don't forget to sign the child support checks". He needn't be mentioned at Sarah Palin. He may have some minor notability on his own as a very temporary news blip during a more important story.--Buster7 (talk) 04:37, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

External Links

Hi Folks, I would like to open a friendly discussion on the External Links section. According to Wiki guidelines WP:EL external links should be kept to a minimum, ideally including only the link to an official site of the subject. I don't expect that we will trim the current list that far but there are 24 links currently on the page many are in violation of Wiki policy. At least one link is dead, several are redundant and others just plain inappropriate for Wiki guidelines. As a group we need to decide which ones to delete. Any opening comments or initial feedback before I give more specific proposals on what I feel should be deleted? I will not remove anything without first discussing it here.--Kbob (talk) 17:34, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the links section could be trimmed a bit. At a minimum, I think we should get rid of the links that point to aggregated news about SP and links which are dead. I believe both are discouraged by wp:EL. Bonewah (talk) 17:49, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I would hope everyone would welcome those who are willing to make it a better article. Thanks. Fcreid (talk) 20:26, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

OK, thank you for the nice welcome. I am going to start from the bottom and work my way up. Wiki guidelines WP:EL state that the External Link section should be minimal and is not a comprehensive listing of web sites related to the subject. They also should not include links to material that is already included or could be included in the article as text or references. With this in mind I would like to remove the subsection and link called Profiles. The content on the link is redundant to information in the article. Any objections?--Kbob (talk) 18:47, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Secondly I would like to remove the Interviews subsection in the External Links section. Both interviews (with Gibson and Couric) are clearly referenced as inline citations in the VP Campaign section of the article.--Kbob (talk) 19:02, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I have no objections to that, because, as you've pointed out, this is all redundent information, found elsewhere in the article. Zaereth (talk) 21:22, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Kbob, your statement of the guideline concerning external links is not accurate. Although we don't try to emulate dmoz by providing every relevant link, we also don't go to the other extreme; there is no principle of "ideally including only the link to an official site of the subject". You also go too far in saying that the external links "should not include links to material that is already included or could be included in the article as text or references." If the material "could be included" in the article but currently isn't, the best thing to do is to augment the article with the information, linking to the source via inline citation. Failing that, however, we don't just remove the external link. The link should remain unless and until someone undertakes the work of integration. That way, the reader has at least some access to the information.

As to the specifics, I agree with you about dropping the BBC profile. The Gibson and Couric interviews, however, were very important. The article mentions them and includes links to discussions of their impact, but that's not the same as the direct links in the "Interviews" subsection. As far as I can tell, there is no other link to the Couric interview itself. The Gibson interview is linked only as the support for two consecutive sentences in the "Political positions" section. Therefore, the separate listings in the "Interviews" subsection should be retained, because they make it much easier for a reader to find Palin's own words, as opposed to the commentary. JamesMLane t c 01:13, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi James, thanks for your comments. Since no one objects I have deleted the BBC profile. I will respond to your other comments in more detail tomorrow. Thanks for your input.--Kbob (talk) 01:57, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

OK James and others, I'm back :-). You are correct. My statement that EL ideally should be only one official link was not completely accurate and I qualified my statement by saying that was not my goal for this article. But in any case point well taken and thanks for the correction. However, here is what the EL guideline does say in a 'nutshell': "External links to an article can be helpful to the reader, but they should be kept minimal, meritable, and directly relevant to the article." I think it is clear to me and I think other editors here that the current level of 24 external links does not meet the Wiki guideline for 'minimal'. So to keep things simple I will go through the links piece by piece and all interested editors can discuss them in light of these three qualities and then we can delve further into the finer points of the Wiki policy as needed. Sound good?--Kbob (talk) 20:41, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Alright, so let's leave the Interview Section alone for now and start with some others:

