Talk:Political positions of Sarah Palin/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 → Archive 5

Initial comments

I added the external link from the main Sarah Palin article; which should hopefully provide some usefull info. Willy turner (talk) 02:49, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

This article contains duplicated material from Sarah Palin and does not add anything new. Merge proposed. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:05, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

That's why it was added in the first place. To become the place such information calls home. 71.233.230.223 (talk) 05:19, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Merger discussion is over at the Bio article

Go to Talk:Sarah Palin#Merger of political positions article for further discussion. Below items copied to there. -- Yellowdesk (talk) 05:38, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I oppose merging this page with the main page. RobRedactor (talk) 05:21, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
[ec]I agree with Jossi, at the present time - based on the amount of information available now - that there's no point in this separate article. Forks aren't needed if the main article is of a reasonable length, which Sarah Palin is. Tvoz/talk 05:22, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

This is just a information dump, it should be merged as soon as the information is complete

I understand this was needed as a quick fix for wikipedians to rapidly put as much info as possible after the surprise pick, and while i commend this more or less factual talk page for helping to rapidly add information, it has served its purpose.

To keep any article like this would not be in keeping with encyclopedic structure. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.248.97.216 (talk) 06:16, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

  • The merger discussion on the BIO talk page shows strong interest in not re-merging this article into the BIO. Improving the organization of this article is the relevant task at hand.
    -- Yellowdesk (talk) 19:41, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
If that is the intention, the bio article needs to summarize this article as per WP:SUMMARY. As it stands now is just duplicated material in both articles and unnecessary. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:36, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
To address the original poster, if you look under Category:Political positions of American politicians, you'll see a lot of these articles. It's become a standard device in WP. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:25, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Name of this article

... should be related to her career as a Governor over the last 20 months. Political positions of a mayor of a small town are not notable. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:39, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

The "Political positions of ..." is the common article name for a bunch of these articles. Positions throughout the careers of these people are included, because they are notable in developing the political philosophy of a notable person. So if for example Palin has a strong anti-taxes position, that started during her mayoralty when she wanted to reduce property taxes, that's notable for here. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:24, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
  • I count 50+ articles or redirects to articles that begin with the title "Political positions of..." in the article namespace. See: this link
    -- Yellowdesk (talk) 02:25, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Photos

The disproportionate use of military photos has stopped in the main article, but here we still have only military photos. What purpose does having two of them serve, other than to give undue weight to one aspect of the article? One should be deleted. If more photos are needed they should relate to other parts of the article, like schools, guns, or the environment. —KCinDC (talk) 05:39, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

I searched for proper pics but couldn't find any yet. Guess we have to wait till they release some nice recent election-pics I found. --Floridianed (talk) 07:20, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
They're out. This page doesn't need any photos, unless someone comes up with one of her signing a bill or similar. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 09:04, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
Eh, they at least make the article more visually interesting. Go look at Political positions of Joe Biden. Basically just a bunch of decorative images. No reason not to do the same thing here, within reason, just for the sake of balance. Kelly hi! 09:05, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
No, they are misleading. Right here there are two people who want them out, one wait, and you. Consensus on the main Palin article was nearly to get rid of them. Here, they have even less of a reason. Biden is just standing around in his, and if you like, remove a few of them. Add the official pic of Palin in red. I will remove the miltary pics again, and I expect you to abide by consensus. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 09:15, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
There is one "military photo" - a visit with a wounded soldier in the "foreign policy" section. How is this inappropriate? Kelly hi! 13:48, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I think any civilian photograph is fine. One As if anybody will not have been bombarde the last few days with her image. Rpmcestmoi (talk) 17:17, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

NYT reference redundant, misleading, and unreliable

There's a credible source for her position on creationism, evolution, and such from an Alaska news source. It gives her own words. The NYT reference baldly states a position that seems less nuanced and in conflict with her own words. It doesn't give any direct quote, and it uses different language. But it's probably intended to be based on the same original source, since it's a very recent article rather than from the time the comments were made. I suspect they just oversimplified her view. I suggest removing the reference. Parableman (talk) 12:28, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

The NYT seems fine and accurate.Rpmcestmoi (talk) 17:15, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I removed it. Parableman is right, it was a poor source compared to the other sources for the paragraph. Kelly hi! 17:23, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Gay rights policy vs. gay friends

In this article: "Palin has said she has good friends who are gay." Is this information about Palin's policy? Shouldn't this sentence be in the mail article about Palin under "personal life"? Dkreisst (talk) 21:33, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

She made that statement in context in which she was stating her position on gay marriage, so it belongs here if it is to be mentioned at all. The political sentiment comes across as "I do not support the persecution of gays but I do not believe they should marry." It's probably not verifiable if it's presented in a personal life context, as weird as that sounds. Switzpaw (talk) 05:46, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

AIP membership

The section being replaced on the purported AIP membership is inaccurate and incomplete. From the main Sarah Palin article:

Alaska Independence Party

According to officials of the secessionist Alaska Independence Party, Sarah Palin was once a member. The party's stated goal is to achieve "the vote we were entitled to in 1958," namely, a choice among four alternatives: remaining a U.S. territory, becoming a separate nation, accepting U.S. commonwealth status, or becoming a U.S. state. The call for this vote is in furtherance of the dream...for Alaskans to achieve independence under a minimal government, fully responsive to the people, promoting a peaceful and lawful means of resolving differences.[19] They state that Palin and her husband were members in 1994 and attended the statewide convention in Wasilla that year. In March 2008, Palin produced and sent[20] a videotaped message welcoming the convention of the Alaskan Independence Party to Fairbanks.[21]

So first, we only have a claim she was a member, not a confimation. Also, the party has other objectives/alternatives besides "secession". Finally, there's no indication that any of the party's goals are a "political position" of the Governor, since the alleged membership was prior to her political career. I think the entry in the main article is appropriate, but not here. Kelly hi! 03:05, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

  • Comment she was a member until '94? '96? This should go in the main article once it is firmed up. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 03:39, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
    • It already is in the main article, that's where I got it from. Kelly hi! 04:18, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
Agreed, this has no place in this article. Serious issues with undue weight and SYNTH. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 07:08, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Foreign Policy for Israel

While we don't know Palin's direct position on Israel, we do have some information that helps. In an interview back in February of 2008, Palin is seen in her office with a small Israeli flag taped to a window in the background[1]. Also, the Rabbi from Chabad of Alaska made the following statment in regards to Palin, "She’s established a great relationship with the Jewish community over recent years, and has attended several of our Jewish cultural gala events."[2]bigware (talk) 05:10, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

As you mentioned above, we don't know Palin's position on Israel. See WP:SYNTH - we don't try to divine things like that from flags in windows or how she interacts with people of a particular religion. Kelly hi! 05:15, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
Yes, those are not policy statements or votes or anything even vaguely resembling something you'd use to determine a candidate's position for an article. It's nothing about the reliability of the sources — it's that there's nothing there. —KCinDC (talk) 05:47, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
She met with AIPAC and pledged fealty to support for Israel, as do they all. [1] [2] [3] and of course [4]. Despite these concerns "“Given her record as a hard-right Christian conservative, her embrace of Pat Buchanan, her praise of Ron Paul, and her lack of credentials on foreign affairs, it is likely that her selection would raise serious red flags about the McCain/Palin ticket among Jewish swing voters,” they wrote, asking their members to send out their own anti-Palin emails."[5] Carol Moore 20:24, 3 September 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}

Jury Rights

Removal of section on this reverted with cleanup of the sentence structure. It is not just the commemoration of an anniversary. It represents support for the position of the Fully Informed Jury Association and opposition to current prevailing judicial practices, which attempt to control jury verdicts, especially in favor of the prosecution in criminal cases, by such methods as requiring jurors to swear to follow the "law" as given by the judge, even if the law is in dispute, and denying the right of the parties and their lawyers to argue issues of law in the presence of the jury. These judicial practices are in conflict with those that prevailed in the Founding Era, and are regarded by jury rights activists as unconstitutional. The proclamation is an indication of a tendency to adopt an originalist or constitutionalist position on constitutional issues.Bracton (talk) 14:49, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Alaska Status section

If this is a political position of hers, I would like to see a source. All I see is one person claiming her membership of the AIP, when she has actually been a Republican for over 20 years. I've pulled the section in question until we can get a source for her position. Aunt Entropy (talk) 01:30, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Alaska Business Daily?

Commented out alleged quote from this, as it appears to be from Atlantic Monthly, but haven't been able to confirm it there, either. The Alaska Business Daily site doesn't have anything since 2004. Someone needs to investigate this further before putting any of it back in.Bracton (talk) 06:57, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

"prominent member of Feminists for Life"

Note that the citiation for the above is a blog article which attacks Palin for her connection to Feminists for Life" -- the phrasing "prominent member of" coming from a comment (by OldSarg) beneath the attack article on the blog. SUGGESTION: Find a citation in a more neutal (and substantial) source which can confirm Governor Palin's public embrace or distancing from Feminists for Life. Proofreader77 (talk) 18:05, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

NOTE: [| From the Feminists for Life website] "Feminists for Life's policy is that all memberships are confidential. However, since Governor Palin has been public about her membership, we can confirm that Palin became a member in 2006." (new emphasis added/P77) Source cited is The Anchorage Daily News published August 6, 2006 (will verify) Proofreader77 (talk) 18:24, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
I have already inserted a proper reference from a reliable source (CNN). -- Scjessey (talk) 18:26, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
Much better. However, this is a reference quoting the Feminists for Life vice president in announcing their support for her candidacy after Monday's announcement of her daughter's pregnancy. SUGGESTION: Consider finding source that confirms Palin says she's a member. (NOTE: [The Anchorage Daily News article] does (in summary, not direct quote) Proofreader77 (talk) 18:42, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
I'm not exactly clear why the timing of the source, or finding Palin's own words, are important. The fact that the source is considered reliable should be sufficient to confirm her membership. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:01, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
This article is Political positions of Sarah Palin -- i.e, stating a membership as a "political position" implies she embraces the positions of the organization. It is therefore important that her confirmation of membership (and whether she accepts all the organization's positions as her own, or differs from some) comes from her in the context of representing her political positions as candidate for vice president of the United States. Proofreader77 (talk) 19:20, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
Again, I am not clear why we cannot imply from her membership of FFL that she supports the organization's positions in a broad sense. But if you want to go and find a more explicit source, knock yourself out. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:08, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
Let it stand for now. The McCain/Palin folks can change it if Governor Palin chooses not to affirm the connection in the campaign. (sotto voce) Talk to Jane Roberts. Proofreader77 (talk) 21:16, 3 September 2008 (UTC)


a member since 2006

Google Palin "member since 2006" (e.g.,: New York Times) NOTES:

  • Feminists for Life has no exceptions (for rape, incest, or preserving life of mother).
  • The Republican Party Platform has no exceptions (for rape, incest, or preserving life of mother).
  • Governor Palin supports an exception only for the life of mother
  • Senator McCain supports exceptions for rape, incest, and life of mother.
  • (Senator McCain does not intend to fight for a platform change)
  • NOTE: Feminists for Life was (may still be, was in 2003, but no longer highlighted on website since 2005 -- and some previous members have left for that reason) an organizational member of the National Coalition to Abolish the Death Penalty. People may certainly be Pro-life and support capital punishment, however, the founding principles of Feminists for Life framed both abortion and capital punishment as violence which the organization opposed. The organization's relatively recent shift in policy (or emphasis) allows compatibility with the Republican Party Platform. The date of Governor Palin's membership is, therefore, salient. As a supporter of capital punishment (in appropriate cases) Governor Palin could not, in good conscience, have joined Feminists for Life prior to 2005, and she didn't. A QUESTION REMAINS as to whether a membership should be asserted (especially so prominently) as a political position, when her position differs from that of the organization. NOTE: Her difference with the organization is asserted in the next sentence -- without an appropriate "however." (Ah, just walked into that one.)
THE POINT: The first sentence (second fact) in the entire list of Political positions asserts her membership in Feminists for Life, which may be inappropriate emphasis on that fact (given the givens). (And, is the "promotion value" for FFL gained by this prominent highlighting appropriate, given that Governor Palin's position is not identical with the organization?)
RELATED POINT: Is that during the confirmation of John Roberts as the current Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States, his wife's membership in Feminists for Life caused some concern in 2005. (Is the membership assertion--gaining the rhetorical benefit of the word "Feminists" in some quarters--worth the complications of the connection? That's up to the McCain/Palin campaign.
(Just noticing without comment: 2005.)
THEREFORE: (SEEMINGLY) PICAYUNE SUGGESTED EDITS:
  • (1) Include mention of 2006 (more significant than you'd think),
  • (2) work in an awkward "however" (regarding difference in positions)
  • (3) OR, consider less prominent mention of Feminists for Life membership as a Political position -- or lose it. (NOTE: Should be decided by McCain/Palin) Proofreader77 (talk) 00:40, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
edit made: Inserted 2006 as membership start, and changed cite to more general article in the New York Times. Proofreader77 (talk) 00:58, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Covenant House

WaPo indeed reported that she'd cut Covenant House's funding 20%. Trouble is, it isn't true. CH's funding had been $1.2M. It asked for an additional $10M for an expansion, and the legislature gave $5M, which Palin cut to $3.9M. That's not a cut in funding, it's a 325% increase, instead of the 516% increase that the legislature voted.

PS to forstall arguments: a blog is not a reliable enough source to assert a fact in WP, and the evidence the blog presents can't be included directly because of SYNTH, but we also can't assert facts we know not to be true, just because they appeared in a so-called RS. -- Zsero (talk) 17:56, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

(comment from previous editor of that section) While I would normally question the reliance of that blog over an RS about a factual did-it-or-didn't-it happen issue, I found the WaPo article to be of disappointingly low quality, with it's selective quoting, misleading factual juxtaposition, etc. I almost was thinking WTF was with that article, but didn't double check with other sources. So while some might split hairs that we really don't know it not to be true, as we are really taking for granted that source, I agree it best to keep it out, unless someone wants to reword in a way that's both accurate and relevant. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 18:50, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
Actually we do know it not to be true, because the blog links to the primary sources, which we can examine for ourselves. But that can't go into the article, because of SYNTH. -- Zsero (talk) 19:05, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Balance

This article has the potential to become a POV fork, unless a multiplicity of viewpoints (and not only Palin's own) are presented as per WP:NPOV. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:39, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

There is wide precedent for these articles being constructed in this way, see Political positions of Barack Obama, Political positions of John McCain, or more generally Category:Political positions of United States presidential candidates, 2008. Oren0 (talk) 17:36, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
That article is all based on published sources, as it is here. No difference. We are quoting what secondary, publish sources say about the subject. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:51, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

"Potential" POV fork my eye!

