Talk:Todd Palin/Archive 1

Archive 1

Unprotect please

He is the spouse of a candidate for Vice-President. All spouses have Wikipedia articles and so should he. The previous afd was irrelevant as it was prior to his wife's selection. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 17:41, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I would vote to allow the article to progress, however I believe the editors who put it up should take the time to develop a real article which is well sourced and verifiable.Trilobitealive (talk) 19:39, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Unprotect - so you can vandalise it? I think not.

The article will be written. Personally, I think a bold administrator should just unprotect the redirect and save everyone some unnecessary debate that has a forgone conclusion. AniMate 20:14, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Fantastic work in just a few hours! Kudos to the diligent folks who've made this happen so quickly! You are all a real credit to the wikipedia community!Trilobitealive (talk) 02:10, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Advocacy

Looking at the references, it looks like Todd Palin has 2 issues, offering oil field work as a possible career and the workforce issue and how it relates to the new pipeline. These are separate. Having some context also provides the reader information rather than forcing them to constantly click other articles. Radiomango (talk) 22:07, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Special care needs to be taken when adding stuff regarding "advocacy" - so far it hasn't been especially problematic, but we need to be cautious to maintaing a neutral point of view and be especially careful not to run afoul of WP:BLP. Shereth 22:19, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

The choice of the word "advocacy" was stolen from the LA Times articles. The two things he does is real advocacy. I am not interested in saying he advocates guns or is anti-gun. That kind of advocacy would just the man's personal opinion. The two examples used in the article are the advocacy that he does for a living, just as some First Ladies have literacy work or anti-drug work. Radiomango (talk) 22:35, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I disagree with both of Radiomango's points - there is exactly one source article offered about this, and it does not suggest that these are two separate advocacies. In fact it connects them: the source says nothing about him taking an advocacy position regarding the creation of the pipeline on its own; at most he is identified as advising on employment opportunities coming from the pipeline, not the value of the pipeline itself. Further, the details of what a natural gas pipeline is simply do not belong here - the wikilink handles it. Please stop re-adding material not directly related to him, until you can find additional sources that verify the claim - this is a biography, and it's not even clear that he has independent notability from his wife. I'm willing to wait and see before nominating it for merge to Sarah Palin where it seems to belong at this point, but I'm not willing to sit by as it's padded to appear to be more than it is. Tvoz/talk 22:38, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

The section dealing with Mr. Palin's public advocacies is not inherently problematic. I agree that the two issues are intimately related and the paragraph could be rewritten for clarity and to help the two issues flow together better, but as they are sourced I feel the opinion is sufficiently developed to leave it in the article, rather than strike it out. Shereth 22:44, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree Shereth - I didn't suggest the section be removed, or that it's inherently problematic. I said there has so far only been demonstrated that there is one advocacy.. I didn't strike them out - if you look at my earlier edits I tied it together exactly as the source article did. Further, the quote Radiomango keeps reinserting is of no particular note, and the details of what a natural gas pipeline is do not belong here. Tvoz/talk 23:09, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Conflict of interest

Tvoz, you have stated your opposition to the article. Please stop editing it for a week. Then nominate it and propose that it be killed off and explain why. It is a conflict of interest to oppose and article and do things that some hard working editors think is not helpful. Only those who support the article should edit. Then after a few days, everyone can express an opinion if it is a joke article or a genuine article. If the article is killed, then you can be satisfied. If it is retained, then you can improve it in ways you think it can be improved or just ignore it. I will be satisfied if either this article is good or if the article is so bad that it is killed after giving it a chance. My guess is that a few people will help me make this into a decent article. Radiomango (talk) 22:59, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Whoa - Where do you come off telling me to stop editing this article? And if you read my note above, you'll see I specifically said I was going to wait and see if this develops into something more than a glorified stub before suggesting it be merged. In fact I didn't even know about the previous AfD for this article, and am looking at it on its own merits or lack of merits. Padding the article with irrelevant material in order to save the article is not going to work, nor is suggesting that editors who have made neutral edits should stop editing because you don't like the edits they're making. I suggest you spend more time finding real sources and less time advising long-standing editors of what they should or shouldn't do. And what exactly do you mean by "conflict of interest"? Tvoz/talk 23:09, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

