Talk:Sarah Palin/Archive 10

Archive 5

←

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

→

Archive 15

Dispute #5: Religion section

5. Religion. This section needs to be concise and encyclopedic, consistent with other good Wikipedia biographies.

A) Currently there are POV hit pieces about how Palin happened to be in the audience when a guest speaker said something goofy. This is irrelevant as it holds absolutely NO information about Sarah Palin's religious beliefs. Delete.

B) There is also a reference to Palin's pastor's name for some reason. He is not even significant enough to have is own Wikipedia article. Delete.

C) There are several quotes by Palin about her prayer activity. Superfluous. Delete or balance with even more quotes. Preferably delete.

D) Merge the Religion and Family subsections into one under the major heading "Personal Life". Otherwise we are inviting more mischief. Consider: there are no separate sections for Religion in the Wikipedia biographies of any of the other Presidential and Vice Presidential candidates -- only Palin. Why? If this stays, then why not go put Religion sections in every candidate's bio? I say merge the two topics, in fairness to the candidate.

Agree. A.J.A. (talk) 22:06, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Agree in the interest of speedy resolution of the side-issues. Homunq (talk) 22:26, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Dispute #6: "Opposition research hit piece"

6. There is a POV, weakly-sourced link to an innocuously-labelled opposition research hit piece which rips each of Palin's policies. This is basically a paid advertisement for her political opposition and it has no place in a neutral Wikipedia article. Let's lose the POV link since there is already a separate Wikipedia article Sarah Palin's Policies based upon verifiable sources.

Fine with me. Oren0 (talk) 06:43, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I think this was already resolved above: Talk:Sarah Palin#request deletion of external link with the link removed. Or is this a different link?--Paul (talk) 18:32, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Let's mark this one resolved, I see no debate. Homunq (talk) 22:27, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Dispute #7: Public Safety Commissioner dismissal

7. Public Safety Commissioner dismissal. There is already an entire distinct article on this topic and a link that references it from the main article. We need to reduce this section to a concise, one-sentence description and point the reader to the comprehensive article. Otherwise it would appear to violate WP:Undue as well as being very inefficient trying to maintain and monitor the same information in two different places. Otherwise delete the separate article on the issue. Freedom Fan (talk) 04:10, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Disagree. I think that 2 or 3 paragraphs is plenty short. The ceiling should be the average subsection, not 1 sentence. I have said many times, it should include at least 5 basic facts: Wooten had a record of misconduct, Palin (staff) contacted Monegan (staff) about Wooten, Palin fired Monegan, Monegan alleges that it is because of Wooten, there is an ongoing investigation. Those each take 1-2 sentences to express clearly. Homunq (talk) 17:59, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Dispute #8: Unusual circumstances of Trig's birth

8. The article says nothing about the unusual circumstances of Trig's birth (keynote speech, 8+ hour plane ride, etc.), though people, e.g., Gov. Linda Lingle, have cited these circumstances to demonstrate Palin's "toughness" and though her decisions were considered remarkable, and to perhaps controversial, at the time by the local press, before she became a national political figure. Catuskoti (talk) 10:05, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure why people would continue to flog this, but we are not going to synthesize disparate mentions of the woman's vagina and reproductive system in order to advance some theory about their impact on the woman's judgment. Don't go there. Kelly ^hi! 10:22, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Point to a Wiki-principle that excludes vagina talk, Kelly. I'll talk with you about my vagina if you like. Catuskoti (talk) 11:09, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

A few self-styled Dr. Spock wikipedians drawing conclusions about the way she "should have" dealt with her childbirth. It doesn't belong. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 11:21, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely agree. This is right out. Homunq (talk) 18:00, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

B.S. When Synth is a threat, you delete the edits that are synthesizing. You don't delete a whole topic and then just mock the people who disagree with you. It's asinine to claim that a topic pushes an agenda. Catuskoti (talk) 18:05, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh COME ON. Repeatedly bringing up this crap is becoming disruptive. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 18:06, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

My daughter was born 2 weeks late and the placenta was stuck and ripped stuff requiring a transfusion for the mother. If I or my daughter's mother were someone famous this would be notable and be included in the Wiki? No. I think this falls under the same category. Both are alive and well and no consequences occurred from such. Not notable. --CanadianLinuxUser (talk) 18:10, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Was it covered in the major media at the time? Have you or others often cited the event to demonstrate something about yourself, e.g., "toughness," as Linda Lingle did in her Palin introduction last night, and as talking heads have now on most of the national media outlets, and were questions also raised about the circumstance at the time by reliable sources? If so, then *yes*.Catuskoti (talk) 18:57, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Remove Tabloid trivia. Not notable for the biography of Sarah Palin. POV-pushing implying that she is somehow a 'bad mother.'--Paul (talk) 18:36, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Not notable according to what Wiki-principles exactly?Catuskoti (talk) 18:57, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

This inclusion is always going to look POV. So the question is, is this event notable enough to merit a wikipedia article in its own right? Not remotely. Homunq (talk) 22:31, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Dispute #9: "In attendance" - Jews for Jesus guest sermon

Resolved.

9. The following smear is in the article, smearing Palin with the crime of "being in attendance", "On August 17, Palin was in attendence when David Brickner, the leader of Jews for Jesus, gave a guest sermon claiming that terrorism against Israel is due to the disbelief in Jesus by its Jewish population; according to a McCain campaign spokesman, Palin rejected his views." Was this person Palin's spiritual mentor for 20 years? Did she take the title of her book from one of the sermons? Did he marry Palin, did he babptise her children? Jeremiah Wright did all that to Obama and it was a major controversy yet it is not mentioned in Obama's BLP to the extent it is here with 6 sources and description of the crazy person's statement. This is not even a blip in comparsion yet someone managed to push it into the article. Being in attendance does not qualify, include it after they have a 10 year relationship just to be fair and cut the time in half. Hobartimus (talk) 10:25, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

This is discussed at length above at Talk:Sarah_Palin#Content of a speech given by guest speaker when Palin was in attendance where an edit request has been made to remove the following from the article:

On August 17, Palin was in attendence when David Brickner, the leader of Jews for Jesus, gave a guest sermon claiming that terrorism against Israel is due to the disbelief in Jesus by its Jewish population;[113][114][115][116] according to a McCain campaign spokesman, Palin rejected his views.[117]

I agree with the request for removal. This material is POV pushing using extremely thin gruel to imply guilt by association. There is not a shred of evidence that Sarah Palin has any agreement at all with the views of Jews for Jesus. This material is not at all relevant to this biography, and should be removed from the article as a violation of WP:BLP.--Paul (talk) 12:49, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

There are 4 discussion sections above dealing with the "in attendance at Jews for Jesus speech" issue:

• Jews for Jesus stuff, terrorism, and “judgment of unbelief”
• Content of a speech given by guest speaker when Palin was in attendance
• "warm welcome"
• Jews for Jesus

The arguments for inclusion are very weak, made by a small minority. The consensus appears to be that the statement's inclusion is a BLP violation.

Would someone like to propose that the issue is resolved and provide summary reasons?

{{resolved|Reason is here --~~~~}}

If someone wants to bracket the discussion of the four sections above, this diff as a reference may be helpful:

Dispute #9: "In attendance" - Jews for Jesus guest sermon, explanation begun by Hobartimus (Revision as of 06:25, 4 September 2008)

-Exucmember (talk) 17:13, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Including this would be obvious POV. Homunq (talk) 18:01, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Do not include This was discussed at length at Talk:Sara Palin#Content of a speech given by guest speaker when Palin was in attendance where an edit request has been made to remove the following from the article:

On August 17, Palin was in attendence when David Brickner, the leader of Jews for Jesus, gave a guest sermon claiming that terrorism against Israel is due to the disbelief in Jesus by its Jewish population;[113][114][115][116] according to a McCain campaign spokesman, Palin rejected his views.[117]

I agree with the request for removal. This material is POV pushing using extremely thin gruel to imply guilt by association. There is not a shred of evidence that Sarah Palin has any agreement at all with the views of Jews for Jesus. This material is not at all relevant to this biography, and should be removed from the article as a violations of WP:NPOV and WP:BLP. (Actually I don't think it is in the current version).--Paul (talk) 12:49, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I thought I'd add this tag to show progress on the list of disputes. I agree with what's been said above, and unless this became a major part of the campaign (a la Jerimiah Wright), it has no place in the article. Joshdboz (talk) 18:59, 4 September 2008 (UTC) (moved to top of section)

Request unprotection

I am not aware of all the mini-disputes and edit wars that are evidently going on on this page, but regardless of the disputes, it seems highly irresponsible to lock a page for almost an entire week when new and notable information is becoming available by literally the minute. I would certainly be in favor of going back to semi-protection, or at least letting this expire in 24 hours. There are enough eyeballs here to ensure that egregious breaches of BLP will not stay for long. Joshdboz (talk) 00:51, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

See the thread discussing this at WP:AN. {{editprotected}} is available for consensus-based edits in the interim. Kelly ^hi! 00:54, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

It needs to stay down for a little while. The 5 days can always be reduced as needed if new and vital info arises, and I don't mean from the Enquirer. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 00:54, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

No way. It needs to be locked down for at least 24 hours, things are out of control. rootology (C)(T) 00:55, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the link Kelly. My argument is not focused at the initial protection, but the length of time. Joshdboz (talk) 01:03, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

After the major disputes are resolved (i.e. the point where we can block anybody who edits against consensus) I would consider unprotecting. BJ^Talk 01:06, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, one of the main problems was that the volume was so high the disruptive folks couldn't be identified, warned, or sanctioned. Never seen anything like it. Kelly ^hi! 01:17, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I support the temporary locking of the page. It is highly unfortunate, but necessary. --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:10, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree with ThaddeusB.Ferrylodge (talk) 01:30, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I support the locking and reverting of the page back to August 27th before it became politicized. ;-) zredsox (talk) 01:39, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Given my extensive edits of this article before August 27, I'll take that as a compliment. :-)Ferrylodge (talk) 01:52, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I support the locking and reverting of the page back to August 27th 26th before it became politicized. ;-) zredsox (talk) 02:06, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

5 days!?!? That's highly inappropriate. 24 hours to let things calm down is a very good idea but limiting an article on a major political figure during a time of controversy only to admin editing is far too harsh. Have the admins lost their heads more than the editors?--Rtphokie (talk) 01:58, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

You probably wouldn't say that if you've seen the fire hose of BLP-violating filth spraying here since last Friday. :) Kelly ^hi! 02:08, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

There are a few too many admins up on their crosses over this article. Admins aren't the only ones working to keep articles BLP problem free, give a little credit to the rank-and-file admins who have actually read BPL,POV,N,V and the rest and spend a lot of time keeping these articles clean. A 5 day full protection says just one thing, Admins are the only ones who are capable of this task. 24 hour full protection followed by an indefinite semi-protection is far more appropriate, I wish admins would at least consider this.--Rtphokie (talk) 02:31, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

A large discussion went on about this at [1] with most people endorsing the protection. Hobartimus (talk) 09:03, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I dont think anyone doubts the page needed protection for a cooling off period but there was no consensus on the duration yet a very long duration was selected anyway. Perhaps the admins need a cooling off period as well?--Rtphokie (talk) 12:08, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

You may share your thoughts on the protection on it's request for page protection discussion.