If this is a potential POV fork, I'm a bowl of petunias! It isn't a potential fork, it is a fork, pure and simple.

As far as I can see, this page has only been created as a means to get around the protection on the main page about Palin.

Just as soon as it is unprotected, it's going up for AfD.

Mayalld (talk) 14:59, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually it's a spinout article, which was created after a discussion at Talk:Sarah Palin. It's a content fork, of which we have many. Kelly hi! 15:11, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Rape and incest

As far as I know the situation of a baby being conceived because of rape or incest has not been a factor in American law since Roe v. Wade. An anti-abortion person would not use this expression in explaining her views. It is only used by pro-choice people, and then (it seems to me) in a kind of "boiler plate" way. I think the expression should be removed from the article. Steve Dufour (talk) 16:18, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

The section also goes into more detail when she is asked about her own daughter so no real need for the cliche, "rape or incest." Steve Dufour (talk) 16:26, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
Since many pro-lifers do make the exception, the reliable sources have to keep saying it (a Google News search gets 1680 hits for it) and so do we. It can hardly be a BLP concern, right? Phlegm Rooster (talk) 16:51, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Phlegm Rooster. Furthermore, Sarah Palin is running with someone who has said that he wants Roe v. Wade overturned, so assuming Roe v. Wade will stay a law seems inappropriate. And regarding anti-abortion people using this expression, you can check out pastor hagee's FAQ on the subject, where he explicitly addresses the question. I even found a list of talking points on another website. It's clearly a position one can take, and she has been very clear about her position, so it should be included. RobHar (talk) 17:05, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Leave it then. But the information about Palin's views are much more clearly and strongly given in the next sentence when she is asked about what if it was her own daughter. I do feel that many people use the expression "rape or incest" without taking the time to think about what it really means. If a young girl is raped by a close relative that should be called rape. If two adults have consentual sex and they are closely related that has nothing to do with rape. Steve Dufour (talk) 18:02, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

No Whitewashing of Alaskan Independence Party

This is a part of Palin's past from the time she was a member of the party until earlier this year when she delivered a videotape for that party's convention. Modify if you wish in the interest of further accuracy, but do not delete. Whatever you think of Alaskan independence/secession, the party's views are clearly stated in their platform and accurately stated here.GreekParadise (talk) 07:06, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Take it to the AIP article. This is undue weight for Sarah Palin. Palin could not run for Governor as a Republican while being a member of another party. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 07:10, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
Contrary to GreekParadise's claim, she (apparently) was a member of AIP only for several years beginning in 1994, and Kyaa is correct that she could not have been elected Gov if she had still been with AIP. However, I strongly disagree with any suggestion that this material is not appropriate to the article. On the contrary, it is highly relevant. Arjuna (talk) 08:27, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
AIP won the governorship in 1990, so don't necessarily presume she had to leave in order to be successful. Dragons flight (talk) 08:37, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
A section going "She attended an Alaskan Independence Party meeting in 1994. The Alaskan Independence Party is..." is a blatant coatrack. Is there anything more substantive about this than what is already here? It seems pretty silly to me. Tombomp (talk/contribs) 08:29, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
Well it depends on what the claim by party officials that she was a "member" really amounts to. If it means she registered with the party, then presumably she supported their core issue. If on the other hand they are calling her a member simply because she attended one convention in her hometown, then that is potentially far less meaningful. Dragons flight (talk) 08:32, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with calling what GreekParadise has just added a "compromise". This isn't the place for a party manifesto, and you've got to do better than what amounts to the party saying she attended a convention once in order to have such a large section on something that we have no evidence of her political views about. Tombomp (talk/contribs) 08:59, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't think this belongs in political positions. Her association with the party should be in the main article, but it doesn't tell us much about her political views, especially her present-day political views. The Texas Republican Party has a lot of crazy things in its platform, but very few of its members actually believe all that stuff. And Walter Joseph Hickel was elected governor in 1990 as an AIP member (he'd been a Republican previously) but didn't do anything to move toward secession, as far as I can tell. —KCinDC (talk) 09:18, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

It seems obvious that Hickel, a life-long Republican, was being an opportunist when he joined the with AIP after losing the Republican primary. By contrast, if the Palins joined AIP early in their careers, when there would have been no political advantage to it, then it would tend to say that they really supported the AIP platform. So, I don't think your analogy really fits. I agree though that whatever her positions were in 1994 need not reflect her current views. Dragons flight (talk) 09:27, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

ABC News has confirmed that she's been a member of the GOP since 1982. Parableman (talk) 01:52, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Party views

The AIP, whose motto is "Alaska First, Alaska Always", challenges "the legality of the Alaskan statehood" and demands a "vote for Alaskans to decide whether or not residents of the 49th state can secede from the United States." AIP's platform "challenges the legality of the Alaskan statehood vote as illegal and in violation of United Nations charter and international law" and has the stated goal of achieving "the vote we were entitled to in 1958," namely, a choice among four alternatives: remaining a U.S. territory, becoming a separate nation, accepting U.S. commonwealth status, or becoming a U.S. state." The party also seeks "the complete repatriation of the public lands, held by the federal government." "The call for this vote is in furtherance of the dream...for Alaskans to achieve independence under a minimal government, fully responsive to the people, promoting a peaceful and lawful means of resolving differences."

In my opinion this is too long on its face. Most of the detail of what the AIP stands for should be in Alaskan Independence Party, not here. Can we condense this party description to one or two sentences? Dragons flight (talk) 09:02, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

OK. Working on it now. I was originally trying to include everyone's edits but I'll condense.GreekParadise (talk) 09:10, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I condensed the political views of the AIP down to one sentence. I realize this may not satisfy everyone, but if the point is to convey that she may have been associated with cessetionists, that seems to be about all that is necessary. Dragons flight (talk) 09:55, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
Despite my personal war of words with Kyaa, I actually have no problem with her most recent editing, although I agree it is wordy. Dragons flight, while I don't doubt your good faith, I fear you have condensed it a bit too much in that you don't say the voting choices nor point out that Palin's 2008 message included some mention of AIP's goals. I hope THIS compromise, a slight addition to your own, satisfies most.GreekParadise (talk) 10:30, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
Sorry I didn't read this section before moving and editing the section! Hope you agree it's better placed. And not WP:undue. And of course we'll all be waiting to see what she herself, as opposed to "the McCain campaign," says about the issue. Also I believe there may be party registration records somewhere. Anyway, all the secessionists and a bunch of libertarians are excited about it :-) Carol Moore 19:44, 2 September 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}
There are indeed records out there: here. Coemgenus 20:14, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
Updated info - final info should be included so it does not look like Wikipedia editors are trying to cover something up. One example of such info, if not necessarily the best: Sarah Palin's ties to Alaskan Independence Party are played down; The McCain campaign denies his running mate supports the party's separatist bent. By Michael Finnegan Los Angeles Times Staff Writer, September 3, 2008:
she was not a member but she has cheered the work of AIP...according to its website, "its primary goal is merely a vote on secession."... "Keep up the good work," Sarah Palin told members of the Alaskan Independence Party in a videotaped speech to their convention six months ago in Fairbanks. She wished the party luck on what she called its "inspiring convention."... her husband, Todd, was a member of the party for seven years...McCain campaign spokesman Tucker Bounds said Palin did not support secession...He sidestepped the question of whether she favored a statewide vote on secession. Carol Moore 16:57, 3 September 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}
No coverup because there's nothing to cover up. The media got pwned by the AIP and printed an unverified/false story. She wasn't a member, period. Or should we use the times that she talked to Democrats as an indication that she's a secret Democrat? :) Kelly hi! 17:55, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Economic policy/issues

How come there is nothing about her Economic policy/issues? There is a fair amount of information on her budget and financial positions in the Sarah Palin#Budget section. Halgin (talk) 15:05, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I added a section on it. Halgin (talk) 13:52, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Add Section: Stem Cell Research

I propose adding this section which can go under either Social Issues or Legal Issues:
Stem cell research
Palin has stated that she opposes stem-cell research, a position in contrast to that of her running mate, John McCain. [3] [3]
I'm open to input on whether we want to include the fact that her position on this issue differs from McCain's. Even without the McCain statement, it's an important issue to cover in this article. --Crunch (talk) 17:07, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

It would make sense to include her position on stem cell research. The articles you cite do state her position but don't really say how they know that that is her position (unless that 9 minute long youtube video in the DFP article has that quote, but it might be good to say where in the video it occurs for ease of verifiability). It might be better to supplement your two sources with a more direct detailed source. For example, your phrasing says she has stated that she opposes stem-cell research, but neither of the articles say that. I think it's always better to include why it is known that someone has a certain position. I think the best that could be done with your sources is something like "The WSJ reports that she is against stem-cell research". Cheers. RobHar (talk) 17:32, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Clicking on the reference is sufficient for a reader to understand that it is the Wall Street Journal or the Detroit Free Press that is reporting it. The latter has never been the standard on Wikipedia. A better solution would be to note the actual original source, such as the interview or public speech at which she stated her opposition, which may be hard to find. Until then, I think the article can stand with a citation like as I originally proposed.--Crunch (talk) 18:50, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Upon looking around, it looks like the original source of any of this is an Anchorage Daily News article from the day after election day 2006 [6]. This article simply states " stem cell research (opposed)". I would be for including "In November 2006, the Anchorage Daily News reported that Sarah Palin opposes stem cell research". I don't think we can make a stronger statement than that for the moment. Again, there's no evidence of her stating this position, let alone a quote. Sometimes journalists infer a position from a related statement, and we only find out later that they were wrong. RobHar (talk) 19:33, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

OK, I'll buy that. Maybe it will come up in the debate and she'll address it herself. In the meantime, we can use it with the prefance, The Wall Street Journal Reported ..." if the article ever opens up for editing again, that is. --Crunch (talk) 20:42, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

So the new section would be:
Stem cell research
The The Wall Street Journal and other publications have stated that Palin opposes stem-cell research and that her position is in contrast to that of her running mate, John McCain. [3] [3]

I'll make the change. I just realized that despite the gold Full Protection lock icon, the page is open for editing. --Crunch (talk)

Just an update a day later: I have revised the section based on watching the re-airing of the 2006 Alaska gubernatorial debate shown today on C-SPAN. In the debate, Palin directly states her position on stem cell research. --Crunch (talk) 23:20, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Fiscal Conservatism and Earmarks

Sarah Palin claims that she is a fiscal conservative, but there is no mention of her record on that fiscal conservatism. All these other minor stories should be secondary to her record. That record should be part of this article. Instead of it being "topical," why not put it into what she says she is: proof of her fiscal conservatism argument. The bridge to nowhere and the hiring of paid lobbyists for earmarks are both important to that argument. --165.123.227.162 (talk) 23:41, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Fiscal Policy

Sarah Palin describes herself as a fiscal conservative. In her acceptance speech in front of the Republican National Convention, Governor Palin stated, "I suspended the state fuel tax, and championed reform to end the abuses of earmark spending by Congress. I came to office promising to control spending - by request if possible and by veto if necessary." Governor Palin did slash the federal budget by $231 million last year. The $231 million in cuts - which covered 36 spreadsheet pages - drew praise from those who believed the budget originally reflected too much spending, but ire from those who thought Palin went too far.[4] The FY2009 Palin budget request, including all funding sources and the capital budget was $8.496 billion for a state of roughly 670,000 persons according to a 2006 Census Bureau Estimate. [5] That's $12,680 per capita, or $51,000 for a family of four. No other state is close to this level of state government spending.[6]

Palin employed a lobbying firm, Robertson, Monagle & Eastaugh, to secure almost $27 million in federal earmarks for a town of 6,700 residents while she was its mayor, said an analysis by an independent government watchdog group. As the new mayor of Wasilla, she began going to Washington to ask for more earmarks from the state's congressional delegation, mainly Rep. Don Young and Sen. Ted Stevens, Republicans. The lobbying firm initially was paid $24,000 a year, an amount that increased to $36,000 in 2001. According to a review by Taxpayers for Common Sense, a nonpartisan group, Wasilla benefited from $26.9 million in earmarks in Palin's final four years in office.[7][8][9]"When she got more involved in what these programs were, she has taken a strong and consistent stand against them and she's actually exercised what they estimate to be the largest line-item veto in Alaska state history," McCain adviser Nancy Pfotenhauer told CNN. "I think what all that shows is that when you get in the governor's seat, where you have to do trade-offs."[10]

In her acceptance speech, Governor Palin also said, "I told the Congress 'thanks, but no thanks,' for that Bridge to Nowhere." While it is true that funding was never sent to build the bridge to nowhere, it was accepted by Alaska and allocated to different projects in the state. Additionally, Palin was for the Bridge to Nowhere before she was against it. The Alaska governor campaigned in 2006 on a build-the-bridge platform, telling Ketchikan residents she felt their pain when politicians called them "nowhere."[11][12]

--165.123.227.188 (talk) 05:56, 7 September 2008 (UTC)


