Talk:Sarah Palin/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

→

Archive 15

Bristol Palin Controversy

A new fork. Can we redirect to #Family? Discuss. -- Y not be working? 00:50, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, please. One pregnant teenage girl does not a controversy make. -- Vary | Talk 00:54, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

If this were the Democratic nominee, the Christian Right would be all over it and it would be a huge controversy. They're a lot more forgiving of "one of their own". However, you're right that no separate article is needed. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 01:33, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Note that the first poster includes "sockenpuppe" in his/her name, if viewed in edit mode. Sounds a lot like a sockpuppet. Nonetheless, the subject article should be redirected to the recommended section. (A broken clock is correct twice a day). Is there consensus for the redirect? It avoids a WP:COATRACK. (Edit: the "sockenpuppe" is , for some reason, an alternate account of User:Y). Edison2 (talk) 00:57, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

If there is no basis for a Bristol article, surely there is no basis for a Bristol controversy one either. --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:30, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Mary Cheney got a Wikipedia article in the midst of the 2004 campaign at the moment when her sexual orientatio became a political issue. This is a parallel case. Meghan McCain has a Wikipedia article. Bristol Palin is at the center of a major controversy and that controversy is being discussed in newspapers brom Bankok to Baton Rouge. She is notable. You may not like it, but it really is undeniable.Elan26 (talk) 01:43, 3 September 2008 (UTC)Elan26

As I said above, Meghan McCain is a noted blogger. Corvus cornix_talk 02:13, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely. This is another example of double standards and of how this page has been hijacked by GOP spin doctors and their orwellian agents. This kind of practices is simply unacceptable. We can not have the GOP hijack and/or groom and/or censor the entries surrounding their VP candidate.
Bristol Palin deserves a 'Bristol Palin' page of her own, if not a separate page to be called 'Bristol Palin incident' or 'Bristol Palin controversy' or 'Bristol Palin 2008 GOP convention issue'.58.34.54.33 (talk) 03:01, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Bristol Palin is at the center of a major controversy and that controversy is being discussed in newspapers brom Bankok to Baton Rouge. Major "controversy"? Well well, the Asahi even has a news story on it. Yet there's no controversy; it's more "That's the end to suspicions that the latest kid was a grandkid" and "If she has a baby, that will delight the US religious right". So it's a kind of bemused look at the inscrutable occidentals.

Still, if little Bristol is noteworthy (which I doubt), then I suppose her "I'll kick your ass" beau might be too (see section above).

(And didn't I once read that Wikipedia wasn't a newspaper?) -- Hoary (talk) 02:40, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, Johnston probably does merit an article. Have you had an honest look at what the world press is saying about this? The Guradian is only one of a dozen newspapers with articles looking at the liklihood that the Bristol palin controversy will reopen th eAmerican conversation of sex ed in the schools. The efficacy of abstinance education is being questioned, again, but in fresh articles pegged to Bristol Palin. It is an event.160.39.35.45 (talk) 03:11, 3 September 2008 (UTC)Elan26

Maybe, when they start showing up on the cover of People, crowding out Angelina and Britney - which would be a welcome change, actually. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 12:44, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Of course Bristol Palin should have her own article. Talk about notable!--Appraiser (talk) 13:44, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Maybe also an article about the unborn: Bristol Palin's love child for now, until its name is known. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 14:17, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

She's done one thing that made the news, and even that is only newsworthy (?) because of who her mother is . See WP:ONEEVENT. Coemgenus 17:18, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Pregnancy is spelled wrong...

"The McCain-Palin campaign stated that John McCain was aware of her daughter's pregancy, but that it did not affect his choice." --97.82.195.71 (talk) 01:14, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

You will be glad to learn that "Wikipedia is THE ENCYCLOPEDIA ANYONE CAN EDIT." So you are allowed to correct spelling errors. Edison2 (talk) 01:20, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Except it's semi-protected... Dragons flight (talk) 01:27, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Didn't see that it was semi-protected. Maybe some IP editors will be motivated to choose a name and register. Edison2 (talk) 02:23, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Good point. Anyway, an established user fixed it. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 01:31, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Given the circumstances, "preggers" works better. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 01:31, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I have heard ladies of an older generation use the alternative term "peachy." Edison2 (talk) 02:15, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure that's what the Governor said when her daughter told her the news: "Well, isn't that just peachy!" Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 02:21, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Hey-o! Coemgenus 17:19, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

New Palin Scandal Surfacing

It's being reported by Times Online that in January the Alaskan Governor repeatedly laughed on air as a talk-radio host described one of her political opponents as a “cancer” and a “bitch”. The opponent in question, Lyda Green, the Alaskan state senate president, is a cancer survivor. An audio recording of the interview with Bob Lester, the Alaskan “shock jock”, had received more than a quarter of a million hits on YouTube by yesterday morning. This is definately deserving of inclusion into the article. Lakerking04 (talk) 01:40, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Is wikipedia nothing but a gossip blog? There's no mention of Obama's guns and bibles comments in his bio - and there shouldn't be. If people want to find trash on people, let them find it somewhere else. Theosis4u (talk) 01:46, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Please provide a link to the Times news article, not the Times Wikipedia article, so that we may judge whether reporting on the alleged inappropriate laughter in the interview indicates it is encyclopedic and worth of inclusion in the article. Also please do not throw up a smoke screen by reference to alleged aspects of Obama's past. This article is about Palin. Edison2 (talk) 01:52, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Whatever, there was no smoke screen and anyone following politics knows what I was referring to. Obama Explains Why Some Small Town Pennsylvanians Are "Bitter" - "And it's not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations." If that isn't on Obama's bio then I think it shows much of this gossip non-sense has no place - again, I believe it shouldn't be in his bio. That was a big news article, but is only floated today by right-wingers. Theosis4u (talk) 02:31, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

And it's a biography article first and then to the particulars of the person. It makes sense to do comparatives to establish the standards. A good example on what to include and how to write it up is in Obama's bio - the comment about his ex-pastor. To the point and free of politics. Theosis4u (talk) 02:35, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Here's the link to the article: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/us_elections/article4662882.ece , Theosis4u, this is a talk page about sarah palin, not Barack Obama. Lakerking04 (talk) 01:57, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

If the governor of Alaska, and possibly the next vice president of the united states is demeaning, insulting, and making fun of cancer survivors and agreeing with those who categorize her opponents as 'bitches', then I think it's well to note in her article. Times Online is not a gossip blog, but as a respected newspaper in the United Kingdom. Lakerking04 (talk) 01:50, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Times_Online#Controversy_and_Image , sure it isn't. You still avoided the question of fairness in comparison of the Obama entry. Theosis4u (talk) 01:53, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Here's the link to the article: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/us_elections/article4662882.ece , Theosis4u, this is a talk page about sarah palin, not Barack Obama. Lakerking04 (talk) 01:55, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Did Obama call a political opponent a "cancer" and a "bitch," or laugh out loud when someone else did? Edison2 (talk) 01:56, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Clueless, if you can't understand a concept of comparison to establishing a standard format to writing articles. If more people would compare the articles (people they like and don't) they could avoid unnecessary additions or removals. Theosis4u (talk) 02:00, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Please do not hurl personal attacks. Any more schoolyard insults you wish to hurl, or will you base your arguments in policies and guidelines?? Edison2 (talk) 02:12, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I see your point. The McCain article doesn't mention him calling his wife a cunt. Switzpaw (talk) 02:08, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Lol. Seriously, let the extreme nut jobs keep track of all the gossip and petty non-sense. Having standards on all sides (right and left) in regards to bio's will help minimize your own personal favorites from being demonized. I would like to think my kids can use wikipedia for their homework. Theosis4u (talk) 02:15, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I still don't understand how sarah palin labeling her political opponent as a "cancer" and a 'bitch" isn't notable of being mentioned in her article, especially when she has 'eye popping integrity" Lakerking04 (talk) 02:06, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I thought you said the radio host did that. Which is it? Noroton (talk) 02:14, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

• So the accusation is that the subject laughed at an inappropriate joke? That's really quite trivial. While we should use seconadary sources to help us determine whethre to cinlude facts and how much weight to give them, we also need to use some editorial judgment. Unless this "scandal" becomes more prominent I can't see a good reason to mention it. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 02:10, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Did Palin laugh because she thought it was funny or because she was embarassed? Can anyone post to YouTube? Is it possible to fake a YouTube recording? I assume it is. If so, how is that a reliable source? -- Noroton (talk) 02:13, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, and incidentally this "new scandal" has already been added, talking about and then deleted as not relevant. --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:15, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

The integrity of the source is not in question. The source is not Youtube but Times Online , a respected newspaper in the United Kingdom. Here's the link: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/us_elections/article4662882.ece Lakerking04 (talk) 02:16, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Except that's not the last word. From WP:BLP#Reliable sources: 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. When less-than-reliable publications print material they suspect is untrue, they often include weasel phrases. Look out for these. If the original publication doesn't believe its own story, why should we? -- Noroton (talk) 02:21, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Hello Laker. That has already been added and removed from the article and it's pretty understood that until something _major_ in the mainstream media happens with it it will be left out. Just like the Bristol pregnancy, which wasn't included until they released a nation-wide press release that was reported on by all the papers. Wikipedia, by design and policy, can not and will not decide if something is important or not when it comes to these kind of high-profile articles. We have to wait until there is a large happening before we will report on it. --mboverload@ 02:24, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

An interesting question would be whether she ever went back on that show and/or whether she had anything to say about it. Taking a laugh out of context, on a radio show where you can't see body language, is very questionable. I've seen plenty of situations where someone would make an offensive commment, and the other one would laugh as basically a defense mechanism. Without proper context, you can't make any judgments. So keep digging. You're bound to find out about those overdue library books. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 02:25, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

This is a political campaign. You don't even need facts before making a judgment. What's all this context stuff? A.J.A. (talk) 03:59, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

"This" is supposed to be an encyclopedia article, although you'd never know it from the feeding-frenzy. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 11:17, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

The Bob and Mark radio show was the first interview (and one of very few) that Palin gave after being selected for VP. So go back, yes. Shortly following the January interview, she wrote an apology to the state senator she was perceived as laughing at. So she clearly realized she had a problem (at least in public preception). Dragons flight (talk) 03:13, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Aha! And now we know the rrrrrest of the story. She was, almost certainly, taken aback by that comment, and laughing self-defensively. So if anything is going to be said about that radio show, the followup has to be there also. And then the so-called scandal goes away, and the only reason to even include it is to pre-empt someone else trying to re-post it without the proper context. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 11:17, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Blessed to raise a Down Syndrome child

Zredsox (talk · contribs) has twice removed the referenced comment:

Palin has said that she feels blessed that God chose them to raise a baby with Down Syndrome.

on the grounds that is "POV" and Wikipedia "does not establish character".

In my opinion, that is misguided. It is responses to challenges that tell us a lot about a leader's character. No, it's not as simple as a policy position, but I certainly find it informative of who Palin is. It's referenced, and unless you feel that [1] is being misread, I don't see how it can construed conveying a POV other than the Governors.