Not presumtive any longer

Sarah Palin is now the Republican vice presidential nominee, not the presumptive vice presidential nominee as your article states. Benjaminleebrackman (talk) 01:07, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't believe that is a statement of fact. She has yet to be nominated by the party. The Letter J (talk) 01:12, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I believe both McCain and Palin will be nominated tonight followed by a roll call after Palin's speech. Joshdboz (talk) 01:19, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't know how the GOP handles it, but my understanding is the Democratic nomination was not "officially" official until the result was certified by the president of the convention (or whatever the convention leader is called), and that technically this didn't occur until the close of the convention following Obama's speech. Such distinctions are largely rules-mongering silliness, in my opinion, but if the GOP has similar procedures it isn't clear that the completion of the roll call is sufficient to say he is the nominee. Dragons flight (talk) 01:30, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Article currently states "She was nominated at the 2008 Republican National Convention in Saint Paul, Minnesota." What date? And under what method? Roll call? Voice vote/acclimation? Would be surprised that a VP candidate would be nominated prior to a Presidential candidate "accepting" his/her nomination which i believe, in this cycle, happens Thursday--68.173.2.68 (talk) 08:54, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Request Edit

The word "possession" is misspelled as "possesion". Could an admin correct that? Is there some way minor errors can be corrected while allowing the larger debates to rage? Thanks. The Letter J (talk) 01:11, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

 Done BJ^Talk 01:14, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Would a section at the top of this page be useful for requesting changes? BJ^Talk 01:16, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

That's not a bad idea. Mazeau (talk) 01:26, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

WP:DATE

I know this page is protected but can an admin go through and fix the WP:DATE errors in this page? Thanks in advance to whoever does. Aaron Bowen (talk) 01:21, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

What date errors? BJ^Talk 01:24, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Edit request - religion redlinks

{{editprotected}} Please remove redlinks in the Religion section - several articles were deleted at AfD and are unlikely to bo recreated in an acceptable form anytime soon. Kelly ^hi! 01:43, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

 Done BJ^Talk 01:45, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

2007 trip and Passport

I see that the mention of her 2007 trip to Germany and Kuwait as well as her obtaining a passport has been deleted somewhere over the past couple of days. The issue was mentioned in a NY Times article, highlighted in a WSJ blog, the topic of several Politico posts, and now the main topic of a Boston Globe article entitled Palin not well traveled outside US. Considering this has been highlighted in major MSM outlets and is her only trip both as governor and outside of North America, I'd suggest the following addition to somewhere under Governor of Alaska or Personal Life:

In 2006 Palin obtained her first passport, traveling to Kuwait and Germany the following year to visit with members of the Alaska National Guard; she has also made multiple trips to Canada.

Joshdboz (talk) 01:54, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree that this should be re-added, preferably to the person life section. There was previously some disagreement about the word "first." Has the first now been well-established, or should we simply say "a passport"? --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:04, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree that it should be re-added. I think "first" can appear to be pov pushy but it is a notable fact.--mboverload@ 02:15, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

This was one of the things I was referring to with my comment above concerning the current state of the article. It needs to be re-added and there are links in the archive to clarify it was her first passport.zredsox (talk) 02:28, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree, restore this information, except delete the part about Canada. Many Americans have been to Canada, and I'd guess that Alaskans are even more likely to have visited there... though I suppose they call it the Great White South. JamesMLane t c 09:55, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

How is this notable? Please just a short explanation. Hobartimus (talk) 10:10, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I believe I explained that in the initial paragraph. Only trip abroad, first trip as governor - and this has become a common reference point in the media for talking about her foreign policy experience. The only reason I'd include Canada is because it's been constantly added by her spokespeople, so they apparently think it important, and there's no hurt in rounding out her foreign travel info. If there is general consensus, as there appears to be, I'd appreciate if someone could add it to personal life. Joshdboz (talk) 11:03, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

This version of the sentence was deleted - it is based on a highly reliable source (which is included in the statement), is NPOV and complies with the rest of the Wikipedia:Five pillars. It should be restored:

According to the New York Times, Palin "appears to have traveled very little outside the United States" and in July 2007 "had to get a passport before she visited members of the Alaska National Guard" in Kuwait. She also traveled to Germany to visit wounded soldiers. Her spokesman Ben Porritt stated that she has also visited Canada.

-Classicfilms (talk) 13:11, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Classicfilms, I tried to condense this information (as seen above) so as to limit direct quotes and mitigate charges of undue weight and what some perceived as POV pushing. However, the essential factual elements are all included. Taking the above critiques into account about the "new" passport POV, if we can agree to the following statement I would like to readd it:

After becoming governor Palin obtained her passport, traveling to Kuwait and Germany in 2007 to visit with members of the Alaska National Guard; she has also made multiple trips to Canada. Joshdboz (talk) 13:34, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi Joshdboz - Thanks for your good work. It looks great - I think that this is a fair edit. I had quoted directly from the article to avoid POV but am open to other suggestions. And, considering the length of the passage, I am not convinced undue is a question here. This is a statement of fact rather than opinion - a topic written about by both the NY Times and Boston Globe satisfies Wikipedia:Five pillars and thus merits inclusion. -Classicfilms (talk) 14:58, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Pastor's name

The "Religion" section currently identifies her pastor, Larry Kroon. I don't see a reason for including the name in this biography. Thoughts? Kelly ^hi! 01:58, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't see any either --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:01, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Note to others: The reason this appears like an echo box is because Kelly is usually right =P. I agree with the removal. --mboverload@ 02:22, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I see no reason not to include it. I don't think it is generaly considered a bad thing to be a VP nom's pastor. I seem to recall he's been mentioned in some news coverage so might as well leave it in there.Geni 02:25, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I concur with removing the pastor's name; he is not even significant enough to have an article in Wikipedia. I also favor removing the "Religion" and "Family" subtopics, and just stay with the "Personal Life" major heading.

Also, all the quotes about her religion are superfluous per WP:Undue and should be deleted. The topic of her religion needs to be concise -- consist with all the other Presidential and Vice Presidential candidates' biographies. This sexist witchhunt does not belong in a Wikipedia article. Freedom Fan (talk) 02:30, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Since we have articles on the family of both bush and obama merginging it into personal life may not be ideal. Religion would depend on how significant the reporting of it has been.Geni 02:46, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

request deletion of external link

{{editprotected}} The link labeled "64-page annotated and referenced document of positions Palin has taken during her political career" should be deleted as it is not what it claims, but rather a long opposition published "hit piece." --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:01, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree. The Politico says that the document was prepared by Democratic gubernatorial candidate Tony Knowles two years ago. Politico calls it a "Democratic opposition research document."Ferrylodge (talk) 02:16, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I'd prefer a little more consensus on this. BJ^Talk 02:27, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

It is the most comprehensive document on the internet concerning Sarah Palin and should be retained as a link. It is up to the reader if he or she wants to leave Wikipedia to view it and the contents are not part of the actual biography. The only thing I would recommend would be a slightly more "upfront" name for the hyperlink such as "64 page opposition research paper."zredsox (talk) 02:36, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

(undent)Wikipedia rules say the following:

Websites and publications of political parties, religious groups, anti-religious groups, or any other partisan group, may exhibit bias and should be treated with caution. Neither political affiliation nor religious belief stated in these sources are in themselves a reason not to use them, as these websites can be used to present the viewpoints of these groups, if properly attributed. Such sources should be presented alongside references from other sources in order to maintain a neutral point of view.[2]

Ferrylodge (talk) 02:46, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

This is an obvious delete per above. Hobartimus (talk) 02:47, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't have an issue with presenting this alongside references from other sources in order to maintain a NPOV. zredsox (talk) 02:51, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

(undent)So, do you have any objection Zredsox if we delete the link in question until such time as we locate a balancing GOP puff piece to link as well? More Guidelines:

One should avoid….any site that misleads the reader by use of factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research. See Reliable sources for explanations of the terms "factually inaccurate material" or "unverifiable research"….In biographies of living people, material available solely in questionable sources or sources of dubious value should be handled with caution, and, if derogatory, should not be used at all, either as sources or via external links.[3]

Ferrylodge (talk) 02:59, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes I do object. To be honest, the majority of those links are already quite fluffy - have you taken a gander at the biography? Secondly, this page was locked down in a state when it was well out of balance so picking off what you consider negatives at this point would only further lead to that imbalance and I don't think that is the right course of action if we are to attempt to maintain some sort of neutrality. If you feel more fluff must be added, that can be done when the page comes out of lockdown.zredsox (talk) 03:06, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Excuse me, but partisan research is not in any way just 'what I consider negative' - it is highly biased by its very nature and not worthy of inclusion in ANY article. And it should especially not appear under a misleading title like 'positions X has taken.' Did you even look at the document? - a large chunk of it is not even political positions but people's opinions about her. P.S. Do you think ANY negative fact about Palin should EVER be left off. I haven't seen one yet. --ThaddeusB (talk) 03:13, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I already know how you Kelly and Ferrylodge are going to respond on every issue, but thanks for typing it out. And yes I did read it and feel it does actually offer some balance to the current choir singing piece we have globbed together.zredsox (talk) 03:18, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Its not my fault that most the issues raised on talk are people trying to write 5 paragraphs for "today's scandal of the day." fact it most of these things are not important and only deserve the 1-2 sentences they are edited down to. Also I did recommend the re-inclusion of the passport bit and the reduction of the disaster release fluff, so my record is not 100% "pro-Palin" as you assert. As to my actual edits, a good % have reintroduced negative material, although the vast majority of my edits were completely neutral in nature - copyedits, rephrasing for clarity, and such. Again, have you EVER sided on the "Pro-Palin" side? --ThaddeusB (talk) 03:27, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

"Out of balance"? What, not enough scandals? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 03:12, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

What scandals in the article? Have you taken a look at it recently? It is like the McCain campaign themselves made the last 10 or 15 edits and removed any hint of impropriety before the page was locked. zredsox (talk) 03:15, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I favor deletion of the highly-biased opposition research link per Wikipedia policy WP:NPOV. There is already a whole separate article with verified sources citing Palin's policies. Freedom Fan (talk) 03:11, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

As a immediate measure, would it be easier to achieve consensus on a more accurate description of the link? The current description is not accurate. GRBerry 03:19, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion, but no. See page 1 of the derogatory external link: "Palin's management style is to bully and demand." This is a 100% clear violation of Wikipedia policy, which says: "In biographies of living people, material available solely in questionable sources or sources of dubious value should be handled with caution, and, if derogatory, should not be used at all, either as sources or via external links."[4] Also see page 3 of external link: "lying....vindictive".Ferrylodge (talk) 03:21, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Political opposition research from her enemies? Are you serious? Delete, BLP violation. That document also contains her social security number and vehicle VIN numbers, if I recall correctly. Kelly ^hi! 03:25, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes the VIN numbers are on page 63.Ferrylodge (talk) 03:37, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I give up. I can see this is going to be the staffers and operatives version of Sarah Palin's Bio as even when the page is locked her star continues to shine brighter. So, I am on my way. My parting suggestion would be that in place of the disputed document we add in a giant "Donate" button that links to the McCain/Palin Campaign contribution page[5].zredsox (talk) 03:32, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