Pretty unbalanced as a description of fiscal policy per WP:NPOV. Certainly some mention of the earmarks might be appropriate (it's already discussed in Sarah Palin#Wasilla) but it's hardly her fiscal policy position. For example, she vetoed a pretty large amount of spending by the Alaska government. Kelly hi! 06:07, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
I didn't say it was balanced; I'll leave it up to the rest of you guys to make it more "reasonable." I think including that she cut millions off the budget is fine, but if you are, you might want to include what CNN said on top of that - her federal budget is increasing at a rate of 10% per year so it's not like the budget is getting any smaller. No one looks under Wasilla when they are looking at a page on her political positions. Fiscal policy is directly related to earmarks because they are, as John McCain himself puts it, a form of wasteful spending that a fiscal conservative should never accept. Perhaps my description of her fiscal conservatism just happens to bring up the unfortunate truth: she's not that huge of a fiscal conservative when it comes to her record. --165.123.227.188 (talk) 06:30, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
Certainly some people have that opinion, while others have a different one, but a political positions page really isn't a place for opinions, unfortunately. Kelly hi! 06:44, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
Which is why people like you are here. First I'd say that the things I am posting are more facts than opinions. It is a fact that she supported the bridge to nowhere. It is a fact that she hired lobbyists. It is a fact that she has obtained earmarks. If you wish to include items that will make this seem more reasonable, that suits me just fine. What I'd prefer not to do is for nothing to get done at all and this sit on the discussion page. --165.123.227.188 (talk) 06:52, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
From the WP:NPOV page: Assert facts, including facts about opinions—but do not assert the opinions themselves. By "fact" we mean "a piece of information about which there is no serious dispute." For example, that a survey produced a certain published result would be a fact. That there is a planet called Mars is a fact. That Plato was a philosopher is a fact. No one seriously disputes any of these things. So we can feel free to assert as many of them as we can. That being the case, my opinion is completely valid as long as it can be backed up by valid sources.
I have removed certain portions of it that I found to be unnecessary and added additional sources to back the statistics of the original sources --165.123.227.188 (talk) 06:54, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
Hmmm...it always makes me scratch my head when people insist that unbalanced information must go into an article right now, and it's up to other people to add other information later on to make it match WP:NPOV. Kelly hi! 07:31, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
Actually, what I said, if you read it correctly, was that I don't want that. To avoid having my words twisted around, I'll quote myself: "If you wish to include items that will make this seem more reasonable, that suits me just fine. What I'd prefer not to do is for nothing to get done at all and this sit on the discussion page." If you find something that I wrote is biased, then specify exactly what you think is wrong and not make generalities about how "unfair" I'm being. Then I could actually do something to change it. Unfortunately complaining doesn't help either one of us, does it? --165.123.227.188 (talk) 07:33, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
It looks to me like user 165.123.227.188 is trying to be reasonable. He appears to have a certain knowledge (and sources) of facts and has placed them here on the discussion page. He's recognized it may be unbalanced, but perhaps his knowledge only lies on one side of the issue. One editor shouldn't have to explain all sides of every issue, that's why this is a collaboration. The collaborative nature of wikipedia is what makes it successful. Most wiki articles go for long amounts of time being poorly weighted, but it doesn't matter because it's not about something important or related to a popular person, and then the article gets improved over a matter of months and slowly builds into a balanced accurate article. I recognize that that kind of unbalanced appearance shouldn't appear in an article on a living person for any period of time, but expecting every editor to come up with a bunch of balanced facts is a bit much. And this user didn't place his paragraph in the article, but rather on the discussion page, which I think shows some pretty good faith. As I read the current economic section in the article, it looks unbalanced in view of the facts now included here. It is all favorable. Certainly she doesn't have a perfect record as a fiscal conservative. RobHar (talk) 15:32, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
I appreciate that. I'm more than willing to admit there may be additional information out there that shows a more balanced viewpoint of Palin's fiscal conservatism. If it is out there, include it. Unfortunately I am not privy to that information, just the information I have presented through researching her record as Mayor and Governor. I have also added an additional source and statement by the McCain campaign trying to explain why she went for those earmarks. --165.123.227.57 (talk) 16:23, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Link To John McCain's Positions

For some reason, I am not allowed to add a link to Political positions of John McCain to the page. It should be near the top, and say something like, "...more conservative than John McCain, whose positions can be found at Political positions of John McCain." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.252.89.151 (talk) 02:23, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I do not have a problem with this. --165.123.227.188 (talk) 07:08, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
The Political positions of Joe Biden article doesn't link to the positions of Barack Obama, or compare the two. —ADavidB 13:38, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Oil and Gas

Booksnmore4you has suggested some edits which have been reverted several times. This seems like the place to discuss it. Let me start the ball rolling by saying that I oppose these insertions because: - There already exists a paragraph about the beluga whale. - The quote from the Sierra Club member lacks context. - The quote from The Independent is editorializing. T0mpr1c3 (talk) 19:46, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Agree, per T0mpr1c3 above. Kelly hi! 19:49, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Suggest you decide where the beluga whale belongs.
  • Suggest you discuss how to contextualize the Sierra club content.
  • Suggest you determine whether the Independent content would be better if sourced another way, or if it is better rephrased.
  • do no blindly blank it. Booksnmore4you is a newbie, do not bite him or her by blindly removing their addition. Be polite, AGF, and do NOT run roughshod over them. This article will be here for a while; it is a work in progress; but Booksnmore4you may stay and become a valued contributor or leave forever based upon your (so far, so shoddy) treatment. Focus and perspective, people. KillerChihuahua?!? 20:16, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
My perception is that you are acting aggressively. I'm not going to write your edits for you, neither am I going to blow past 3 reverts to delete them again. But unless you back them up on this page they are going to be taken down time and again, because repeatedly slapping up the same edit without any justification makes you look like a mindless vandal. T0mpr1c3 (talk) 20:34, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
(ec) ::: You, Kelly, and Booksnmore4you are dangerously close to busting 3RR. Now: you and Kelly are not newbies, and should know better. As for Booksnmore4you, he should be informed of the 3RR policy. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:38, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
Correction: Actually Kelly already violated WP:3RR. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:40, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
Did she? I miscounted then, I made it out that she stopped just shy - gaming the system perhaps but not actually at 4 or more reverts. Good catch - thanks, Jossi. KillerChihuahua?!? 20:42, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
Kelly reverted Booksnmore4you 4 times, and Cdogsimmons once. And this is a pattern, not an isolated case: ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:51, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
Kelly's recent editd
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
  1. 10:29, 4 September 2008 (edit summary: "Undid revision 236184244 by 88.233.54.200 (talk) - change to match the source")
  2. 11:27, 4 September 2008 (edit summary: "Undid revision 236214109 by 88.233.54.239 (talk), redundant, obvious")
  3. 11:32, 4 September 2008 (edit summary: "Undid revision 236216251 by CengizT (talk) - this is what the source says")
  4. 11:36, 4 September 2008 (edit summary: "Undid revision 236216669 by CengizT (talk) - the source does not say that, see talk page")
  5. 11:39, 4 September 2008 (edit summary: "Undid revision 236217085 by CengizT (talk) odd deletion")
  6. 11:41, 4 September 2008 (edit summary: "Undid revision 236217372 by CengizT (talk) - DISCUSS ON TALK")
  7. 05:12, 5 September 2008 (edit summary: "/* Israel */ rm per WP:REDFLAG, see talk")
  8. 14:46, 5 September 2008 (edit summary: "/* Israel */ rm per WP:BLP")
  9. 18:34, 5 September 2008 (edit summary: "/* Israel */ rm per WP:BLP")
  10. 21:21, 6 September 2008 (edit summary: "Undid revision 236727315 by Cdogsimmons (talk) - this is not a policy position, see talk")
  11. 08:26, 7 September 2008 (edit summary: "/* Oil and gas development */ not a place for random opinions")
  12. 08:28, 7 September 2008 (edit summary: "/* Oil and gas development */ needs attribution")
  13. 08:39, 7 September 2008 (edit summary: "the Indepedent's opinion is not a "political position"")
  14. 08:41, 7 September 2008 (edit summary: "/* Oil and gas development */ redundant whale stuff, see "Endangered species" below")
  15. 08:48, 7 September 2008 (edit summary: "/* Endangered species */ reword whale thing")
  16. 08:49, 7 September 2008 (edit summary: "/* Endangered species */ whoops, redundant clause")
  17. 08:50, 7 September 2008 (edit summary: "/* Endangered species */ minor grammar fix")
  18. 09:17, 7 September 2008 (edit summary: "/* Endangered species */ tense")
  19. 16:33, 7 September 2008 (edit summary: "Undid revision 236886555 by Booksnmore4you (talk) - take it to talk")
  20. 16:37, 7 September 2008 (edit summary: "Reverted 1 edit by Booksnmore4you; Unexplained removal of content.")
  21. 18:52, 7 September 2008 (edit summary: "/* Oil and gas development */ not neutral, we don't do random opinions, and redundant to "Endangered species" below. Make your proposal at talk page")


No, I'm an admin who doesn't even edit this page, who is telling you to learn to work with others, or you'll get blocked. I'm not asking you to "write my edits for me" - I have no edits to this article. I merely undid your newbie-biting and reversion of good-faith edits by another editor. Now, you can learn from this, or you can piss on my toes. Your call. Let me know if you have any questions. KillerChihuahua?!? 20:36, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
Good-faith edits are fine...but even if that edit is good-faith and violates policy, it has to be removed, especially on a high-profile article. Kelly hi! 20:44, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
I have not broken 3RR and I do not intend to, I am merely following WP:BRD. My problem in doing so is that it seems to take a fair bit of arm twisting to get any discussion on these edits. I've made my position pretty clear. So in all good faith: what is the justification for these edits? I'm all ears. T0mpr1c3 (talk) 20:46, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

(outdent):Kelly, the edit in question violates no policy, so your point is baseless. And both of you should know that you can be blocked well before technically violating 3RR. If you are counting, you are missing the point of the 3RR policy. KillerChihuahua?!? 20:49, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

(ec) Adding, BRD? No, indeed. You were following RRR. You didn't make the edit; you reverted it, and when I restored and told you to discuss it, you reverted me twice, in less than 10 seconds each time. You are edit warring with a vengence; and I am NOT impressed with your reasoning. KillerChihuahua?!? 20:53, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
In point of fact, I started this discussion, and reverted only after checking that there were no new contributions to the discussion. You can check the times if you want. T0mpr1c3 (talk) 21:05, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
Just a side note - KC, I know perfectly well that you have a problem with me because I've criticized the IDCab, you've stated it before. I already figured it was just a matter of time before the Intelligent Design Wikiproject showed up on the Palin articles, but please don't try to play "uninvolved admin" here. If you would like to block me, bring it. Kelly hi! 20:51, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
He does not need to "bring it". all it will take would be a simple report about your editing behavior at WP:AN/3RR, and you know that very well. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:32, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
WTH? Kelly, if you need blocking, you'll get blocked, and I have no intention of avoiding articles where you are edting (or edit warring) because you think you can get a free pass by screaming 'involved admin!". I assure you, you are not important enough to me for me to bother holding a grudge, even if that were my nature, which it is not. KillerChihuahua?!? 20:55, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
Hmmm, do it then, go ahead and block me. Or maybe Felonious Monk should do the block. But look back through your contribs first. And Jossi - I thought you promised you were going to stay away from politics articles, in the ArbCom case you're involved in. But I don't want to receive any more threatening e-mails from you. But, in any case, blatant POV-pushing has no place in Wikipedia articles, which both of you know perfectly well. Kelly hi! 21:00, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
Kelly, I've never emailed you. Who have you confused me with??? And why the bizarre "dares"? This is highly unproductive behavior. KillerChihuahua?!? 21:03, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
Oh, Jossi was the one who sent the e-mail, over a comment I made in his ArbCom case. I forwarded it to the ArbCom mailing list. Kelly hi! 21:09, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
I would argue that I was not that off on my comments to you privately, but if you insist, I can post my email to you in your talk page. Your call.≈ jossi ≈ (talk)
@Kelly: I declared that I will not exercise admin actions in US Political articles ... so that is exactly what I am doing: acting as an editor that is concerned, as expressed in my email to you, that your behavior in these pages is appalling, and that sooner or later it will be known as per WP:AKASHA, which is currently the case. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:07, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Clearly "Kelly" is attempting to bowdlerize the article! Booksnmore4you (talk) 21:07, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Welcome to the discussion, Books. Please read the policy on WP:3RR and don't put the content back in the article, but do discuss - I suggest using the points by T0mpr1c3, and my bulleted suggestions, above, as a starting place. KillerChihuahua?!? 21:10, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
@KillerChihuahua - Blocks are not punitive, so what is needed is a declaration by Kelly that she will not editwar any more, with the understanding that if she does, after the behavior supported by evidence above, she will earn a long enough block to prevent further disruption. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:11, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
If any of you would like to say that I've acted improperly at upholding WP:BLP and WP:NPOV on Sarah Palin and this article, then get busy and bring some diffs to show I've edited with a pro-Palin POV. You would not believe the absolute scurrilous garbage that people have been trying to insert. Kelly hi! 21:13, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
Kelly, I assure you, I have been an editor of Wikipedia long enough to believe ANY amount of garbage, and political articles pre-election are always among the worst. However, the edit in question was NOT a violation of NPOV or BLP, but you did edit war blindly to revert the edit, as did Tom. KillerChihuahua?!? 21:17, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
Kelly should know by now, that she can get help from the good folks monitoring WP:BLP/N and WP:RS/N rather than keep reverting. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:29, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
So Kelly, ball is in your court. Are you going to try to AGF a bit more, work with others, and stop edit warring? KillerChihuahua?!? 21:34, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

There's a bit of a ruckus going on here. Can we start over now that we have everybody in the house? T0mpr1c3 (talk) 21:11, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

We can if users pledge to not to cross the electric fence. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:30, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
I started a new section below. Be civil and AGF (that's all of you!) and let me know if things get out of hand again. KillerChihuahua?!? 21:32, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Oil and Gas, Take two

  1. There already exists a paragraph about the beluga whale.
  2. The quote from the Sierra Club member lacks context.
  3. The quote from The Independent is editorializing.

and:

  1. Suggest you decide where the beluga whale belongs.
  2. Suggest you discuss how to contextualize the Sierra club content.
  3. Suggest you determine whether the Independent content would be better if sourced another way, or if it is better rephrased, or ommited.

