Talk:Sarah Palin/Archive 14

Archive 10

←

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

→

Archive 20

Hiring Paid Lobbyists as Mayor

Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin employed a lobbying firm 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 initiated an annual tradition in 2000 of going to Washington to ask for more earmarks from the state's congressional delegation, mainly Rep. Don Young and Sen. Ted Stevens, Republicans.

She also oversaw the hiring of Robertson, Monagle & Eastaugh, a law firm with close ties to Young and Stevens, who was indicted in July on charges of accepting illegal gifts. The 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. There was $500,000 for a youth shelter, $1.9 million for a transportation hub, $900,000 for sewer repairs, and $15 million for a rail project, according to the Minneapolis-St. Paul Star Tribune, US News and World Report and CBS News.

"I told Congress, thanks but no thanks on that bridge to nowhere," Palin told the cheering McCain crowd, referring to Ketchikan's Gravina Island bridge. But 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," according to both Anchorage Daily News and CBS News.

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)

This information mostly already appears in the article. If you would like to suggest some changes, please do so, but don't expect anyone else to make changes to the article based on a snipet you post here.--ThaddeusB (talk) 00:33, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

edit requested

{{editprotected}}

• Remove space between "graduating in 1987." and "[10][11]", end of 4th para. of first section.

• In Political positions:

Palin is known for her support of "individual freedom and independence,"[3] and she is known in Alaska for her strong opposition to what she views as excessive government spending and corruption.[101]

Illogical punctuation, needs to be

Palin is known for her support of "individual freedom and independence",[3]

per WP:MOS. Please undertake these highly urgent edits immediately. Thanks. 86.44.22.55 (talk) 01:28, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

 Done No controversy here. Oren0 (talk) 01:35, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

That is not how commas work. 147.136.249.101 (talk) 02:29, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Travels abroad, part of her governor job

After becoming governor, Palin obtained her passport and traveled to Kuwait and Germany in 2007 to visit with members of the Alaska National Guard; she has also made multiple trips to Canada.

This is included in the #personal_life section. I think this should be shifted to the #Governor section, as these travels seem to be part of her job rather than part of her family life. Teofilo talk 06:38, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Or perhaps in a section, which I truly believe should be added, regarding the controversy regarding her qualifications for VP. I understand such a section would be a lightning rod for NPOV violations, but given that 90% of the media and public discourse regarding Palin has centered on this question, it seems like a huge elephant in the room in this article. Opinions on the subject break entirely along party lines, so I do believe this could be done in a NPOV way. In contrast to the Obama article, which seems even-handed and covers all major discussions, both good and bad, this article seems woefully lacking in discussion of... well... the things people are actually discussing! JoelleJ (talk) 14:27, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

It's also notable that she's *only* visited four foreign countries (Canada, Germany, Iraq, Kuwait), and never traveled out of the US until 2007. 24.16.145.189 (talk) 06:59, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Do you have a source for the last? It does not seem plausible that she moved from Idaho to Alaska and never stepped foot into Canada prior to 2007. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 07:03, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Maybe her airplane from Idaho to Alaska flew over Canadian ground, but that doesn't require a passport. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 07:05, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Have you ever moved? You don't move furniture with aeroplanes. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 07:32, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I've moved. The furniture (and the car) went by truck, and I flew an airplane to the destination. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 07:39, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Having lived in a border state (not Alaska or Idaho, Wisconsin in my case) I find it unlikely that she'd never travelled into Canada for a fishing or hunting trip. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 07:46, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Maybe, but was a passport required on your trips to Canada? I think certain types of ID's are necessary (thanks to 9/11) but I don't think a passport itself is an absolute, at least not yet. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 07:52, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

And I would imagine that there is special dispensation for those who are moving from the lower 48 to Alaska. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 07:53, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Her parents moved in the 1960s. There was definitely no passport needed then. Things were rather friendlier with Canada at that time. You just had to state your reason for being in Canada. That was still true in the early 1990s when I last visited Canada. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 07:56, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I didn't need a passport the last time I went to Canada. She went to college in Idaho though and probably had some belongings to move. (And I don't think most recent college grads ship their belongings, but I could be wrong.) But its smoke break time, don't burn the article down while I'm away! :P Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 08:00, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Depends on what you're smoking. If she graduated 20 years ago or so, she still wouldn't have needed a passport. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 08:35, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually I don't think its really notable for an article about her... it is great for giving the whole thing a subtle slant though o.O Why isn't it noatable? I don't see many articles about people that list where a person has travelled in the world. It doesn't have any bearing on her international capacity, it doesn't mean she isolates herself. Really... its trivia :)