(undent) Come on folks, the external link calls her a lying, vindictive bully and provides the vehicle identification number (VIN) of her personal vehicle.Ferrylodge (talk) 03:40, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I think consensus, and more importantly policy, points to a clear delete here. Frankly I am surprised anyone objected. Can we get this rather trivial change made now please? --ThaddeusB (talk) 03:42, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Every change is trivial. That is the problem. When you step back and look at two or three hundred "trivial" changes, an entirely different article emerges... zredsox (talk) 03:55, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

While I see your point, I certainly wouldn't say every change is trivial. More to the point, though, I'd say the current article is at least as "negative" as the one I first read on the 29th. I'd say the vast majority of edits have moved toward NPOV rather than away. --ThaddeusB (talk) 04:02, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

My count is five editors for deletion, and one against.Ferrylodge (talk) 03:43, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

 Done BJ^Talk 03:45, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Lets move on to the next task my fellow conservatives. So, can we get everything about the Bridge to Nowhere removed, the entire Public Safety Commissioner dismissal section, and any mention of the actual population of Wasilla? Once those are gone I think we should make the Governor of Alaska section much more substantive, maybe stretching it out a few thousands words (talking mostly about National Guard Duties and their importance with the Russian threat.) Well, I am sure you will all get right on that, so I'll be back later to inspect the work. zredsox (talk) 03:51, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Zredsox, you've probably noticed that it's not really helpful to your point of view to constantly make accusations of bias against other editors. You'd have much more luck (and more enjoyment) working collaboratively and basing your case in Wikipedia policy. Take it as you will. Kelly ^hi! 04:00, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Nothing is helpful to my point of view when the most prolific editors on said article all hold a singular agenda and enforce it to the detriment of the larger majority of editors that are attempting to create a neutral article. You yourself said you were biased and lost objectivity[6], so I find it disconcerting that you have been the "decider" when it comes to this article from the get go. That being said, I am moving on and will let you guys run unchecked and make this the biography that the McCain campaign and Sarah have always wanted it to be. As for Wikipedia policy, I see this as a clear case of WP:COI.zredsox (talk) 04:14, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Cascade protection

Resolved

 – --lajolla2009@ 07:45, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Just so everyone knows, I copy/pasted the article to User:J.delanoy/Sarah Palin and cascade-protected that page until September 8. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 02:31, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

So everyone understands, the effect of that action is that any template, image, or other page that is actually displayed as part of the text of this page will also be protected until that time. GRBerry 02:47, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I just wanted to ask what it meant. Hobartimus (talk) 02:52, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Sarah Palin's speech

Something should be added later if she says something notable. Also soon she will no longer be "presumptive" but actual nominee for vice president. Hobartimus (talk) 02:35, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Unless the lockdown is lifted, it doesn't make sense cherry pick new topics for inclusion. zredsox (talk) 02:53, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

This USAToday.com blog [7] indicates her official nomination will come tomorrow night, i.e. Thursday. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 03:00, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Obviously her nomination will come once McCain accepts the party's nomination. Lampman (talk) 03:40, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Sarah Palin's mother's name

Resolved

 – --lajolla2009@ 07:45, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Ms. Palin JUST introduced her mother as Sally, NOT Sarah as stated in her wikiP page. It should be changed! 66.218.202.185 (talk) 02:42, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

No, there's no problem. "Sally" is a diminutive of Sarah; Mrs. Palin is just trying to be informal. {{Nihiltres|talk|log}} 03:05, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Mat-Maid Dairy involvement

I don't know how to phrase it so it doesn't seem too negative, but hear me out. The original statement was, "appointed long-time Mat-Su Borough associates to run the board" Something went on there. She 'replaced' (some might say fired) the board, which had already voted to close a state run Dairy business that was 'hemorraging losses'. I am in business, and that term is used to mean bad, nightmarish, never-ending, no end in sight, losses. Ferry's earlier humourous criticism of me aside, it denotes really bad and hopeless losses, not just 'unprofitable', as the article now states.

It originally stated that she replaced them all with people she knew somewhat, who immediately reversed the previous board's decision to close the 'hemorraging' dairy. She had dumped 600K of state funds into that black hole that got scrapped anyway and sold for less than its debts. Why? To protect farmers?? Nah, sorry, I don't buy it. (no pun intended)

Please note that I had not made any changes to this article, because there is nothing left that states it explicitly. However, if you go outside and the sidewalk is wet, you can assume that it rained; do I have to cite that? Her hometown paper has this article taht states her involvement as nice as possible..

http://dwb.adn.com/news/alaska/matsu/mat_maid/story/9261530p-9176496c.html

web-citation snapshot

and you can see some of the other related stories there.

Read it before it too disappears.

I'm not trying to be biased against her, I'm just suspicious when articles start to disappear.

I can't keep looking by myself, so somebody help me out with this.

Oh,Lawd! that is the coolest thing! I wish I had known about that before..Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by T1n0 (talk • contribs) 04:37, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Majority?

In the Electoral history section, there is a header that lists 'Majority' of votes won by. That number is wrong. Rather than listing the votes she had in excess of 50% (which is a majority) it lists the votes she had in excess of the second place candidate. Either the numbers should be re-calculated, or the header should be changed to 'Plurality' Can somebody who is able please correct this? (I don't imagine it is the cause for the edit freeze!). 216.121.130.208 (talk) 03:03, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I'd say delete the "Majority" row entirely (and "Swing", and some other things). It's from a template created for UK elections, and it really has no place in reporting US election results. This wasn't a parliamentary election. —KCinDC (talk) 07:33, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Edit request - librarian

It appears the firing of the Wasilla librarian has been removed from the article. According to the New York Times[8]:

"Ann Kilkenny, a Democrat who said she attended every City Council meeting in Ms. Palin’s first year in office, said Ms. Palin brought up the idea of banning some books at one meeting. “They were somehow morally or socially objectionable to her,” Ms. Kilkenny said.

The librarian, Mary Ellen Emmons, pledged to “resist all efforts at censorship,” Ms. Kilkenny recalled. Ms. Palin fired Ms. Emmons shortly after taking office but changed course after residents made a strong show of support. Ms. Emmons, who left her job and Wasilla a couple of years later, declined to comment for this article."

I don't know who threw this down the memory hole, but it needs to be edited in again. Rizla (talk) 03:04, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

There was a brief discussion of this earlier. Apparently saying she was fired is technically incorrect, hence the correct version that says "Palin notified the police chief, Irl Stambaugh, and the town librarian, Mary Ellen Emmons that they were being fired." See also the original source: [9] --ThaddeusB (talk) 03:19, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Trivial detail. If you think this is so notable you are free to open an article about the event or the participants and test their notability at Afd. Hobartimus (talk) 03:23, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Hobartimus, are you arguing that no specific incident in Palin's life can be included in her bio unless a separate article about that incident would survive AfD? That is not now and never has been the standard. If it were, we'd remove the passage about what "she was praised for" as mayor, none of which is independently notable. There are aspects of her mayoralty that have attracted attention, and we should report all of them, the ones criticized as well as the ones praised. JamesMLane t c 06:29, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

No I'm saying that the article is protected right now so the best way to see if this is notable is to open up an article about it and see if it stands. Since the firing was a well defined event an article could be written about it if it's notable enough. I'm not saying it's the standard for inclusion here just that the article is protected for a few days anyway so it's an alternative now. Hobartimus (talk) 08:56, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Trivial detail? This woman wants to censor art and free speech by banning books. I would hardly call that trivial for a VP candidate. Erik Veland (talk) 06:48, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Hobartimus, I'm a confirmed inclusionist and even I would favor deleting that article. A shakeup in municipal personnel in an obscure little hamlet? No way. How is that "the best way to see if this is notable"? Would creating a separate article also be a good way to see if her changes in Wasilla's taxes were notable? JamesMLane t c 09:53, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Look the issue may blow up or something may come of it later I didn't look into this beyond what is written above. But I'd like to note something intresting. Inclusion in extremely high profile articles such as this is sometimes even higher than having a standalone full article. Consider the Obama-Ayers controversy, full fledged notable article, not a word in Obama article The Obama Nation fully notable article, not even a link on the Obama article The Case Against Barack Obama full article not a word in the main article. So just for comparsion sometimes creating a fully notable article will not get you a mention on such a high profile article like this. Hobartimus (talk) 10:43, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Expect intense editing disputes arguing that verified material sourced by Democratic partisans has acquired instant significance to a Wikipedia article on a living person where the matter is viewed to be a source of political embarrassment. patsw (talk) 10:49, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I think you will find that it is rather rare that a public elected official get into a dispute over banning books in a public library. Considering it was one of several local controversies following her election as mayor, it would appear to be relevant for that section. Joshdboz (talk) 13:25, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm the one who made the edit changing "fired" to "notified ... of being fired". We have multiple news sources that contradict each other here; the New York Times article says that citizens opposed and thus the librarian was reinstated, the Anchorage Daily News says that Palin did it on her own, ADN vs. NYT. The NYT's claim is made without any supporting details and thus I'm reluctant to credit it at face value, seeing as an Alaskan paper fails to confirm. As for the censorship, I argued in the previous archived discussion that we don't need to refer to this obliquely (that is, bringing Ann Kilkenny into this) as it appears that Palin acknowledged the comments in order to justify them here, on Page 18. This is, unfortunately, a tertiary source (and is essentially an attack ad from a political opponent), but if anyone has access to the archives of the Frontiersman, then we can have a solid secondary source on it. I would propose the edit "Sometime in 1996, before the events above, Palin made references in the librarian's presence to banning books, though it is unclear whether this was done in a rhetorical fashion". I would normally argue for the presumption that Palin's assertion of rhetoric is valid, but the librarian's quoted reaction seems to indicate that (rightly or wrongly) she took the comments at face value. Lauciusa (talk) 13:47, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I've created an article on the letter Palin served to the librarian under Wasilla librarian letter of termination. It's based entirely on two Anchorage Daily News articles, one from 1997 addressing the letters and Palin's reversal on the librarian, and one from today, September 4, 2008, which cites a 1996 article in The Frontiersman, where Emmons herself says that Palin asked about removing books multiple times. All this should eventually be linked to Palin's bio.Like.liberation 21:48, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Wasilla librarian letter of termination is currently under discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wasilla librarian letter of termination.Like.liberation 22:20, 4 September 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Like.liberation (talk • contribs)

Public Safety Commissioner dismissal

Someone certainly tilted this paragraph to Mrs. Palin's favor by completly ignoring the recorded timeline of events. As written:

...............................

Initially, Palin denied that there had been any such pressure, either from her or from anyone else in her administration.[89] After she had the Attorney General's office conduct an internal investigation, Palin revealed that her staff had contacted Monegan or his staff about two dozen times regarding Wooten.[90] Palin stated that most of those calls were made without her knowledge, and reiterated that she did not fire Monegan because of Wooten.[87][91]

Palin's choice to replace Monegan, Charles M. Kopp, chief of the Kenai police department, took the position on July 11, 2008. He resigned on July 25 after it was revealed that he had received a letter of reprimand for sexual harassment in his previous position.[92][93]

On August 1, the Alaska Legislature hired an independent investigator to review "the circumstances and events surrounding the termination of former Public Safety Commissioner Monegan, and potential abuses of power and/or improper actions by members of the executive branch".[94]

...............................