Posted from above, does this cover the issues on the disputed addition? KillerChihuahua?!? 21:14, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Tom, you have now violated 3RR on the beluga whale, and the link you give in your edit summary is invalid: This edit. If there are opposing views, DO NOT REMOVE ONE. Instad, edit to add the other view, like this: "Palin eats baby ducks, according to (source). (Other source) states that has nothing to do with the feathers in her teeth at the recent photo op.". See? KillerChihuahua?!? 21:41, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Adding: Yes, this is much better, and you self reverted as well, always good! However can you and Books find a way to keep the beluga accusation in, without giving it undue weight (making it clear there are differing views)? KillerChihuahua?!? 21:43, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
I have attributed that statement to the source, rather than assert that as a fact. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:45, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
(laughing) Darnit, Jossi, I know you know how to do that! I was trying to get our edit-warriors to learn!!! Ah well, they can learn by example I guess. KillerChihuahua?!? 21:49, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
Couple of problems. On the beluga whales thing, the passage implies that the toxic waste reduced the population, when this is simply not the case. Their population was reduced by overhunting by the Eskimos - this is discussed extensively, with evidence, at Talk:Sarah Palin#Beluga whales, and in the "Endangered species" section of this article. The Sierra Club quote is grossly inappropriate - this article is not a place for statements by political enemies or critics in a statement of "Political positions". The same goes for The Independent editorial opinion on her tax refund to the Alaska citizens. How would they know what the motivation is? Kelly hi! 21:58, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
Kelly, we report on what reliable sources say on a subject. That is what WP:V says, and that is what that is. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:04, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
The Sierra Club is an environmental organization, is it not? Clearly a source that can be used. You may add other sources and counterpoints for NPOV. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:06, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, but the problem is that if we try to include every viewpoint by every organization, the article is confusing and never becomes stable. Why is this organization's viewpoint notable enough to include? Kelly hi! 22:09, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
Considering that the Sierra Club has endorsed Obama we should probably not use them in this situation. Arzel (talk) 22:52, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
So options are: 1, omit that; 2, use Sierra club but make sure to also mention, perhaps parenthetically, that they have endorsed Obama; or 3, find another source. Have I missed any? KillerChihuahua?!? 22:59, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
Hmmm - normally I would say 3, but I'm not sure who we would consider reliable and neutral in this case. Kelly hi! 23:06, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
Sources don't have to be neutral - they have to meet guidelines and state what is being put in the article. (linked are the WP:RS and WP:V, which Books should read, and anyone else who is not familiar should read also.) That's why I put in option 2 - Sierra club meets WP:RS handily; as you note, they are not neutral so that should be clarified in the article. I'm not arguing for option 2; I am explaining. KillerChihuahua?!? 23:11, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
The NMFS review that I cited is the latest scientific review from a public body. That is an authoritative source, no question. The Independent and Sierra Club sources are opinion. T0mpr1c3 (talk) 22:07, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
And since when opinions are to be dismissed? As I said, you can add the counterpoint of the NMFS for balance. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:08, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
I'm not dismissing anybody's opinion. Trish Rolfe is perfectly entitled to her opinion. But I don't see why it belongs on this page. T0mpr1c3 (talk) 22:16, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
Are you saying that we ought to dismiss opinions published in the mainstream press, which are considered to be reliable sources, based on who has stated that opinion? Let's face it, little is known about Palin's views on these issues, so we have to do with what has been published by the US and the international press on the subject. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:19, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
I disagree, you only have to look at the facts to know what kind of an environmental record Palin has. T0mpr1c3 (talk) 22:36, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

<<< For example, would the opinion of the executive director of Columbia University Earth institute, published on The New York Observer be notable enough for including in the article - "Science, Governor Palin and Environmental Policy". Retrieved 2008-09-07. {{cite web}}: Text "The New York Observer" ignored (help) ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:24, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

And what about the Malaysian Sun reporting of an Asian News International wire? "Palin's "toxic" environmental policy would even make President Bush blush". Retrieved 2008-09-07. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:28, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

  • OK, so now Books has reverted me. That makes 4 reverts by my count. PCBs and chlorinated pesticides are the industrial pollutants most injurious to marine mammals due to bioaccumulation, so the fact that levels of these pollutants are lower in Cook's Inlet belugas is particularly significant. So please revert yourself. T0mpr1c3 (talk) 22:27, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
    • Yeah, I agree. Where is our Powerful Admin to enforce 3RR now? Kelly hi! 22:31, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
      • Right here.[7]--Tznkai (talk) 22:36, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
        • Does anyone have a problem with restoring the NMFS quote that Tom put in and Books removed? Kelly hi! 22:38, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) Kelly, why don't you try to discuss with Books why you feel it should be in the article, and Books, you tell Kelly why you think it should not be. That's how this place works, not by edit warring, which is what you've been doing. KillerChihuahua?!? 22:42, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

KC, that's what I'm doing on this talk page. And, with all due respect, I would really prefer if you would step aside and let another "uninvolved admin" deal with this, I really personally would prefer not to deal with you. Kelly hi! 22:48, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
At the very least we should wait a while to give Books a chance to self-revert or say something.--Tznkai (talk) 22:44, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, makes sense. Kelly hi! 22:51, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
And if we see no sign of team playing from Books? T0mpr1c3 (talk) 23:19, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
As of 40 seconds ago Books hasn't made any edits since that one. Try restoring the spirit of the removed content, while addressing Books concerns. Also, keep in mind that if Books returns, that he is welcome to participate in this discussion.--Tznkai (talk) 23:27, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
OK. T0mpr1c3 (talk) 23:46, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Now I am pissed off because Books has reverted me for a 5th time. Still no sign of him on this discussion board. I think Books has received considerable license and I am out of patience here. Every single edit I have made on this page in the last 5 hours has been reverted by Books without explanation. T0mpr1c3 (talk) 00:08, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
T0mpr1c3, please provide diff of Book's edit, and the version he reverted, exactly or substantially to.--Tznkai (talk) 00:24, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
Yes, thanks, the edit I am upset about is this one. T0mpr1c3 (talk) 00:30, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
I need a diff to compare it to--Tznkai (talk) 00:42, 8 September 2008 (UTC) What did he revert it too?
  • Yeah, interesting on how the revert-warning actions are only being directed at one side. Kelly hi! 00:16, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
Reviewing. I do have a real life and food on the burner by the way.--Tznkai (talk) 00:17, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
(after EC) Kelly, you're at at least 7, and its being discussed on both sides - Books' is on his talk page. I am trying to avoid blocking you all, which I will do if you don't all calm down - and kelly, your hostile nasty implications are not helping the situation any. And now that Tzn is here, I'm rebooting my machine, which has needed it this past hour. KillerChihuahua?!? 00:20, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
Interesting how you always leave out the BLP violations in the revert count. Kelly hi! 00:23, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
Kelly, try to be more civil. There is no need to sound so smarky. I have stated multiple times I see no BLP violations in the disputed edits. I have even written a minor essay on this talk page about sourced (and attributed) allegations about political candidates. KillerChihuahua?!? 00:41, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
I'm referring to the Dominionist garbage that Jossi has been putting into the article repeatedly. Kelly hi! 00:45, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Settle down!

A brief glance at the History shows a bucketfull of you reverting instead of talking, editing, copyediting, or otherwise acting like Wikipedians. We'll start with WP:TROUT and move onto letter and spirit of WP:3RR violations.--Tznkai (talk) 21:33, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

You're late to the party - see the Oil and Gas section above, for LOTS on the recent Edit war. Jossi and I have been attempting to defuse, and everyone but Kelly seems agreeable and willing to start discussing, but Kelly has said our concern over her 3RR violations is personal. KillerChihuahua?!? 21:37, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
If you're suggesting that Jossi has been trying to defuse edit wars, that's the best joke I've heard all week. Seen the ArbCom case? :) Kelly hi! 22:10, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
Your sarcasm aside, I have still (and others as well, I am sure) waiting to hear from you about AGF and stopping edit warring. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:13, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
Or wheel warring. Kelly hi! 22:26, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
I'm going to recommend we all drop this right now.--Tznkai (talk) 22:15, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
Ah, OK, you're probably right. Kelly hi! 22:26, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Summary of Sarah Palin in intro

SHe is summed up as being on par with a different party than the one she's affiliated with.. that's the summary of this page? How wierd is that. This article needs serious work.. starting with the intro. --98.243.129.181 (talk) 01:57, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. The intro smells like a POV hatchet job. A Newsweek article that clearly was trying to make an interesting point, is not an excuse for emphasizing a political belief that is different from the party to which she always belonged. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 02:18, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
I removed it, it wasn't appropriate per WP:LEAD anyway. Kelly hi! 02:32, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Polar bear section

The polar bear section needs some WP:NPOV work (I'm off to bed, will work on it tomorrow if nobody else does.) Right now it looks like it was written by an animal-rights organization. By comparison, look at the wolf thing in the next paragraph, which is much more nuetral. Kelly hi! 04:53, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

You need to either change it or be more specific in your criticism, so it can be discussed. I'm removing the tag. Lampman (talk) 00:07, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
The source says later in the section, "Small named two other marine mammal biologists on staff and said the three of them had reviewed the nine new polar bear studies that the federal government was citing to justify a threatened-species listing for the bears. ... None of the three is a polar bear specialist. The state has none, having relinquished its polar bear research to the federal government." And then later, "Ken Taylor, the deputy commissioner of Fish and Game, said on Friday that it's no secret that not everyone in his department agreed with the state's position." So, it seems the statement , "Alaskan state biologists" is not accurate as a generality when it appears we have 3. The source doesn't state how many scientists within it's organization or how many submitted opinions. Theosis4u (talk) 01:40, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

On Contraception

I do not feel right referring to Palin as just "pro-contraception." She's quoted as against the teaching of contraception in schools; that's anti-contraception. Even if she supports contraception in other ways, that would give her a mixed record, not a pro-contraception record. Do we have any quotes or other actions describing how she has supported contraception? Darkfrog24 (talk) 15:54, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Huh? How is being against teaching it in schools at all the same as being against it? Is being against teaching religion in schools the same as being anti-religion? -- Zsero (talk) 09:30, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
That's a poor analogy. Teaching religion in schools begs the question of which religion to teach; whose religion is supported and who gets left out? There is no such issue with contraception, except in the minds of conservatives who think the best way to prevent teenagers having sex is to keep it as dangerous as it was a century ago.
Aside from her promotion of abstinence-only eduation, I have to wonder why a 44-year-old woman who obstensibly supports the use of contraception just had a baby. Surely she knew how risky it is at that age. Tualha (Talk) 11:32, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

The L.A. Times confirmed today that she has no problem with talking about condoms in sex ed. Whatever she didn't approve of is something more explicit than that. Parableman (talk) 01:31, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

That reference should probably go on the main S.P. bio page too because it's more informative than the current ref there. T0mpr1c3 (talk) 11:09, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
This clarifies the apparent contradiction - it appears she supports teaching abstinence, but not "abstinence-only". It would be nice if we had a source other than the L.A. Times, though - my impression has been that they're not terribly reliable. Tualha (Talk) 21:56, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Taxes?

Come on, there must be something to put here. Even if she has avoided making statements that would tie her down later, she has a record. Homunq (talk) 17:34, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

See SaraPalin on Tax Reform T0mpr1c3 (talk) 09:47, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Abortion wording

There have been a lot of edits saying that Palin is opposed to abortion, "even in cases of rape and incest". The source actually says Smith said Palin is opposed to abortion, but believes an exception should be made if the health of the mother is in danger.[8] The "rape and incest" terminology is only used by other people. This seems like loaded POV to me, and redundant to Palin's statement. Kelly hi! 11:36, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

  • We don't just quote Palin; she is a primary source. The secondary sources say her position is no abortion even in caes of rape and incest 621 times (by Google news hits). An article on some artist would not just say what he says his art means, but also what the critics say it means. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 11:48, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
I have added an additional reliable source that specifically uses the rape/incest wording, and tightened up the sentence. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:20, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
Rape, incest, and risk to the mother's life are the three main categories of exceptions that categorize the positions of pro-life politicians. For example, McCain favors all three exceptions. So being explicit about her position at the risk of some redundancy is justifiable in my view. (At least on this page - maybe not in her bio.) T0mpr1c3 (talk) 14:26, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

There are three references (3,4,5) following sentence containing the claim that Palin favors an exception when the mother's life is in peril. The last link (5) is not an active. I can find nothing in reference (4) related to making an exception when the mother's life is in peril. Reference (3) is a quote of someone claiming that is her position. I think it is important to have a clear and working reference to a quotation of her, stating this is her position, or that it is not.74.65.216.221 (talk) 23:48, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Is is a Political or Private Opinion though? I've been unable to locate any positional statement from Palin that her Pro-Life opinion are anything more than private opinions. In other words, I can find no reference to her position on the legality and her intent to change existing abortion laws. If we can't find this, then I believe we should include a reference about this. Something like, "Palin has not publicly expressed an opinion on legality of abortion laws or her intent to change them while in office." Most "Pro-Life" politicians will have a public statement directly challenging the laws and their intent to change them and how. Theosis4u (talk) 01:54, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Just found this Sarah Palin on Abortion .
Q: If Roe v. Wade were overturned and states could once again prohibit abortion, in your view, to what extent should abortion be prohibited in Alaska?
A: Under this hypothetical scenario, it would not be up to the governor to unilaterally ban anything. It would be up to the people of Alaska to discuss and decide how we would like our society to reflect our values."
Theosis4u (talk) 02:21, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
Found the primary link to source for the above : ADN - Palin on issues. I would hope this gets into her entry. Theosis4u (talk) 02:28, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
This sounds to me like the interviewer didn't really pin her down. The question was hypothetical which allowed Palin provide a hypothetical answer. You reasoning sounds OK to me though, I think a direct answer to the question "Do you support Roe vs Wade?" would be notable. T0mpr1c3 (talk) 08:57, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
A direct "answer" would be nice, but this reference should definitely go in the article as it gives more context to the other opinions that very well might be "personal". Without this reference, it's easy to imply the others are political statements against Roe V. Wade. Theosis4u (talk) 15:44, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
That source is a gold mine. For example;
26. Do you support the proposed Pebble mine in Southwest Alaska as the project is now envisioned? If no, are there conditions the mine developers could take that would make the project acceptable?
As part of a Bristol Bay fishing family, I would not support any development that would endanger the most sensitive and productive fishery in the world.
is very interesting. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 09:22, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
If someone could please include the above references on Roe V Wade. I'm not 100% sure I've been able to maintain objectively in response to the hypocrisy I've witness around Palin. Theosis4u (talk) 02:44, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Israel