1. Sarah Palin rumor control from Snopes--This is a self proclaimed "rumor" site. Is this a meritable extnernal link? Not in my opinion.
2. Republican Convention Spin and Sliming Palin rumor control from FactCheck.org---Here are two links to different pages on FactCheck.org. Wiki policy WP:EL allows a maximum of one link per web site. That said do we need a link to Factcheck.org? Are their statements in the article that qualify as rumors? I vote to remove one of not both links to FactCheck.org Comments? --Kbob (talk) 20:57, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Snopes isn't a rumor site. It's a rumor-busting site. In fact, according to one impeccable source, it's "the best-known resource for validating and debunking urban legends, Internet rumors, e-mail forwards, and other such stories of uncertain or questionable origin in American popular culture." FactCheck is also a link worth including. It's a project of the University of Pennsylvania, and it investigates rumors, it doesn't spread them. That site is so large, however, that it's reasonable to include pointers to the two specific pages that have Palin information, instead of merely telling the reader to go prospecting on FactCheck.org and hope to strike gold. JamesMLane t c 09:54, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Concur with James on these points, Keith. Snopes and FactCheck enjoy solid reputations as "myth busters" for all kinds of stuff, but they were particularly methodical, comprehensive and neutral during the political campaigns for debunking the FUD surrounding the candidates. Every issue in their Palin section were, on multiple occasions, debated on this pages. As James pointed out, it seems reasonable to include a URL that points readers to the exact page relevant to this person. Fcreid (talk) 00:04, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Also concur with James. Snopes is a solid starting point for researching myths, rumors etc. It doesnt promote rumors...it de-bunks them. Unless they are true.--Buster7 (talk) 12:22, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you everyone for your comments. Generally speaking I am not strongly opposed to any one link(s). My main concern is that there are too many links (24) on the page. For example, editors have stated above that Snopes and FactCheck are high quality web sites. I'm OK with that. But having two sites with similar content and purpose is redundant. In addition if these sites are tools for editorial disputes then maybe they belong on the talk page not on the article page. Also Wiki policy states "avoid separate links to multiple pages in the same website; instead, try to find an appropriate linking page within the site" and we have two links for Fact Check and four links for FollowTheMoney.org. So in my opinion these three links (Snopes and Factcheck[2]) should be cut down to one or two. Can we find some common ground here?

Please keep in mind that this issue of redundancy will come again as we continue to go through the EL list as there are redundant or overlapping links for Biography, Official Site, Collected News and Campaign Contributions. To put things in perspective here are some quotes from the WP:EL section: "External links to an article can be helpful to the reader, but they should be kept minimal..." "Links in the External links section should be kept to a minimum. Long lists of links are not acceptable." "Wikipedia articles are not: Mere collections of external links or Internet directories." Some food for thought. --Kbob (talk) 13:01, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

This is a dead link, would someone like to revive or remove it? "Collected news and commentary at The Washington Post"--Kbob (talk) 13:17, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Editor:Keith...FWIW...This article has a long history of contentious discussion and debate (on just about everything). It may be that some of the links you are consolidating are the result of agreements reached, months ago, by combatant editors. And, if they are removed, and the agreed upon "clarifier' is missing, the groundwork and consensus is nulified. I'm not suggesting that you stop your good efforts just that you consider that some may be needed to satisfy previous harmony and existing rapport.--Buster7 (talk) 18:19, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi Buster, thanks for the comment. I understand this is an contentious article. That's why I am being careful to ask for input before making changes. I also don't want to undermine previous work and agreements but at the same time, I am sure you know, that everything is always eligible for revision even if there was consensus before. However, I will keep you helpful comment in mind and move forward slowly so all that all editors who have input can make their views known here. Thanks! :-) --Kbob (talk) 19:22, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Personal Life

In Palin's personal life, it fails to mention that her grandson was born out of wedlock. I changed it accordingly.(Jack1755 (talk) 20:35, 15 June 2009 (UTC))

That is not relevant to Sarah Palin, but to her daughter and the child's father. I have reverted your edits. Horologium (talk) 20:39, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

(EC)I reverted this change previously And I agree with Horologium. Aside from the fact that it's not about Sarah Palin, the article Legitimacy (law) points out that since the 1970's legitimacy has become legaly irrelevant.--Cube lurker (talk) 20:56, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, if we are to go down that route, we could end up removing chunks of the article as "irrelevant"(Jack1755 (talk) 20:50, 15 June 2009 (UTC))