I'd like some comments about whether this should be restored. Dragons flight (talk) 01:44, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't see it as POV, but I'm not sure it is a relevant fact. --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:49, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't see why the quote should be included. The fact that she decided to have the child, knowing the situation does enough in my opinion. That part is relevant to a bio, imo Theosis4u (talk) 01:50, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually the current text fails to directly establish that she made a choice. It says the diagnosis was prenatal, but doesn't offer that implication that she could have aborted (as usually happens with prenatal Down's diagnosis). Dragons flight (talk) 02:02, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure that evidence is out there. I've heard too many commentators say she made a choice. I've also heard 90 percent of the people who hear they've got a Down's syndrome child on the way nowadays abort. Her decision itself is significant. -- Noroton (talk) 02:06, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

We clearly still have the facts of her decision minus the unneeded "morning show" talking point. Zredsox (talk) 02:12, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Read it again: "Palin's youngest child, Trig, has Down syndrome, diagnosed prenatally." doesn't directly imply there ever was a decision. You'd get the same statement if the diagnosis was close enough to birth that abortion would be illegal (i.e. the US partial birth abortion ban). Dragons flight (talk) 02:24, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

The fact that he was born implies she carried to term. Zredsox (talk) 02:49, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

But the material is insufficient to establish that abortion was possible. Carrying a Downs baby to term if you have no other choice is very different than carrying one to term when your doctor advises abortion (as I understood happened in this case). The partial birth ban implies that the defect needs to be found in roughly the first six months to make abortion a practical option. Dragons flight (talk) 03:01, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

It would be notable if she had an abortion. It is not the place of Wikipedia to catalog what she didn't do. That would be a slippery slope indeed. Zredsox (talk) 03:07, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

~90% of prenatal Down's diagnoses result in abortions, so in this case what she didn't do made her unusual. Dragons flight (talk) 03:16, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

If we can't find a source that clearly shows she did make a conscious decision to keep the baby knowing it most likely would have Down Syndrome then we should minimize any reference to it other than the child has Down Syndrome. Theosis4u (talk) 02:10, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

The section is supposed to be encyclopedic and not meant to establish anything about a leader's character. The facts are in place and there is no need for POV talking points. Zredsox (talk) 01:52, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Pious verbiage issued for media consumption is very different from "character." Edison2 (talk) 01:54, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, one can imagine it is staged, but no more so than anything else than comes out of a politician's mouth. Dragons flight (talk) 02:02, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

A leaders view on issues (in this case a personal issue) are some of the relevant facts to understanding their worldview in my opinion. Dragons flight (talk) 02:02, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

(4X edit conflict) It seems to me it's hard to distinguish sincere from insincere quotes (or in this case, a rewording of a statement she made) from a public comment like that, so I'd tend to want to use quotes from her that can be either verified or show she's taking a stand that is controversial, or are particularly snappy or well known, or that illuminate something about her that would be hard to show in a better way. I think there are a lot of good elements in that quote, but it's impossible to say how sincere it is that she feels just that way about it. If the combination of her religion and her raising a Down Syndrome child became very important as a part of her overall notability (possible, but I think unlikely), then that statement could be useful in a passage about that. As it stands, I don't see enough value in it. -- Noroton (talk) 02:03, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Christian fundamentalists regard every child as a "blessing from God", so this quote, if true, says a great deal about her world view. It should be retained, if it's what she actually said. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 02:16, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Wouldn't her world view be better established by the fact that she is a Christian Fundamentalist in the first place rather then hinge such deciphering based on the regurgitation of a quote oft said by Christian Fundamentalists? I am not quite capturing the logic here... Zredsox (talk) 02:22, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

It serves as an example of her beliefs. It doesn't stand alone, no. It's in context. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 02:26, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Growing up in the Bible Belt, I'd say no. Lots of people self-identify as Fundementalist, but not all say things like "this [chronically ill child] is a blessing from God". Personally, I do think statements like that are more insightful. I suppose your mileage may vary. Dragons flight (talk) 02:28, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Every freaking parent thinks their kid is a blessing (including mine for some reason). It is not notable, leave it out. Wikipedia is not in the business of helping people congratulate themselves for sexual reproduction. --mboverload@ 02:27, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

It is hard to follow what is being argued about here but the statement where Palin said "she and Todd feel blessed and chosen by God." in reference to Trig being diagnosed with Down Syndrome is very widely reported and is well referenced, in fact in references already in the article, as is the fact that she knew about this while carrying the child. I think the statement is one of her defining public statements, and in this campaign, at least, as important as "Tipppee Canoe and Tyler, Too." It is too late for us to decide if it is significant or not: almost without exception, the first reports of her being chosen for the VP slot mentioned this. It was also widely reported in Alaska back in the Spring. I don't think there is any doubt it should be in the article. It is a statement defining her moral philosophy. --Paul (talk) 03:47, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I read your comment and it is a good one. However, I disagree that it defines her. Politicians say this kind of stump religious nonsense all the time. What else would she say, she regrets it? I look forward to your response (not sarcastic). =) --mboverload@ 03:51, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

This is part of her stump speech. That is reason for its exclusion, not inclusion. It certainly has no place in the "family" section which should be encyclopedic in nature and not have a political POV. There is no question its purpose is to say, "I am God fearing. I don't believe in abortion under any circumstances. I am a good Republican. Vote for me" Zredsox (talk) 03:58, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

There is a difference between saying those words and making choices that require one to really adhere to them. Also, it's nonsense to propose that stump speeches are forbidden. It would be like saying: "Read my lips, no new taxes" should be excluded from H.W. Bush's article. We need to include material that defines how candidates present themselves to the electorate, not exclude it. Dragons flight (talk) 04:07, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

You are completely missing the point! Wikipedia is not about "defining how candidates present themselves to the electorate." I think you are confusing Wikipedia with Newsweek or maybe Rolling Stone. That methodology is not what Wikipedia is by definition. As for stump speeches, a.k.a. political positions, we have a section for those already. Zredsox (talk) 04:15, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

No, we include their defining characteristics, and when it exists we present their opponents commentary on those characteristcs, and etc. We don't embellish with fluffy language and spin doctoring, but we also don't exclude mentions of actions and positions that candidates are known for simply because those are things they want to be known for. Her choice and position with regards to this Down's syndrome child is one of the things she is well known for and it deserves more of a comment than: "Palin's youngest child, Trig, has Down syndrome, diagnosed prenatally." Dragons flight (talk) 04:27, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I am not going to go in circles with you any longer on this issue. It should absolutely not be included and that looks like the general consensus here.Zredsox (talk) 04:32, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Dragons flight puts it quite well. This is an article about a politician. It should communicate political and moral information about the candidate. Lyndon Johnson's article talks about civil rights which he deeply believed in. Ronald Reagan's article talks about economics and the cold war. Jack Kennedy's article mentions "Ask not what your country can do for you--ask what you can do for your country." These were defining political beliefs for these politicians and the articles rightly mention them. For Sarah Palin, her pro-life beliefs are a big part of her political message, and her decision to carry a Down Syndrome child to term is proof that it is not just a "stump speech" it is a core belief. Zredsox might be afraid that by repeating Palin's claim that she regards Trig as a gift from God we will somehow be complicit in a cynical McCain propaganda plot. But the truth is, if we fail to communicate that Palin is fiscally conservative, a reformer, against corruption, and strongly pro-life, we are failing to communicate the basic facts that are important to this biography. (And it doesn't look like a consensus to me).--Paul (talk) 04:36, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to have to change my opinion on this as well. It should should describe the context of the birth and the choice involved. If you do a search for "down syndrome baby palin convictions", it's clear that this is a notable issue. Though I think the mention quote involved doesn't do the topic service. Theosis4u (talk) 04:42, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree that her political positions should be covered in this article. Last time I checked, they were and in great detail. However, if they were removed from the last time I checked 10 minutes ago and now, by all means revert! Zredsox (talk) 04:48, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I changed the wording to alleviate 95% of the concern and work toward consensus. Although we all seem to agree the quote is a political statement and not appropriate, I expanded the entry to show that she clearly made a choice. Palin's youngest child, Trig, was diagnosed prenatally with Down syndrome and she made the choice to carry to term. Zredsox (talk) 04:55, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Why is it necessary to expand the entry to show this? The article already mentions (if I'm remembering correctly) the prenatal testing and Trig was born. Commenting beyond that isn't appropriate. Movingboxes (talk) 04:59, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

We don't all "agree the quote is a political statement and not appropriate." Several of us have made the point that it is a statement of core belief that Palin has become known for and as such belongs in the article. I propose incorporating it in the Political Positions section as follows:

On social issues she has "strong support from social conservatives"[13] and has described herself as being as "pro-life as any candidate can be."[44] It has been pointed out that her decision to carry her Down Syndrome child, Trig, to term and her statement that she feels blessed and chosen by God to raise such a child is proof that her pro-life stance is sincere.

--Paul (talk) 05:08, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

You can't say it's "sincere", because that's a judgment about her inner being - but you can say it's consistent, which is the whole point of this quote. The electorate can draw its own conclusions about her family's judgment (or lack thereof) on the subject of contraception, but her comments are consistent with her political stance. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 11:13, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Bunch

WP:BUNCH needs to be applied to this article. The first two sections don't have [edit] tabs in the correct place. I don't know how to do it, but hopefully a regular here will. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 02:20, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Done. There was a hidden message about the images preventing whitespace below the infobox in certain browsers, so I'm trusting that whoever wrote that will drop a line here if it's still a problem.--chaser - t 02:58, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Why remove the map showing Wasilla? I thought it was very helpful. As between the map and the photo of the town hall, the map seems much more useful here.Ferrylodge (talk) 03:01, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I think the photo conveys the humble roots of her political career in a way that reinforces the text. Why do you think the map is helpful, Ferrylodge? There's a map at the top of the Wasilla article for the curious.--chaser - t 03:15, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

It's kind of moot now, because the map has been put into the infobox. The reason I preferred the map is because most people have no idea where in Alaska Wasilla is. On the other hand, most people know what a typical small town building looks like (and this photo seems to only capture part of the building which leaves the viewer wondering how much more there is).Ferrylodge (talk) 03:23, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually, there's probably a good percentage of the voting-age public who don't know where Alaska is. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 11:05, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

HERE is a three-quarter view shot or angled-profile view.  $\sim$ Justmeherenow (  ) 03:58, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

That's a much better photo of the building.Ferrylodge (talk) 04:39, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I like the new photo. I think it serves the text that accompanies it well. Zredsox (talk) 03:48, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Keeping money for bridge to nowhere project

There's a quote used in bio - "Palin's campaign coordinator in the city, Republican Mike Elerding, remarked, "She said 'thanks but no thanks,' but they kept the money.". I can't find proof though that the money was actually allocated and kept by Alaska. If anything, it looks like funds never did happen. Two 'Bridges to Nowhere' Tumble Down in Congress . Unless someone finds something different, the quote should be removed since it's fundamentally inaccurate. Theosis4u (talk) 03:00, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Based on knowledge I have of a similar situation in New York, I suspect that the State worked out a swap entitling it to use the money on other projects. On that view, the cited passage is accurate as far as it goes, but it conveys an inaccurate impression that there was some fiscal impropriety by the Palin administration. The current text also slights Congress's role in killing the project. JamesMLane t c 05:55, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

That's what seems to happened here. Technically, Congress removed the earmark for the "bridge to nowhere" but then turned around and gave Alaska the same in funds for Alaska to use at it wills. Which means Palin/Alaska never took the money for "the bridge to nowhere" - technically. It also means, Palin couldn't of really said "No thanks" and gave it back. Her stump speech was spin and false. Theosis4u (talk) 14:53, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Snettisham avalanches, April 2008

Would someone more familiar with the issue please explain the importance of this section? It has it's own heading in the article but seems to me to be completely innocuous and superfluous.