The belligerence of a vandal. You've basically shown your true colours. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.201.25.193 (talk) 02:09, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Conflict of interest means when Tvoz says "nominating it for merge to Sarah Palin where it seems to belong at this point". In other words, he believes that it belongs for merging at this point. Then Tvoz starts to take away material objecting to "padding". I have just looked at how to kill an article. "Notability" is mentioned a lot. Article length is not a criteria. So feel free to propose killing the article after it has been given a chance. You may use the excuse "is not notable" but "has too much padding" is not a valid criteria. The quality of the article is not the deciding factor. Radiomango (talk) 23:46, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Tvoz is a she, and she is a very experienced and knowledge editor on articles like these who has made a big contribution to Wikipedia. I happen to believe this should be its own article, but I would never dream of claiming she has a conflict of interest on it or tell her to stop editing anything. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:45, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Oops, just saw that Radiomango is banned as a sock of Oprahwasontv, whom I've already had the displeasure of running into elsewhere. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:47, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Warning vandalism at Todd Palin

This hasn't occured yet but those who hate the Republican Party may try to vandalize this article. I am merely interested in this neat dude, champion racer and husband in the news. Some vandalism may be subtle, such as trying to remove positive information and make him look like a hick. Radiomango (talk) 22:07, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

And some vandalism may include over-hyping the accomplishments of this "neat dude". You should probably assume good faith about the future contributors to this article, as every single political article on Wikipedia is subject to the same vandalism. The danger of protecting the subject from negative criticism is just as troubling. However, this warning is both premature and likely unnecessary. Instead of telling people they shouldn't edit this article and making premature warnings, you should work on improving the article and possibly read up on neutral point of view and ownership of articles. AniMate 23:40, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, Radiomango has been blocked indefinitely as a sockpuppet, so hopefully we can get some neutral editors to shape the direction of this article. AniMate 00:07, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Good luck. Look what they've done to Sarah's article. Replace her photo with Hulk Hogan for starters. You think they're going to be any different here? Check her talk page - almost 700 KB long. Mostly people pissed they can't vandalise anymore. Check the history. To see how many times registered authors attempted to remove the lock so it could be vandalised.

First & Second Gentleman?

Is the term "First Gentleman" actually formally used in Alaska? And if not has anything been said as to what term will be encouraged if his wife wins the Veep? Timrollpickering (talk) 20:32, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

"Second Dude". Wasted Time R (talk) 01:18, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Is it sourced that he has "taken" that title and uses it? Should this really be in the lead sentence? TU --Tom 19:41, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

"First Gentleman" has a link to a seperate article in which he is not listed. Link should be removed, or he gets added there. use of "First gentleman" in one location and "dude" in another location in article seems bad; and a conflict. Should get consistant. Wfoj2 (talk) 21:18, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Birth date

1st para says born sept. 1964. Categories includes "1965 births." Which is it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.228.61.56 (talk) 05:25, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

looks like the category was corrected. thanks--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 00:53, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Involvement in Wooten and Monegan cases

As it stands as of my note http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Todd_Palin&oldid=235442634 this section seems quite skewed. It makes what allegations by one party in a disputed situation effectively statements of fact by wikipedia. I somehow have no way to edit this but a serious editor needs to fix this. Carvon (talk) 21:33, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. This part of the article is alleged and not yet fact. It probably should be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.46.249.163 (talk) 18:34, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

There is a problem in the Wooten/Monegan section. Since the first day this page went back up, this section has said Monegan is the Alaskan State Trooper. This is an error. Wooten is the Trooper and Monegan was the former commissioner. Because this page is semi-protected, I can't fix it. Someone please fix this, since it is just outright wrong. 98.204.199.179 (talk) 04:31, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.201.25.193 (talk) 02:13, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Who is Faye Palin?

Faye Palin has been identified in a variety of media (e.g. [1]) as Sarah Palin's mother-in-law. I would presume that meant she was Sarah's husband's mother, but this article and other media identify Todd Palin's mother as Blanche Kallstrom. I can imagine a variety of explanations (such as a step-mother, or maybe Blanche likes to be called Faye), but does anyone know for sure? Dragons flight (talk) 10:05, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Dragons, ABC News states that Faye Palin is TP's stepmother.Kitchawan (talk) 12:56, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Mother's name

News reports high and low give his mother's name as Faye, not Blanche. Can anyone confirm which is correct? She has been interviewed in press and is referred to as Faye Palin, though other sources give her maiden name as Blanche Kallstrom.