This sequence of events is incorrect and misleading. Palin's internal probe was launched after, and as a result of, the State Legislature's August 1 announcement that it was conducting an investigation into the firing. Palin's admission of improper contacts originating from her office also came AFTER the Legislatures probe had began. The article, as written, implies that Palin both conducted her probe, and admitted to improprieties, prior to the announcement of the State investigation, which is not the case.

Here's the Anchorage Daily News article citing the true timeline and motivations for the Governor's probe: [10]

Once this article is un-protected, might someone correct this misleading inconsistancy? Thank you. 75.88.83.220 (talk) 03:09, 4 September 2008 (UTC) Paul

What wording do you propose? Kelly ^hi! 03:29, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Admin Happyme22 has edited this section down to a proper summary, which I applaud. I believe his/her edit removes the timing issue referenced here. --ThaddeusB (talk) 03:48, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, I'm not too thrilled about the wording in general. Just shifting some lines around, I think something akin to this would be more accurate:

Initially, Palin denied there had been any pressure upon Monegan to fire Wooten, either directly from her, or from anyone within her administration.[89]

On August 1, the Alaska Legislature hired an independent investigator to review "the circumstances and events surrounding the termination of former Public Safety Commissioner Monegan, and potential abuses of power and/or improper actions by members of the executive branch".[94]

As a result of the announced State investigation, Governor Palin instructed her Attorney General's office to conduct it's own internal probe[11] and later revealed that her staff had actually contacted Monegan or his staff about two dozen times regarding Wooten.[90] Palin stated that most of those calls were made without her knowledge, and reiterated that she did not fire Monegan because of Wooten.[87][91]

Palin's choice to replace Monegan, Charles M. Kopp, chief of the Kenai police department, took the position on July 11, 2008. He resigned on July 25 after it was revealed that he had received a letter of reprimand for sexual harassment in his previous position.[92][93]

75.88.83.220 (talk) 04:11, 4 September 2008 (UTC)Paul

There must be "Loyal Bushies" at work... The article still misrepresents the timeline of events, but now two more facts that reflect poorly on Palin have been removed. 1. Any reference to Palin at first denying any pressure was applied is removed. 2. They removed the "nearly two-dozen calls were made" or "over 20 calls" that is reported all over the media and toned it down to simply "calls were made". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.88.83.220 (talk) 05:32, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

There is a whole article that goes into exhaustive detail on the topic - Alaska Public Safety Commissioner dismissal. Kelly ^hi! 05:36, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh... It's a "summary" now. Well, then. The fact that she denied any wrongdoing had occured, before admitting it had, is not a main point in this worthy of a summary? Making it "numerous calls" is too much text to add some factual substance to a "summary? And how is still stating that she admitted calls were made BEFORE mentioning the State investigation being launched correcting the timeline?

75.88.83.220 (talk) 05:42, 4 September 2008 (UTC)Paul

Hang on while I check with Karl Rove. :) Seriously, what specific rewording do you propose? Kelly ^hi! 05:55, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Ok, if it's a summary, then why are there 4 sentences about the topic, then 40 words about some guy named Kopp, then 4 more pertinent sentences? Kopp has nothing to do with it, so let's cut 40 worthless words out of this summary, then move one sentence to correct the sequence of events, then reinsert about 5 words that were selectively removed making the article less factual and decidely pro-Palin? How abou this:

---

On July 11, 2008, Palin dismissed Public Safety Commissioner Walter Monegan, citing performance-related issues.[83] She then offered him an alternative position as executive director of the state Alcoholic Beverage Control Board, which he turned down.[84][85] Monegan alleged that his dismissal was retaliation for his failure to fire Palin’s former brother-in-law, Alaska State Trooper Mike Wooten, who was involved in a child custody battle with Palin’s sister, Molly McCann.[86][87] He further alleged that contacts made by Palin herself, her staff, and her family had constituted inappropriate pressure to fire Wooten.[86][87] On August 1, the Alaska Legislature hired an independent investigator to review the situation.[92] After initial denials, Palin later acknowleded that her staff had repeatedly contacted Monegan or his staff regarding Wooten,[88] Palin stated that most of those calls were made without her knowledge, and reiterated that she did not fire Monegan because of Wooten.[86][89]. The State investigation is scheduled to be completed in October 2008.[86] On September 1, Palin's lawyer asked the state Legislature to drop its investigation, saying that by state law, the governor-appointed state Personnel Board had jurisdiction over ethics issues.[93] Palin also asked that the Board review the matter as an ethics complaint.[94]

---

75.88.83.220 (talk) 06:00, 4 September 2008 (UTC) Paul

That summary really leaves out a lot of context about Wooten's alleged behavior. Kelly ^hi! 06:05, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Wooten's alleged transgressions have nothing to do with this investigation. The controversy is about alleged abuse-of-power. If anyone cares about accuracy, then events should not be listed out of order, and points that are major to the story should not be omitted. I believe my second example,just above, is more factual, informative, and unbiased than what is currently posted.

75.88.83.220 (talk) 07:16, 4 September 2008 (UTC) Paul

Kopp is part of the whole thing. I just happened upon this paragraph from Wonkette:

We are getting about a thousand emails daily like this one: “Surely you have found out by now that Governor Palin not only fired an excellent Public Safety Commissioner as part of Troopergate, but in July she appointed a sexual harrasser, Chuck Kopp, as the replacement. Because he lied about it and she didn’t vet him properly, he stepped down after 10 days in the position and was given a $10,000.00 severance deal whereas the man who was fired without notice got nothing. All the documents and proof can be found in the Anchorage Daily News.” [12]

We don't need to cite Wonkette for any of these facts, because all the proof is indeed available elsewhere. I give this passage as an example of how the Monegan and Kopp issues are related. Besides, if Kopp weren't in this section, he'd have to be in the article somewhere. The governor appointed a Public Safety Commissioner who resigned in scandal after two weeks. That's a significant event in her administration. JamesMLane t c 09:33, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

ja such things tend to get mentioned per say Boris_Johnson#Staff_appointments.17:24, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I'll agree to Kopp deserving mention. Yet his sentence is crammed right in the middle of a flawed description of the Monegan investigation. How about using the last, non-scrubbed, proper-timeline version of the paragraph shown above, with this added to the end:

Palin chose Kenai police chief Charles M. Kopp to replace Monegan. He took the position on July 11, 2008 and resigned two-weeks later, on July 25, after it was revealed that he had received a letter of reprimand for sexual harassment in his previous position.[92][93

216.170.33.149 (talk) 16:55, 4 September 2008 (UTC) Paul

The section was edited to put things in chrono order. That's usually a good idea but in this case it stuck the Kopp paragraph into the middle of the Monegan discussion. I moved Kopp to the end, someone else moved it back into the middle, and it's now stuck there because of the protection. Actually, the protected version is even worse than what was in place before, because there's not even a paragraph break between Kopp's resignation and the Legislature's investigation re Monegan. Still, this is less serious than the elimination of the well-sourced reference to Palin's initial false statement. JamesMLane t c 17:17, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the Kopp note chronologically falls in the midst of the events of the Monegan issue, and again I agree with you that logically, placed there, it is a bad fit. The article reads better with the Kopp reference at the end of the paragraph.

My chronological gripe remains that, as written, the article implies that Palin was the first to initiate an investigation, when the Anchorage Daily News clearly reports that her probe was a result of hearing of the legislature's probe. As written, it also implies she admitted that pressure had been applied from her office prior to the State probe. And yes, someone pulled out the fact that she initially denied that there had been any pressure, which is a huge aspect of this story. It should read: 1)Palin denied there was any pressure, 2)State launches probe, 3)Palin launches probe, and 4)Palin admits pressure occured. The sources already referenced clearly support that timeline of events. The fact that there turned out to be two-dozen contacts from Palin's office regarding Wooten, after she had claimed there were none, is also pertinent to factually filling-out this story.

Removing five words in the name of "this is a summary", when those five words are "Initially, Palin denied..." and "two-dozen calls" has little effect upon the brevity of this section. It does however remove key facts and render the summary hollow, and, in my opinion, biased.

216.170.33.149 (talk) 18:38, 4 September 2008 (UTC) Paul

editprotected ro remove "ibid."

{{editprotected}} Please edit the article to replace the lone occurrence of <ref>Ibid.</ref> with <ref name="nytimes090208" /> instead, getting rid of a deprecated use of the term "ibid." -- Boracay Bill (talk) 03:26, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

 Done BJ^Talk 03:28, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Roll Call starting

Soon the article will have to be changed to get rid of presumptive stuff. Hobartimus (talk) 03:32, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

 Done Ronnotel (talk) 03:47, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I've removed the hidden comment that asked editors not to remove the word presumptive. - auburnpilot talk 04:09, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

"about regarding"

This article presently includes the words "about regarding." Please delete one or the other. Otherwise, it's nonsensical. Thanks.Ferrylodge (talk) 04:00, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

 Done BJ^Talk 04:05, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

"She is expected to be nominated"

This ought to be changed to "She was nominated." Thanks.Ferrylodge (talk) 04:28, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

 Done Happyme22 (talk) 04:41, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Technically, not yet, as far as I can tell. If not, it's a technicality that will fix itself today. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 10:24, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Small Factual Error Re: Float Plane Owner

According to the official FAA Airmen and Aircraft Registration databases, Sarah Palin is not listed as a licensed pilot. Todd Palin is registered pilot with a current medical certificate and is separately listed as the registered owner of a Piper PA-18-150. There is no indication in this source as to whether this is a float plane or not. (Though this aircraft is capable of such a modification and it would make sense in Alaska.) Scottwrites (talk) 04:45, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Why is owning a floatplane worth mentioning anyway? In Alaska floatplanes are very common. I don't think it belongs in the article, even if she were the owner. Request deletion. -Exucmember (talk) 18:02, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

This tidbit has actually been discussed before, and apparently she does own the plane even though she can't fly it. However, I have no objection to removing the detail from the article. --ThaddeusB (talk) 19:12, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Census Bureau on Wasilla population

As of July 1, 2007, the most current Census Bureau population figure for Wasilla, Alaska is 9,780. http://www.census.gov/popest/cities/tables/SUB-EST2007-04-02.xls This means that Wasilla is now the 4th largest city in Alaska after Anchorage, Fairbanks, and Juneau. Next time an admin edits, it would be sensible to change the much lower number indicated in the article.--Sturmde (talk) 04:46, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

The town has grown greatly in the past few years. It makes more sense to give the population at the time she was mayor, with a "then" in there someplace. PhGustaf (talk) 05:34, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree with PhGustaf. Conveniently, the 2000 Census occurred during her term, and that number is also more reliable than the between-Census estimates. While we're at fixing up that sentence, the primary rendering of the city's distance from Anchorage should be in miles. That Anchorage is a port is irrelevant. I suggest: "The city of Wasilla, located 42 miles (68 km) north of Anchorage, had a population of 5,469 in the 2000 Census." JamesMLane t c 06:39, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Agreed with PhGustaf and JamesMLane.--Happysomeone (talk) 00:49, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Edit request - whitespace in PSC dismissal