It's part of the "hick" meme that her opposition is pushing, I think. Kelly ^hi! 07:36, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, they don't seem to get that it only reminds Palin's crowd that Obama has it in for small town types who are "clinging to their guns and bibles." Reinforcing gaffes for fun! Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 07:48, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Some of her supporters said she has international experience because Russia is nearby, if we are reinforcing gaffes instead of being NPOV. In any case, Wikipedia's job is to report what secondary sources are saying. Secondary sources are not interested in her opinion on Puerto Rican statehood, so we don't report on it. Secondary sources are reporting a lot on her not getting a passport until 2007. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 07:53, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I'm definately not suggesting we reinforce gaffes, just using this talkpage wrongly. Sorry. :P Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 08:00, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Republicans often try to paint themselves as being poor and uneducated, for example being unable to count how many houses they own. The wealthy can still feel for the poor, although I'm reminded of this, from Richard Armour: "When Richard Nixon turned 21, his father gave him a gold watch. When JFK turned 21, his father gave him a million dollars, because he already had a watch." Despite that, JFK managed to connect with the underprivileged. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 08:49, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

After the fifth house or so I tend to forget the pads I own. Besides, I'm too busy swimming in my pool o' gold to bother. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 09:16, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Speaking of gaffes, here's some idiot Congressman from Georgia who said Obama is part of an "uppity" class. [1] Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 09:29, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Wait. Uppity is an ethnic perjorative? WTF? I cry oversensitivity. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 13:29, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

• I find Kelly's comments to be incredibly partisan. It seems to me that she is pulling out all the stops to keep this article as Pro-Palin as possible. She engages in Original Research when it suits her, and argues that certain commentary from the mainstream media has no place in the article, again using specious arguments. Fee Fi Foe Fum (talk) 08:30, 5 September 2008 (UTC

I have been complaining to the refs for days on this issue, especially about the top 3 partisan editors who are steering this article - but nothing has come of it and every 24 hours that passes this bio becomes ever more Pro-Palin. zredsox (talk) 13:50, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I really wish you'd stop pushing that crap. Making a lot of edits, doesn't make me (or anyone else) partisan. try looking at my actual edit - of the 128 you'll find at least 100 are to correct grammar and similiar problems. I have also pointed out specific times I sided on the "anti-Palin" side to you more than once, yet you have ignored my request for even one time you have sided on the "Pro-Palin" side. Just because you say I'm partisan, doesn't make it so. Did you ever stop to think that you are pushing an anti-Palin agenda far more than "everyone else" is pushing a pro-Palin one? --ThaddeusB (talk) 14:34, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Did you ever stop to think that I am only talking about positions here rather than acting on them and making large scale continuous edits? Sure you made grammatical fixes. You also wrote a Political Summary that was quite dubious. As for my stance on issues, I get the impression if I wasn't here making a case the clear majority rule would be that much more overwhelming. At least I am offering counterpoints to the choir preaching and back patting. That being said, I am not going to argue this any further right now Thaddeus, as it is not productive. zredsox (talk) 15:24, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Please stop claiming I have made POV/partisan edits and we won't have an issue. Again, the vast majority of my edits were for grammar and style. For other edits, I have always posted on the talk page anything I viewed as controversial, no matter how sure I was of the article being in err; and I only made such edits after what I viewed to be talk page consensus. --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:32, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

PS The political summary was written at the request of many editors who felt simply repeating her positions was a poor way to do the section. The reason I wrote a summary was for style, not to hide her positions. I am quite tired of you implying my motives were otherwise. When I made the summary, I fully admitted it wasn't perfect and asked others to fix it as they saw fit. The first thing someone else did was remove the criticism of Palin that I had included to try and balance the section. I strongly maintain that the summary I wrote was better than the list we reverted to, even if it wasn't 100% NPOV. Our current section is utter crap stylistically and is nothing like McCain, Biden, or Obama's page. --ThaddeusB (talk) 16:02, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

• Note to All if there are sufficient sources, yes even if it is something the "opposition is pushing", it belongs in the article, as long as the sources aren't the opposition's webpages. Fee Fi Foe Fum (talk) 08:30, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
  • If you've got any specific complaints, bring them here. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 08:36, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
    • I just did, but the only thing that matters is the Political Positions section. I'll say here that you can count my vote not to water the Political Positions section down even when I'm not here to vote. Fee Fi Foe Fum (talk) 08:47, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
      • I said a specific complaint. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 09:29, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

• How could it not be notable that she never travelled abroad until a couple of years ago, when she was in her forties? There must be something odd about that. It would be preferable to say "After becoming governor, Palin obtained a passport for the first time ...", if it is really true that she had never had one before. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.10.176.118 (talk) 19:30, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Suggested edit to Public Safety Commissioner section

"...Monegan alleged that his dismissal was retaliation for his failure to fire Palin’s former brother-in-law, Alaska Mike Wooten. Wooten is a state trooper who was involved in a child custody battle with Palin’s sister, Molly McCann, and who had also been disciplined for breaking department policy several times.[87][88] Monegan further alleged that contacts made by Palin herself, her staff, and her family had constituted inappropriate pressure to fire Wooten.[87][88] Though acknowledging that her staff had contacted Monegan or his staff a number of times regarding Wooten, and that at least one contact could be interpreted as pressure,[89] Palin stated that this call and most of the rest were made without her knowledge, and reiterated that she did not fire Monegan because of Wooten.[87][90]..."