On that note, shouldn't Todd Palin also be classified as being Swedish-American, since Källström is a Swedish surname, thus implying Swedish ancestry? Mulder1982 (talk) 23:23, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Maternal grandmother an "elder"?

www.sitnews.com states that Palin's maternal grandmother is an elder of the Curyung tribe. However this is stated in an opinion piece written by a reported friend of the Palin family. This does not seem sufficient to me, re designating Lena Andre an elder. Does anyone have a better source? Also, some sources call her Helena Andrée, others as Lena Andre. Any further knowledge?Kitchawan (talk) 13:40, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Apparent definition of elder is: a senior member of a tribe, who has authority. This must be determined beyond doubt re Palin's grandmother and her description as "elder" by a Palin family neighbor in a letter to the editor of www.sitnews.com.Kitchawan (talk) 13:54, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

"He was sent to the hospital but managed to finish in fourth place"

He was sent to the hospital and then finished the race? He was sent to the hospital yet still awarded fourth place? Needs clarification. 68.238.17.164 (talk) 18:47, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

DUI

In 1984, at the age of 20, Palin was arrested for driving under the influence.[9] No accident and no injuries were involved in the events leading to his arrest. This should be put under 'personal life' later in the article. Unless of course the purpose is to malicious smear.

I have yet to see that he pleaded guilty or was convicted. A link needs to be added if such exists. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.46.249.163 (talk) 18:36, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Todd was arrested for DUI. [2] Maybe this should be added to his bio?

Palin spokeswoman Maria Comella confirmed Monday that Todd Palin was arrested and charged with driving under the influence of alcohol in 1986 when he was 22. Sarah and Todd Palin, who had been high school sweethearts, were dating at the time. Zredsox (talk) 19:56, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

It should be added. It is an important piece of his background as a semi-public figure. BTR (talk) 23:19, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

How is it important? It happened 22 years ago and it isn't that uncommon? Is there more to the "story" here?--Tom 17:25, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I have removed it. It looks silly as it stands alone. There has been past discussions I am sure about this type of material for persons who are semi notable and how that material relates to their entire biograpphy. Again, is there more to this or is there some context that this can be put into? --Tom 17:29, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Guess what - somebody put it back again. Ask yourself this: does Ted Kennedy's page say at the very outset that he got drunk and killed someone in his car?

Support the above change. A minor brush with the law 22 years ago is not pertinent. Let's be realistic folks - right now with the media spotlight on his family, we're likely to encounter all sorts of sourceable minutiae about Mr. Palin that has no place in a general biography. The above comment regarding context is key; unless there is some context to tie this in to the rest of the article it really serves no purpose. Shereth 17:39, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. If he is notable enough to have an article, the arrest record, which is a public record should be included. Of course, the arrest would not be sufficient to open up an article about him, but given that the article already exists, and this is part of his public record, it has to be included. To not include it would be whitewashing. Dems on the move (talk) 17:47, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I tend to agree (though not with Dems overbearing tone). His DUI is a relatively minor, long ago event, but I think we are better off saying so and disposing of this fact that has already had significant media circulation than simply ignoring it. It's not uncommon to note minor criminal offenses in the youth of public figures. I think we can trust most readers not to get inappropriately worked up about something from 22 years ago. Dragons flight (talk) 18:01, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I am certainly not going to fight the issue - it is minor but verifiable, so ultimately I don't really care whether or not it is included. Still, I would rather see this kind of information presented in a more elegant manner, relating to the information that already exists, rather than as a bare factoid shoehorned into the article. As a general rule of thumb, I prefer to see information that either ties in directly with existing information, or is suitable for significant expansion of its own. Shereth 18:08, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I do care. Why is this being re-added? No need to answer, that was a retorical question that everybody here knows the answer to. Please stop with the white washing argument. I also disagree that it is not uncommon to note minor ciminal offenses in the youth of public figures. Again, is there some context for this material or is it just being "inserted" into the bio? --Tom 18:36, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

And including a story about being pulled over for driving erratically, appearing intoxicated, being taken to jail for one night, and arraigned in the morning would actually make it better? Of course there is a longer story, but I wouldn't consider that preferable to the short statement we had. Dragons flight (talk) 18:45, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