On April 16, 2008, an avalanche destroyed several transmission towers and the transmission line on the Snettisham Hydroelectric Project,[83][84] a 78,210-kilowatt hydroelectric project located in a remote area of southeast Alaska, 28 air miles southeast of Juneau. It provides about 80 percent of the Juneau-Douglas area's electricity. No one lost power because of the avalanche, but electricity to the city and borough of Juneau was supplied by diesel generators until the line was fixed in early June 2008 for an estimated total of $5.5 million.[85] Juneau requested a state disaster declaration, but Palin, following the recommendation of her Disaster Policy Cabinet, declined to issue one.[86] She did ask the Small Business Administration to declare an "Economic Injury Disaster" for Juneau due to the abruptly higher electricity costs for local businesses,[87][88] a request that was granted a week later.[89]

This isn't an issue discussed in the national press, nor is it an issue that shows anything particularly positive or negative about Palin. Was there something more interesting here at one time? If this is all there is, I think it should be deleted.--Paul (talk) 03:07, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I see that it has gone through a few revisions, but is fundamentally immaterial to this bio. Zredsox (talk) 03:13, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

(EC) As I understand FEMA and the DHS Grant system, most federal grants for direct disaster (and disaster-related) relief rely on state-level disaster declarations. The state says that a disaster exists, the Federal Government sends money. By not declaring a disaster, I think the implication is that Palin cost the state of Alaska a chance for federal funding - which is probably why the next sentence mentions a Small Business Administration grant. The caveat is that a disaster declaration carries a whole boatload of Federal requirements and auditing procedures with it; depending on the disaster, it might be too much to bother with. I concur, though, that the statement doesn't really need to be in the article - though it might fit in the policies article, if it discusses disaster management experience. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 03:16, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

It sucked. We had to pay so much more money for electricity. I might have a few papers from when it happened. I'll try and find some info. Moocowsrule (talk) 05:36, 3 September 2008 (UTC)Moocowsrule

Early political career - ban books that included language she deemed inappropriate

The source that is used only states a hearsay and couldn't be confirmed from the direct source, it should be removed until then. From the source : "Stein says that as mayor, Palin continued to inject religious beliefs into her policy at times. "She asked the library how she could go about banning books," he says, because some voters thought they had inappropriate language in them. "The librarian was aghast." That woman, Mary Ellen Baker, couldn't be reached for comment, but news reports from the time show that Palin had threatened to fire Baker for not giving "full support" to the mayor." Theosis4u (talk) 03:45, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Which titles? (Adventures of Tom Sawyer? Or Anarchists' Cookbook?)  $\sim$ Justmeherenow (  ) 03:49, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Lol. If we can find out, I think that would definitely be appropriate to include in the article. It was in office and it demonstrated a "political" action. It would have to show context of what was the final result though. Maybe Palin gave in..maybe the librarian. Theosis4u (talk) 03:58, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Interesting. Needs to be very reliable before we even consider including it anywhere. I think we need to give this a hard thought before we would go any further. Although people revise and change their political ideas and I acknowledge that, banning books is freaking huge in America, with the 1st amendment and everything. --mboverload@ 04:00, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, my point is that it should be removed until there's a better source. And then given that "new" source, fully detail the issue. I do agree, "banning books" is a big issue and it should be fully explored. Theosis4u (talk) 04:33, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Gych's edit still does not provide a direct reference to quoted source. The sources aren't quoting the ibrarian nor do they give a documented account of the accusation. Theosis4u (talk) 05:44, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

That's no longer the only source. It's also in a NYTimes article (with a direct quote from a witness), and I just posted details to the article (before seeing this). This info should not be removed just because it is negative. If there is an opposing explanation or view, it should be added. Superm401 - Talk 08:00, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Wasilla context for resignations

This source states the following for the reasons of why Palin asked for the resignations. "Palin sought to oust six department heads because they had signed a letter supporting the previous mayor, their old boss." There is no direct source of the quote or the letter that I can find. It might be appropriate to add that to the section that speaks about this. Theosis4u (talk) 03:56, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Interesting. It seems to also say that she may have to give a sworn deposition. We should probably wait until that happens to report on it. --mboverload@ 04:06, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

There's two cases here - I'm mentioning the police chief in Wasilla. I think your referring to the ongoing investigation in handling the Public Safety Commissioner dismissal. Theosis4u (talk) 04:31, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Track's age and the quote in the Wikipedia article

It says in the wikipedia entry: Sarah Palin eloped with her high-school boyfriend, Todd Palin, on August 29, 1988, when she was 24 years old.[6] According to her mother, "It was a shock but she did it because she knew we couldn’t afford a big white wedding."[111] Their first son, Track, was born eight months after their wedding.

In the Alaska Daily news, there is a picture of the family in October 2006 that says Track is 17. http://dwb.adn.com/news/politics/story/8334949p-8231037c.html

If he was 17 in October 2006, she was NOT pregnant in Aug 1988. This is part of the smear to discredit her. If my math is right, Please remove. Thanks.

Stewie17 (talk) 05:25, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Without a WP:RS to the kid's age, how can we keep this in the article without violating WP:BLP? Coemgenus 11:11, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Wrong math? If he were born in April 1989, both would be true. He would have been born 8 months after the wedding and he would have been 17 in October 1986.--Appraiser (talk) 13:37, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

OK -- based on this discussion it then makes sense to restore the information, as it is from a reputable source and is not inconsistent, as was first posited above. Thanks, BTR (talk) 18:15, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

The Wasilla library

There are several problems with this. First, we don't actually have Time magazine and the New York Times saying this is true. We have them saying that Palin's political opponents from Wasilla say this is true, which means that the accusation actually rests on their credibility, not on Time's and the NYT's credibility. Inclusion would require official minutes, or at least a contemporary news story by a reporter who attended the meeting. Second, the statement that the issue was "banning" books, which at best is exaggeration by one side: no jurisdiction in the United States can ban a book because of a little thing called the First Amendment. The alleged issue is apparently whether to include certain books in a library. An issue every library decides routinely. The grounds on which she allegedly wanted them excluded are considered ethical violations by professional librarians, and if the issue existed at all this should be described in neutral, accurate terms. A.J.A. (talk) 05:52, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Having minutes from the meeting instead of testimonials from persons involved in the situation is a little over the top, don't you think? These sources are pretty reputable in regards to verifying sources. -Gych (talk) 05:59, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

See Talk:Sarah_Palin#Wasilla_context_for_resignations. Your source doesn't quote the librarian nor does it reference a document to verify the statement. Theosis4u (talk) 06:02, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

"Gych (Talk | contribs) (72,116 bytes) (replaced as per Talk)" ? Is that how it works? Theosis4u (talk) 06:06, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

It's not correct to drop something, then when someone disagrees with the drop, puts it back, and provides direct response to the reason for removal, to then simply remove it again. Further, the refs quote person with direct knowledge of the events. -Gych (talk) 06:12, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

No, I don't think it's over the top. You say your sources are reputable for verifying sources. Does that mean they found the minutes? Then why not just cite the minutes directly?

The only thing you added was another new story quoting Democrats from Wasilla. But no one's arguing they were quoted inaccurately. I'm arguing that repeating their version without any separate confirmation is inappropriate in Wikipedia. A.J.A. (talk) 06:17, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

We have two separate sources, both of which are hard to question in accuracy. These sources don't quote every single reference they have in their articles but are known to not report on anything that they have not verified. It *is* over the top to expect any newspaper or news magazine to include every detail of the research they went through in putting together an article. Having "opposing" viewpoints may be impossible. There might not be an opposing viewpoint of these statements. Proposing that there is does not make these two references questionable. The issue is less about the sources and more about the tone. I suggest we fix that instead of wondering if the NYT or Time Magazine did their homework. -Gych (talk) 06:22, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

You're still trading on Time's and the NYT's credibility. But all those sources actually said is that allegations were made by some people in Wasilla. To state those allegations as fact you're relying on Stein et. al. Now you're asking us to believe that the two sources did look up the minutes without their having ever made that claim for themselves. Is there any reason to believe that? A.J.A. (talk) 06:28, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I *am* considering Time's and NYT's credibility. Note that Palin doesn't disagree with these "allegations". There's nothing wrong or illegal with removing these persons. There's nothing wrong with suggesting that certain books be removed from circulation at the local town library either. Change the tone. The fact that the situation happened seems to be less of the argument than that it's implying the potential firing was about her personal and political beliefs. The article should fix that implication instead of questioning these time-honored sources and the research put into them. Perhaps one of us can find the Frontiersman article for the counterpoint -Gych (talk) 06:35, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

NYT's credibility was shot years ago - but that is besides the point. Palin was never given an opportunity to disagree from what I see in your sources. It's clear they didn't put any research into the article. No quotes from the librarian or from Palin - the two primary people involved. And the points you then go on to mention are the very reason good source material should be used if this goes/stays in the wiki article. If the claim can be verified, it's only logical to include the details of what was asked, what books were of concern, and what was the final outcome? Theosis4u (talk) 06:42, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm not seeing any quote by the librarian (Mary Ellen Baker) in your sources. If you could place it here I would appreciate it. This is in the source, but it fails to do either of what I mentioned. "Stein says that as mayor, Palin continued to inject religious beliefs into her policy at times. "She asked the library how she could go about banning books," he says, because some voters thought they had inappropriate language in them. "The librarian was aghast." That woman, Mary Ellen Baker, couldn't be reached for comment, but news reports from the time show that Palin had threatened to fire Baker for not giving "full support" to the mayor." Stein is a politician in Wasilla. The librarian couldn't be reached for comment. And this report gives no details to "news reports". Theosis4u (talk) 06:21, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Never suggested they quoted the librarian. They quoted persons of knowledge with the proceedings of the city council meetings in what the librarian position went through. I can see how the tone and exactness of the passage in this article is in question. What I'm not getting is the questioning of the NYT and Time mag as sources, and the assumption that they didn't research and vet their sources. -Gych (talk) 06:25, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm calling into question the accuracy of the Time's article - "By NATHAN THORNBURGH / WASILLA, ALASKA". The guy lives in the town and he can't come up with better source materials than what he presented? The times article says, "Ms. Palin approached the town librarian". They are paraphrasing a dialog that happen between two people? One way to prove that isn't there, one of the two or close witness confirms - which the article doesn't do. Theosis4u (talk) 06:34, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm bailing. The consensus is yours to determine if the NYT and Time's articles are based on reality or if they totally made this stuff up. -Gych (talk) 06:42, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm not saying they made anything up. All they actually said is that some Wasilla residents made certain allegations, and I'm sure they did. What hasn't been demonstrated is that the allegations themselves are credible enough to be included. And if it turns out they are, that would be the appropriate time to address the secondary issue of how to make it NPOV in tone. A.J.A. (talk) 06:51, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Objection, hearsay? 195.216.82.210 (talk) 07:01, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Ya, I hear what you're saying. I would read the articles and believe that both the NYT and Time were able to verify that 1) there was a librarian that was fired (for whatever reason), 2) the librarian did not get fired ultimately, and 3) there was issue at the time about "banning" books. They both seemed to have validated these 3 points through local press records and interviews with persons in the know. But if you disagree, well...I guess you guys disagree. This one sentence in the article doesn't say anything more than those 3 points. What the line implies goes into NPOV arguments. -Gych (talk) 07:04, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

The attack on this information is not in keeping with normal Wikipeia practices.

Wikipedia is full of passages that rely on a particular individual who's quoted by a particular MSM outlet. We rely on the media outlet's credibility for the truth of the assertion that the individual actually made the statement. Where it seems reasonable to take the individual's word for it, we don't name the source. For example, later in the very same section of the article, we make assertions about her tax policies as mayor. It's cited to a Times article quoting the current mayor, Dianne Keller. There's no indication in the article that the Times examined tax records to see if Keller was lying. We feel comfortable asserting Keller's statements as fact unless and until there's a good-faith dispute.

Other times, however, the individual who's the ultimate source of the information might be mistaken about a fact or might have an ax to grind or might be giving an interpretation that's not universal. Then our practice is to write something like "thus-and-such named individual said this-and-that about Person Y" followed by a link to the MSM outlet. We've alerted our readers as to the ultimate source, and each reader can decide how much credibility to give that source. In the matter at hand, we can state, for example, that the ousted police chief alleged that he'd been fired partly because Palin considered him disloyal. We shouldn't assert as a fact that her reason for the firing was as stated, but we shouldn't suppress the information about the chief's allegation. Similarly, we can cite the Time article ([2]) and say something like "According to Stein, her defeated opponent for the mayoralty, Palin ___" and then recount the incident with the librarian. Readers can decide whether to believe Stein, just as, when they read the section on Troopergate, they can decide whether to believe Palin's contention that she didn't know about her staffers' contacts with Monegan. Or do those editors who want to suppress Stein's unproveable statements also want to suppress Palin's unproveable statements? Per Wikipedia policy, both belong in the article, properly attributed. JamesMLane t c 07:46, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

By that standard the assertions that she was a member of the AIP were good content that Wikipedia was right to join in spreading to all and sundry. How did that work out? A.J.A. (talk) 07:58, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

<sarcasm>A.J.A., you're absolutely right... We should completely stub this article because everything the press says about Sarah Palin is based on second hand information and therefore can not be trusted.</sarcasm> It works both ways, A.J.A. According to the McCain campaign, Palin is opposed to earmarks and opposed the "Bridge to Nowhere", but the press has ferreted out evidence that Palin hired lobbyists to bring millions of dollars of earmarks into Wasilla and sent 70-pages of earmark requests off to Stevens earlier this year. They've also found Palin supporting the "Bridge to Nowhere" and only opposing it well after Congress had already killed the earmark... What your finding is the overall degradation of journalistic standards within the US due to the 24/7 news cycle, hyper-competitiveness to "scoop" the other news agencies, and an overall sensationalization of the news. As a result, journalists have become more trusting of their sources, rely more upon the sources to tell them the truth rather than investigating to determine if they actually are, and if the story is sensational (like Palin belonging to AIP) then they are more apt to run with it. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 08:42, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

You'll notice that my explanation uses terms like "reasonable" and "good-faith dispute" that have to be interpreted and that call for the use of some judgment. There's no simple test that produces an automatic answer. As to the AIP, I confess I haven't followed the details of that particular ruckus. If an AIP officer says Palin was a member, that has enough substance to be worth quoting, but the officer's possible interest means that the statement should be attributed -- in other words, the Wikipedia article shouldn't assert as a fact that she was a member, but should say "Joe Blow, the state party chair, said ...." If instead Joe comes forward with a photocopy of a check written by Palin to AIP marked "membership dues", then it would probably be reasonable for us to report her membership as a fact (without attributing the assertion to Joe), unless and until there's a good-faith dispute (e.g. a contention that the photocopy was altered or that she was buying a gift membership for someone else).