{{editprotected}} Remove extra whitespace in "Public Safety Commissioner dismissal". Kelly ^hi! 04:47, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

 Done BJ^Talk 04:50, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

"Palin would be the second"

Should be "Palin is the second." Thanks.Ferrylodge (talk) 04:50, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

 Done BJ^Talk 05:00, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Political positions section is too short

She does not attribute global warming to being man-made. QuackGuru 05:02, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

That is mentioned in Political positions of Sarah Palin. Kelly ^hi! 05:03, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

It can be mentioned in both articles. QuackGuru 05:05, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

The paragraph here is just a summary. Kelly ^hi! 05:08, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

At this point, the political positions section is too short. We can include a bit more information. See WP:SUMMARY. QuackGuru 05:28, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

It's all right the way it is now. See the "political positions" section in Joe Biden, which is about the same length, if not shorter. Kelly ^hi! 05:31, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

It is NOT alright as it is now. There, two to one. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 05:41, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

The length is appropriate, this is a SUMMARY, the reader HAS the ability to make a single click to a highly visible link, where they get the whole article on political positions. Hobartimus (talk) 06:31, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

NOT long enough.--Happysomeone (talk) 00:50, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Pro-creationism

Her creationism position must be in the article. It lasted in there for days, and nobody complained about it, just modified the wording. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 05:21, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

That is also mentioned on the political positions page. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 05:24, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes. Look here: Political positions of Sarah Palin#Education and creationism.--Paul (talk) 05:34, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Why even have any text in that section if no actual political positions are there? See my proposal below. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 05:40, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

It seems to be the generally accepted style for political candidates - it was discussed a few days ago, but it probably in the archives somewhere now. Kelly ^hi! 05:43, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Not true, and Palin's is especially short on facts. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 06:09, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

If you have a problem with our editing guideline related to splitting and summarization, the village pump is open to you to make a proposal to change them. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 06:17, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

A featured article has a balanced political positions section.Barack Obama#Political positions The current version for this article fails to meet WP:GA status. QuackGuru 06:24, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

The summary is unbalanced, that has nothing to do with guidelines on splitting. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 07:00, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. zredsox (talk) 12:35, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Removal of political positions section

In one edit User:ThaddeusB removed basically all of Palin's political positions and replaced it with pablum. I propose that rather than arguing about what to put back, for the moment the rest of the section be removed so that readers will just click through to the Political positions of Sarah Palin. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 05:38, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

No, the summary is appropriate. See the "Political positions" section in Joe Biden or Barack Obama or John McCain. Kelly ^hi! 05:42, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

The political positions section should be restored. The current version is a stub. QuackGuru 05:44, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Biden's seems too short to me. McCain's and Obama's say a lot. Look, she has undisputed political positions; the current "summary" is either too short or too Pro-Palin. It is easier just to remove it; so far only Kelly likes it. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 05:50, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

The proposal has only been here a few minutes, you might want to give the consensus a little time. :) Kelly ^hi! 05:52, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Approve of the short summary as per, omg, WP:SUMMARY. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 06:15, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm not going to comment but I think this is a change that could wait until after the unprotection. BJ^Talk 05:55, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

You know, the article has room to say "(playing the flute)" in the Miss Wasilla Pageant, but no room to say that she is for allowing debate on creationism and evolution in public schools. A Google News search turns up 1,049 hits for 'Palin creationism' but only 87 for 'Palin flute'. 06:03, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

A featured article has a very well written political positions section.Barack Obama#Political positions This article would easily fail to be a WP:GA because of the very short political positions section. QuackGuru 06:04, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

This article could also easily fail to be a Good Article due to being fully protected, but arguing that is simply trying to make a WP:POINT. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 06:24, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Your comment is disruptive. QuackGuru 06:26, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually this was discussed and nobody had a problem with it when all the fury was going on with the article editing, as what previously was there was a horrendous violation of about 3 policies so the change was definitely an improvement at the time. There is always room for improvement but there is no reason why the section should dominate the biography. Hobartimus (talk) 06:28, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Its rather ironic that someone who does not wish to follow Wikipedia's editing guidelines is suggesting that pointing out a silly argument based on "but that article has one!!!!1111one" fallacies is gamey. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 06:31, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Nobody is saying the section should dominate the biography. See Barack Obama#Political positions section for an article that reached featured article status. QuackGuru 06:38, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Wow, his political positions section DOES dominate his biography. This is exactly what we should avoid. Articles are split off for a reason. Then again his campaign is the only thing he does have to show as an accomplishment. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 06:41, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I guess we'll have no problem figuring out where your political affiliations lie, huh? Phlegm Rooster (talk) 06:56, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

More than 50 percent of his article is directly related to this political campaign. Says something, doesn't it? Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 07:02, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Not really. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 07:06, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Agree. This section is borderline fluff. Where are the positions? Erik Veland (talk) 07:01, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Political positions of Sarah Palin which is linked from the section. Surf on over. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 07:03, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Summary is unbalanced. That is all. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 07:08, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Summarily removing the entire summary is pointless. If you want to balance it, suggest a better summary. Any summary is better than none. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 07:13, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Current summary is indeed fluff and is indeed unbalanced. For example, the current version says she "backed ethics reform measures that passed the Legislature" -- pretty meaningless, no one is against "ethics reform measures" but the devil is in the details. This version doesn't mention her ardent support for drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, which was the only context in which I'd heard of her before the VP speculation started.

More generally, the incessant invocation of the existence of the separate article is misguided. When material is spun off into a daughter article there must be a reasonable summary in the original article. JamesMLane t c 07:13, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

It seems a few editors don't want a balanced and quality written Political positions section for this article. Are they ashamed of her positions? See a featured article for how it can be done. QuackGuru 07:18, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I see a lot of name calling and debate but as far as I see, nobody suggested a better summary yet. Hobartimus (talk) 07:32, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

This older version is somewhat too long but would be better than what we have now. We'd get to a good summary more readily by trimming that one. Incidentally, that's not necessarily the best version in the history; I just randomly grabbed one of the acceptable versions. JamesMLane t c 07:43, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

That version wasn't even a summary at all. The reason for changing it was exactly that the old one was so bad in format and styling (list format in an article, constant use of bolding etc). Hobartimus (talk) 08:02, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I am appalled at the state of the "political positions" summary. If you are going to have a summary, you need to have balance. Currently (sans half a sentence) it reads like a campaign copy. zredsox (talk) 12:52, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I would suggest beefing up both Biden's and Palin's summaries so that they both actually give the reader a very brief overview that's balanced and fair. -Exucmember (talk) 18:09, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Association with Car Wash Necessary?

Is this necessary or valid?

Palin also had a 20% ownership in an Anchorage car wash business, according to state corporation records filed in 2004. Palin failed to report her stake in the company when running for governor in 2006; in April 2007, the state issued a "certificate of involuntary dissolution" because of the company's failure to file its biennial report and pay state licensing fees.[17]

Checking the source, it doesn't give any more information than is in the wikipedia article. The current phrasing makes it sound as though she committed a crime not disclosing the car wash when there are a number of other possibilities, such as they sold their stake in the interim between 2004 and 2006 or that by 2006 the car wash had been shut down, which would explain the dissolution and lack of subsequent reports. Skits2 (talk) 05:59, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

btw, she has a business license under the name "Rouge Cou", which means Red Neck in French. Pure class, I tell you. I didn't know this lady a week ago, but woo-hoo, she and her family should be a reality show...they're a hoot! t1n0 —Preceding unsigned comment added by T1n0 (talk • contribs) 06:06, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

She has a sense of humor. One of her good points, imho. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 06:16, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

No, trivial. The only relevant part is that she owns part of a car wash, which we might work in somewhere in a discussion of her professional activities outside of politics if it's at least slightly notable. We can work in the joke name as a harmless piece of non-notable trivia if it fits and can be done neutrally, but the matter of receiving a routine notice for failing to file routine corporate forms is below trivial. Wikidemon (talk) 06:22, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Agree with Wikidemo(n) basicly. Hobartimus (talk) 08:52, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

There is no evidence that a business license under the name "Roque Cou" has ever been issued by the state of Alaska according to the Alaska Department of Commerce websiteMdoneil (talk) 00:13, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Slightly relevant, but only if it can be added gracefully. Corpx (talk) 06:34, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Even now, someone somewhere is creating a video with clips of Palin underscored by the "Car Wash (film)" theme. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 11:45, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

The car wash, Anchorage Car Wash LLC, was registered by Carolin L. Wells on May 5, 2004. The establishment of the LLC is public record and may be found at the Alaska Corporations, Business and Professional Licensing website Alaska Limited Liability Companies are required to register annually. Alaska Sec. 10.50.430. Articles of dissolution notes that a LLC may file Articles of dissolution. The term may is not interpereted to require that such Articles be filed. There is no evidence that the LLC was not dissolved by the members. Insofar as evidence of the existance of the LLC at the time of filing financial disclosure forms for those seeking public office in Alaska is not established it may not be assumed that the LLC existed at that time. There cannot be a failure to disclose an intrest in an entity that does not exist. The presumption that the LLC does not exist is evidenced by no filing with the State of Alaska for the calendar year in question a registration or renewal of Anchorage Car Wash LLC's registration.Mdoneil (talk) 00:03, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Comment. Original research aside, the question for us really is: Have journalists thought this subject to be important enough to discuss in the media? According to Wikipedia standards of verifiability and notability, the answer is yes. According to a LexisNexis database search of the nationwide media, the car wash linkage was notable enough to be discussed on multiple occasions by major media outlets (see "Car wash" section below). Provided that it is properly sourced (currently it is not) and it is worded in a NPOV manner, I see nothing wrong with its inclusion. Regards, J Readings (talk) 00:11, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Why has Sarah Palin's stand on abortion been deleted?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/09/01/palin-on-abortion-id-oppo_n_122924.html

I demand this be restored. We have a right to know and to make informed opinions.

Let me give an over-elaborate answer, it may come in handy later. There are two likely reasons for the absence or presence of a fact:
A: Due to our open editing model, good articles on high-profile recent events are created by having a huge mess and a fair few fights as the whole inches towards quality. Efficient? Heck no. Effective? Yes. This article is still very much in flux, and we cannot keep track of what is and isn't included at any given moment. Things will stabilize with time, and such problems will disappear.
B: This is a BLP article, or a Biography of a Living Person. The rules on such things add up to saying that we should be right bastards with sources, especially for controversial statements, because doing otherwise would make us even bigger bastards to the people the articles are about. This poses some interesting philosophical questions, but is the only workable way on dealing with such articles. Such problems also tend to be temporary as activity decreases and freshly discovered facts receive more media attention.

You can rest easily in knowing that we're already committed to factual accuracy - there's no need to "demand" us anything. Also, in your particular case the abortion stand isn't in this article because it's been moved to the article Political positions of Sarah Palin, where the topic can be covered better than here. So the above paragraphs were completely unnecessary, but I'm hoping that you'll benefit from some info on our mechanics and that other people can co-opt my text to answer similar questions. --Kizor 06:59, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Nominee today?