To clarify, of course it could be developed into a longer discussion, but I'd consdier that to be giving it too much weight. I consider a simple mention to be the appropriate amount of weight for these long ago events, neither embellishing them not ignoring them. Dragons flight (talk) 18:56, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Also, every factoid about a person does not need to be added to an article. This is also being discussed on Sarah Palin' talk page. --Tom 18:40, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

And everyone generally agrees it doesn't belong in her article, but that's not the same as saying it doesn't belong here. Dragons flight (talk) 18:45, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

It is worth mentioning that arrest records do not get outdated. Whether the time of the arrest was 22 years ago, or yesterday, would be irrelevant to whether or not the arrest should be included in the article. In both cases, the arrest should be part of the persons' biography. Dems on the move (talk) 19:11, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

No it shouldn't be added unless it is included in some or any kind of context. --Tom 19:40, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

The context is that this is a biographical article. Since the arrest is old, it is included in tbe early life section. If it were more recent, I'm sure it would get its own section, and perhaps have its own article, such as Mel Gibson DUI incident. Dems on the move (talk) 19:45, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Hold up now - this is a silly item to revert-war over. Before making any other changes to this article regarding the DUI issue it needs to be resolved here on the talk page (or otherwise). This is not worth having to protect the page over, and is most certainly not worth putting yourselves at risk of violating WP:3RR. Please be aware that you are both treading a fine line with unilaterally reverting one another. Shereth 19:47, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

• I was just about to say the same thing. Please do not violate the three revert rule. Nothing will be gained from blocks and page protections. - auburnpilot talk 19:49, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Again, we don't include every piece of information out there, especially if it isn't given in any other context. Are you comparing this to Mel Gibson's bio? I would suggest you look at the Phil Ford article. I will remove this again per BLP issues. IF this gains traction and becomes some huge story then MAYBE include it but I would have to see that and as mention, can this be included so it flows better. Right now, it just included for its own sake which doesn't read well. --Tom 19:52, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

This isn't a BLP violation and if you revert again you will be in violation of WP:3RR and blocked. Don't do it - let discussion on the edit continue here before making an unwise revert. Shereth 19:54, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Fine, maybe others will get involved? --Tom 19:57, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

It would be fantastic if others would get involved - that is exactly what we want to accomplish with discussion. Just please don't have a tug-of-war with this article, as such is counterproductive. Just remember that nothing is permanent and just because the info is in the article now, does not mean it will stay forever if consensus determines otherwise. Shereth 19:59, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm unclear why this DUI is particularly notable. I'm certainly not against negative information being added to the article, but this has no context. AniMate 20:05, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

It is not notable. It is now being added since this individual has entered the very brightest of spotlights. Per above, I will hope for more involvement from others. Thank you, --Tom 20:07, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

The DUI seems fairly trivial, but so do the statements "Governor Palin refers to him as the "First Dude".[17]" and "Todd Palin served as a judge in the 2008 Miss Alaska pageant.[18]". Neither are included with any kind of context, and are simply stuck onto the end of the "Public life" section. - auburnpilot talk 20:10, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

There are a lot of problems with this article, and the biggest is that this is made up of poorly strung together factoids. AniMate 20:17, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

What and how much context would you like? A DUI is not a parking ticket, even a first offense in AK often means a few days in jail and temporary loss of license. As I said above, in my opinion elaborating at length would actually be worse than making a short statement. Dragons flight (talk) 20:13, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

By context, I mean it's just thrown out there. Perhaps if there were more details about his life before marrying Palin, it would make more sense. AniMate 20:17, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure there is ever a good segway to: "and then he got a DUI". That said, I agree that the article should be built up more as well. Dragons flight (talk) 20:51, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

So, is there any consensus here? Was he ever convicted of anything in regards to this? As far as context, what I meant was if this was related to some larger issue or story, ie drinking problem or repeat offenses or he speaks for MADD or anything related to this factoid, then great, work it into the article. I still feel it should be removed per relevance to the rest of the bio as it now reads. Thank you, --Tom 18:33, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

My personal preference is to remove it, as there is insufficient context within the article to elevate this above "factoid" status. I agree with Tom that it'd be much better were it to be included within the context of something like issues with alcohol or brushes with the law - but since these things do not exist, it's more difficult to create a useful tie-in with the rest of the article, which is why I don't like it. That said, I am still relatively ambivalent and will not pitch a fit if it is kept. Shereth 18:40, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