I gather that what's actually happened is that voter registration records were produced showing she was never registered in the AIP. Many people here seemed to take that as refuting the "membership" statement. I'm dubious about that because I suspect that the AIP, as a minor party, functions somewhat like an advocacy organization. For example, there are probably teenagers and noncitizens who can't vote but who consider themselves members of the Green Party. Still, if you think that Joe Blow's statement about "membership" necessarily entails AIP voter registration, and there's no good-faith dispute about the accuracy of the supposed registration records, then I'd be inclined to say that Joe's mere statement doesn't create a good-faith dispute as to the fact of her membership, in the face of the documentary evidence. Joe's statement might still be eligible for inclusion as an indication of how Joe interpreted the situation, if that were deemed relevant and worth reporting. ("Palin has always been a registered Republican, but attended some AIP functions and was considered a member by Joe Blow.")

My point about the demand for minutes is that Wikipedia does not have a requirement that every assertion as to a matter of fact be cited to a documentary source. Lots of things happen in this world that are never recorded in minutes. We frequently (usually, in fact) have to settle for its being recorded by a New York Times reporter or the like who's interviewed someone knowledgeable and published a story so that the information is verifiable. You can avoid all this messy stuff about what's "reasonable" and "good faith" if you say that anything published in the MSM can be taken as true, or if you say that nothing published in the MSM can be taken as true unless backed up by documentary evidence. Neither of those absolute approaches is workable, though.

Obviously, I agree with Bobblehead that applying A.J.A.'s standard consistently would turn the article into a stub. Bobblehead's specific example seems to me to illustrate a somewhat different point, though. The McCain campaign spin on Bridge to Nowhere isn't an outright lie. It's a half-truth that's deliberately misleading though. As more than one person has remarked, Palin was for the bridge before she was against it. Her position at each stage is probably documented solidly enough that we don't need to say "According to John Doe, Palin supported the bridge". We can just say she supported it in 2006 and switched to opposing it in 2007, or whatever the dates are. JamesMLane t c 08:47, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

The current version reads: According to Ann Kilkenny, a Democrat who observed City Council, Palin found certain book titles "somehow morally or socially objectionable."

This is a terrible "compromise" as it now fails to show any relevance. Lots of people find "certain title objectionable," but that doesn't mean they try to get the removed. This fact either needs fixed to say Palin tried to get them removed (if she did) or removed from Wikipedia. The current version does nothing but make a paragraph long and awkward for no reason. --ThaddeusB (talk) 16:11, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Why the external links to any Media - such as NYT?

Curious that there are just a few links to media, and that one of the few is the New York Times, one of America's more liberal, mostly anti-Republican publications. Does'nt this create a dangerous precedent? Is this an implied endorsement of NYT? Does Wikipedia actually need links to any news media, since it is so easy for anyone to just look up news on their own? Thanks. Cruth 71.146.66.46 (talk) 06:18, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

The character of the New York Times is well-known. However, the external links seem fair to me. There are also some to official Republican Party sites. In general a person with a serious interest in a topic will check out the references and links. Steve Dufour (talk) 06:34, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

BTW we also have to watch out for McCain supporters posting personal smears against Palin in an attempt to make Obama supporters look stupid and mean-spirited. :-) Steve Dufour (talk) 06:52, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

WHY QUOTE THE NEW YORK TIMES? NOTE: I'm a liberal. The New York Times does not conform to my perspective. E.G., If the New York Times had a liberal bias, George W. Bush would never have become president under the circumstances he did. And, ignoring that preliminary, the Iraq Mess could never have happened. (NOTE: Knight Ridder news service -- now owned by McClatchy [slogan: Truth to Power] DID ask the right questions in the run-up to the Iraq Mess, but that didn't dent The New York Times going along with the administration -- as the American people did -- accepting the President and his staff as honorable people, acting in their official capacity in the public interest. A good faith assumption.). The New York Times supports the current balance of power, sense, and stupidity that is the public consensus at any given moment. That's why it can be quoted by anyone as a reliable source (whether wrong or not). Hmmm ... does that phrase ring a bell? :) FINALLY NOTE: Wikipedia is not a forum. These comments are only to explain why the The New York Times is an acceptable source in Wikipedia. In fact, the most respectable source. "The newspaper of record." As smart, and as stupid, as we are collectively... with a bias in favor of the privileged, as usual. (FOR COMPARISON: The Wall Street Journal has a slight bias in favor of a different set of privileged people, determined, it seems, more by a purely economic calculus. Most of the WSJ is a vehicle for economic entities to communicate. For economic interests to maintain political power, there must be some persuading of people without economic resources to believe in the ideology of the economic interests, therefore inducing a slightly higher threshold of B.S. than the New York Times -- which must satisfy a prissier-with-regard-to-fact-without-ideological-blinders group of privileged, who are not all rich. Proofreader77 (talk) 08:30, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

NOTE: The words "According to [x newspaper]" are usually unnecessary, (as someone said earlier elsewhere) nearly every sentence could begin that way -- all facts in Wikipedia are supposed to be based in reliable sources. The sources are indicated/referenced by the citations.

HOWEVER: in the example in the text, the exact words of the newspaper are quoted. In such cases, it is appropriate. (There is more to say about why you might sometimes quote the exact words of a newspaper (not a quote of x person, but the words of the newspapers's analysis), but I'll leave it at that. Proofreader77 (talk) 17:39, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

National Guard pictures

Two images Image:Sarah_Palin_Flight_Simulator.jpg and Image:Sarah Palin Kuwait 13.jpg seem out of place. Their captions have quite overt references to the Alaska national guard, even though the surrounding text doesn't reference national guard (or military matters) in any way.

Just my impression, but seems sort of awkward and an attempt to continue the "active military commander" meme. If editors decide that her relationship to the national guard merits a section in the article, then it probably makes sense to have one of these photos kept, but at present, they are just disconnected opportunities to name-drop the national guard.

Tempted to just remove, but I don't think this is a good article to be bold on, so I'll leave it to others to act on this. --Alecmconroy (talk) 07:14, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

This was discussed and decided already. Please see the archives. Hobartimus (talk) 08:22, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Consensus can change. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 08:26, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Sure, but still checking the archives first is a good idea in any case. Hobartimus (talk) 08:37, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Consensus can definitely change. I am confused as to the reasoning for the multiple pictures of her with the National Guard. I just looked at a random sampling of Governors and the only references that I saw to the National Guard was if they were actually used in a notable state emergency. Their visits to Iraq where not included (even though the ones I checked did go) and there were no PR photos in their bios to vouch for executive experience, let alone, TWO! I can understand that her visit to Iraq (and the subsequent photo) is of import because that was her only trip overseas, but the other photo should be rethought so we are not caught giving Undue Weight to her technical role with the National Guard.Zredsox (talk) 13:31, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I think that the same concern has been raised multiple times in the past underscores its validity. It just feels disproportionate-- particularly the way the captions explicitly mention Alaska National Guard, as opposed to a more generic term for US Military.

If the whole "What exactly was Palin's relationship to the Alaska National Guard" because an explicit part of the article at some point-- which I can easily forsee happening, then the captions might make sense. But as is, in the article this second, it feels like we, wikipedia, are trying to emphasize Alaska National Guard.

Not to imply bad faith. I see a sort of look ahead the national guard topic is probably going to given more coverage in future days-- but I think it's important for us to play catch-up on the issues, not anticipate them. --Alecmconroy (talk) 09:42, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

The second photo is little more than a random photo. The first one, though, is priceless - a flight jacket, over a miniskirt and black hose. That's on my wallpaper now. :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 10:18, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Since the NG pictures were out of place (not pertinent to adjacent text), I put in some brief text on her NG activities, and moved the photos there. But the text got deleted as unimportant [I don't disagree], and the photos are back where they had been. If text on NG doesn't belong in the article, shouldn't the photos also be removed, and other, more appropriate ones added? Or else, maybe someone else can write a better NG piece and put the pictures there? LarryMorseDCOhio (talk) 10:19, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

pronunciation

/ˈpeɪlɪn/[citation needed]; What is the source for this? "pay'-lynn" was removed as "nonstandard". Well, source it, remove it or accept "pay'-lynn" also. What do you call those non-latin characters anyway? Why are we including this non-english stuff few can read? The source must include "ˈpeɪlɪn" or it is original research. I suggest both be included as the rational approach. But claiming your original research be allowed but something the average joe can actually understand not be allowed makes no sense. WAS 4.250 (talk) 07:29, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

What does the ' after "pay" mean? I've seen it used to transliterate sounds that don't exist in standard English. A.J.A. (talk) 07:35, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Those non-Latin characters are called the International Phonetic Alphabet. If you click on the IPA symbols for the pronunciation of Palin's name, you'll be taken to the Wikipedia:IPA for English article, which will help you interpret the IPA version.

The reason to use IPA is that it's a standardized set of symbols with corresponding sounds. If we write "pay'-lynn" how is the second syllable to be pronounced? In some contexts, ly is pronounced like the word "lie", e.g. "lying". Other times, ly is a short vowel sound, like the word "lip" or the female name "Lynn". When you try to make up a pronunciation guide on the spot, the reader must try to guess what your nonstandard version means. By contrast, someone who knows IPA or takes the trouble to check the help page can determine exactly what the sound is, because a particular symbol always represents the same sound.

I was assuming that, in the version "pay'-lynn", the mark after "pay" indicated that the accent was on the syllable before that mark, which is a common convention in dictionaries. In IPA, however, that symbol precedes the stressed syllable rather than following it.