Hmmm. Apparently a reporter has synthesized a belief about Palin's Israel position based on a flag sticker in her office and her church attendance.[9] Exactly how is this a political position stated by a candidate? Kelly hi! 05:11, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Is this an article on Palin's positions as stated by her? Or an article on Palin's positions as reported by other reliable sources such as the mainstream press? NPOV 101? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:28, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
I would say that removing verifiable material from the article by appealing to WP:REDFLAG, is not an appropriate course of action. Care to explain how WP:REDFLAG applies here? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:30, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
I would hate to tag this article with {{POV}}, Kelly. Please consider restoring the material that is sourced to a WP:RS ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:32, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Not only a "reporter", Kelly. From the same source you deleted: Mrs. Palin's brand of evangelical Protestantism is especially well-disposed to the preservation of Israel for biblical reasons, said Merrill Matthews, an evangelical Christian and a Dallas-based health-policy specialist. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:34, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Let's get some additional opinions. That has to be one of the crappiest Times articles I've ever seen. The reporter is divining an opinion on Israel from a flag sticker and a church "expert"? Please. This is just part of the media feeding frenzy. Got another source to back that up, maybe something will a little more believeable substance, like maybe Palin's own statements on Israel policy? This is just silly. Kelly hi! 05:42, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
I do not think you will find any "own statements on Israel policy" by Palin, as probably that issue was not on her desk till this week. I would argue that at this point, and regardless of the "crapiness" assessment, that material is relevant and well sourced. I welcome additional opinions, but reverting sourced material and then talking does not sit well with me. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:48, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
Nope, you've seen the general level of bad reporting this week. Mainstream papers even reported some BS about her belonging to a secessionist party, without verifying it, turns out they had been totally pwned. And other mainstream sources were carrying the Trig Trutherism meme. Please find something else to back up this claim besides an obvious stretch of a story like this. And that is per WP:BLP. Kelly hi! 05:58, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
That has got to be the crappiest sourcing I have ever seen. This Matthews character is an evangelical Christian (like about 25-30% of USAns) and is therefore an expert witness on what Palin believes? Because, like, every evangelical believes exactly the same thing, and every one of them is an expert on those beliefs. What did this reporter do, go out on the street and ask people whether they were one of these whatchamacllem, evanjelikels, and would they like to answer a few questions about their strange cult? Not that what he said is bad, but his views are simply of no relevance to this page. -- Zsero (talk) 09:26, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
The relevant bit of the source would seem to be this:
Tucker Eskew, who holds the title of counselor to Mrs. Palin in the McCain-Palin campaign, left no doubt where she stands. "She would describe herself as a strong supporter of Israel's, with an understanding of Israel's fear of an Iran in possession of nuclear weapons," Mr. Eskew told The Washington Times.
Is that not a statement of a position on Israel (albeit through a spokesman)? T0mpr1c3 (talk) 13:14, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
"Crapiest" is not a distinction we make in Wikipedia. See WP:V. Section tagged as non neutral due to the deletion of sourced material. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:02, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
A tag! Oh noes! Anyway, we certainly have a right to judge whether a particular piece published by a normally reliable source is utter nonsense, which this "source" is. Kelly hi! 14:24, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
I see no problem with this part's neutrality currently. Neither do I see an issue with returning the thesis of the source which was previously stated in the first sentence: "The [[Washington Times]] reported that [[evangelical]] faith drives Palin's pro-Israel view". It was some of the rest of the content, e.g., "despite not visiting" or whatever which while perhaps true, was a snarky strawman. While without a doubt this is an RS, I think the objection is that we are under no obligation to report any particular thing from any RS (especially snarky strawmen; see too the above comments about the Washington Post's pathetic coverage of her budget decisions...), only to use them to write a good article. I see no problem with returning just my first quote above, (the title of the source article, actually) as is is declarative and about as neutral as you can get. We do make the distinction of crappiness here, but it is an editorial issue in this case.
C'mon folks, we're here to write an encyclopedia. While much focus has been made about being an "encyclopedia" (vis-a-vis "news") -- we need to focus as well on "write". Baccyak4H (Yak!) 14:32, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
(More) Would I be right to assume that returning just this part would render the tag moot, since the source was represented now, albeit in a (purportedly) better way? Baccyak4H (Yak!) 14:35, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
I have implemented your compromise wording and removed the tag. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:37, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
Kelly, who gets to decide what reported from a reliable source is "utter nonsense" and what isn't? Tombomp (talk/contribs) 14:42, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

<- I'm pulling the statement per WP:BLP, because the source is utter bullcrap, and the statement in the article gives it more credence than it should ever be given. There are about ten different idiotic memes that POV-pushers have been flogging; this is the "Dominionist" or "Crazy Christian" meme. Kelly hi! 14:45, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Kelly, with all due respect, you are misusing BLP and REDFLAG, in addition to be edit-waring. I do not see how that helps. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:59, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
I can cut Kelly a break because of the perceived BLP issue, but then go on record to say I disagree with that interpretation as applied to the compromise. Since the source is reliable (remember reliablity ≠ truth, for better or worse), I guess any such BLP objection would be if the material is controversial; I fail to see how it is, if presented fairly. Those memes, while hidious, are based in some contorted way on the innocuous but pretty undeniable grain of truth that she is a Christian. And the relationship which the content purports is actually not that uncommon amongst some of them. The issue is to present things fairly, and to write well in doing so. I favor returning the compromise, in lieu of Kelly (or anyone) explicitly describing the objection better. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 15:22, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Kelly, you can try your hand in witing for the enemy. Here are some more sources on the subject:

≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:42, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Kelly's procedural sledgehammering aside: the source is utter barrel scraping nonsense. 79.74.252.173 (talk) 15:26, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
The Guardian and the Wall street Journal are also barrel-crapping? Ahem. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:42, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
The Guardian piece is an op-ed. The WSJ piece is about her church, not her. Kelly hi! 16:45, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
Complete synthesis and guilt by association. Even if the reports about what some of the people at a particular church may think or believe are true, this is no way equals a "political position" by one of the people there. In regards to my specific removal of the compromise, it was factually inaccurate in addition to being a BLP violation. The Times did not report that her policy position was influenced by evangelical beliefs, the Times reported that some guy thought her policy position was possibly influenced by those beliefs. That's a world of difference. The previous version implied that the statement was fact-checked or verified, when the source clearly reveals it was not. Kelly hi! 15:52, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
I think that you need to read WP:NPOV and WP:V. In Wikipedia we report facts and opinions as published in reliable sources, regardless if these are "guilt by association", "crappy" and other such value judgments about the validity of these opinions. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:34, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
I will be re-adding the POV tag, please do not remove it until the dispute has been resolved. Thanks. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:35, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
And I think you need to read WP:BLP, especially the part about extraordinary claims requiring extraordinary sources. Lots of people don't believe all the doctrine their religion publishes. For example, Nancy Pelosi and Tom Daschle are Catholics, but they oppose the Catholic Church's position on abortion. We don't try to imply in their articles that they're possibly anti-abortion because their church is. We don't print unverifiable speculation about people's possible beliefs, we only write about their statements, or their actions. Since Sarah Palin has apparently not implemented any policy decisions about Israel, and has apparently said little about the matter, there's just not much there in regards to her political position on this issue. And we are not going to speculate about a controversial issue in a high-traffic BLP. Kelly hi! 16:39, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
(EC) I would strongly prefer not readding the tag because 1) currently it is not POV 2) I still think a better solution would be to augment it with the compromise sentence, or something similar. I haven't myself since I don't wish to wheel-war (esp. with Kelly, whose editing I respect considerably). And also, really, what is the rush? Over the next few weeks so much more will come out about so many things, and eventually an accurate balanced statement or statements about what informs her positions on Israel can be done. While I do disagree with Kelly here, I acknowledge there is no WP:DEADLINE, and trust eventually this can work. So let's de-escalate.
Aside to Kelly, What is the analogy to Daschle et al? And what is so controversial about this? I am really missing something, or am I? Baccyak4H (Yak!) 16:51, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
The Daschle analogy was just an attempt to demonstrate that we don't attempt to attribute all of the doctrine of a religion to the individual members of that religion. The "controversial" part is that öne of the Memes of the Day for POV-pushers seems to be "Sarah Palin, Dominionist" - that article will explain the background. It's a guilt-by-association attempt that has turned up over the past couple of days in several places. It's one of about 10 different memes the left-wing blogs are fanning. Kelly hi! 17:03, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
Agree with Kelly, this is an attempt to paint her as being pro-Israel only because her religious beliefs require Israel to exist for the Rapture. Just because someone attends a specific church does not equate them to believing every tenet of that church, to do so is in violation of synthesis of material. And just because this source is trying to make the synthesis doesn't mean that it automatically a verifiable fact about her. These spurious links really need to be reigned in and left to the tabloids. Arzel (talk) 17:02, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
That's as may be, but is the source valid for the quote from a campaign advisor that she would be pro-Israel? Perhaps something on the order of "A campaign official has characterized Gov. Palin as 'a strong supporter of Israel...'[source]" ? UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 17:06, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Fyi, according to a WaPo article [10] she met with AIPAC on Tuesday. The article says "Palin assured the group of her strong support for Israel, of her desire to see the United States move its embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem and of her opposition to Iran's aspirations to become a nuclear power, according to sources familiar with the meeting." and quotes the spokesman of AIPAC as saying "We had a good, productive discussion on the importance of the U.S.-Israel relationship, and we were pleased that Governor Palin expressed her deep, personal commitment to the safety and well-being of Israel," and "She also expressed her support for the special friendship between the two democracies and said she would work to strengthen the ties between the United States and Israel." Perhaps this will help. Cheers. RobHar (talk) 17:09, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

It is good to state Palin;'s views, and it is necessary for NPOV to describee other opinions, such as these of the mainstream press, advisers. etc. This is a WP article that describes all competing views, not just hers. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:43, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
"Other opinions" does not include fringe nonsense, or idle speculation with bubkes for real sourcess by reporters who should know better. Kelly hi! 17:50, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
(edit conflict) A candidate assuring AIPAC of their strong support for Israel is not especially groundbreaking, but probably worth noting in the relevant section here. The Alaskan Jewish community (or at least a few of its leaders) have praised Palin. The Jerusalem Post notes that Palin is "completely unknown" in Israel, and references "Palin's obscurity, her lack of any record on Israel, or even statements on Israel issues," ([11]), but suggests that Israel's leadership still seems comfortable with McCain-Palin.

This is a reasonable source for the article. One could argue about how much weight to assign it or how to incorporate it, but dismissing on WP:BLP grounds because, in one's editorial judgement, it's "one of the crappiest Times articles I've ever seen" is an abuse of WP:BLP. I'm with Baccyak4H - I would favor returning a single sentence noting: "The Washington Times reported that evangelical faith drives Palin's pro-Israel view." As more is published - and more will be published - on the subject, it can be augmented or replaced with more detail, but at present it adds reasonably sourced content to a sparse section of the article and I see no WP:BLP issue. WP:FRINGE is completely inapplicable to this situation. MastCell Talk 17:53, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

That is factually inaccurate. The Post reported that some guy speculated that evangelical faith drives Palin's pro-Israel view. Kelly hi! 18:35, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
  • I do not think any part of this Washington Times article deserves mention on this page. It is absolutely uninformative as to her policy position on Israel. And that includes her spokesman's bland statement. T0mpr1c3 (talk) 18:44, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
(EC) I took the liberty of changing MC's edit to only include the single sentence, as that seemed his intent, as well as I thought the extra sentence did subtly steer into POV waters. Back at hand, this argument against mention at all actually has more traction, than any BLP one. I disagree that it is absolutely uninformative, as (from the article), she is hardly unique in having such reasons for that position, and this allows for context. But this is an editorial justification which does have some merit. Rewording that it was from the spokesman seems like a totally uncontroversial change, regardless of other factors. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 18:52, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
The article used as a source has absolutely no basis for connecting her views on Israel with any religious beliefs. It's complete and utter speculative bullcrap. The major papers have lost their minds lately, I don't know what the hell is going on. The New York Times printed a story that she was a member of a secessionist political party, and it turned out to complete bullshit. Any news articles used as sources for the Palin BLPs need to be examined with a critical eye until those people regain their sanity. Kelly hi! 19:05, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
"Bullcrap" or not, you cannot editwar your way out of seeking consensus. Warned you about 3RR violation on your talk. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:49, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

There is more than one source, and will be more as time evolves. These two can and should be used as well:

≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:44, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

As I said above, the Guardian piece is an op-ed, and the WSJ piece is about her church, not her. Kelly hi! 21:25, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
Really? And what is this if not from Palin: "Pray for our military men and women who are striving to do what is right also for this country," Gov. Palin said, in a video of the talk posted on the church's Web site. Pray "that our national leaders are sending them out on a task that is from God. That's what we have to make sure we're praying for: that there is a plan and that plan is God's plan." ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:16, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Israel - break 1

Well... in the WSJ piece, Palin's spokesperson specifically says that reporters should look at Palin's church as the last word on her religious beliefs ("I think talking about where she worships today and how she characterizes herself speaks for itself about where she is today on this issue.") So yes, the article is about her church, but apparently that's because her people have asked that her church define her views. I think something on the topic is relevant - Palin's faith has been presented by the campaign as a significant part of her political persona. What's more, we're talking about the Wall Street Journal and the Washington Times, two outlets which lean significantly to the right - this isn't Daily Kos we're citing here.

In the interest of moving forward, could we clarify the objection to a single sentence sourced to the Times: "An article in the Washington Times reported that Palin's pro-Israel view was driven by her evangelical faith"? Do you think this should be phrased differently? Do you think that a reliable source dealing with the role of her faith as it pertains to Israel is unworthy of inclusion? You've suggested the latter, citing WP:BLP, WP:REDFLAG, and WP:FRINGE, but I'm not clear on how any of those policies apply to the Times article. MastCell Talk 22:55, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Combining the campaign spokesman's statement with the church's views really, really looks like synthesis to me. That's one of the reasons that I'm citing WP:REDFLAG here. It's extremely unlikely that a national political candidate would have a "political position" on a major issue of foreign policy based strictly on what a small-town church says. The source simply isn't good enough to support a controversial claim like that. For something as hot-button as this, you would need multiple reliable sources. Also, the phrasing of the proposed edit makes it sound like the Times verified and fact-checked this claim, when really they're just quoting someone's opinion (and it's not even clear from the article exactly whose opinion this is). In addition, as Governor or Alaska she did not need to have a position on Israel - presumably now as a candidate her position on Israel is that of the McCain campaign or the Republican Party platform. Kelly hi! 23:04, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
In addition, as Governor or Alaska she did not need to have a position on Israel - exactly. So if we quote her on the meeting with the Israeli lobby, we can and should quote what is known about her positions as expressed elsewhere. (Disclosure: I am not an American citizen; I am Jewish; I lived in Israel for 13 years; I was in the Israeli army and fought one of its wars. So, please do not dismiss my contributions as if I was a "POV pusher". I would ask that you take a hard look in the mirror). ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:12, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
I'm looking in the mirror - hey, I'm looking good! :) But, seriously, "her positions as expressed elsewhere" need to be ultra-reliable for a controversial claim like this because it's simply incredibly unlikely. I won't re-iterate my other arguments from above, but they still stand. Why must this claim be in the article immediately rather than waiting for a more unambiguous and less controversial source for the assertion? Kelly hi! 23:20, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
I guess I don't see this source as particularly "controversial", except in that you don't agree with it. Kelly, the campaign spokesperson's comment was combined with the church's views by the Washington Times WSJ, not by me. It's not original synthesis, it's a synthesis explicitly performed by the source. This is not an "exceptional claim" in the sense that it requires exceptional sources. Palin has expressed a generally pro-Israel position to AIPAC, and the article suggests that her faith may drive that view, quoting an expert on the relationship between evangelical Christianity and support for Israel. That is arguable, maybe, but it's hardly a WP:REDFLAG claim like achieving cold fusion or something. I understand your concern: while the article's headline is pretty unambiguous, the actual conclusion is attributed to the quoted expert. Would you prefer alternate wording which made this more evident? MastCell Talk 23:25, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
Mastcell, I have read and read that WSJ article. It says absolutely nothing about U.S.-Israel relations or Palin's policy toward Israel. And I have read the Times article maybe ten times now and I still cannot figure out exactly who is saying that Palin's policy toward Israel is religion-derived. It's a masterpiece of vagueness. What am I missing in that article? Kelly hi! 23:35, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
My fault for mixing two articles/discussions at once. The WSJ article is simply about Palin's church. The Washington Times article is the one dealing with Israel. That article quotes Merill Matthews, described as an evangelical Christian and health-policy expert, describing aspects of Palin's denomination and its relationship to Israel. On the second page, Paul Erickson, a Republican strategist, is quoted as saying, "The essence of neoconservatism is the protection of Israel - a shared priority with evangelical Christians." Presumably these people were interviewed and quoted because they have some relevant expertise on the matter at hand. I agree the article is not particularly well-written - I'm rarely impressed with the Washington Times' work in that regard - but it is what it is. MastCell Talk 03:33, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
So essentially Matthews is only talking about Palin's denomination, not Palin herself. How does that equate to a Palin policy on U.S.-Israeli relations? As I mentioned way up the thread, we don't automatically attribute every tenet of a religious doctrine to all of the religion's adherents, cf pro-choice Catholics. The Erickson quote also has nothing to do with a specific Palin policy. It's all just speculation and chattering. Kelly hi! 14:15, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
No, of course we (Wikipedia editors) don't attribute general religious tenets to specific people. But if the Washington Times (or another reliable source) does so, then we reflect that. I agree it's speculative - most of the coverage of Palin's religion has been speculative, because the campaign has simulataneously made it a centerpiece of her persona and refused to go into any detail about it - but speculation from a reliable source is not the same as speculation by a Wikipedia editor. MastCell Talk 23:43, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
These are not controversial sources, unless you believe in a wide left-wing conspiracy. :) ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:26, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