Please identify which sections need to be removed, and we can discuss it. As for the grandchild, it is mentioned in the lead paragraphs of both of his parents' articles that he was born out of wedlock. It's not relevant to a bio of Sarah Palin, but it is relevant to their bios. Horologium (talk) 21:03, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

My personal feeling on the matter is that such "information" only serves to hurt the well being of the child and does not belong in any article. If the intent is to permanently and publicly lable the child a ba***** the let's just say it outright. If this is not encyclopedic enough, then I fail to see how using well rounded phrases is any different. Zaereth (talk) 21:10, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Letterman Joke

I'm wondering if anything about the David Letterman kerfuffle with Palin should appear here. I'm thinking probably not (it seems to be over and done with, and perhaps not really very notable in an encyclopedic sense). It's also worth noting that there seems to be some edit warring over at David Letterman's page over it. Mark Shaw (talk) 20:22, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I tend to agree that it should not appear here, because it doesn't tell us very much, if anything, about Palin. It does, however, seem to tell us a great deal about Letterman, so it is probably very relevant to his article. Zaereth (talk) 21:58, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure it's relevant to either, but I hadn't imagined what a national story it would become. Still, I suspect that, in an article meant to cover the whole span of someone's public life, it is not important enough to mention. Coemgenus 22:08, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Mentioning the joke would bring us back (one more time!) to one of Mme Palin's daughters & inevitably to a child, all of which should be protected, not constantly gossiped about. Wikipedia is supposed to be an encyclopedia not a trash magazine, which is what many would like to turn it into. Frania W. (talk) 22:19, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Wholeheartedly agree. No mention need be made here, and whatever mention is made at the Letterman article, if any, should be limited to the event and not the details. However, I have no intention of getting involved over there, and further discussion here should be limited to the subject of this article. Zaereth (talk) 23:12, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) This is all pretty much what I was thinking - just wanted to be sure about it. Cheers! Mark Shaw (talk) 18:31, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I do not think it belongs here, which is why I added it to the "Public Perception of Sarah Palin" article. However, I do think that this article is rather interesting: http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2009-06-16/shopping-with-levi-johnston/

The earlier arguement about Levi Johnston being relevant only because he was 'the father of Palin's grandson' loses steam if the media is going to ask his opinion and PRINT IT any time something about Palin comes up. It is a trend worth watching. Manticore55 (talk) 19:37, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Out of curiosity, why do you think that? What makes his opinion any more insightful or valuable to this biography than some schmuck off the street? After all, it was Palin's daughter who dated him, not Palin!  :) Fcreid (talk) 21:56, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Who cares how insightful his opinion is? It is his notability that matters, and if he suddenly becomes the automatic Moriarity to Palin's Holmes in the media (which it is not yet, but has the potential to be) THAT makes him relevant. Manticore55 (talk) 14:35, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

That's the exact part I don't get, Manticore. What makes his praise or criticism of the subject of this biography automatically notable? Certainly, there are many with far more longevity than Levi in the spotlight of stardom who have voiced publicly their opinion, yet the inclusion of that opinion is certainly not automatic here. Moreover, shouldn't we be circumspect of a teenager who has actually hired an "agent" assigned the task of _keeping_ Levi in the spotlight as long as possible? Fcreid (talk) 14:56, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

And Ms. Palin hasn't done exactly the same thing? Obviously, the feats between the two are substantially different, but look; you can argue that Mr. Johnston isn't notable just because he's the father of Palin's child, and you can argue that just because someone hires a publicist they aren't notable, but if Joe the Plumber and his 15 minutes of fame becomes notable JUST because Sarah Palin and a lot of people (including Obama) mention him over and over in the debates, then someone who is actually connected by family becomes a part of the narrative, no matter how rediculous or not. Manticore55 (talk) 15:19, 18 June 2009 (UTC) (UTC)