If I'm not mistaken, she's still the presumptive nominee until tomorrow, right? Oren0 (talk) 06:46, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I believe she's already the nominee as she accepted it today Lajolla2009 (talk) 07:40, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

It is still written Presumptive in the succession box at the bottom so that is not that much resolved. Hektor (talk) 12:31, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

 Done Ronnotel (talk) 12:38, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Do we have actual documentation that Palin was nominated for vice president? They said she was nominated by voice vote, but it was never reported, and it certainly hasn't been sourced on Wikipedia. SchutteGod (talk) 14:19, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Sandbox

I suggest we start a sandbox for article development. QuackGuru 07:45, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

It is a good idea but I'd suggest a different sandbox for every major section change so they can be merged one by one. BJ^Talk 07:52, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

As suggested, a proposed summary

How about this; the article's sectiom on political positions be returned to roughly where it was before, minus the ugly miniheaders. I trimmed some things, and I grouped things together by topic; pro-life, pro death penalty, gay material, science material, 2nd amendment, foreign policy. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 07:50, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

In 2002, while running for lieutenant governor, Palin called herself as "pro-life as any candidate can be." She opposes abortion in cases of rape and incest, supporting it only in cases where the mother's life is in danger, and suggested that requiring parental consent for abortions be added to Alaska's constitution. Palin is a member of Feminists for Life. A 2006 article in the Anchorage Daily News refers to Palin as supportive of contraception but does not go into detail. She is a "firm supporter of abstinence-only education in schools", saying, "explicit sex-ed programs will not find my support".

Palin supports capital punishment for some crimes. "If the legislature passed a death penalty law, I would sign it. We have a right to know that someone who rapes and murders a child or kills an innocent person in a drive-by shooting will never be able to do that again."

Palin opposes same-sex marriage and supported a non-binding referendum for a constitutional amendment to deny state health benefits to same-sex couples. Palin has stated that she supported the 1998 constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage.

Redundant yet incomplete. I would go with:

Palin opposes same-sex marriage and supported a non-binding referendum for a constitutional amendment to deny state health benefits to same-sex couples. However, Palin subsequently vetoed a bill that would have denied the benefits. Freedom Fan (talk) 08:16, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

In this summary, we don't have room to explain that she had no choice but to veto that bill, so it can hardly be said to be a 'position'. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 08:21, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Good point. Because we don't have adequate space to explain her positions fully, let's leave this entire section out. Just reference the separate Wikipedia article which fully explains her positions. Lose the redundant, incomplete material in this section. Freedom Fan (talk) 15:26, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

In a televised debate in 2006, Palin said she supported teaching both creationism and evolution in public schools. She clarified her position the next day, saying that if a debate of alternative views arose in class she would not want its discussion prohibited. She added that she would not push the state Board of Education to add creation-based alternatives to the state's required curriculum. Palin does not believe that global warming is human-caused. Palin opposed federal listing of the polar bear as an endangered species on the grounds that the "population has dramatically increased over 30 years as a result of conservation," and supported a controversial predator-control program involving aerial hunting of wolves to increase moose populations for hunters.

• The supplied reference for "control program involving aerial hunting of wolves to increase moose populations for hunters" does not back up that 1) Palin supports it nor 2) that the reason is to increase moose populations for hunters. This is an unsupported POV-pushing factoid that trivializes the bigger questions of wildlife management in Alaska. This should be removed from the summary.--Paul (talk) 13:09, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Palin, a long-time member of the National Rifle Association, strongly supports its interpretation of the Second Amendment as protecting individual rights to bear arms, including handguns. She also supports gun safety education for youth.

Palin's foreign policy positions were unclear at the time she was picked as McCain's running mate. When asked for her views about troop escalations in Iraq, she replied "…while I support our president, Condoleezza Rice and the administration, I want to know that we have an exit plan in place…"

Support. Seems fairly straight-forward. Due to points below, I rescind my support. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 07:57, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I'll stop finding little wisps of text to trim. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 08:00, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

The foregoing would certainly be a vast improvement over the wrong version that was protected. Per my comment a few threads up, though, I'd suggest adding her support for drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. It's an important national issue but it's an order of magnitude more important for an Alaska politician. JamesMLane t c 08:01, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

It says it elsewhere in the Energy section. I took out the pot-smoking too, for the same reason. Please, lets just get it back to the way it was before. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 08:04, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I support this balanced version. QuackGuru 08:10, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

It has some redundancy as well as trivial info. Political position on polar bears really? That should be included in a biography of a person what they think of polar bears? Also in many places this is not a proper summary it goes into needless detail in places and overall much too long. The summary of political positions should be the same length as in the Joe Biden article the other candidate for VP exactly b/c it's a summary. I oppose this until it's cut down to the same length as the section in the Biden article. Hobartimus (talk) 08:31, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

It also curiously leaves out almost all text from the previous version, such wholesale deletion of established text I don't think would be easy to implement if the article were not protected and freely editable. Hobartimus (talk) 08:38, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

One editor took out the text and replaced it, so it did not grow organically. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 09:38, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I generally support this version but suggest removing the polar bear position which although clearly relevant to her support of Arctic drilling is already in the energy section. 194.83.141.23 (talk) 08:39, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Not everyone will read the whole article. Some readers will just go to the political positions section for a quick take, and won't know that there's additional relevant information elsewhere. It won't kill us to have one sentence like: "She supports drilling for oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and opposes the listing of polar bears as a threatened species." JamesMLane t c 08:43, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

One could argue for the removal of the polar bear material from the energy section, once we get the bulk of the summary back in. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 09:38, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose this summary Her political positions are defined by her own statements when running for governor, and her statements in this political campaign. Left out of the above is her opposition to corruption, inefficiency in government, and domestic drilling. This summary is simply a caricature, cherry picking a few positions that identify her as a social conservative. patsw (talk) 11:53, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

• Is there any politician not "opposed to corruption and inefficiency in government". That's just useless fluff. And I don't understand, "opposed to...domestic drilling?" Based on what?--Appraiser (talk) 13:41, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

• • Can you please suggest additional points to be added along with reliably-sourced references to back them up?--Paul (talk) 12:59, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Those fall rather into the category of policies, not political positions, but you can add that to the summary, I suppose. As for "cherry picking", there really is nothing else known about her political positions. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 13:28, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
    • Drilling now added. T0mpr1c3 (talk) 13:21, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
• Approve this summary This at least has some substance and balance. zredsox (talk) 13:01, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

• I have edited to make it like 'bullet points'. The context and quotes are in "Political positions" after all. T0mpr1c3 (talk) 13:43, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

• It's really odd that the section only addresses hot-button social wedge issues, and doesn't say anything about more pedestrian stuff like fiscal policy. This is also a problem in Political positions of Sarah Palin - looks like nobody has really researched and written about her positions on stuff like that. I'll try to come up with something over at that article when I have time, and we can bring the summary over here. Any help would be greatly appreciated. Kelly ^hi! 14:26, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

No doubt she will be making further statements in the near future. But in the meantime how about bringing back the sentence from the 'pablum' about reform being a major part of her previous electoral campaigns. T0mpr1c3 (talk) 14:47, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Being that her claim to be a reform candidate is so widely disputed [13], it would not be appropriate to add. Also, Reform is not actually a position per say, but rather a euphemism.zredsox (talk) 15:24, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

"When Dr. Johnson defined patriotism as the last refuge of a scoundrel, he ignored the enormous possibilities of the word reform." —Roscoe Conkling :) MastCell ^Talk 16:10, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I strongly object to summarizing all her positions in the main article. If we are going to do that, let's just merge the sub-article back into this one. This section should be a summary of her political philosophy. I fully acknowledge that my summary wasn't perfect but rejecting it wholesale - despite precedence in other similar articles and reasonable support for the idea of a summary if just wrong. Incidentally, my original did have criticism of her - it just got edited out.

Either merge the whole thing back in or allow a summary without ANY specifics. --ThaddeusB (talk) 17:34, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

• Strongly object to the summary and the way it was put in ,this was put in by user:Phlegm Rooster without proper discussion, where he used the fact that the page was wheel warred to a temporary unprotection at a time when the proposal was still under debate the same day it was first proposed. This was questionable editing since the Phelgm first proposed the text at 7:50 and he inserted it 12:52, he inserted it under the false edit summary "This garnered a good deal of consensus on the talk page during the hiatus" at the time of the insertion already at least 2 editors opposed the summary after only 5 hours and 2 minutes of total discussion TIME before insertion. This should be reverted as an abusive byproduct of the wheel warring over the protection of the article. Hobartimus (talk) 00:13, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Footnote 36

Resolved

 – GRBerry 11:13, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Fn 36 (relating to her run for Lt. Gov.) has the same web link twice. Coemgenus 11:03, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

A protected page? To whom? From whom?

Take a look at the diff since the page was protected. Is there any Wikipedia precedent for this amount on editing on a protected page? patsw (talk) 11:45, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

GRberry is an administrator. His edits there were pretty much simple copyeditting and MOS changes. Nothing to see there. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 12:07, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

That characterization of the level of editing on the page when it was allegedly protected is inaccurate. The editing was substantial and not limited to copyediting and MOS changes. patsw (talk) 13:13, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Looking at the diff that was provided, and ignoring cases where the software miscalculates what has and hasn't changed, I saw two substantive changes that fall outside of copyediting, MOS changes, and technical updates (for example, Palin is no longer the presumptive nominee, and the article was so changed). Those two were:

• A significant revision to the "Public Safety Commissioner dismissal" section (beginning at line 191), including removing this (sourced) statement "Initially, Palin denied that there had been any such pressure, either from her or from anyone else in her administration."

• Removal, in the "External links" section, of one link, which was to the politico.com website: 64-page annotated and referenced document of positions Palin has taken during her political career

Article is now unprotected. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 12:37, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Protection_downgraded. Unprotection was against clear consensus and as soon as the rest of the USA wakes up, we're right back to the insanity of yesterday, especially as the convention was yesterday AND the Enquirer story is coming out today or tomorrow. rootology (C)(T) 13:23, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

The moment anything untoward starts happening full protection can be restored, unless jossi plans on taking 24/7 responsibility for monitoring everything. WilyD 13:37, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I've restored the protection based on consensus and accompanying rationale - I think we need to talk this through before a unilateral action is taken on this one. Fritzpoll (talk) 13:59, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I didn't want to be part of a tug of war, so I was content to wait to impliment a new protection rather than restore the old one. But I'll endorse it for whatever it's worth. WilyD 14:04, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Normally, I'd agree, but in this case, the unprotection came in the middle of a discussion endorsing protection. Under those circumstances, I felt it was worth reversing until a fuller discussion could be had. Fritzpoll (talk) 14:07, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Here is the diff (as of 12:30 ET on 9/4) of this article so-called-protected from editing. I guess I'm not in the "I get to edit Sarah Palin club". patsw (talk) 16:43, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Due to inappropriate edits, the vast majority of wikipedians aren't in that club. It isn't a big deal. Instructions for getting an edit done are available from the protection warning, I believe. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 17:04, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Instructions for getting an edit done are not in a sufficiently obvious place for editors not already familiar with the process. I'd suggest this be made more clear, especially for the sake of neutral editors not accustomed to pages with this high level of problems. -Exucmember (talk) 18:23, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Palin's ethnicity: Alaskan Native/Native American?