More sources:

≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:26, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Jossi, those pieces are either op-eds or say nothing about Palin's position on U.S-Israeli relations. Kelly hi! 23:35, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
Can I just say by-the-by that the idea that The Guardian speaks for McCain supporting American Jews is absolutely laughable. That is just my POV of course and purely parenthetical. T0mpr1c3 (talk) 18:24, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
And in case you're wondering, I say that as a left-leaning Guardian-reading European married to an American Jew. T0mpr1c3 (talk) 21:44, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

From doing some searching, it seems like "evangelicals are pro-israel" is a well-known fact, so I guess inferring from her evangelicalism that she is pro-israel isn't that controversial of a statement. But I thought she was a non-denominational christian. That's what the article Sarah Palin says (with two references). So is she evangelical? If not, then the basic assumption of the Washington Times articles is wrong (I mean, it's titled "Evangelical faith drives Palin's pro-Israel view") and thus doesn't provide a very good reference. RobHar (talk) 05:22, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

  • Jossi, I've removed this material once again. Look up the page, you have absolutely no consensus to add it. Kelly hi! 23:51, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
Kelly, you are now at what, 7RR? Stop the edit warring. Stop reverting, and discuss. KillerChihuahua?!? 23:56, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
KC, that was per BLP. See the extensive discussion above. Kelly hi! 23:57, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
Kelly, it is not BLP. A political candidate has a great many things stated about them, in reliable sources, which they disagree with, and state is not their view or position or whathaveyou, and which may or may not be offensive to them and their supporters. That does not make it a BLP violation. IDon'tLikeIt is not BLP. KillerChihuahua?!? 23:59, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
Yes, it is a BLP problem, it's a meme to portray her a wacky Dominionist. I urge you to read the discussion above. Per WP:REDFLAG, you need a hell of lot more than one vague source to state something like her Israel policy is based on the theology of a small-town church. Kelly hi! 00:05, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
Kelly, you are misusing WP:BLP as well as WP:REDFLAG. I am not the only one to tell you this; neither is KillerChihuahua. MastCell Talk 03:21, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
MastCell, I understand your position from your complaining at WP:3RR/N. But no, I am not abusing BLP or REDFLAG. I am not the only one stating this is a BLP problem, look up the thread. This Dominionist B.S. does not belong here, for the same reason that (rightly) there is no bullshit about Obama being a secret Muslim or associated with domestic terrorists or the Mob in his articles, despite discussion of all of those things in reliable sources at one time or another. If you disagree with this, then seek out dispute resolution. Kelly hi! 03:29, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
In this thread, jossi told you that this was not a BLP issue. Baccyak4H, a regular at WP:BLP/N, opined that it was not a BLP issue. KillerChihuahua told you that this was not a BLP issue. I told you that it's not a BLP issue. Carcharoth told you, on your talk page, that this is not a BLP issue. If in spite of all of this feedback you still believe it to be a BLP issue, then you can ask for yet more opinions at WP:BLP/N. MastCell Talk 03:45, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
Knock off the tag-teaming with Jossi, MastCell, please. Look at the other opinions - the source is terrible. Per WP:REDFLAG, you need something more than this vague piece of nonsense. Leave it out of the article until you have something better. Kelly hi! 03:46, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
By the way, have you seen the SPA GreekParadise (talk · contribs) show up on this article again? Are you going to argue this isn't a POV-pusher? I don't want to be a conspiracy theorist, but actions against anti-Palin POV-pushers anywhere seem conspicuously absent. Kelly hi! 03:52, 8 September 2008 (UTC)Struck as unnecessary. Kelly hi! 04:01, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
I am not willing to discuss this further with you unless you can do so without ill-founded accusations of "tag-teaming". Nor am I going to respond to your accusations of bias, which can also be disproven by a look at my adminstrative logs. MastCell Talk 03:58, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
MastCell, I'm sorry if you're offended by the tag-teaming thing, but the point is that you're making exactly the same edit as Jossi, without resolving any of the BLP and REDFLAG concerns here. Kelly hi! 04:01, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
From my perspective I've tried very hard to resolve them. I respect WP:BLP and I enforce it regularly, and I cannot see any way that directly and concisely quoting an article from a reliable source violates BLP here. The outside opinions that I've seen seem to support this conclusion, to the point that I see a consensus on that point. I also do not see this fulfilling any of the criteria at WP:REDFLAG.

I do think that there is a legitimate discussion to be had about whether to include the Washington Times source and, if so, in what context. I would be happy to have that discussion, but I don't see how it can proceed fruitfully in an atmosphere of BLP accusations, edit-warring, and inflammatory language. I am not married to the idea that this piece needs to be quoted or cited, but I lean in that direction for the reasons I elaborated much earlier in the thread; I see significant support for its inclusion from other editors; and it has been difficult to discern the substance of many of the objections and thus difficult for me to address them.

Above, I tried to get to the bottom of your objection. Is there alternate text, perhaps directly attributing the article's conclusions to the quoted expert, that would address your concerns? Or do you feel that this Washington Times article is absolutely unacceptable for inclusion here? MastCell Talk 04:44, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Mastcell, I admire your patience and thick skin, but there are times that one needs to acceept what is going on here. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:53, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Israel - break 2

MastCell, with respect, I don't see the consensus for inclusion that you do...there are at least 4 other editors besides me deriding the quality of the source in this case. Once again, rehashing the Times article, there's a random "health policy expert" (?!? - not even a foreign affairs guy) talking about Palin's denomination. Then a Republican strategist I've never heard of talking generically about evangelical Christians and Israel. The article never connects the dots to Palin's Israel position aside from its sensationalistic headline. Keep in mind that this article was published at a time when the newspapers had gone absolutely bonkers where Palin was concerned - they were throwing anything and everything they could think of into print, and worrying about corrections later. But that aside, this just isn't good enough for this controversial claim per WP:REDFLAG, and only fuels the "Dominionist" meme that her political opponents have been flogging. Kelly hi! 12:37, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

From my perspective, the problem is that I don't find these arguments policy-based. That you have never heard of a given Republican strategist does not make his published comments irrelevant. The article does "connect the dots" in the headline, which is of course a summary of the article's content, as well as in its body. The article has not been corrected, so I don't see the relevance of mentioning other articles which were. Your feeling that this particular reliable source furthers a "meme" which you find objectionable similarly is not a policy-based objection; furthermore, it seems extremely unlikely that a strongly conservative paper like the Washington Times is trying to discredit Sarah Palin (now that is a WP:REDFLAG claim). As I've said before, I don't see that WP:REDFLAG applies here, and continuing to repeat the policy link does not clarify matters for me. MastCell Talk 16:28, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
MastCell, I think we're just going back and forth on this with the same arguments over the quality of this particular source. Is there any other source which claims that Palin's policy toward Israel is derived from her church? Honestly, I've looked, and all I can find are either op-eds or articles that simply describe the theology of her religion. If there's no other source, I tried thinking of how to reword what this source actually says, which is "The Washington Times reported that Health Expert said Palin's church is an Evangelical Church, and that Republican Strategist said Evangelicals support Israel." (I forgot the real names.;) ) I think this is a good description of what the article actually says, but I'm not so sure it's a valid description of Palin's policy toward U.S.-Israeli relations. With respect - Kelly hi! 17:21, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
I think that your text is bordering on WP:OR. I much prefer the other text that is properly attributed. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:39, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
See also : "Palin's religious views follow evangelical model". Retrieved 2008-09-08., and "Richard Silverstein: Sarah Palin's evangelical Christianity will turn off Jewish voters". {{cite web}}: Text "Comment is free" ignored (help); Text "guardian.co.uk" ignored (help) ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:41, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
(ec)Jossi, can we please differentiate between op-eds and straight news stories here? Both of those are opinion pieces. In regards to the Times piece, it is also reporting the opinions of the people it interviewed, and the source of those opinions needs to be made clear if cited. Kelly hi! 17:47, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
(EC; @Kelly) I see that as a far more reasonable objection to the content. I am pleased if this means we can (finally?) agree the issue is not one of BLP but rather of editorial discretion. I think this content similar to the claim of Palin being a hunter in the gun section. Not strictly a political position, but some reasonable and informative context which make a better article. Now, whether or not this particular factoid does is certainly debatable, and if it is deemed so, wording needs to be careful due to good concerns you have. But I, and many other reasonable editors, have failed to see this as a BLP issue per se. (No implication intended that you are not reasonable.) I am saying this more for the future that for this particular point; I have stopped arguing for its inclusion only because I had better things to do (not all on WP). If this is now merely an issue with sourcing, someday this or something similar likely will be reintroduced in a much more straightforward way, as more stuff is available. But I understand your frustration; you have been a very diligent NPOV-enforcing hammer lately, without as much support as you should have. But as a consequence, some reasonable edits look like (you know the saying) POV-nails. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 17:45, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
Thanks Baccyak - yes, I'm trying to reboot the conversation to get it back on an even keel. Kelly hi! 17:51, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
I lean toward Baccyak4H's view. At present, Palin has essentially no record or history of statements on foreign policy. At some point, presumably, she'll be done cramming and the campaign will allow her to speak to journalists and answer unscripted questions. Until then, people are looking for indications, and reporters are covering it. At present, I think that the Washington Times piece adds informative, encyclopedic content as to how Palin's stance on Israel is perceived. The Times reporter wrote: "Her faith makes her a favorite with the staunchly pro-Israel neoconservative elements in the Republican Party." This is not an "opinion piece", but a news piece - virtually any news piece reports opinions of people interviewed, so let's not muddy the waters further.

The article helps answer the question of how her stance on Israel is perceived. Frankly, I don't see this as particularly controversial, nor do I see it as evidence of "Dominionism". Palin is pretty clearly identified with an evangelical branch of Christianity; that worldview includes support for Israel; the Times reporter put this together with input from a handful of experts, including one of Palin's campaign consultants. One sentence in Wikipedia reflecting this doesn't seem particularly out of line, or like a shocking WP:REDFLAG requiring extensive supporting material. If Palin clarifies the matter tomorrow, or someone else writes a conflicting piece, then we can and should update the article, but until then a short sentence describing this source seems reasonable and encyclopedic. MastCell Talk 18:00, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I understand. But my concern, as mentioned above, is that we don't want to assume a particular person shares all the tenets or doctrine of their identified religion, which is what this seems to be going. Kelly hi! 18:12, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
We aren't assuming anything. We're reporting on a conclusion drawn by a reliable source. I appreciate that editors' personal opinions may differ as to the validity of that source's conclusion, but that is not a policy-based rationale for its inclusion or exclusion. MastCell Talk 18:29, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
No, I get you. But I just re-read your quote above - "Her faith makes her a favorite with the staunchly pro-Israel neoconservative elements in the Republican Party." This is actually much better than what was in the article before. How about "According to the Washington Times, her faith makes her a favorite with the staunchly pro-Israel neoconservative elements in the Republican Party."? This seems much more reasonable. Kelly hi! 18:48, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
Sure, that would be fine with me. I would say "has made" instead of "makes", but that's a minor grammatical thing. MastCell Talk 20:09, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

(Undent)I'm glad to see that my meddling is not needed here, so I will instead ask a question: Kelly, by "opinion" piece do we mean "reporter adding his/her opinions" or from the opinion-editorial section of the paper, or a opinionated feature?--Tznkai (talk) 18:09, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh, by op-ed I mean the latter. Kelly hi! 18:12, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
Clarify please? there were three items on my list.--Tznkai (talk) 18:33, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
Whoops - I meant to say "the latter two". Kelly hi! 18:48, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
OK. I am of the opinion that Op-eds are NOT reliable sources RS says "Opinion pieces are only reliable for statements as to the opinion of their authors, not for statements of fact." so those are right out. Feature pieces are a little more difficult. This washington times piece is which?--Tznkai (talk) 18:57, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
It's basically a straight-news piece that is discussing the theology of Palin's church, and quotes a couple of people speculating about the church's impact on Palin's hypothetical Israel policy. Kelly hi! 19:07, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

(unindent)I know I have little to do with the discussion going on here, but I thought I raised a good germane point above, and I was wondering if anyone could comment on it. Basically, this whole discussion in this section is based on the "fact" that Sarah Palin is evangelical, but the TIME interview quoted in her main article has her clearly stating that she is non-denominational. Specifically: 

Q:What's your religion?
A:Christian.
Q:Any particular...?
A:No. Bible-believing Christian.
Q:What church do you attend?
A:A non-denominational Bible church.
I was baptized Catholic as a newborn and then my family
started going to non-denominational churches throughout our life.