The way I'm reading this dicussion, the consensus is "the story about the arrest belongs in the article, and if more information becomes available, we should expand on this in the article". Dems on the move (talk) 19:59, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. I hate to do the vote thingy, but is that is what is necessary here? I believe that the insistence that this material be included is agenda driven. I also believe that the ownous(sp?) is on the folks who want to include material in articles. Just because it is a "fact" doesn't gaurantee inclusion in any article. I am also glad that this point is on the record. I am not going to revert for now. Thank you. --Tom 13:00, 4 September 2008 (UTC) Can people also please look at Bristol Bay? Thanks, --Tom 13:00, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm certainly not a Palin pal, but in my opinion it is absolutely ridiculous to mention something like this DUI thing in an article that deals with a person's life. Why? While it's certainly dangerous to drive intoxicated, it is an absolutely minor episode unless someone was hurt as a result. Please delete. ++Bernardoni (talk) 18:50, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I have removed it per relevance and undue weight. --Tom 18:39, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Was he ever convicted of any offense? If so, it should be in the article, as such things are in other biographies. If he was not convicted, then it need not be included, but it would be interesting to know why he was arrested, but not convicted, if he was over the alcohol limit for driving. Nietzsche 2 (talk) 08:44, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Political party, re TPM

A couple of editors have been adding information using the Talking Points Memo blog as a source. Unless I am missing something obvious, blogs such as TPM do not qualify as reliable sources and should not be used to add potentially problematic information to an article. Given that this information is in direct contravention to the "official" information, it should not be added unless a reliable source to the contrary is found. Shereth 21:01, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

• TPM is a quality, NPOV, non-blog source, just look at the article you cite above. Josh Marshall's blog on TPM is maybe unworthy of citation here, but the news article here is non-blog and an appropriate Wikipedia source. TPM's non-blog reporting has won non-ideological, bipartisan awards, such as the George Polk Awards. In the article at issue here, the author states that she spoke to "director of Division of Elections in Alaska, Gail Fenumiai," which seems to be a pretty solid, named source for voter registration matters.[3] If you can show why this is untrue or POV, please do, but a fact that is unflattering is still a fact. --Friejose (talk)

Here is a source that says:

Ms. Palin attended the party’s 1994 and 2006 conventions and provided a video-taped address as governor to the 2008 convention.

Since we know Todd Palin was a member of this political party, can we conclude they both attended these conventions, or just Sarah alone? Digitalmandolin (talk) 19:52, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

It's been verified that Mr. Palin was a member of the party by reliable sources, but we cannot make any kind of inference that he attended a convention because his wife did. Shereth 19:55, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

What's the point?

"Todd Palin's name has appeared in news reports regarding the actions of Mike Wooten and the firing of Alaska State Trooper Walter Monegan.[31][32][33] Todd Palin acted on behalf of Governor Sarah Palin and her family in discussing Wooten with Monegan.[31] At one point, Todd Palin brought information prepared by himself and a private investigator to Monegan." does not say anything. What's the point? There is no point spelled out. Provide a point or delete it. WAS 4.250 (talk) 06:49, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

You lost me. The paragraph is under the heading "Involvement in Wooten and Monegan cases". There is an expanded article on this case, and in this article, this section talks about his role in the case. That being said, the title can probably be improved, because it is one case, not two cases. Dems on the move (talk) 12:06, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

But what exactly did he do and why does anyone care what he did? He talked to someone??? What did he say? How is his talking to someone significant? Suppose the Governor had an aide do that talking. Would we now have an article on them saying that aide talked to someone? I'm just not getting how his role here matters to anyone. WAS 4.250 (talk) 12:17, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

First question: There is a controversy. He inserted himself in the controversy. That is certainly worth mentioning.

Second question: If the aide was a very senior person who already had a Wikipedia article (say the Lt. Gov), then yes, it would be worth mentioning in that aide's article, but if that aide was not notable (say some summer intern) who did not already have an article, then that in itself is not notable enough to open up an article.

Hope I was clear.

Mr. PIM (talk) 12:37, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Concerns about this article

I have two concerns about the current state of the article.

First, is a tendency to frame the facts and information in this article in the context of his marriage. I understand that a "significant" part of his notability is the fact that he's married to Governor Palin, but it's been decided that he has sufficient notability of his own and this article is, ultimately, about Todd Palin. I have reworded the lead section and done a little additional rewrite to this end, but I'm concerned about an ongoing tendency to continue framing the information here as it relates to her. That should be avoided except when necessary.