I want to find reliable sources on Sarah Palin is of American Indian or Alaskan Native ancestry. She stated about her family roots are Irish and German with a previous family history in Canada and Alaska, but how come the news media added part Inuit (Eskimo) and/or Salish Indian to her ethnic origin/genealogical roots? I'm skeptical but she said in the RNC vice presidential nomination speech on her husband Todd is of Inuit or Alaskan Native ancestry as well.

I guess this is part of her increasingly mythological personality and political career Sarah Palin has made, but I kept uncovering and finding many claims about her aren't true. This is an often revised wikipedia article full of unverified, falsified, exaggerated and mythological facts or information about a suddenly popular politican not expected to be selected as John McCain's running mate at the first place. Now is it true she and her husband Todd may be members of American Indian tribes through lineage?

Everyday, there's a new useless fact on the article about Sarah Palin to further make her some sort of modern day American legend, whether she was a school varsity sports athlete or a former beauty queen, a TV sportscaster or a mayor of a small town in Alaska, a Pentecostal minister or a school tutor, Palin lives in a home without household staff and she's a skilled hunter with NRA membership, how she chose to keep her newborn baby boy with Down's syndrome and she's gonna be a grandmother when her 17 year old daughter announced she's pregnant, and whether or not she's from Alaska or the US-Canadian border but she's eligible to run for vice president.+ 71.102.10.169 (talk) 11:50, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

• Todd is the one with Inuit blood. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 11:52, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

most those facts aren't useless, some are untrue, but they aren't useless. Rds865 (talk) 15:15, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Palin's churches and pastors

Palin’s religious affiliations and beliefs are the subject of intense scrutiny by the national media. And not merely the left wing media. USA Today, MSNBC, the Associated Press. Also the Wall Street Jorunal and the New York sun which are not left of center papers. Yesterday, articles on her churches, Wasilla Assembly of God, Wasilla Bible Church and her pastors Larry Kroon and Ed Kalnins were deleted after AFDs that were up for less than 24 hours. These articles ought to be restored, improved, monitored, and expanded. These are real and important topics. We are choosing a President. The beliefs of a woman with non-negligible odds of becomein President are relevant. Here are the first few entries on today’s News google, I searched Wasilla Assembly of God. It is not a mere incidental mention. These are articles about her church, pastors and beliefs. There are many more today. It does not require a crystal ball to know that there will be more in the coming days.

Pentecostalism obscured in Palin biography By ERIC GORSKI and RACHEL ZOLL – 5 hours ago ST. PAUL, Minn. (AP) — Sarah Palin often identifies herself simply as Christian. Associated Press [14]

Palin's Faith Is Seen In Church Upbringing By SUZANNE SATALINE September 4, 2008; Page A6 , Wall Street JOurnal [15]

Palin's former minister comes under scrutiny Updated 11h 37m ago

By Robert Stern, USA Today

[16]

Editorial of The New York Sun | September 4, 2008 New York Sun, United States [17]

Palin: Iraq war 'a task that is from God' The Associated Press - 10 hours ago [18]

The Palin church video MSNBC - Sep 2, 2008 [19]

Palin Asks for Prayers that War be "Task from God" Washington Post, United States - Sep 2, 2008

A Visit to Palin’s Church Newsweek - Sep 2, 2008

US troops in Iraq on 'task from God': Palin The Standard, Hong Kong - 10 hours ago

Elan26 (talk) 12:39, 4 September 2008 (UTC)Elan26

• Comment It's covered pretty well, other editors have noted that the other candidates don't have a Religion section at all. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 13:17, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

All over but the shoutin'

So far, nothing but good faith edits since the protection level was dropped. Still, I hope that any major changes are discussed on the talk page before being implemented. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 13:22, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Protection back up but I hope my edits in the meantime can be considered neutral. T0mpr1c3 (talk) 14:11, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Religion section: too newsy?

The second paragraph of the current Religion section (under Personal life), the one starting "In June 2008", is merely a list of statements of hers which came from very particular one-off contexts, as well as a statement from McCain's staff that she disagrees with someones else's similar one-off statement. I have no serious objection to this on BLP or even RS (where they are actually cited) grounds, but feel this information is way too newsy for an article like this. A better option would be a (sourced) statement saying something to the effect that her faith/beliefs/whatever sometimes (or other qualification, if any) inform her policy opinions, or something to that effect. Let's discuss in lieu of unprotection. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 13:42, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like you are looking for a source which makes some judgment on her beliefs and how they might color her leadership. It's going to be hard to find a good source for something like that that doesn't come off too biased. Sticking to the facts seems like the best way to go with this information for now.--Rtphokie (talk) 18:49, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, if poorly done I would not want it included, either. I would prefer to find some quality material here, but in lieu of that it would seem better to remove those snippets completely, on account of the nonencyclopedic tone. Sorry for not being more explicit. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 19:20, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Sarah Palin and Special Education

2008 cuts made by Sarah Palin in special needs services to children in Alaska of 5,109,300 , or 62%.

Special Education Service Agency (SESA)

2007 annual budget which preceded Gov. Palin was $8,265,300. http://www.gov.state.ak.us/omb/07_OMB/budget/EED/comp2735.pdf 2008 annual budget enacted by Gov. Palin is $3,156,000. http://www.gov.state.ak.us/omb/08_OMB/budget/EED/comp2735.pdf 2009 annual budget enacted by Gov. Palin is $3,156,000. http://www.gov.state.ak.us/omb/09_OMB/budget/EED/comp2735.pdf

Sept 4 2008, Gsmith

Got an WP:RS for that? Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 13:48, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

• That's bogus, the difference relates to funding for the Alaska Challenge Youth Academy Program whose budget was moved into another category from 2008 onwards. 194.83.141.23 (talk) 14:36, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Those are primary sources; we can't do OR on budgets. Not "shouldn't"-can't; "can't"-can't. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 18:21, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Bare ref

Could an admin remove the bare ref template in the Religion section, the third cite for the Jews for Jesus event? It's not parsing in the footnote section, and the content has three other working refs. Thanks. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 13:46, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I see the whole incident was removed. I concur with that. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 13:54, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Fix refs in religion section

Perhaps the admin who protected this page in the middle of me trying to edit it would like to finish my edits. Current refs #118 and #119 should respectively be updated to the following:

<ref>{{cite web |title=Statement Concerning Sarah Palin |url=http://www.jccalaska.com/images/10000/3000/582JU/user/palin.htm |publisher=Juneau Christian Center |date=2008-09-03 |accessdate=2008-09-04}}</ref>

<ref>{{cite web |first=David |last=Pepper |title=Regarding Governor Palin: A Letter from Pastor David Pepper |url=http://churchontherockak.org/Regarding-Sarah-Palin.html |publisher=Church on the Rock |accessdate=2008-09-04}}</ref>

Thank you, Joshdboz (talk) 14:03, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

• This seems uncontraversial, so I've fixed it. WilyD 14:06, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Resolved.

Much appreciated. Joshdboz (talk) 14:21, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Palin's veto of funding of center for teenage mothers

I added this impeccably sourced[20] and germaine material:

The Washington Post reported that in April 2008, Palin, "who revealed Monday that her 17-year-old daughter is pregnant, earlier this year used her line-item veto to slash funding for a state program benefiting teen mothers in need of a place to live."<ref name="wapost_teenmom_veto">{{cite news | first = Paul | last = Kane | url = http://voices.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/09/02/palin_slashed_funding_to_help.html?hpid=artslot | title = Palin Slashed Funding for Teen Moms | publisher = [[Washington Post]] | date = 2008-09-02 | accessdate = 2008-09-04}}</ref> Palin also opposed funding to prevent teen pregnancies.<ref name="wapost_teenmom_veto" />

...only to see it removed 3 minutes later with an assuming-bad-faith edit summary ("obvious agenda driven POV pushing") that raised no substantive objections to the material (in terms of NPOV, VER, BLP etc.). While I agree that mention of Palin's own daughter in this context would be original research if done by a WP editor, the source itself makes mention of Palin's daughter. I see no problem at all with this material, so I'm restoring it, and caution the editor who deleted it against violating policy by removing properly-sourced and -weighted material. The fact that it may not be flattering to Palin is entirely irrelevant, as I hope everyone realizes. --Comesincolors2 (talk) 14:43, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Line-item vetoing is certainly relevant and should be under the Budget section. However, obviously the WaPo was expressing some sort of opinion by linking these particular vetoes with her daughter's pregnancy. Her opposition to these programs might fit well in Political_positions_of_Sarah_Palin#Abortion_and_sex_education, and the overall 2008 budget bills should be included in the main article. Joshdboz (talk) 14:48, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually I put it in "Budget" yesterday and it was taken down for "undue weight". And on balance, I have to agree with that. T0mpr1c3 (talk) 14:58, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

National Enquirer rumour

I’d like to bring up the question about the controversy over the National Enquirer affair rumour again. The arguments against seemed to fall into two categories: 1. the rumour has to be verified first 2. it hasn’t received enough coverage in reliable sources yet.

1. is irrelevant since it’s not the rumour that should be covered but the controversy it is causing. 2., however, is a valid argument, so the question then is how much coverage we need before it’s notable enough for inclusion? There’s a selection above of sources, and it has now caused even the international media to pay attention (see The Daily Telegraph). Also, the McCain campaign has threatened legal action against NE, thus choosing to make this an issue themselves.

I don’t wanna add this unilaterally and risk an edit war, but I would like to hear if anyone has some substantial, policy-based ideas about what the tipping-point is. Lampman (talk) 14:31, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

The National Enquirer ?????!! The same folks that say aliens have landed??? NOT a reliable source.... sorry. --CanadianLinuxUser (talk) 14:34, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

No where near a reliable source. Chrislk02 ^{Chris Kreider} 14:35, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Only will be added if it turns out like the John Edwards Story, meaning the MSM verifies it. Joshdboz (talk) 14:38, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that is in-line with the BLP policy. Rds865 (talk) 15:22, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Wow, did anybody actually read the entry I wrote? Let's try again, slowly: no-one's saying NE is a reliable source, but the McCain campaign has threatened legal action against them for printing unsubstantiated rumours. This is a fact widely reported in the mainstream media, I don't think there's any doubt about that. And once more: whether or not the rumour is verified is irrelevant, since it's not the rumour but the surrounding controversy that's the issue. The Lewinsky scandal went on for seven months before Clinton admitted to the affair, and in the meantime there was a grand jury investigation of a sitting president. If that were today, surely we shouldn't have to wait until Clinton made his admission or the grand jury reached its verdict before reporting on it at all? Is it really so hard to grasp the difference between reporting a rumour and reporting on the surrounding controversy?