I'm not even sure I understand your argument, Manticore. I never claimed Levi wasn't notable in his own right, that he doesn't deserve his own article, or anything else about him for that matter. I really could care less about the guy, but I'm not one of ET or TMZ crowd who digest that kind of media crap. By the same token, I even advocated (but was apparently overruled) that he deserves mention in the article as the father of the subject's grandchild. However, I would object strenuously to the inclusion of his opinion on anything in this article, regardless of how you or anyone else perceive his individual notability, and for no reason more than voir dire on the topic. This is a encyclopedic biography and not a "tell all" or Jerry Springer episode. Fcreid (talk) 17:08, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't know how this turned from Letterman back to Jonston, (as everything here lately seems to do). I think Manticore hit the nail right on the head. The whole controversy over Joe the plumber happened because one person had the guts to ask a perfectly legitimate question that the media should've asked themselves. Instead a huge campaign was launched to discredit this guy who had the nerve to ask. And rather than answer the question, the media engaged in disinformation, which is what this whole Johnston thing has become. The documentary Media Malpractice clearly shows evidence of how the main stream media, that we trust to give us facts, instead engaged in misinformation, disinformation, propaganda, and bald face lies. These are the hallmarks of tabloid journalism, and as Frania mentioned above, this is the direction Wikipedia is heading as well. Rather than just blindly saying that everything written is notable, I think we, educated people, can clearly see what is true journalism and what is tabloid, and this should lead us instead to put a greater sense of caution on those outlets that would use such tactics, especially if it's ridiculous. Zaereth (talk) 18:25, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

In general I feel that Johnston's place in the article should be limited to being the father of Palin's daughter. However, there is no hard and fast rule here. We just need to use our common sense and the usual Wiki guidelines concerning WP:Weight, WP:NPOV etc. Is there a particular addition to the article, Manticore, that you are proposing? If so I'd like to hear it. Right now I'm not sure what it is that you want. Peace! --Kbob (talk) 18:29, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

No, I'm not. I merely made an argument about what would be worthy of inclusion if a trend continued. As it is, it is certainly not worth mentioning. If this happens on a regular basis, then it becomes such in my opinion. Manticore55 (talk) 19:09, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

early life section

reads like it was written by a fourth grader, complete with failure to understand the difference between possessive and plural and overuse of the comma. i'd clean it up, but golly gee it's funny this way. 98.232.26.116 (talk) 17:53, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Despite the unhelpful tone, there is a touch truth to the comment. I've changes a few things that jumped out, but I confess, copy editing is not my strong suit.--Cube lurker (talk) 18:17, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Hey Cube, we appreciate your contributions to the article. It's easy to get mixed up on the apostrophes. No worries. :-)--Kbob (talk) 20:08, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Perception of Marriage

I know there has been significant discussion about whether or not to place something in the article that specifies that Bristol Palin had a child out of wedlock. I am fairly neutral on that point. However, I do not like the fact that the current wording of the following sentence gives the reader the impression that Bristol and Levi are married. Here is the sentence: "Palin has one grandchild, a boy named Tripp Johnston, who was born to her eldest daughter Bristol and Levi Johnston in 2008." The sentence gives the wrong impression and is grammatically incorrect. Could we just say: "born to her eldest daughter Bristol and her boyfriend Levi Johnston" ? Or should we just say: "born to her eldest daughter Bristol." and not mention Levi. Comments? Discussion?--Kbob (talk) 18:49, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I personally have no objection to including "boyfriend" (or whatever adjective is grammatically and formally correct) before Levi's name to draw the distinction you outlined. However, be prepared for contrary opinion. It's undeniable that such inclusion is intended only to clarify that the grandson was born of wedlock. The question others will raise (legitimately so, no pun intended) is whether that is notable and appropriate for a biographical article on the grandmother of the child. Most of those who have advocated its inclusion before were clearly trying to paint a picture that her daughter's promiscuity spoke to Palin's character. I have no opinion on that matter worth sharing, but I think we need to be honest that it's a tangential shot across Palin's bow. Fcreid (talk) 21:26, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