We generally don't consider IPA pronunciation guides to be original research. JamesMLane t c 08:17, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

No, just gibberish. It's more acceptable to present a "rhymes-with" guide along with the IPA stuff, using standard English words that most anyone would know. I could say it rhymes with "mail-in", for example. A more weasily way would be to say it rhymes with Michael Palin's last name. Assuming it does. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 10:15, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I think the IPA stuff is useless generally, but I doubt it needs a {{fact}} tag. Coemgenus 11:13, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Pronunciations are seldom given in print anyway, unless a name is really unusual. Any video in which her name is mentioned by someone who knows her would be sufficient, if there's any doubt. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 12:27, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Palin introduction: swear in date vs. elected date

I was comparing the Wikipedia article on Barack Obama with the Sarah Palin article. I noted that in the prologue at the top of the page, prior to the table of contents, the article states, "In December 2006, Palin was sworn in as the governor of Alaska...." However, in the equivalent sentence in the Obama prologue, it reads, "He was elected to the Senate in November 2004 with 70% of the vote." Now, I'm not going to bother with the inclusion of the vote differential in Obama's case, vs. its absence with respect to Palin (though an argument could be made that she deserves a similar electoral factoid here, such as, "defeating a former governor by more than 7%.") What I want to focus on is the issue of whether there wouldn't be more comity between the two entries if we were consistent in using either the date of electoral victory in both opening summaries, or if we instead use the date of swearing into office in both opening summaries. The reason this matters is, researchers may be using these pages to compare the relative length in office of each entry. And many rely primarily on the opening summary, especially as each of these is fairly long and substantial. To avoid confusion and any potential accusation that Wikipedia is featuring, consciously or not, different standards with respect to each candidate in such a way as to diminish Palin's time in office versus Obama's, I suggest that we change the relevant Palin sentence so that it reads, "In November 2006, Palin was elected governor of Alaska." (If you want to make it even more parallel, you could add "defeating a former governor by more than 7%.") If you make the change, keep in mind that the election in each case is mentioned again deeper in the article and needs to be adjusted accordingly, so that they appear for each candidate in roughly the same order. An alternative: we can change Obama's relevant sentence in his prologue to read, "He was sworn into the Senate in January 2005." I leave it to you more experienced editors to decide which version is more relevant and fair -- perhaps the latter, since what matters most is the date a politician actually starts office, not when he or she is elected? In any event, I can't think of any objective rationale for keeping it the way it is. Thanks! Catonow (talk) 10:01, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

What a megillah for a simple concept: State both the election date and the swearing-in date, for both candidates, yes? The Obama omission is probably due to the "everybody knows" that Senators take office the following January. But everyone might not know that, so it would be best to cover it. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 10:11, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

It also might be a function of the fact that the specific date is in the infobox, and was removed from the lead to avoid clutter (since it's a long lead, for a long article). If the focus is on what she was elected to, then "Elected in November 2006" works. If we're talking about positions held, then "Took office in December 2006" would work better - I'd match this date to the others mentioned. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 12:35, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Track's Gestation Period

There is an apparent back-and-forth on the inclusion of the time elapsed between Palin's marriage and her first son's birth. Personally, I see no value in its inclusion. It's intent is transparently inflammatory and embarrassing, i.e. to suggest that he was conceived prior to their marriage, yet there is no evidence to substantiate that presumption. If the admins choose to allow this partisan shot to continue, I would like the following parethetical statistic included immediately after:

Their first son, Track, was born eight months after their wedding. (In the United States, approximately one in eight babies are premature.)

The citation for this is an existing WP article [3] which contains all the necessary factoids to support it. My personal preference is the inflammatory caveat is removed in-line, but if it's to be kept we need to show why it's there (through its variation from the norm). Fcreid (talk) 10:05, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

She could be prone to premature birth (the most recent one was). Although there's also the old saying, "The first one could come any time, and the second one always takes nine months." So it could also be a case of "like mother, like daughter." But 7 or 8 months is iffy. If it were less than that, then you'd have something. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 10:08, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. In fact, a quick Google indicates the percentage of first-born children may be as high as one in three. (Oddly, that number appears to be growing for reasons I've no interest in researching.) Anyway, it's further indication that this point simply does not merit inclusion. Fcreid (talk) 10:59, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

More importantly, there is no reliable sources as to the kid's birthdate. Alaska birth records are not public. Unless a newspaper gets his birthdate by some other reliable means, I fail to see how this info can be sourced. Coemgenus 11:15, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

About the only way, other than a confession (so to speak) from a family member would be if there were wedding announcements and birth announcements in the newspapers at the time. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 11:55, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Track's birthdate was stated in a state court judgment over a speeding ticket and confirms that he was born 8 months after the wedding. I won't give the URL for privacy reasons. T0mpr1c3 (talk) 13:08, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I've removed it as irrelevant. Kelly ^hi! 14:02, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, Kelly. Fcreid (talk) 14:10, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I disagree with the deletion on two grounds. (1) There are plenty of people who might disagree that this fact is irrelevant to her bio. For example, the editors of the New York Times article whose citation you deleted feel it is of interest to their readers. (2) Let's have some consistency here. Trig Palin's possible conception out of wedlock is clearly more relevant to her life story than her mother's opinion that Palin eloped to spare her parents the cost of a wedding, which Kelly has decided not to delete. T0mpr1c3 (talk) 14:24, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

WP:NOTNEWS. The New York Times is a newspaper, its coverage is completely different than that of an encyclopedia. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 14:28, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I removed the trivial quote from her mother. I am going to vote for Obama, BTW, and am editing WP articles in order to help him. The thing is the voting block of people who have had sex before marriage is larger than the other. ;-) Steve Dufour (talk) 14:31, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

If it's a publicly-available record, then "privacy" does not enter into it. Relevancy does, though. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 14:35, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

While I'll admit to being a WP n00b, it seems to me that framing disparate facts in manner that leads the reader to conclude something potentially untrue that either undermines or bolsters his/her biography is disingenuous. The elopement doesn't seem to do either, but I don't see its relevance either. Regardless, if the item is reintroduced, it is only fair that the caveat "One in three first-born Americans are premature" accompanies the trail of "facts" (with proper attribution, of course). Fcreid (talk) 14:38, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I oppose dragging things out of obscure court records and adding birthdates based solely on that for nonnotable persons, since Wikipedians would be acting like private eyes. But in this case mainstream newspapers have discussed the elopement followed 8 months later by the birth. We are not acting like private detectives by including information which was delivered to millions of readers of multiple major newspapers, prominently displayed in a featured news article, and which will remain easily retrievable for the indefinite future. No one can unring the bell. The circumstances of her marriage and the birth of her first child are a biographical detail that would likely be included in any objective biography of Mrs. Palin. It should be included here. Edison2 (talk) 15:14, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Exactly what is the encyclopedic purpose for including that information only on her oldest child? Is it to promote a point of view that he was possibly conceived prior to the wedding? If not, then why? Kelly ^hi! 15:19, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Newspapers have judged it more important than the exact timeing of each subsequent gestation because it relates to becoming pregnant before marriage. WP:NOTNEWS is not very applicable, since it is an essay about the notability of an article's topic. I hope no one is creating an article purely about Track Palin's birth. The decision to include the 8 month interval in this article should be guided by the fact that it has been judged important enough for discussion by major newspapers as relevant to the biography of the Vice Presidential candidate. See The Globe and Mail, Canada: [4] . Edison2 (talk) 15:26, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

The dilemma is that there is no solid evidence that she actually got pregnant before marriage. Given her daughter's situation, it would fit - like mother, like daughter. But it's all merely inference, with no definitive evidence - to try to prove, of course, that she's a hypocrite about "abstinence". But if her first child was a "preemie", it could have been conceived a month after the wedding. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 15:35, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Newspapers have judged it important for reasons that do not relate to our purpose here. They have also judged hundreds of other details as important for their purposes that no one sees fit to include here either. The mere fact that it is in newspapers doesn't mean it should be on Wikipedia. --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:46, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Track's being born 8 months after the elopement seems important and noteworthy for two reasons (besides being in the New York Times)

1. Abstinence only sex education is an important part of her political philosophy, and just as her unmarried daughter's pregnancy is noteworthy, so is this
2. Her elopement is generally seen as an issue, a birth just eight months later matters.

BTR (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 19:37, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Not directly related to Michael Palin

A bit of an opaque statement to include in an introduction IMHO. This statement implies that she is indirectly related to him, which leaves the reader wondering - how? Yet this info isn't mentioned anywhere else in the article.

This statement's inclusion in the intro could be interpreted as a bit of electioneering by enhancing her celebrity power, consciously exploiting and building on people's natural curiosity about the name. However, it isn't encyclopedic to sacrifice the quality of introductions to give the subject a bit more prima facie interest, especially in an article where neutral tone is especially important due to its political content. This ought to be moved into a trivia section and clarified.

91.105.242.61 (talk) 13:56, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Sarah Heath (Palin) is "not related to Michael Palin"? Or, for those who are name-challenged, maybe it could be pointed out that her husband is not related. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 14:01, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Are we going to list everyone named Heath that she's not related to? I took the sentence out. Coemgenus 14:03, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Otherwise we would need to state whether she is related to Ted Heath. Edison2 (talk) 17:56, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Or the makers of the Heath Bar. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 18:07, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Blow-by-blow account of youngest son's birth

The issue was discussed extensively previously, but I've condensed the blow-by-blow biological details about her youngest son's birth. This is still an invasion of privacy, and I'm not sure what point was being made with the whole thing. Kelly ^hi! 14:18, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Would we be talking about her "leaking amniotic fluid" if she were a man? Unlikely, I think. ;) Ronnotel (talk) 14:28, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

There's now a minor edit war about "water broke" vs. "leaking amniotic fluid". It all presents a great mental picture, doesn't it? I'm waiting for the video. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 14:33, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I suspect we would not, but the fact is the mainstream news media are talking about it. Whatever our own opinions of privacy, this has become a part of the campaign blather. That said, the section should not be over-long, just a spare account of what went on. Coemgenus 14:31, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Since we're WP:NOTNEWS why should we include such trivial information in such detail just because everybody else is talking about such personal matters? Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 14:35, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree on the "spare account". I'm not sure what is going on with all these detailed timelines and medical opinions about "leaking fluid" vs "water breaking". Does Joe Biden have details about his penis in his article? :) Kelly ^hi! 14:39, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Not to my knowledge, but surgery on McCain's enlarged prostate was reported on in some detail a few years back. T0mpr1c3 (talk) 14:50, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Heh - definitely in the category of "too much information". Kelly ^hi! 14:51, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Yeh, and Reagan had intestinal surgery while in office, leaving him with a "semi-colon", but I don't think they went into minutia about the procedure. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 15:01, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I took the sentence out in the interest of good taste. BTW I can not imagine anything that would be more likely to get her sympathy from unhappy Clinton voters than the Obama campaign or the media making an issue out of her pregnancies. Steve Dufour (talk) 14:37, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

(ec) Why would we want to repeat campaign blather? If we put it all in here the biography would be hundreds of screens long - we have to choose what is most relevant, discard poorly sourced and NPOV stuff, allocate information to the various sub-articles, etc. I suspect that much of this is reported to feed interest in the case that she is (or is not) Trig Palin's mother, or that she is a careless mother to be, both of which are unfounded rumors that don't belong here unless confirmed. Wikidemon (talk) 14:40, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Evidently one persons's news = another person's blather. As it stands the paragraph reads strangely: the circumstances of Trig's birth generated surprise because ... [content deleted] ... and she returned to work 3 days later. T0mpr1c3 (talk) 14:47, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Should we just remove all the details? There aren't details on the births of her other children, though this one is possibly notable because it's rare for a female governor to birth in office. (Has any other governor done so? I don't know.) Kelly ^hi! 14:50, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

The point that seems to be ignored here is that IF her water broke and THEN she took an 8-hour trip back to Alaska before seeing an OB doctor, many people would perceive that as poor judgment. If her water broke while in the air, some OBs would probably say that it wouldn't be necessary to make an unscheduled landing. But my point is that the sequence of events does have relevance. The analogy would be if Joe Biden felt chest pains, then boarded an airplane, flew 8 hours, then went to the ER where a diagnosis revealed that he had suffered a heart attack, he would have been taking an unnecessary risk. Some would question his judgment in that scenario. Whether the candidate is male or female and whether the medical issue is related to gender is not what's pertinent. It is about judgment.--Appraiser (talk) 15:00, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

So you're saying that the purpose for inclusion of the information is some kind of synthesized original research to promote the point of view that she has bad judgment? Kelly ^hi! 15:08, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

One observation. Palin had previously given birth four times. Given that every woman's birth process is unique, I would argue that prior history establishes her as the world's leading expert on the passage of a fetus through her uterus. Enough with the post-analysis already. Ronnotel (talk) 15:19, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I am not advocating original research by Wikipedians. I am advocating adding facts to this biography that are well-sourced, cited properly, and may be helpful to readers who will form an opinion of the subject before voting. She is asking the public to hire her for a job who's primary qualification is "Good Judgment". To leave out any facts that could help readers form an opinion about that is whitewashing. User:Kelly, are you a paid staffer, or just a volunteer?--Appraiser (talk) 20:44, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Let's leave out the personal attacks. Coemgenus 20:51, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I removed the entire paragraph. It's common for women work through their entire pregnancy--many don't have a choice. There is a vast range of opinion about what is and is not appropriate during delivery. Early stages of labor are not comparable to a heart attack. There is no suggestion she went against the advice of her OB, and, in any case, pregnant women with four previous births who use their own judgement rather than slavishly follow the advice of their doctor are more the rule than the exception. Furthermore there are real risks associated with delivering in a strange city, in a facility you never checked out, under the care of doctors you never met before. This "story" is all uninformed speculation and does not belong on wikipedia. --agr (talk) 15:19, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

A good summary that squares with reality. I've known women who worked right up to the last day, sometimes on purpose, sometimes, "Oops, here it comes." (NOT at the office, I hasten to add.) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 15:56, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Strongly concur with the removal. Proofreader77 (talk) 17:29, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

This is an encyclopedia biography, not a campaign document

The foregoing discussion in this thread is so replete with errors that I just don't have the patience to respond to each one. The underlying problem is that too many people are approaching this from the perspective of the campaign. It's being approached as if the standard for inclusion in the article were, "Is this relevant to deciding whether to vote for Palin?" or "Is this being used by one side or the other for political purposes?" That's not the standard for a Wikipedia bio article.