This is from an interview conducted on Aug 14th. The other article on her religious views cited in the main article, though titled "Evangelicals energized by McCain-Palin ticket", explicitly states that she sometimes worships at an evangelical church in Juneau, but her home church is an "independent congregation". So, in my opinion, if the article under discussion here is included in this article, then there will be a contradiction that needs to be dealt with. If you just want to answer me by saying "You're an idiot", or "You're wrong, go away." that's fine, but try not to ignore this completely. RobHar (talk) 18:52, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to mention real quick, that "non denomination Bible church" is evangelical for evangelical.--Tznkai (talk) 18:55, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
ROFL. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 18:57, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
Wow. I had no idea... That's so ridiculous (IMHO). RobHar (talk) 19:03, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Opinion pieces are only reliable for statements as to the opinion of their authors not for statements of fact. -And that is exactly what we are doing here: we are not asserting these opinions as fact, we are asserting them as significant opinions published by reputable media outlets. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:03, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Economic

Political_positions_of_Sarah_Palin#Economic

Governor Palin has history of trying stop wasteful spending and holding the line on spending increases. Shortly after becoming governor, she canceled a contract for the construction of an 11-mile (18 km) gravel road outside Juneau to a mine. [27] She also followed through on a campaign promise to sell the Westwind II jet purchased. [28] She used her veto power to make the second-largest cuts of the construction budget in state history. The $237 million in cuts represented over 300 local projects, and reduced the construction budget to nearly $1.6 billion.[29] In an article titled, "Bridge leads McCain to running mate Palin", the Associated Press said canceling the "Bridge to Nowhere" was "the first identifiable link connecting Palin and McCain," soon followed by "whispers of Palin being an ideal GOP running mate".[30][31]

Do editors believe that the above is a neutral representation of that subject? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:49, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

What change would you suggest? Kelly hi! 21:53, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
Answering a question with another question? Are you more Jewish than me? :) . What is your opinion on the above/ Do you think it is a neutral representation of the subject? Is it close to the sources? Does it have an element of OR? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:57, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
Actually, it should probably make some mention of the fact that she did request some earmarks as Mayor of Wasilla (this is undisputed by anyone) but subsequently changed her position on those. I'm still trying to think about how to reword that, though. Kelly hi! 22:06, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
Sure, no rush. Look forward seeing if you are able to write for the enemy. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:14, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
I think ThaddeusB is watching this page - he and Ferrylodge are probably the most expert people we have on the Wasilla years. Hopefully one of them chimes in with an opinion. Kelly hi! 22:28, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
I don't think it's neutral, as I expressed above Talk:Political_positions_of_Sarah_Palin#Fiscal_Conservatism_and_Earmarks, where an anonymous user suggested some additions. RobHar (talk) 22:28, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, that viewpoint went too far in the other direction, we need something neutral. Kelly hi! 22:29, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure it's that bad, but really I was just suggesting that there might be some facts in there that could be used. RobHar (talk) 22:40, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
I will give it a go later on. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:23, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Taxes

Here's some stuff about what she has done regarding taxes, there's likely more.

As mayor of Wasilla:

  • Cut property taxes by 3/4[13] (by 40% according to [14])
  • Eliminated personal property tax[13]
  • Raised sales tax by 0.5%[13] and [15]

As governor of Alaska:

  • "a major tax increase on state oil production" [15] (a $1.5 billion tax increase according to [14])
  • In august, suspended "AK 8-cent fuel tax for one year"[16]

I'm not sure how people want to go about updating the economy section, but hopefully some facts and sources can help. RobHar (talk) 23:31, 7 September 2008 (UTC)


Would also like to add:

"Wasilla voters agreed in 2002 to a half-percent increase in the city sales tax to pay off a $14.7 million bond to build the multi-use facility. The project "was completed on schedule and under budget," Mayor Dianne Keller said, and the complex opened its doors March 6, 2004." http://www.adn.com/sarah-palin/background/story/168047.html (OxAO (talk) 19:48, 8 September 2008 (UTC))

Request for protection

I am writing this in protest of the naked POV pushing and admin wars that are wrecking the content this page. The Sarah Palin plague has struck in a big way and the page needs locking down before we have another deluge of cyclical vandalism. T0mpr1c3 (talk) 00:26, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm enforcing an hour long protection right now while I review the 3RR complaint, and I get the participants talking. I am still considering further action. --Tznkai (talk) 00:29, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. T0mpr1c3 (talk)
Yes, thank you. Kelly hi! 00:35, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

There's no reverting happening. All I'm trying to do is add stuff to the article over time, and every time i go to take up where I left off to improve it the start I had is freakin' gone. Whatever happened to eventualism, AGF, and giving someonw with a life time to add to Wikipedia?

Also, it is plain as day that there's an attempt here to bowdlerize the article.

Booksnmore4you (talk) 00:33, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Well hello. Perhaps you can give an example of bowdlerizing? T0mpr1c3 (talk) 00:35, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
Don't ignore my messages on your talk page, and you must discuss with your fellow contributors, especially when 3RRs have been filed.--Tznkai (talk) 00:39, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
Books, why did you make this edit? This is the edit that I complained to Tznkai about which brought the 3RR on. T0mpr1c3 (talk) 00:45, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
It's 2am in my time zone, I'm working tomorrow, and I can't hang about any more. I tried to talk. T0mpr1c3 (talk) 00:54, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Unprotection conditions

I will lock this page until doomsday unless I get some civility out of all parties. Here are your ground rules:

  • 0 discussion about NPOV
  • 0 discussion about special BLP rules.
  • 0 discussion about other editors faults.
  • 0 accusations about other editor's biases and cabals.
  • 0 reminders to others to assume good faith
  • I will tolerate, but discourage you complaining about me.
  • Editors will talk to eachother, and ignore personal attacks.
  • Absolute and total assumption of good faith. Pretend if you have to, but I want you all bleeding civility.
  • It is noted that you may always appeal to outside administrators if you don't like the way I'm handling it.

Note I am still considering a pending 3RR complaint.--Tznkai (talk) 00:38, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but exactly what do mean about no discussion of NPOV or BLP? Kelly hi! 00:42, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
I mean I want zero accusations of others not following policies. I obviously want you to follow policy, but I don't want any excuses such as "I was just enforcing BLP and NPOV"--Tznkai (talk) 00:49, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
I understand - but what to do if there is an actual BLP violation? Trust me, there were plenty of them here before you showed up. Kelly hi! 00:50, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
This is my recommendation, both based on my reading of WP:BLP, the arbcom special protection order, and some common sense: extraordinary BLP protection edits can only be used in the most egregious of cases. This includes accusations of rape, revelation of private information, or other sufficiently big hairy deals.
One of the relevant lines. "We must get the article right.[1] Be very firm about the use of high quality references. Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons — whether the material is negative, positive, or just questionable — should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion, from Wikipedia articles, talk pages, user pages, and project space.[2]"
This line does not, although it should, have notice that this is NOT an excuse to edit war. If you see continuous BLP violations that do not fall into the emergency enforcement category, call in outside help.--Tznkai (talk) 00:59, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
Just to expand a little further - I'm thrilled that more admins are becoming involved. I started watching the Palin article when rumors of her VP pick began circulating - I like the political articles and have helped on articles of politicians of all parties. It was quiet until last weekend, then it was like getting hit with a nuke. There were about five of us trying to hold back really bad BLP-violator and POV-pushers, like Leonidas at Thermopylae, and no admins would help, despite desperate requests everywhere, including Jimbo's talk page. I have never pushed pro-Palin POV, I just insist on WP:NPOV. I'm familiar with pretty much all of the POV-pusher memes now (there are probably at least 20). I really resent the implication that my efforts on these articles makes me a revert-warrior . Kelly hi! 01:00, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
I want to assure you something Kelly, I have no doubt that everything you have done is in good faith. But consider this for a moment. You have, based on a cursory glance at your contributions, made around 1000 consecutive edits on Palin related articles, or user talks. Does that sound remotely good for your judgment, perspective, or mental health? --Tznkai (talk) 01:05, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
If I may say, Kelly has done a heroic job.T0mpr1c3 (talk) 01:06, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
Heh - I would absolutely love to walk away from this, and I gradually am doing so. Sarah Palin has settled down, and some of the kerfuffle has spilled out to here, but hopefully it will settle down as well. Kelly hi! 01:10, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
As one Wikipedian to another, take a 24 hour break. Someone else will pick up the slack, and I have this page on watch now. You don't have to, but I recommend it.--Tznkai (talk) 01:14, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
That's good advice, I think I'll take it. Kelly hi! 01:16, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Proposed further condition

Tznkai, I would like to propose one further condition to your list - that controversial material must get consensus here on the talk page before it goes into the article. Kelly hi! 01:15, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

No. We don't want another Sarah Palin on our hands. I will however, recommend on WP:AN that 15 minute page and user blocks are used to cool down edit wars over controversial material. --01:20, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
Hmmm - what do you think of article probation - cf Talk:Barack Obama/Article probation? Kelly hi! 01:26, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
If its like this after I wake up tomorrow, I will probably recommend that.--Tznkai (talk) 01:42, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Unprotection Redux

I have added more conditions. You will find they are well grounded in policy, principles, and guidelines we have here at Wikipedia. This article is protected until around tomorrow 9:30AM EST at which point I will look around and see what is up. You may however, appeal to another administrator, or request article un-protection. Goodnight. --Tznkai (talk) 04:24, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm awake, and I've been glancing over the discussions here, and to me most of the editors are headed straight to dispute resolution because of a significant loss of good faith on the part of many parties.
I have certain proposals:
  • You could ask on WP:AN for a different uninvolved administrator to take over, and I will walk away from this and wrestle bears or something. I will bear no one any ill will if this is what you choose.
  • The editors involved in the back and forth, and here I am looking specifically at MastCell, Jossi, Kelly, T0mpr1c3, Booksnmore4you (feel free to note if I'm missing anyone), can all agree to edit completely unrelated articles for 3 days and/or take a wikibreak, as a non punitive, voluntary cooling-off period.
  • The editors listed above may ask for mediation from the Mediation Cabal.
  • The editors listed above may can agree to undergo special mediation overseen by me. I think I've proven myself fair, if irritating.
  • Editors can select none of the above, and I'll let protection expire, but be warned I will be keeping a close eye on WP:AN/3RR
Protection expires at 11EDT, please leave your opinions here.--Tznkai (talk) 13:03, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
Apparently I never extended the protection as I planned and it expired at 9:30EDT. Oh well.--Tznkai (talk) 13:52, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

It's not that complex. All I see is a small group of Palin supporters who do not want critical information in the article, and a small group of non-Palin supporters who want to add it. The former reverts the latter and the latter reverts the former. The solution is very simple. NPOV REQUIRES that critical voices be incorporated into an article in a balanced fashion. Those who do not want this and revert it out are in violation of fundamental Wikipedia policy and should be banned rather than coddled. Period. Booksnmore4you (talk) 14:03, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

We don't ban people for disagreeing with what is NPOV and what is not.--Tznkai (talk) 14:04, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
Sure you do, unless you lack the ability to make a judgment about a fundamental policy, and actually believe lines of bull from POV-pushers designed to work the system and disguise the agenda. NPOV does not equate with removal of all critical material but requires a balance between the positive and negative. If a small group does not want critical material in an article for their political purposes, then they are in violation of everything Wikipedia is about on the most fundamental level. You can't work with people whose agenda is not Wikipedia's. The way forward is to mandate that critical voices will be incorporated into the article in closely equal proportion to positive voices, and whoever breeches that is in violation. Don't let yourself be played, it's really that simple. Booksnmore4you (talk) 14:12, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
If we're going to be trading policy don't attack the credibility of other editors and learn to agree to disagree about what is NPOV and what is not. No one here is an expert on the interpretations, we determine article content and how to achieve a balanced neutral article, by discussion and agreement not by fiat or mandate. Furthermore violations of WP:NPOV is not an exception to the three-revert rule which is one of many ways we work to prevent edit wars.--Tznkai (talk) 14:20, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

The NPOV policy page is not blank, nor does it define NPOV as "whatever people want it to be". It states explicitly, All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), representing fairly, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. Moreover, there is the section on balance. If you are not prepared to enforce this policy as written, which unlike what you cited is a fundamental Wikimedia principle and a cornerstone of Wikipedia, perhaps you might leave the job to another who is. Enough with this wishy-washy-ness, please. Booksnmore4you (talk) 14:56, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

@Tznkai: Thank you for your suggestions but I disagree with them. There is no reason for starting mediation in these pages, at leas for now. This article is w benefiting from the attention of experienced users and I am sure that if people agree to not editwar we will make progress toward NPOV. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:51, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

"Pro-Israel"

Regarding this edit by Zsero, I note that AIPAC refers to itself as "America's Pro-Israel Lobby". But I agree that it's probably best to avoid using "pro-Israel" in its common meaning of "supporting the most hawkish elements of the Israeli government, whether that is the best for Israel itself or not". J Street doesn't buy into that and calls itself "the political arm of the pro-Israel, pro-peace movement". —KCinDC (talk) 06:33, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

1. I don't think we need to characterise organisations that are wikilinked, especially if they're well-known anyway. We don't include a potted description of the ACLU or NARAL or the NRA every time we mention them. It's just unnecessary; if the user doesn't recognise the name, or just wants to learn more about it, they can follow the link. That's what it's for.
2. In this particular case, it seems to me that the reason for including the description was in order to wikilink to a contentious article. -- Zsero (talk) 06:50, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
(a) Thank you KCinDC for bring this to the talk page. I should have done that myself.
(b) In response to Zsero: The recent dispute on the Israel lobby in the United States article (since you call it contentious) started about 4 days ago and is being addressed via discussion on that talk page between 5 editors. I expect it should settle down in a few more days as we figure out the best way to deal with a number of recent changes to its contents. Articles undo minor disputes all the time, such as the constant churn on this Sarah Palin article. It isn't appropriate to just start removing links to an article just because of a recent dispute, this is Wikipedia after all. --John Bahrain (talk) 13:46, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Zsero's point 1. AIPAC is well known enough, and people can follow the link if they don't know it. Also, I don't like describing it as pro-Israel since there are plenty of people who are opposed to AIPAC but consider themselves pro-Israel. —KCinDC (talk) 15:09, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
The language is "a pro-Israel" lobby. I do realize there are different perspectives as I wrote a significant part of the article on the dovish J Street group. --John Bahrain (talk) 15:55, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
It isn't appropriate to just start removing links to an article just because of a recent dispute. It's not as if this phrase had been there for a long time and was suddenly removed. I removed it as soon as it had been added, and it seems to have been added only for the purpose of linking it to that article. You still haven't said why we should treat AIPAC differently than we do every other well-known lobby group, such as the ACLU, NARAL, the NRA, etc. -- Zsero (talk) 18:53, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
You are saying that it doesn't belong because it was recently added? I don't think you've been paying attention. I originally linked the phrase "pro-Israel lobby" originally back on September 11 (see here [12]) and for the record I didn't even add the phrase "pro-Israel lobby", I merely linked it to the appropriate article. I think you protest too much. Also, you argument about not including descriptions along with the formal names of organizations does not hold if you read the article, the whole article is filled with them, such as "the mortgage finance giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac", or "Taxpayers for Common Sense, a nonpartisan group." --John Bahrain (talk) 19:42, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Palin: "Iran...would seek to wipe [the Israelis] off the earth"

Zsero has twice deleted edits that give context to Palin’s statement that "Iran...would seek to wipe [Israel] off the face of the earth." This colorful language derives from a translation from Ahmadinejad’s Farsi quotation of Khomeini. The translation as Palin gives it is contested by Farsi scholars. The edit (in bold below) wikilinks to a section of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Israel that covers this. This is the second edit to this effect deleted by Zsero.