I'm also concerned about the overzealous referencing. This is a relatively small article but it has a rather high number of individual references - 32 references and 43 individual citations as of this comment. The short section about his snowmobile racing has 8 citations and only 6 sentences, with the first being hacked into 3 parts to accommodate each reference. I agree with the necessity to properly cite our information, but it's getting a bit silly when we require 3 unique references to determine he had an accident. It's really bogging down the article's readability, and I think more attention needs to be given to ensuring these references are both necessary and pertinent. Shereth 21:07, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

With such edits, the community forces the article to have a footnote each each and every sentence. Dems on the move (talk) 21:53, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Bio of a Living Person flag

Shouldn't this talk page have this warning banner displayed on it? I would add it but don't have the mark-up skills.

Should the term "First Dude" redirect here? Veriss (talk) 14:27, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

 Done - tag added. Kelly ^hi! 14:32, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

 Done I learned how to make redirects... Veriss (talk) 01:53, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Small edit needed

{{editsemiprotected}} you might like to edit the doubling up of kids names "Willow (born 1995), and Piper (born 2001)," in the Family Life paragraph

 Done Someone else already fixed it. Veriss (talk) 01:43, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Another small edit needed

{{editsemiprotected}} I've mentioned this before, but my comment was ignored. Since this article is semiprotected, I hope someone will notice my comment and take action. There is a problem in the Wooten/Monegan section. Since the first day this page went back up, this section has said Monegan is the Alaskan State Trooper. This is an error. Wooten is the Trooper and Monegan was the former commissioner. Because this page is semi-protected, I can't fix it. Someone please fix this, since it is just outright wrong. 98.204.199.179 (talk) 01:31, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

 Done Fixed. Reversed the names so they match up to the correct positions. Veriss (talk) 01:47, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

{{editsemiprotected}} Thank you Veriss, but there is still an error. Although the names now match the positions, what happened to them does not. Instead of "actions [of Monegan] and firing [of Wooten]", this should be reversed to refer to "actions [of Wooten] and firing [of Monegan]". Ultimately, it was Monegan that was fired. Wooten is still a Trooper today. 98.204.199.179 (talk) 18:57, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

 Done, hopefully it all makes sense now. Let me know if it doesn't - thanks again for the correction. ~ mazca ^{t | c} 19:13, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Unverifiable Republican claim contradicts Sarah Palin article

Todd Palin states he is a registered Republican and cites this video:

• http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/politics/2008/09/04/costello.todd.palin.cnn

However, that video does not load for me. Is there a text-based cite? The Sarah Palin article has a cite that state the opposite:

Todd and Track Palin are registered to vote as independents ("undeclared").

That cite states he "hasn’t been affiliated with a party since he first registered to vote while he was in his early 20s, in 1989 ".

-84user (talk) 23:15, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Good new nytimes article

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/14/us/politics/14todd.html?_r=1&oref=login - info from here should be incorporated. Calliopejen1 (talk) 01:46, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, you don't have to go very far into the article to find something to add to this article. Just the first sentence has information worth inserting into the article. Dems on the move (talk) 14:56, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

"Alma mater" section of infobox

Is it appropriate to put "some college work" for the alma mater field on Todd Palin's article? As I know it, alma mater means: a school, college, or university at which one has studied and/or graduated from. For now, I will remove "some college work," which does not qualify as an alma mater and try to research what college(s) he attended. --Hintha (talk) 04:06, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Why aren't we talking about how he was apart of an alaskan separatist movement?

??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fourtyearswhat (talk • contribs) 23:20, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

His membership of the AIP is in the article. It's a mainstream political party. What is there to discuss about it? It's not as if he'd been a Democrat, or something equally disreputable :-) -- Zsero (talk) 02:57, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Snowmachine: use of regionalisms

A small edit to change snow machine to snowmobile. The main wiki article identifies snow machine as a regionalism. I have been told, although it is far from established, that the "snow machine" was coined as a marketing term for manufacturers trying to butch up their image. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 164.67.77.220 (talk) 18:39, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