The related issue is that we had this whole huge ruckus about "grandsongate" -- the speculation that Trig is Bristol's child -- and about whether that should be included in the article. My personal opinion was always that it shouldn't be included. The problem is that editors are throwing the baby out with the bathwater (an apt metaphor here). One can exclude "grandsongate" without thereby saying that all information relating to Trig's birth must be expunged. A related problem is that some editors are getting way too defensive on behalf of Palin. There's been published criticism of Palin's decision to fly back to Alaska. In the version that I favored including, there was no mention of that criticism. Here again, however, some editors seem to say that, because the criticism is out there, any factual information that might be deemed to support it must be expunged.

The undisputed fact is that Palin phoned her ob/gyn at 4:00 a.m. to report leaking amniotic fluid. This phenomenon often, though not always, indicates that birth may occur in the comparatively near future. That, of course, is why Palin phoned her ob/gyn, with whom she was in touch during the day as she gave a speech and undertook a long flight. All of that is an unusual and therefore interesting set of circumstances for the birth. A few sentences reporting on it doesn't constitute "blow-by-blow" or excessive detail. It's not "uninformed speculation" as agr charged -- in the version I favored, every single assertion was meticulously cited to a reliable source. If there had never been a "grandsongate" and if there had never been published criticisms of Palin's decision, we wouldn't even be talking. It would be obvious to everyone that this event was part of her bio and should be reported. It was indeed reported in the Alaska papers at a time when "grandsongate" formed no slightest part of the discussion.

Nevertheless, in the version in place as I write this, the elimination of appropriate, significant, and properly sourced information is complete. Any fact relating Trig's birth is apparently tainted, in some editors' minds, by the political gloss, and must therefore be eliminated. That a prominent woman became pregnant and didn't announce it until her seventh month is obviously a notable fact that should be included -- it was big news in Alaska at the time, partly because of the pregnancy itself but partly because people were so surprised. Yet, even that fact seems to have been caught up in the general panic, and has been removed.

I've put a fair amount of time into editing this section and discussing it -- see, for example, the (confusingly titled) thread above, #Big sections of this talk page itself have been deleted today -- is this appropriate?. At this point, though, I'm temporarily giving up. I may return to this subject in a week or a month or however long it takes for the expungement mania to die down and for editors to regain some perspective. Perhaps even that time frame is too optimistic. Perhaps nothing can be done until after the election, when editors will be able return to this article from the point of view of writing an encyclopedic biography, without looking at everything through the campaign lens. For now, though, trying to defend the inclusion of this information is just taking more time than I can give it. Wake me for the RfC. JamesMLane t c 18:36, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

leaking amniotic fluid

• Number of characters about (pre-deletion): 641
• Total characters in "Family" section: 2083
• Percentage of characters about circumstances around leaking amniotic fluid (642/2083 * 100): 30.7%

The interest in the circumstances of the event is completely understandable. However, to attempt to compress the issues and implications involved into a few sentences within the "Family section is a disproportionate allocation of focus for the topic, and in that compressed form only (yes) casts aspersions on Governor Palin, which cannot be addressed without a complete section of its own, which is not warranted by the level of public discussion at this time. Proofreader77 (talk) 21:55, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Vetting

I removed a section about a "controversy" that she wasn't vetted. Detailed isnformation on that would belong in the campaign's article (since they did the vetting), not her - I'd like to see what kind of consensus develops there before including a summary here. Kelly ^hi! 14:20, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

It should be mentioned, maybe, but the detailed coverage surely belongs at the campaign article, not here. (I have grown to hate the word "vetting" over the past few days.) Coemgenus 14:27, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. It is much more campaign related than biographical. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 14:29, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I've moved the deleted section to the McCain campaign page. T0mpr1c3 (talk) 15:09, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

If we are going to have a "Vice Presidential Campaign" section, then we should touch on the vetting as it is the number one issue concerning her appointment in the MSM. Clearly notable.Zredsox (talk) 15:08, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh, no question. But it should just be a summary of the consensus information in the campaign article, let's see what develops there. Kelly ^hi! 15:12, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Another source RE: AIP membership

NYT: Alaska Party Official Says Palin Was Not a Member —Travis^talk 14:37, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I think it's been pretty thoroughly established that she wasn't a member, but her husband was for a while. Spouses don't necessarily share political opinions - see James Carville and Mary Matalin. Should we just remove the AIP stuff? Kelly ^hi! 14:48, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

The fact that: "Ms. Palin attended the party’s 1994 and 2006 conventions and provided a video-taped address as governor to the 2008 convention." and "Ms. Palin’s husband, Todd, was a former member of the party." is still relevant and cited in that very article. Zredsox (talk) 14:53, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

McCarthyism. Guilt by association. For an organization that, as far as anyone here can tell, is guilty of no lawbreaking or other wrongdoing. One sentence in the article should be sufficient. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 14:58, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Not McCarthyism, but I do agree that it is "guilt" by her association with the group. She is clearly associated.Zredsox (talk) 15:02, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

The NY Times article debunks her having been a member of AIP, but does not mean her participation in their activities or any documented endorsement of their goals doesn't belong in this article. Just like Joe Lieberman attending the Republican Convention in 2008 and addressing it to endorse its nominee, without registering as a Republican, deserves inclusion in his article. That is not "guilt by association" or "McCarthyism," any more than this. Edison2 (talk) 15:03, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Lieberman speaking at the GOP convention is simply Lieberman being a "turncoat" from one established party to the other. The attempt to link her with the AIP is an attempt to somehow imply that she supports secession - hence, guilt by association. I'm still waiting for somebody to tell me what illegal activities (if any) the AIP is guilty of. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 15:19, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Should we also include all other organizations that she may have addressed - possibly the Better Business Bureau or the unions? Why is this particular one significant? Kelly ^hi! 15:06, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Because they advocate independence for Alaska. But have they advocated insurrection? If not, then it's of minor importance - one sentence in the article. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 15:19, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

(ec)Without the link of her being a member, it isn't very noteworthy that she happened to speak at a convention. I think we need to look at the AIP reference for Todd as well. Celestra (talk) 15:08, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

<-Somebody beat me to removal of the AIP stuff - I also removed the Republican registration info as redundant to the infobox. Kelly ^hi! 15:16, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

If she spoke at a KKK Convention would it qualify for inclusion? This party holds extremist views that run counter to the American philosophy of a perfect Union. The fact that Palin attended multiple conventions, is married to a former AIP member and gave an address is highly noteworthy (and why it is being covered in great detail by the main stream media.) Zredsox (talk) 15:19, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

It certainly would, because the KKK is a subversive organization known for many illegal activities. What is the AIP guilty of, other than exercising freedom of speech? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 15:21, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

(ec)I don't think the party can be characterized as extreme as the KKK. They had a governor elected in the 90s. Sources for the "extreme" claim? Kelly ^hi! 15:24, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I am not going to get into a ridiculous argument about AIP and if they are "extreme" or not. If they were not, you'd have no problem with the inclusion of the relevant AIP material that is being covered extensively in the MSM. Zredsox (talk) 15:28, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

It is in the article - as one sentence, which is all that's needed. Further details are in the AIP article. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 15:54, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Meh. The AIP is probably now most notable for having pwned a bunch of major media outlets into printing unverified stories about Palin being a member. Kelly ^hi! 15:36, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Interesting point. Maybe it's the AIP that's trying to connect themselves to her more, to give them more credibility. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 15:54, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

According to that NYT source, Palin was at the 1994 and 2006 conventions. According to McCain spokesperson Rogers, she also attended the 2000 convention. And she gave the address to the 2008 convention. So now we know Sarah Palin attended the 1994, 2000, 2006, and, via video address, the 2008 convention. I think there is enough here to warrant inclusion in the article (a clear political association with the Alaska Independence Party). Digitalmandolin (talk) 20:17, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I watched the video and I'm assuming it was not manipulated to alter Palin's message. I got the sense that she was not endorsing the AIP and at one point even said something to the effect that competition is healthy; I took that to mean "I'm a Republican and I'm not an AIPer, but I send you greetings in a sort of generic, congenial way". I think the video's subtext was "I love Alaska, too, and why don't some of you vote for me if you don't want to throw away your at election time on a fringe candidate." I invite others to watch the video and draw their own conclusions. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:13, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Then of course, there's also this video of Palin on the topic of Alaska citizenship. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:19, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Categories

WP:Category says: "Every page in the article namespace should belong to at least one category. The categories to be included, which serve as classifications, should be the significant (useful) topics to which the subject of the article most closely belongs to as a member, and where readers are most likely to look if they can't remember the name of the thing they are trying to look up." In light of that I am going to remove a few of the categories from the article. For instance "white" Americans don't usually feel that the European countries their ancestors came from are "significant" or "useful" to who they are, nor are hobbies. Steve Dufour (talk) 14:51, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I think Category:People from Bonner County, Idaho should have stayed and I'm not sure how she is notable for hunting. BJ^Talk 14:57, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

My bad. I removed that one by mistake. The media has been talking about her hunting a lot. I am not sure if that makes her a notable hunter however. TR has the category. (I took it off Dick Cheney since he is only known as a bad hunter.) Steve Dufour (talk) 15:03, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

That would be the subcategory, "Hunting for lawyers". Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 15:15, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Check out Dick Cheney hunting incident. It mentions Aaron Burr as the only other VP who shot someone while in office. Maybe there should be a category "United States Vice Presidents with guns". :-) Steve Dufour (talk) 15:21, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

A lot of them have probably had guns. How about "U.S. Vice Presidents who shot someone while in office"? It's also worth mentioning that in Burr's day, the VP didn't have much to do, so he had a lot of free time on his hands, for duels and other fun stuff. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 15:26, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

A future article on "The history of American hunting" might mention her as having had an influence on the public image of hunting. Steve Dufour (talk) 15:16, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

What's missing, then, is a photo of her taking aim at some dangerous Elk, Moose, or Knight of Pythias. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 15:27, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Recommendation,

I would recommend to form a "Controversy" section which includes:

• Troopergate (see NPR)

• Early Pregnency of Palin's Daughter

and so on......

BTW, who can edit this page?