As Fcreid has noted, it's not relevant to an article on Sarah Palin. It's in the lead paragraphs of the articles on Bristol Palin and Levi Johnston, but it doesn't need to be noted here. See the "personal life" discussion (two sections above) for more discussion on this. We don't need to add the qualifier to correct the grammar problem. Horologium (talk) 21:46, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I am going to pretend that I am a lawyer representing the baby: No matter the evolution of mentalities, saying or implying (= Bristol had a baby with her boyfriend) that a child is born out of wedlock is not right toward a child who cannot speak for himself. Born out of wedlock = being a bastard, used to be a cross one had to bear for life, and I am not that sure that mentalities have changed that much toward such children. Using the excuse that whatever touches Mme Palin (and I am no fan of hers) must be broadcast so that everyone can gloat about the gory details is trash magazine material. The fact that Mme Palin is in the news 24/7 does not mean that her children, including her 18-year old daughter, have to be thrown as raw meat to the wolves. What if someone in the Palin clan, Bristol, for instance, decided to begin suing individuals, magazines, encyclopedias for her child's invasion of privacy? I know, she represents the unwed teen mothers of America, but that gives no one the right to make her baby the third angle of a triangle in order to get at her or at the baby's father. The baby has his father's surname. Is not that sufficient for anyone contributing to this article to turn a sentence with no hidden meaning? Something in the style: "Mme Palin's new grandson, Tripp Johnston, the son of her daughter Bristol and Levi Johnston." And to hell whether it may imply that Bristol & Levi are married. Everyone knows they are not anyway. But the sentence would not be saying a lie & would not hurt the eyes of a child who, in five years, would happen upon it. Frania W. (talk) 22:28, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I have no interest in painting Palin white or black on this issue, I just want to make the sentence correct. Right now the phrase "Bristol and Levi Johnston" sounds like a married couple and that is inaccurate and misleading to the reader. If we don't want to put in the 'boyfriend' word, then lets take out Levi's name. Or make it into two sentences. One that says Bristol Palin is the mom and Levi Johnston is the father. Any other creative suggestions?--Kbob (talk) 03:41, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

The article is on Mme Palin, not on her daughter, not on Levi Johnston, not on the child: they are only mentioned. No one has to come brandishing existing or non-existing birth or marriage certificates of people two or three steps down the ladder from the subject of the article. So why use an insidious way to nail in the fact that a child is born out of wedlock by highlighting that the parents are not married? Frania W. (talk) 05:14, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I think it's customary in an encyclopedia to very briefly list only the immediate relatives of the subject, excluding in-laws and friends, (boyfriends of children especially), otherwise we'd have entire family trees and social networks listed here. So I would be, (and have always been), in favor of not mentioning Mr. Johnston here. If people are interested in that sort of stuff, they could easily look at the Bristol Palin article, (which I have no doubt they will), where there is a direct connection between the subject and the object. Zaereth (talk) 16:30, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I vote for this last suggestion. Frania W. (talk) 16:45, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

OK, the general consensus seems to be that generally speaking information about Palin's eldest daughter's personal life does not need to be in the article. Especially since the out of wedlock point is made clear in the campaign section and also because Bristol has her own Wiki article which covers the out of wedlock topic. Bristol's personal life could be relevant to the Palin article under in some circumstances (theoretically speaking), but in this instance, common sense tells us it doesn't seem to be an important point to the article. Therefore, I suggest we amend the sentence so that it reads as follows: "Palin has one grandchild, a boy named Tripp Johnston, who was born to her eldest daughter Bristol in 2008." Is this OK? --Kbob (talk) 16:59, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes. Frania W. (talk) 17:16, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I have no objection to that. Zaereth (talk) 17:19, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Good, I have made the change. Thanks you to everyone for your input and cooperation. --Kbob (talk) 13:02, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

CNN "Palin hits back at 'malicious' photo"

This might be worth citing in the article. Grundle2600 (talk) 15:27, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Not taking any position on this, but why should it be included? and adding, you will have to find a better source than a blog. KillerChihuahua^?!? 15:53, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

During the campaign, Obama said that criticizing the kids was off limits. Blogs from major publications such as CNN are reliable sources. Grundle2600 (talk) 16:11, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Definitely not worth citing; and, IMO, it would be a shame if much discussion took place on this topic. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 16:01, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

OK. Grundle2600 (talk) 16:11, 25 June 2009 (UTC)