It's the term used by the people who run the race and who participate in it. It's not a snowmobile race, it's a snowmachine race. Also, just as we use USA English when editing USA-related articles, the same logic dictates that we use Alaskan English when editing Alaska-related articles. -- Zsero (talk) 18:47, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Snowmobile is BY FAR the most common term used to refer to these machines, and you've provided no evidence for your assertion that the people who race them refer to them as snowmachines. In the interest of understandability, snowmobile is the most appropriate word to use; it doesn't matter what people who race them call them, making the article readable for the VAST majority of people who don't does matter. Jimmy Hammerfist (talk) 20:51, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

We use American English when writing about American subjects, even though that is not the most common English dialect. For the same reason, we use Alaskan English when writing about Alaskan subjects. The race Palin competes in is an Alaskan race, and it is a snow machine race, not a "snow mobile" race. That's all there is to it. -- Zsero (talk) 21:28, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Note that both OED and Webster use snowmobile. Neither has an entry for snow machine.

And neither of them are dictionaries of Alaskan English. -- Zsero (talk) 03:01, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

And the article is not written exclusively for Alaskans.

Nor is it written exclusively for Anericans, and yet since it's about an American subject we are expected to use American English. For exactly the same reason it should use Alaskan English. -- Zsero (talk) 05:56, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

See submarine sandwich for the preposterous conclusion to that line of thinking. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 164.67.77.207 (talk) 00:05, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure what problem you see there. In an article about an NYC subject, if a sandwich of that variety comes up, say because the subject of the article is notable for having won an eating contest, it should certainly be called a hero , and wikilinked; if a reader doesn't know what a hero is, they can follow the link. (Though this is far less so since the spread of Subway™.) -- Zsero (talk) 01:09, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

You still haven't provided any evidence for your assertion that these things are even referred to as Snowmachines by even a small minority of Alaskans, much less a majority of them, or that the way Alaskan's speak to each other differs from the way other American's speak to each other enough to fall into the category of "Alaskan English," a dialect you seem to be creating out of thin air. Jimmy Hammerfist (talk) 20:35, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Good grief. Snowmobile vs. snowmachine? Really? Not vying for an entry into the Hall of WP:LAME here, are we? Shereth 21:57, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

You may not think it's important to use the most appropriate and recognizable language to discuss a topic, but obviously others do. Maybe you should climb down off your high horse and refrain from namecalling. Jimmy Hammerfist (talk) 16:08, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Sweet memories of the BBS"s when wakeboarding replaced skurfing.

His education

Palin's education is not given. Why not? Did he have any? Motorrad-67 (talk) 22:05, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

He has some college, but no degree. It's usual to list this only for degrees. There's no reason every parameter of an infobox has to be filled out for every person. -- Zsero (talk) 22:11, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Article probation

This is a notification that articles related to Sarah Palin (broadly construed) have been placed by the community on article probation. See Talk:Sarah Palin/Article probation‎ for details. Thanks - Kelly ^hi! 17:48, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Ancestry

The article states that he is part-Native Alaskan, but what is the rest of his extraction? Nietzsche 2 (talk) 08:51, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

The article also states "His mother . . . is one-quarter BS, and his maternal grandmother, Helena (Bartman) Andree, is a member of the Curyung tribe." If his maternal grandmother is Curyung, wouldn't his mother be at least part-Curyung as well? Ckalahar (talk) 00:30, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Not necessarialy. --Tom 00:34, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

There is no Curyung tribe. There is a Curyung tribal council, which used to be the Native Village of Dillingham. The grandmother is half Yu'pik, but is on a tribal council. Yu'pik is a language group/ethnicity, not a tribe. If Alaska was organized by tribes, there would be several Yu'pik tribes, perhaps. But there are no tribes in Alaska. Look here, http://www.artnatam.com/alaska.html for tribal status in Alaska. They call them Federally Recognized Native entities. Yes, it is very confusing.Hypercallipygian (talk) 06:16, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Recent edits

I had to revert some [edits]. No biggie, but best not to feed it any more. Cheers! --Tom (talk) 21:20, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

I, too. Apparently, someone considers this article his own private domain. I have included some more specific dates & information--all sourced--but someone wants an edit war. Too bad. James Nicol (talk) 00:25, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Tom, please stop reverting this article. Simply labeling someone a troll does not justify reversions. You are in danger of a WP:3RR. James Nicol (talk) 05:32, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

The article has now been reverted by another editor. Anyways, --Tom (talk) 14:16, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