Saharasky (talk) 14:54, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Facepalm. BJ^Talk 14:55, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

No controversy section needed, thanks. This article has actually done a pretty good job keeping the negative/positive information well melded in a good flow. Kelly ^hi! 15:05, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I forget the exact guideline, but we don't do "controversy sections". Coemgenus 15:20, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

That's not quite true. There is a Criticism of Bill O'Reilly (commentator) for example. However, the nature of his job and style is to court controversy, so that's a different situation. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 15:30, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I can't find it. Ferrylodge would know. Something about content forking. Coemgenus 15:38, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Speaking as someone who edits heavily at the Criticism of Bill, I'd not use that as a "gleaming example of Wikipedia". Its a cesspool of partisan puke. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 15:40, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it's called content forking, probably in the POV article. O'Reilly is a muckraker who thrives on controversy. No matter what he says to the contrary, he's loving every minute of it - it keeps his ratings good and keeps the money flowing in. And keep in mind he came from that paragon of journalism called Inside Edition. Politicians who are worth anything will also have controversies - but not entirely separate articles, unless they get embroiled in a full-blown scandal like Watergate or Teapot Dome or something like that. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 15:46, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Guard activities

The statement "Palin plays no role in national defense activities relating to the Guard" is sourced to an editorial,[5] not a news piece. It should either get a better source or be removed, I think. Kelly ^hi! 15:44, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I also expanded the quote from the general to include her role in commanding the Guard during non-federal Guard activities. Kelly ^hi! 15:48, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree. I removed it. Zredsox (talk) 15:50, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

First the criticism of her lack of foreign policy experience was removed, leaving the response to the criticism intact. Now the response to the criticism has been removed, leaving the criticism intact. It should really be both or neither. Mike R (talk) 15:56, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I will take off both. In general an encyclopedia is a place where people come for facts, not someone's opinions about someone else's fittness for a job. Steve Dufour (talk) 16:00, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

The main thing is the article is accurate. The governor is the commander-in-chief of the National Guard of any state until the Guard unit is activated by the US Army. At that point, the chain of command changes. Soldiers cannot have two commanders-in-chief. There is nothing unusual or controversial in any of this. As governor, Palin would be able to call in the National Guard for crowd control or to aid natural disasters and the like. But she cannot send them overseas to battle Russia. RonCram (talk) 16:02, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

McCain is probably over-hyping the situation, then. But wise deployment of the troops, even for in-state emergencies, would suggest she knows what she's doing in that regard. If such an example exists. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 18:31, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Those who rail against Obama's lack of experience are jumping all over themselves to praise Palin for being an accomplished woman, despite having even less experience. The stuff (such as in this article and this talk page) about pregnancies and such are actually a distraction, a smokescreen, from the much more important issue of whether she would be ready to take over the presidency if McCain croaks. Certainly Biden would, in terms of experience. Palin? Hard to say, since all everyone seems to be talking about is her femaleness. The obvious thing to do is to simply provide a list of what her foreign policy experience is, if any, and let the reader ask himself whether that's good enough for a potential VP. That's what's going to matter most, and that's what should be focused on this article. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 16:10, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

The CNBC piece newspaper article which came from the Associated Press [6] Kelly cites quotes Maj. Gen. Craig Campbell, adjutant general of the Alaska National Guard, in an interview by the Associated Press, to the effect that the governor has authority to call out the national guard for in-state natural disasters or emergencies, but has no role in its national defense activities and is not even briefed on them. This is from an interview, not merely an editorial opinion. It does not need to be "better sourced." I think Kelly was too quick to dismiss that as an editorial, when it appears to be a statement of fact from a reliable source, and is relevant to the degree and nature of experience. Per a CNN article, McCain cited her command of the National Guard as showing that she knows "what it means to lead troops" but also quoted a retired National Guard general saying ""A governor merely acknowledges that the president is federalizing the troops, the national guardsmen of that state," supporting the earlier cite.(edited) Edison2 (talk) 18:06, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Should the general's praise of her abilities in commanding the Guard during emergencies and natural disasters also be included, then? That's in the same source. Kelly ^hi! 18:21, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Considering how Kathleen Blanco was raked over the coals for her alleged mis-handling of the NG in Louisiana following Hurricane Katrina, if Sarah Palin has shown good judgment in deployment of NG troops for whatever situation, that would seem to be fair game. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 18:29, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Rudy Giuliani

If she can be critized, she can be complemented. There is no reason to remove the complement by Rudy Giuliani. --CanadianLinuxUser (talk) 15:57, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

This POV editorial needs to go ASAP.zredsox (talk) 16:00, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

McCain's opinion of her is important. Giuliani's comments might be just to remind people he's still out there. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 16:02, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

The whole thing would do better at Reaction to McCain picking Palin. People will come to this article to find out the facts about Palin. Opinions should be elsewhere. Steve Dufour (talk) 16:05, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Agreed... and I added it there.... Question: Should a section "Reaction to McCain picking Palin" be created here? --CanadianLinuxUser (talk) 17:04, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Then remove ALL criticisms... you cannot have it both ways. Either you take both or neither. --CanadianLinuxUser (talk) 16:10, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but that is not how Wikipedia works. zredsox (talk) 16:16, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

In this particular case, the New York Times article criticizing her, and Rudy giving his opinion should be both removed or both added.... yes that is how it works. --CanadianLinuxUser (talk) 16:26, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

It was removed. That is not how it works. zredsox (talk) 16:42, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Criticisms from direct political opponents would be fair game, as would praise from McCain. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 16:12, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I saw someone removed, "Palin has also been criticized as lacking substantial experience in foreign policy." This was an example of what I saw, but it was removed after I added Rudy's comment. So... we remove both is the consensus? --CanadianLinuxUser (talk) 16:16, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Facts about what she knows, or doesn't know, would be useful. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 17:01, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

size of Wasilla

The current version reads: "Wasilla is a city of 6,715 located 42 miles north of the port of city of Anchorage". I thought we had previously decided that this sort detail was unnecessary, although I could be mistaken.--ThaddeusB (talk) 16:02, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I think that is important information about her life and career. People need some info on Wasilla for background. Steve Dufour (talk) 16:09, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

If so, wouldn't they click on the link? Coemgenus 17:13, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

We often give basic information about something that's wikilinked. People can click on the link if they want more detail, but it's reasonable to give the city's approximate size and location right in this article. JamesMLane t c 18:50, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Poor-quality photo

I've removed, a couple of times, a blurry, low-quality image from the "Energy and Environment" section. This photo has been previously discussed - I'm not sure why we would want to make a high-traffic article look bad with a crappy photo when we have dozens of others. Kelly ^hi! 16:09, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Hmmmm.... must be in an archived version... not surprising considering the activity here. --CanadianLinuxUser (talk) 16:12, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I am ok with not having another photo (although I think this one is fine.) I just don't think we should fill the article with National Guard photos (as discussed above.)zredsox (talk) 16:13, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

It's a free photo, it's better looking than that Amy Klobuchar photo I told you about, and it's much better looking than some of the celeb photos that have turned up here. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 16:14, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Hence my reaction that it looked fine.... but it does make her look a little fat in the cheeks. :-) LOL --CanadianLinuxUser (talk) 16:18, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Re: to Baseball Bugs. Until her official portrait came through, the only out we had for Ms. Klobuchar as I recall was to replace the frumpy snapshot from a picnic with a frame of video from a free federal government source. I bet there's a government video of Ms. Palin. Though I haven't looked, hope this helps. -SusanLesch (talk) 16:27, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Right, I'm talking about this one. Image:AmyKlobuchar2006-05-29.JPG The one you just posted is better looking, though smaller. However, obsessing over her appearance is another distraction from more important matters. Would they be commenting on Condi Rice's appearance if she had been nominated? Maybe, but probably not much - because she's a known quantity. Palin is a "where did she come from?" situation, and they don't have much to go on, so they focus on what they know: cuteness, womanliness, and most anything personal they can dredge up - in short, tabloid stuff rather than factors that matter for a VP. And I would say the left and the right are both guilty of it at this point. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 16:33, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Bugs, amen on the tabloid stuff. Oh, for the person who asked about video, there is public domain video of her at DVIDS of the Kuwait. You've probably seen clips on the news - one of the videos shows her in an M-4 rifle training simulator, firing the rifle. Kelly ^hi! 16:44, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Hey, lay off Amy Klobuchar. Sure, that photo has an awkward pose and angle, but it is a nice, personable shot. I honestly doubt that corresponding criteria for attractiveness or words like "frumpy" would be applied so readily to a male pol. Homunq (talk) 16:41, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Please note that I voted for her. And I can think of various male politicians through the years that weren't exactly photogenic - LBJ, Everett Dirksen, Strom Thurmond, Jesse Helms. Yet they managed to get elected. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 16:51, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

So where are we with this? It sounds like the consensus is that this photo would add to the article? zredsox (talk) 16:43, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

It's not a big deal to me either way. I think the photo makes the article look bad (a professional organization would never run it), but meh. I'm sure it will be replaced with a better one soon enough. Kelly ^hi! 16:46, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Re: to Homunq, the point was that once a free image of anybody, male or female or not even a person, is in the article's infobox, the only thing that will displace it is a better free image. Hope this clarifies. -SusanLesch (talk) 16:45, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Sure, keep it in, for now. Better pictures will emerge, and that one's not bad at all. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 16:51, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Public Safety Commissioner dismissal

This section has AGAIN grown to disproportionate size. Is there any parts that all can agree to leave off? I nominate the bits about Palin hiring a lawyer - this info is not very important. I would also like to see a more succinct summary of the info in the first paragraph. Other thoughts? --ThaddeusB (talk) 16:31, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

That sentence should be deleted. The observation that someone has "lawyered up" in response to a claim or investigation is often used to impugn guilt, by the theory that if they were innocent they would not need a lawyer, and the press sometimes plays along with this. However, the fact that someone in a position of power hires a lawyer when under legal threat is utterly not notable. Wikidemon (talk) 17:04, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

"I" would get a lawyer... so would we all... seems prudent to remove. --CanadianLinuxUser (talk) 17:09, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Any politician with half a brain (and there are plenty of those) would seek legal advice for any issue that might come up. If they didn't, then you would really question their judgment. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 17:16, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I removed the clause "whose members she appoints" in regards to the Personnel Board. Not sure how it's relevant, seems to be implying some kind of corruption meme. But yeah, this section really needs to be trimmed down into a summary again. Kelly ^hi! 17:23, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I returned the fact, in the form of the words "governor-appointed". The cited source mentions this fact in the sentence that follows the lawyers request for change of jurisdiction (or whatever you call that legally). This is clearly seen as relevant by our sources, and it takes only two words; I vote to include. I agree that "she appoints" is POV, though. Homunq (talk) 17:40, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

The current version reads:

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.[80][81] He alleged that Palin had raised with Monegan her family's charges of misconduct against Wooten, such as a death threat by Wooten against Palin's father, [82][83] to which he replied that Wooten had been officially disciplined in 2006 and that the subject could not be reopened.[80] After Palin fired him, Monegan alleged that contacts made by Palin herself, Palin's staff and family had constituted inappropriate pressure to fire Wooten.[80][81][84][85]"

Would anyone object to this be shorted to: "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.[80][81] He further alleged that contacts made by Palin herself, Palin's staff and family had constituted inappropriate pressure to fire Wooten.[80][81][84][85]"?

If we include that, then I think we should also state that Monegan has admitted he was an "at-will" employee and could be fired at any time. [7] RonCram (talk) 19:51, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Don't like either version. Both frame Wooten's misconduct as something which Palin "allegedly" raised with Monegan. There is some justification that a death threat was a legitimate reason for communication from Palin, and I haven't seen any sources saying she denies raising it with Monegan. The death threat should stay in, in its own right, not just as some "alleged" comment by Palin; it is much better than the taser (which invites further, irrelevant questions) as a stand-in for the fact that Wooten arguably deserved to be fired.

So yes, I would object to that shortening. Just say something like "Although Wooten's misconduct, including XXX, had led him to be officially disciplined in 2006, Monegan maintained that the case was now closed." XXX could be a death threat, but I am worried that that might not be well-substantiated enough; we may be forced to fall back on something like "endangering a minor using department resources" as a way to avoid opening the whole taser can of worms (mamma's boy? aaargh!) 216.106.170.103 (talk) 21:09, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

On second thought, I think it would be best with no "XXX". Death threat and drunk snowmobiling are only alleged, taser is a can of worms, and dead moose is too trivial. Misconduct leading to discipline is concrete enough for this section. 216.106.170.103 (talk) 21:12, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Whatever version you all decide on, it should also include the fact Monegan admitted to being an at-will employee [8] - which means he can be fired for any reason or for no reason at all. Reliable sources have said the investigation by the legislature is politically motivated to damage her because even if she acted on personal reasons rather than professional ones, she broke no law. To leave out the fact he admitted being an at-will employee is POV. RonCram (talk) 21:30, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, you could argue that the misconduct is the pressure to fire Wooten, not the actual firing of Monegan. But while I disagree with your argument, I cannot argue against your conclusion. The at-will aspect is relevant. 216.106.170.103 (talk) 21:46, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I had read the page on Palin before McCain announced her. Since the announcement, all references to Wooten's actions that might have justified his being fired have been taken out. Now the article seems to force the conclusion that she fired him only because of personal reasons. Why are these documented facts (they were sourced) now LESS relevant since she accepted the VP slot? Pushing them unto another page seems fishy and potentially biased. If you disagree, ask yourself why the personal motivation isn't also pushed off unto another page.Ynot4tony2 (talk) 23:15, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

The personal motivation must remain here because it's the accusation being investigated. If Palin were publicly maintaining that Wooten's misconduct meant that he should have been fired, and that she sacked Monegan for being lax with Wooten, then I'd agree with you that we should elaborate on Wooten's alleged misconduct. Palin, however, maintains that the Wooten issue had absolutely nothing to do with Monegan's firing. (She pretty much has to take that position. She can't say Wooten should've been fired for these things, because they had all been investigated and acted on, and Wooten had been disciplined for them, before she even became governor.) Further, if we just recount the charges against Wooten without noting this history, then we'd be conveying the false impression that Monegan had taken no action despite Wooten's misconduct. JamesMLane t c 23:36, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Messed up reference tags

Some of the refrence tags are wrongly formatted, and it's hurting the entire article. I found two that weren't properly formatted and changed them, but the article is still messed up. Each and every editor is responsible for checking their own edits to make sure the formatting is done property, and I'm having trouble locating where all the problems are. People, please check the article after every edit you make, to make sure the references are properly formatted. It is too bad that the preview mode doesn't let us check references. Grundle2600 (talk) 16:32, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Track Palin's career

Track Palin enlisted in the U.S. Army on September 11, 2007, subsequently joining an infantry brigade.