Here, shown in bold, is the edit in situ:

  • "Palin said the United States would naturally consult with Israel on such matters, but added that it was Israel's right 'to fight against a regime like Iran who would seek to wipe them off the earth' (see: Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Israel) and that 'It is obvious to me who are the good guys and who are the bad guys.'"

Absent the context, namely Ahmadinejad’s statement and the disagreements about its translation, Palin’s statement appears as a statement of fact. I think this is misleading and inappropriate to an encyclopedia.

In a discussion on Zsero’s talk page he/she takes the line that Ahmadinejad’s original statement is irrelevant: "All that matters in this article is what she said."

My view is that as Ahmadinejad’s original is the direct progenitor of Palin's remark, and as the (commonly assumed) meaning implicitly attributed to it by Palin is contested by Farsi scholars, knowledge of the dispute about its true meaning is indispensible to an informed read of Palin’s words. The requisite information is to be found in the section of the Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Israel article to which I linked in the edits that were censored by Zsero.

Zsero and I have discussed this on his/her talk page, to no avail. It’s time to open it up to wider discussion. (Sorry, forgot to sign this when I posted it.) — Writegeist (talk) 00:39, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

A-jad's precise language would only matter if Palin had referred to that speech. She didn't. She said Iran wants to destroy Israel. Writegeist writes as if A-jad's speech were the only reason anyone would think that, so that she must have been referring to his speech. But that's not the case. There was plenty of reason to think Iran wanted to destroy Israel before A-jad's speech, and there's plenty of reason since then, including the fact that his own office claims he did say it in that speech; that claim alone is valid evidence of Iran's intent, whether or not he actually said it. That's the context in which Palin made her statement, so the controversy over the precise translation of one phrase in one speech by someone who hasn't even got his figurative finger on Iran's figurative button isn't relevant here. -- Zsero (talk) 22:46, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Let's keep one thing in mind - This article is about what Palin's political opinions are and not whether they are factually or morally justified. The Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Israel already provides a very detailed argument on both sides as to what Ahmadinejad actually said. It does not need to be repeated here. If Palin discusses this issue further, or a mainstream media source directly challenges her on this issue, then it deserves a citation - but otherwise trying to make this argument using other wiki articles or news articles written before Palin made this statement would probably be considered original research, which is not allowed in wikipedia. (Hyperionsteel (talk) 22:48, 7 October 2008 (UTC))

Z: "She said Iran wants to destroy Israel." Where did she get that idea? Same place you and everyone else did: a translation from Farsi of Armydinnerjacket quoting Khomeini. Until this translation spread around the world nobody was making wild accusations that Iran wanted to "wipe Israel off the face of the map" or "off the face of the earth" or off whatever else they could think of that has a face. IRIB admitted it was a mistranslation, and corrected it. But it had been seized upon by NYT et al., who gave it huge prominence and disseminated it globally through umpteen news cycles. Jewish-American and Zionist pro-Israel propagandists studiously ignored the correction in order to sustain the convenient myth that Iran is hell-bent on a second Holocaust--convenient as the primary justification for the US-Israeli stance re Iran that we see today. Iran's stated desire is for the Israeli regime to disappear, along with its brutal suppression of the Palestinians; not for genocide. This position has been repeated ad nauseam by Armydinnerjacket and various Iranian government officials. Yet the fear-mongering disinformation campaign about Iran wiping out Israel persists. Your censorship of even so much as a link to the article about the controversy perpetuates the disinformation by keeping the reader in ignorance of the origin and context of Palin's accusation.
H: "...detailed argument...as to what Ahmadinejad actually said...does not need to be repeated here." Agreed. I do not advocate repeating it in the article. I advocate providing the reader with access to it. — Writegeist (talk) 18:48, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

You seem to hold strong views on this issue, as demonstrated the polemical language you have used in the above entry. However, I'm glad we both agree on one thing - Ahmadinejad wants the state of Israel to cease to exist. The only point of debate is whether or not he wants this to occur through military means or by economic/political means. Either way, Palin's statement that he seeks the end of Israel's existence (although not in those exact words) is correct.

However, we should put this aside. Getting back to my original point, adding a link to the Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Israel without a mainstream source is original research, which is not allowed in wikipedia. In addition, you cannot include original research simply because, as you have described them: "Jewish-American and Zionist pro-Israel propagandists" do not agree with your point of view.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 22:05, 8 October 2008 (UTC))

"Polemical"? Perhaps you don't know the meaning of the word. My entry contains no aggressive or hostile language.
Wanting "the state of Israel to cease to exist" is not the same as wanting to wipe it off all those faces. MA may well want the state of Israel to cease to exist for all we know. (He has expressed a desire for the Israeli regime to disappear.) However SP does not say MA wants Israel to cease to exist. She says Iran would want to annihilate Israel, i.e. to be the instrument of Israel's annihilation. Big difference. SP's statement comes directly from the falsely reported and globally mythologized statement by the twerp Armydinnerjacket:
  • "He prophesies that Israel will 'vanish from the map' (although he did not say, as falsely reported, that he would wipe Israel off the map)." -- Israeli author Uri Avnery, in his disarmingly honest new book "Israel's Vicious Circle", Pluto Press 2008, ISBN 9780745328232.
It's understandable that the WP MA and Israel article should tread lightly on the subject of MA's statement by presenting its meaning as a subject of debate. But it's absurd to go on pretending here that "Palin's statement that he seeks the end of Israel's existence (although not in those exact words) is correct" when, au contraire--as has been stated by IRIP and by MA himself, and as has been explained by numerous Iranian government officials as well as numerous disinterested Farsi scholars and now also, even, by an Israeli commentator--it is false.
Actually some of what the Zionist propagandists say about Iran fully endorses my own point of view. But in this instance they see fit to misrepresent the truth--a point of view I do not share. And in that, at least, you are correct. — Writegeist (talk) 08:05, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

At least you admit that Ahmadinejad wants Israel to cease to exist. However, even if we accept that the "wipe Israel off the map" translation was inaccurate, Ahmadinejad has still made the following statements (all of which are referenced in the Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Israel article:

  • "[The Palestinians] are walking in your illuminated path and the Zionist regime has reached a total dead end. Thanks to God, your wish will soon be realized, and this germ of corruption will be wiped off."
  • "You should know that the criminal and terrorist Zionist regime which has 60 years of plundering, aggression and crimes in its file has reached the end of its work and will soon disappear off the geographical scene."
  • "Today the reason for the Zionist regime's existence is questioned, and this regime is on its way to annihilation."

Given his use of the above language, I find it very difficult to believe that he only seeks a peaceful end to the Jewish state. When people argue that Ahmadinejad is a peaceful guy, I don't know whether to laugh or cry. I have no doubt that if another world leader was constantly making similar statements about another nation, nobody would be arguing that they are only seeking a peaceful remedy.

According to this dictionary (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/polemical), the word polemical means: 1. (of or pertaining to) a controversial argument, as one against some opinion, doctrine, etc. I admit that polemical may not have been the best choice. I think the word loaded would be better used to describe your language. By the way, "Loaded" in this context, means: "charged with emotional or associative significance that hinders rational or unprejudiced consideration of the terms involved in a discourse." Your claims about "Jewish-American and Zionist pro-Israel propagandists" are certain emotional and controversial (at least in my opinion) - especially since many Jewish-Americans contribute to Wikipedia.

Anyways, we probably shouldn't discuss this on this talk page any further. The purpose of Wikipedia talk pages is to provide space for editors to discuss changes to its associated article or project page. Article talk pages should not be used by editors as platforms for their personal views.

But getting back to my original point, this article is only supposed to deal with what Palin's political positions are, not whether they are right or wrong. I think we're done here. (Hyperionsteel (talk) 22:21, 9 October 2008 (UTC))

Your quotes do not support your defence of Palin's statement. The first cites god, not Iran, as the agent of the Zionist regime's destruction (not, please note, the destruction of the Israeli state). The second just says the Zionist regime (not the Israelis state) is coming to the end of the road, and makes no reference to any outside agency. The third also says the Zionist regime (not the Israeli state) is past its sell-by date. None of these support the argument that Iran wants to wipe Israel off the map. The argument is false.
You say "...this article is only supposed to deal with what Palin's political positions are." Palin's accusation that Iran "would seek to wipe [the Israelis] off the face of the earth" is not a political position, it is a propaganda statement. A smear. However her stance that it is "Israel's right to fight against a regime like Iran" is a political position. You point out that this is an article about Palin's political positions. Therefore the sentence should be edited thus: "Palin said the United States would naturally consult with Israel on such matters, but added that it was Israel's right 'to fight against a regime like Iran'." As surely you will agree. Writegeist (talk) 07:20, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

It very difficult to believe that people who openly and repeatedly call for the annihilation of the "Zionist Regime" have nothing but peaceful intentions for the "Israeli state." Iran openly funds and supports organizations like Hezbollah and Hamas, which do not simply seek an end to Israel's control of the West Bank, the Shebaa farms and Gaza Strip but also openly call for the Israel's destruction (Leaders of both groups routinely chant "death to Israel"). It is very reasonable to conclude that people who openly and repeatedly call for the annihilation of the "Zionist Regime" also seek the end of the Israeli state. It's not a huge leap, especially when Ahmadinejad continually uses this sort of language. Based on Palin's statement, it is not a stretch to reasonably conclude that she believes that Iran seeks Israel's destruction. That is a political belief and position. Unless you can prove that Palin is being deliberately meretricious or disingenuous with her statement, then it is a political position. Since Wikipedia gives biographies of living people the benefit of the doubt, you will have to prove that Palin is deliberately spreading information that she knows is false (and someone else's opinion doesn't count.)(Hyperionsteel (talk) 22:31, 10 October 2008 (UTC))

I'm removing some (edit-warring) material that's not relevant to improving the article, per WP:Talk. It includes my reply to the above. (Consequent to my reply, Hyperionsteel altered the above.) Writegeist (talk) 05:36, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Writegeist wrote: Z: "She said Iran wants to destroy Israel." Where did she get that idea? Same place you and everyone else did: a translation from Farsi of Armydinnerjacket quoting Khomeini.
That would imply that before A-jad opened his mouth nobody thought this. Which is ridiculous. The Arab coalition has wanted to wipe Israel out and massacre its Jewish population since 1948, and with the Khomeini revolution Iran joined that coalition and adopted that goal. Everybody knows this. The only thing noteworthy about A-jad's speech is that he actually said it out loud and didn't try to hide it; and if he didn't actually say it, his office's claim that he said it comes to exactly the same thing.
Oh, and what exactly does it mean to wipe out the Israeli "regime" but not the state itself? That would only make sense if Israel were ruled by some sort of junta, which could be removed and the state freed to run under some other government. If the Iranian regime were removed, Iran would continue to exist; but the Israeli government is freely elected, so it is the state. How could one destroy it without destroying the state? -- Zsero (talk) 04:35, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
"The Arab coalition has wanted to wipe Israel out and massacre its Jewish population since 1948, and with the Khomeini revolution Iran joined that coalition and adopted that goal. Everybody knows this."
Thank you for your contribution. Unfortunately spewing Zionist-extremist propaganda onto this talk page is not relevant to improving the article. Shalom. Writegeist (talk) 05:36, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
Telling the truth about antisemitic genocidalists is precisely the point here. -- Zsero (talk) 06:33, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for making your POV clear. However, although I’m fully aware that, as Chomsky laments in Chronicles of Dissent, "anti-Arab racism is rampant in the United States and much of the West," racist rhetoric does not contribute to improving the article. Characterizing the Arab world as "antisemitic genocidalists" is not "telling the truth." It is racist rhetoric, just as, for example, referring to Asians as "gooks" is racist rhetoric. WP editors should not tolerate, defend or deploy it. — Writegeist (talk) 20:33, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
That's your opinion. Quoting Chomsky doesn't help your cause. Oh, and McCain did not refer to "Asians" as "gooks", he used that word only of the communist villains who imprisoned and tortured him. I think he's earned the right. -- Zsero (talk) 21:27, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
"McCain did not refer to "Asians" as "gooks", he used that word only of the communist villains who imprisoned and tortured him."
I think you'll find that the cartoon villains who imprisoned and allegedly tortured Mr. McCain were, um, Asians.
They were. And your point is? -- Zsero (talk) 23:54, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
  1. ^ http://alaskapodshow.com/index.php/2008/02/20/my-visit-to-juneau-alaska/
  2. ^ http://lubavitch.com/news/article/2023848/Alaskas-Jewish-Community-on-Palin-Selection.html
  3. ^ a b c d Free Press Staff (2008-09-05). "Sarah Palin primer: Who she is, where she stands". The Detroit Free Press. Retrieved 2008-09-06. {{cite web}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help) Cite error: The named reference "stem1" was defined multiple times with different content (see the help page).
  4. ^ http://dwb.adn.com/news/alaska/story/9090623p-9006670c.html
  5. ^ http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/02000.html
  6. ^ http://www.huffingtonpost.com/james-love/palin-record-on-fiscal-re_b_123532.html
  7. ^ http://www.startribune.com/politics/27791154.html?page=1&c=y
  8. ^ http://www.usnews.com/articles/opinion/2008/09/04/data-points-sarah-palins-lobbyist.html
  9. ^ http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/09/02/politics/washingtonpost/main4406403.shtml
  10. ^ http://voices.washingtonpost.com/washingtonpostinvestigations/2008/09/palins_earmarks_spark_question.html?hpid=topnews
  11. ^ http://www.adn.com/sarahpalin/story/511471.html
  12. ^ http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2008/08/31/politics/horserace/entry4401789.shtml
  13. ^ a b c Anchorage Daily News
  14. ^ a b Cato Institute
  15. ^ a b New York Times
  16. ^ Ontheissues.org (from a Gov. of AK press release
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Political_positions_of_Sarah_Palin/Archive_1&oldid=789552345"