James Nicol has now reverted 4 times in 24 hours. Maybe a block is in order? I have a conflict with this user so I will not report unless this continues. Thanks, --Tom (talk) 14:33, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

By my count, he has not (yet) violated the letter of wp:3rr, and I hope he understands it's important to discuss and build a consensus for his edits rather than revert further. That being said, I do believe it is disruptive to apparently attempt to circumvent wp:blp and consensus by making the same edits here that he was advised to not yet make at Sarah Palin. Finally, while I recognize your feelings on the matter, it's best to give other editors every benefit of the doubt, and I've refactored a couple of things in this thread along those lines. Let's move forward from here. user:J aka justen (talk) 14:47, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

We have ALREADY given every benefit of the doubt to this err, user. Also, go count again the number of reverts and correct yourself rather than edit my comments thank you very much. This is bullsh*t. --Tom (talk) 15:04, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I can understand that everyone is a bit frustrated with this situation given the disruptive venue shift, but civility still applies. I did just recount, and you're correct, there have been four reverts. It wasn't "nonsense" or an attempt to "bullshit" you on my part, it was my mistake. I take this matter just as seriously as you do, and have raised the issue further here. user:J aka justen (talk) 15:25, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough. I will go soak my head in a bucket of ice water :) ...anyways, --Tom (talk) 15:34, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to need something stronger than ice water...  :) Take care, user:J aka justen (talk) 15:39, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

BLPN discussion

FYI, there is currently a discussion at the Biographies of Living Persons Noticeboard regarding whether or not the Palin articles should mention a particular film that includes pornographic portrayals of both Sarah and Todd Palin.Anythingyouwant (talk) 08:03, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Is he fully Native American?

I'm wondering how much Native American he has in him, percentage-wise. His grandmother was a tribe member, it appears, and he has it on both sides of his family. I find that pretty interesting. I mean, a lot of people in the US have some Native American ancestry, myself included (1/18th), but he is over a quarter at least.

J390 (talk) 05:48, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

I had the same concern as I was adding him to Category:Alaska Native people. I believe the prevailing "legal standard" is one-quarter or greater blood quotient. The article would indicate that Todd Palin is one-eighth Alaska Native. I couldn't gather from the article what his ethnic composition is on his father's side.RadioKAOS (talk) 00:52, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Rare-ish interview

Todd Palin doesn't seem to do interviews often- here's one he did recently. 04:37, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Divorce?

I didn't have time to check any of the sources involved, but there were multiple news items when I checked my e-mail this morning to the effect that Todd is initiating divorce proceedings against Sarah. Comment?RadioKAOS (talk) 16:37, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

It was all nonsense. Kelly ^hi! 04:39, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Family section

I tagged a few dead links. Do we even need the aircraft ownership factoid in there? Anyways, --Tom (talk) 18:14, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Two of the 3 links should be back up by tomorrow. Why do you object to including his ownership of an airplane? Since ownership of a plane is not as common as ownership of a car, it my opinion it's an encyclopedic fact. Victor Victoria (talk) 03:00, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Not sure if I object, more just asking if it really is that encyclopediatic(is that a word). How do we know he still owns it? Also, given where this person lives, not even sure about the not as common as ownership of a car part. Anyways, not that big of a deal, just thinking out loud :) Cheers, --Tom (talk) 13:53, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

His mother Blanche is not "née Kallstrom". She is "née Andree", re-married on July 29, 1972 to Robert Kallstrom.E.Polti (talk) 11:37, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

That makes sense, seeing as how Andree is the surname of the elder woman whom Todd and Sarah constantly trotted out at campaign time to demonstrate their "Native cred." Not that it really mattered outside of Dillingham, anyway.RadioKAOS (talk) 12:17, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

As a matter of fact, I was wrong. After further inquiry (see Freeman Roberts family history on on leaddogalaska.net) it appears that Blanche was née Roberts as a daughter of Freeman Roberts (1903-1949) and Helena Bartman (dates unknown). After her husband death, Helena Bartman remarried with Alfred Andree (1913 Illinois - 1992 Homer, Kenai Peninsula, Alaska), son of Alfred Andrée (1884 Switzerland - 1937 Cook Co., Illinois) and his wife Helen. Blanche seems to have taken Andree's name.
Could somebody use the information above to modify the article, which I don't want to do, as English is not my maternal language! (I am French) E.Polti (talk) 13:33, 13 March 2012 (UTC)