If Track Palin was going to start a job at Burger King on September 11, would you put it into the article? If the family's off limits, the family's off limits. Switzpaw (talk) 16:50, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

He's serving his country, and his mother could conceivably become his commander in chief. That's significant. Working at BK would not be. Unless he won a prize for inventing a new sandwich or something. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 16:59, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Hee hee - but, yeah, the fact is notable and non-controversial. I think Joe Biden's article mentions the occupations of his grown kids, as well as the fact that one of them is military. Kelly ^hi! 17:05, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't see any biographical data on Biden's son and the military (in his article.) zredsox (talk) 17:11, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Ah, my bad - he has his own article, Beau Biden. It's linked from his father's. Kelly ^hi! 17:17, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

"Off limits" refers to gossip or invasion of privacy (especially of minors), not necessarily a story that her son is serving his country in the military. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 17:12, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

In other words, "Off limits" means negative things, but if it makes a candidate look better, have at it. zredsox (talk) 17:19, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Now, now. These facts make both Palin and Biden look better in the eyes of most Americans, so it's a wash. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 17:21, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

As both Kelly and I stated above, it is not in Biden's article. zredsox (talk) 17:25, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

However, the "off limits" came from Obama's camp. Maybe you could find out whether he has anything to say about Palin's son being in the military? If anything, it would be positive, I guarantee. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 17:23, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I am sure he would have great things to say. However, that is immaterial to Sarah's bio. 17:25, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, absolutely. All of the four candidates have been admirably civil and respectful of each other, it's a shame that their supporters can't be the same. Kelly ^hi! 17:29, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Before you imply any further, maybe you should have a quick review of WP:CIVIL. zredsox (talk) 17:34, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Its a well known that a feature of elections is a complete scrutiny of the candidates and there families, the question seems to be: Does this scrutiny belong on Wikipedia? I don't think it does, therefor her son's job and her daughter's pregnancy are not relevant to her bio at all. You can't include one and not the other, the solution would be don't include either. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Th3Walrus (talk • contribs) 17:30, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

By "off limits", I'm referring to rationales for removing less than flattering, despite being reliably sourced, information from the article. I was starting to get the vibe of a bias in favor of guns, God, and apple pie facts, and I thought I'd raise the issue. Just think everyone should keep it real. Switzpaw (talk) 17:36, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

The daughter's pregnancy is in the article. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 17:49, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

<- Um, Beau Biden's article states he is the military and deploying to Iraq. For some reason this article doesn't state that Track Palin is also deploying, that fact should probably be placed back in there. If you don't keep neutrality and balance here, you're going to stir up OMG TEH DRAMAHZ! We already have enough of that. Kelly ^hi! 17:33, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Go ahead and create a separate article for Track (like Beau) if you feel he is that notable and put in the deployment information. It sounds like that is where it belongs. We can then provide a link to it from Sarah's bio. zredsox (talk) 17:36, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

<sigh> Zredsox, please verify you are speaking correctly before making assertions - in Joe Biden's article, it say Biden's elder son, Beau, had been a partner in the Wilmington law firm of Bifferato, Gentilotti, Biden & Balick, LLC until he was elected Delaware Attorney General in 2006. Beau is a captain in the Delaware Army National Guard, where he serves in the Judge Advocate General's (JAG) Corps. He is set to be deployed to Iraq in October 2008. Is that good enough? Kelly ^hi! 17:40, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

You are the one that said he had a separate article. I was agreeing with your comment above. Please refer to WP:CIVIL. zredsox (talk) 17:43, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Biden's son is old enough to have an established career. Presumably, Track is just a kid. No need for a separate article yet. As far as unflattering info, Bristol's pregnancy is in the article, and that's hardly flattering info. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 17:45, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the above. Beau has a page because he serves a notable role as Attorney General of Delaware. Unless Track Palin has doen something particularly important for him to get his own page...? Th3Walrus —Preceding undated comment was added at 17:46, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

(ec)I'm not so sure that Track Palin satisfies the notability standard for biographical articles merely as the son of a Vice Presidential nominee. Beau Biden is the Attorney General of a state, and thus notable due to his own accomplishments. Edison2 (talk) 17:48, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Agreed Edison Th3Walrus (talk) 17:51, 3 September 2008 (UTC)Th3Walrus

It's recived coverage by multiple reliable sources. Should probably be in the article.Geni 18:08, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

It is covered in two short sentences (that could easily be rewrote as one). I really don't see an issue of undue weight here. The fact that her son is entering the military DOES have an impact on her career/life and therefore it is notable. --ThaddeusB (talk) 19:34, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Political Positions On Advanced Medical Technologies?

9/1/08 - It would be helpful if someone would add a section summarizing Governor Palin's positions on Biotechnologies, Stem-Cell Research and other Genomic developments.

Also, what is her position/record regarding the importation of lower cost pharmaceuticals from across the border (Canada)?

Dear Vandals: Please do not bother attempting to delete this inquiry again. We will simply repost it! --69.209.55.250 (talk) 17:29, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Something like that would probably belong in the political positions spinout article, if it could be reliably sourced. Kelly ^hi! 17:35, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

If something about that is published in a reliable source, I'm sure someone will add it. Wikipedia is not going to investigate every news query someone leaves on the talk page. We're an encylopedia, not a newspaper. Coemgenus 17:42, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Why can't the article use the phrase "shotgun wedding"?

I had changed the article to say:

"Palin announced on September 1, 2008, that Bristol is five months pregnant and intends to keep the baby and marry the father of her child, 17-year old Levi Johnston, in a shotgun wedding."

But someone removed the phrase.

Why can't the article use that phrase? Grundle2600 (talk) 17:38, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

-I think someone must have thought that was biased language, as "shotgun wedding" has negative connotations. Th3Walrus (talk) 17:48, 3 September 2008 (UTC)Th3Walrus

Because there's no indication that anyone will be holding a gun to the groom's head, because there's no reliable sources that are likely to be confirming that he would prefer to run like hell instead of marry, and because it's quite probably a WP:BLP issue. Tony Fox (arf!) 17:49, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

The wedding was

A formal one

Her Daddy brought

A white shotgun

And that's why it doesn't belong. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 18:05, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Slight lack of multiple reliable sources makeing the claim.Geni 18:09, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Only that they're planning to marry, not that he's being coerced into it. Not that he isn't being coerced, either, but there are no facts available on that detail. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 18:18, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

the wedding may fit the wikipedia definition of a "shotgun wedding," but that is a broad definition, and that article is not cited. Not really an encyclopedic term. Simply saying the baby was conceived prior to the wedding is enough. Rds865 (talk) 18:45, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Profession: Journalist

Sarah Palin worked as a TV sports reporter for a year at a local news station. Her profession is no more a "journalist" as it is a beauty queen, fisherman, homemaker, or whatever. I'm removing it, and I will continue to remove it. 18:36, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Hmm - both Barack Obama and Joe Biden's articles say they are attorneys as well as politicians. How long since they've practiced? Kelly ^hi! 18:40, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Her degree was in journalism and she was employed at a television station to be a sports reported. I don't see how you can declare she's wasn't a journalist? Is it because it was 1 year? Because she reported on sports? Theosis4u (talk) 18:44, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Biden, McCain and Obama lists their professions as things like attorney, naval aviator, in addition to politician.

Palin is the victim of sexism when her profession (journalist) was removed. Wikipedia itself says she was a journalism major and later worked for a TV station. If you are opposed to the word "journalist" then use "television journalist". She was also a civil servant (working as an ethics supervisor).

You may not be sexist but be careful that the article is not potential sexist. Treat everyone the same, Biden, Obama, McCain. Don't treat Palin different from the 3 men.Fossett&Elvis (talk) 18:58, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I was going to ask if she had a journalism degree. If she did, then she is, or was, a journalist. Tony LaRussa's not a practicing lawyer, either, but he's got a degree and the subject comes up from time to time. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 19:09, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

It seems like sports caster or sports journalist, would be more accurate. Accuracy, not fairness is what we really want. if all the articles are compared to each other, they will all have the same problems. Rds865 (talk) 19:14, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

We must not proclaim "Wikipedia does not want fairness". We must be fair. We must treat articles the same way. If we don't, then we must re-examine why we are unfair to some articles and use the same editorial standards for all related articles.

Some national news anchormen are also managing editors, which means they select stories. They are very much journalists, not just news readers. We have no information that Palin was just a news reading "sports caster". So we either need to find a source or use "journalist" or "television journalist". Fossett&Elvis (talk) 19:44, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

sometimes fairness and balance, are used to mean that each side has to look equally good or equally bad. there is fairness in accuracy, and that is the kind of fairness we want. If we make are goal to be accurate for everyone that is fair. But if the ultimate goal is just fairness, then accuracy may take a back seat. Rds865 (talk) 19:59, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

You can take up the Obama and Biden "lawyer" issues on their own pages, this concerns Palin. Accusing me of "sexism" is pretty asinine as well when I've never even edited either of those pages. I simply find it ridiculous to claim her "profession" is a journalist when it merits all of 10 words in this huge wikipedia article, and there is no more information on her "career" as a journalist beyond that she was on an NBC affiliate news show for a year and reported on sports. For someone to come here, look up Sarah Palin, and see "journalist" under profession, is to me an absurdism.Rizla (talk) 19:57, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Please try to abide by consensus instead of fueling drama, we have enough. We need to maintain balance on trivial things like this to avoid flamewars. Kelly ^hi! 20:28, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Need reference that Palin had premarital sex or had premature baby

There was a sentence that Track was born 8 months after the wedding. This is very immature to be in an encyclopedia. If there is a reference that she had premartial sex or if there is a reference that she had a premature baby, then put it there. Giving hints of something strange, like a baby after 8 months, is great for nationalenquirer.com but not wikipedia.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fossett&Elvis (talk • contribs) 18:41, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

That sentence is gone, and it's unlikely that it will come back. Kelly ^hi! 18:46, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

not really relevant. If it becomes the subject of attacks on her, then it will be. Don't need to have her whole life on here. How it is, is fine. Just recounting the events. I don't see how it is immature. The marriage and birth are public records, the conception and medical records aren't for the public. Rds865 (talk) 18:57, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

See the discussion on this above. We don't try to synthesize unprovable scurrilous accusations about living people here. Kelly ^hi! 18:59, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

There's no firm evidence that the child was conceived before marriage. The most recent one was a preemie, the first one could have been also. It's a non-story unless she makes some kind of confession about it. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 19:08, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't think there is a story there. I think it is usual to include both the date of someone's marriage and the date they gave birth. If you want to make it so people have to do the math, then ok, but I do not see the need to change it. Rds865 (talk) 19:29, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

The marriage and birth are not public records in Alaska. Coemgenus 21:11, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

No, but it's possible that both events could have appeared in newspapers. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 21:44, 3 September 2008 (UTC)