Does anybody have any valid arguments, or should I explain it again? Would my meaning come through clearer if I used more question marks??????? Lampman (talk) 15:37, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Seems a bit like bootstrapping to me. Rumors are banned, but people talking about the rumor is ok? That doesn't make a lot of sense. Coemgenus 15:48, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Based on the track record of the records in this case, I would suggest that we take the most conservative move and NOT include these rumors per BLP. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 15:58, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

As above, the basic argument against including the rumor is simple and stems from the biographies of living persons policy. This is a rumor. Some mainstream sources have noted that the rumor exists, but it is still a rumor which no reliable source is willing to stake their name or reputation on. That is a huge red flag. Wikipedia, quite simply, is not a tabloid nor a vehicle for disseminating rumors. Just because something has appeared in the Telegraph or another source does not warrant automatic inclusion here. The relevant part of Wikipedia policy is this: Editors should avoid repeating gossip. Ask yourself whether the source is reliable; whether the material is being presented as true; and whether, even if true, it is relevant to an encyclopedia article about the subject. If the original publication doesn't believe its own story, why should we? MastCell ^Talk 16:05, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I like to think our readers are adults and can handle statements like: "The McCain campaign threatened legal action after the National Enquirer published an unsubstiated report that Palin had an affair many years ago." Given all the media coverage, I'd say a statement like that is just verifable enough to pass BLP. That said, I also think including it right now is rather premature, per WP:NOTNEWS. This feels very news-y and absent something more substantial I would expect the story to basically die as soon as next week's Enquirer is published. If this issue becomes more substantial or shows it has staying power past a couple weeks, I'd reconsider it then. Dragons flight (talk) 16:05, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. This rumor will either pick up traction and verification, or it will die an unlamented death. We're not Wikinews, and we need to get it right. That means waiting for one of these two endpoints before deciding. MastCell ^Talk 16:07, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

BLP isn't technicaly the issue more a case that we should probably be trying to avoid extream recentism.Geni 16:06, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Concur with the bulk of the replies. This project follows, not leads. Keep it out until it picks up reasonable (not just any) traction in reliable sources, then (if?) include prudently per NPOV and especially UNDUE. If at all. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 16:13, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for addressing the issue. The WP:BLP page gives the following example: "A politician is alleged to have had an affair. He denies it, but the New York Times publishes the allegations, and there is a public scandal. The allegation may belong in the biography, citing the New York Times as the source." This clearly shows that, in the case of public figures, rumours do not have to be verified as long as the surrounding controversy is great enough. On the other hand, this case if different since no reliable sources have actually put their weight behind the rumour yet. For that reason I'm not entirely adverse to waiting to see where this goes. Lampman (talk) 16:32, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

There isn't a scandal about it yet... The NE publishing a rumor and the McCain responding to that rumor does not make a scandal... --Bobblehead ^(rants) 16:48, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

This is absurd in assuming that the New York Times can be objective in reporting on scandals on Sarah Palin, or that moments after the rumor appears on nytimes.com, it's greenlit for Wikipedia. patsw (talk) 16:54, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

The Telegraph didn't "publish the accusations". The National Enquirer published the accusations. The Telegraph noted their existence, but explictly declined to put any of their own credibility behind them. I don't see this as fitting the scenario described in WP:BLP. MastCell ^Talk 16:59, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I never said the Telegraph did "publish the accusations"; I believe I point out quite clearly that they did not. I'm simply referring to this section of the policy because it refutes the ridiculous assumption some have that a rumour has to be irrefutably verified before even its media coverage becomes a notable issue. Lampman (talk) 17:15, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I was referring to the snippet of WP:BLP which you quoted; its hypothetical assumes that the New York Times published the allegations, not the Enquirer. MastCell ^Talk 17:18, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Lampman, you're missing the point of the BLP example. The crux of WP:RS is that we only report material that has gone through proper fact-checking. We all agree that NE doesn't meet this bar. The issue is that none of the other sources are reporting this rumor as anything other than "NE said." They're not lending any of their own credibility to it. The only verifiable fact that we have is that a rumor exists in the National Enquirer, and including that in the article is ill-advised and dangerous. This page is likely the most viewed resource on Palin, so it's important that we don't lend undue weight and bootstrap truth into a rumor that has no verifiability to date. It'd be different if you replaced "National Enquirer" with "New York Times". Oren0 (talk) 17:28, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

We're not really disagreeing about this, as I wrote above: "this case if different since no reliable sources have actually put their weight behind the rumour yet." I am not saying the Palin case is identical to this hypothetical situation, again: I was simply trying to dispel the notion that something like this must be proven by the subject admitting to it or by other irrefutable evidence (semen-stained dress?), before even the controversy is a matter worthy of coverage. Several people seem to hold this view, and it is simply a wrong interpretation of BLP.

For precedent see John McCain lobbyist controversy, February 2008, which survived a nomination for deletion. I'd say if a source more reliable than NE actually backs up the story then it's fair game. Until then it might be better to wait. Lampman (talk) 17:43, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

It seems to me that this article is about Ms Palin, not about things people say or rumor about her. Steve Dufour (talk) 17:24, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

[out] Well, it's nice to see that people here are coming out against posting rumors printed in the unreliable source National Enquirer until they are confirmed and/or covered by the mainstream media. It would have been nice if this position was supported more when I took it regarding John Edwards - at the time when the stories were unverified. Including meta-stories about the story. I wouldn't want to think that there was any political bias at work there or here. And, for the record, I oppose including stories a bout a Sarah Palin affair if it is only sourced to the Enquirer as much as I opposed it in the early days when it was regarding Edwards. Tvoz/talk 17:35, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Although I didn't do any editing on Edwards's article I will stand behind my record on defending both Republicans and Democrats from unfair attacks on WP. I'm an Obama Republican BTW. Steve Dufour (talk) 17:48, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry if it looked like I was directing that at you, Steve - I wasn't. I outdented it, hoping to show it was a general comment about the difference between what I was seeing here and what I was fighting against regarding the Edwards affair when it was sourced only to the Enquirer. I know that you weren't in on that debacle. Tvoz/talk 20:49, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

FYI

For all those interested, Palin's 'hometown' (not) newspaper (the Anchorage Daily News, but she lives in WASILLA) is owned by The McClatchy Company, a well known left-wing organization. And, all those criticizing her here, for whatever reasons, are Obama 'kool-aid' drinkers! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.243.212.79 (talk) 22:32, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

For all those interested, the excellent Wikipedia stats page shows this for the month of August: August 29 (2.5M hits), August 30 (1.1M), August 31 (505.9k). Probably the most popular article for those days. Joshdboz (talk) 14:58, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

grok is up and running again, yay! Lampman (talk) 15:41, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Protection War

Okay, enough is enough. At this point I will start handing out blocks to admins protection warring over the article. Discuss, reach a consensus, then take an action. Behave yourselves, you all know better. WilyD 15:06, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I am also willing to provide enforcement if there is disruption of this page. Jehochman ^Talk 15:37, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Whee! We spin again! *sigh* Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 17:25, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Pretty disappointing looking at the logs. Yes this is a wiki, but there's nothing wrong with making suggestions via the talk page when dealing with a WP:BLP drawing such horrendous vandalism. RFerreira (talk) 18:14, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Full Protected per Arbcom ruling

According to the the "Footnooted Quotes" ruling, protection may only be removed per consensus at WP:AE. I have therefore created a section on that page for discussion. Mike R (talk) 15:16, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Jet not sold on eBay

According to the article cited, the jet which Palin had tried to sell on eBay did not actually sell on eBay. The only bid fell through, and according to PolitiFact, "Instead, in 2007, the state turned to an aircraft broker, Turbo North Aviation. The jet was purchased that year by businessman Larry Reynolds, the owner of a sporting goods store and marine supply store in Valdez. Reynolds paid $2.1-million."

The wording should be changed to "posted on eBay", not "sold on eBay". A minor technicality, really. Sagaciousb (talk) 16:35, 4 September 2008 (UTC)  Done Ronnotel (talk) 16:40, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Sometimes things are posted on eBay for the publicity and then sold through other channels.  :-) Steve Dufour (talk) 16:52, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

For purposes of this article, the simple fact that the jet was sold for $2.1 million is what matters. There's no reason to mention eBay or the broker. JamesMLane t c 17:31, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Except that she said she "put it on eBay" (or something like that) in her speech. Steve Dufour (talk) 17:38, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

p.s. I can imagine it went down like this: Palin: "Sell the plane on eBay." Staff member: "Okay." A couple of weeks later. Palin: "Is the plane sold yet?" Staff member: "Yes." Steve Dufour (talk) 19:28, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Protection Message

Given the obviously huge audience for this page and the unusual nature of the protection, it is my opinion that using the little gold padlock is an inadequate notice.

I would suggest that {{pp-dispute}} (or perhaps a slightly editted version of that) would be a more appropriate notice.

Dragons flight (talk) 16:50, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree; non-Wikipedia-regulars who visit the article deserve to be told up-front that they cannot edit it, and why. Mike R (talk) 16:53, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

 Done: I did this yesterday, but I think it got reduced back to the padlock during the mini-wheel-war. I restored the larger and more explanatory template. MastCell ^Talk 16:54, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree too; it is a formality as well as an informative service to our readers. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 16:56, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Good. Of course if people had just followed Obama's advice and not made personal attacks on her family there would be much less problems. Steve Dufour (talk) 16:58, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

nah most recent edits have been polictical history rather than bristol related stuff.Geni 17:39, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Which one should we use ? Vandalism or dispute ? It has been recently changed. Cenarium ^Talk 19:00, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Dispute seems more neutral. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 19:01, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Most of the problems were brought on more directly by content disputes rather than vandalism per se. Dragons flight (talk) 19:07, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

City Council

If Sarah Palin spent two terms on City Council, from 92 to 96, that is a total of 4 years or two two year terms. Your article lists her as running for two three year terms.

Strangely enough, Wasilla mayorhood is a three year term. They're whacky in Alasky. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 17:19, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

It's a three year term, she resigned her second term after one year when she was elected mayor. Dragons flight (talk) 17:41, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Population of Wasilla

This is a very minor edit, but the population of Wasilla is 7,025, according to the website: http://www.cityofwasilla.com/index.aspx?page=49

I think I'm supposed to have the editprotected template on this, so... {{editprotected}} Tiger Khan (talk) 17:22, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

 Done. The page is unprotected again (for the time being) anyway. Oren0 (talk) 17:34, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

And just as I say that the page becomes protected again . Oren0 (talk) 17:36, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

We should change the sentence to read: "The city of Wasilla, located 42 miles (68 km) north of Anchorage, had a population of 5,469 in the 2000 Census." For this article the population during her mayoralty is more relevant than the current population. The article on Wasilla reports the Census Bureau's most recent estimate, of course. JamesMLane t c 17:40, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Probably list both: the fact that the town is growing rapidly is relevant. There is a lot more work in being mayor of a rapidly growing small town than a stagnant one. - Jmabel | Talk 20:58, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

So the Palin supporters argue for 9,780 the July 2007 figure from the US census, the Palin opponents argue for 5,469 from 2000, and Tiger Khan wants Wasilla website number from god knows when. Like it matters if the town was a couple a thousand more or less. Just say she was mayor of her hometown and leave out the numbers. RetroS1mone talk 00:13, 5 September 2008 (UTC)