"...Monegan alleged that his dismissal was retaliation for his failure to fire Palin’s former brother-in-law, Alaska state trooper Mike Wooten, who had violated department policy during a child custody battle with Palin’s sister, Molly McCann.[87][88] Monegan further alleged that contacts made by Palin herself, her staff, and her family had constituted inappropriate pressure to fire Wooten, because Wooten had already been disciplined and the case was officially closed.[87][88] Though acknowledging that her staff had contacted Monegan or his staff a number of times regarding Wooten, and that at least one contact could be interpreted as pressure,[89] Palin stated that this call and most of the rest were made without her knowledge, and reiterated that she did not fire Monegan because of Wooten.[87][90]..."

3rd version's the charm? Includes edit suggested in following section.

"...Monegan alleged that his dismissal was retaliation for his failure to fire Palin’s former brother-in-law, Alaska state trooper Mike Wooten, who had violated department policy and had been in a child custody battle with Palin’s sister, Molly McCann.[87][88] Monegan further alleged that contacts made by Palin herself, her staff, and her family had constituted inappropriate pressure to fire Wooten, because Wooten had already been disciplined and the case was officially closed.[87][88] On August 1, the Alaska Legislature hired an independent investigator to review the situation. On August 13, Palin acknowledged that her staff had contacted Monegan or his staff a number of times regarding Wooten, and that at least one contact could be interpreted as pressure.[89] She stated that this call and most of the rest were made without her knowledge, and reiterated that she did not fire Monegan because of Wooten.[87][90]..."

I think this edit rounds out the story with both pro-Palin (Wooten's poor record) and anti-Palin (the Bailey call) essential facts, without overly extending it. Homunq (talk) 17:28, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

This revision does not address the faulty chronology raised previously: Palin did not acknowledge that her staff had contacted Monegan until after the investigation was instigated on August 1. 79.74.252.173 (talk) 17:45, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

One thing at a time. Please, any admin who is handling editprotected requests, this is a key article. If you looked at the request and would have done it if you loved the edit, the only reason NOT to do it is if you can cite a specific wikipedia policy that it violates. The page is NOT protected to make admins into the quality police; it is protected to avoid serious, recurrent violations of WP:BLP. Homunq (talk) 17:49, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I endorse the version given by Homunq above. --ThaddeusB (talk) 17:55, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Oppose. If we include Wooten's misconduct, with an implication that Palin therefore had good reason for pressuring Monegan to fire him, we must also include Monegan's response, which specifically pointed to the prior disciplinary action against Wooten. One earlier version included this sentence about Palin's first conversation on the subject with Monegan: "In response, Monegan told Palin that Wooten had been officially reprimanded and disciplined in 2006 for these matters and that the subject could not be reopened."

Good point. How about we add, "for which he had already been disciplined"? --ThaddeusB (talk) 18:12, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

As to the point raised by the anon, this sentence was in prior versions but has now been scrubbed from the article: "Initially, Palin denied that there had been any pressure on Monegan to fire Wooten, either from her or from anyone else in her administration." It was cited to this story in the Washington Post. This fact is important and should be restored. It seems somewhat inefficient to set up another whole section just for that, but if that's the procedure this protection folly requires, I suppose it can be done. JamesMLane t c 17:59, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Both of the counterarguments to my edit are about what it is not, not about what it is. Please propose your own edits (which I'd probably support) instead of opposing mine. This may be an editprotected article, but this is still Wikipedia. If we had to vote on edits before they could happen, this would be Knol or something. This article is protected only to prevent serious violations, and this proposed edit is NOT one of those violations. Homunq (talk) 18:09, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I thought my objection and proposal were both clear. The proposed edit is a violation of WP:NPOV because it doesn't give Monegan's side of the dispute. My suggested revision was to add this sentence at the end: "In response, Monegan told Palin that Wooten had been officially reprimanded and disciplined in 2006 for these matters and that the subject could not be reopened." That would render superfluous one of your additions, namely "and who had also been disciplined for breaking department policy several times". JamesMLane t c 18:24, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I guess I have a slightly looser definition of WP:NPOV than you do, or something, because I can't see a violation in either case. We have to draw the line somewhere on counter-counter-arguments, and as editors we need at least a little flexibility to avoid edit wars. (If this were a forum, I'd respond about how the dispute is not about whether Monegan's or Wooten's actions were appropriate, because she had the right to fire Monegan regardless; the only question is, did the contacts from her office constitute undue pressure.) But sure, I accept your suggestion as a friendly addition to my requested edit. (please strikeout your "opposed" and put your preferred version as a response to mine). Homunq (talk) 18:36, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

OK, I did it for you. The sentence you suggested didn't quite fit (both "response" and "these matters" have unclear referents) but I think the second version addresses your concerns. Please strikeout your "Oppose:". Homunq (talk) 19:03, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I approve of the new version. --ThaddeusB (talk) 19:26, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I Strongly Oppose the new version. zredsox (talk) 19:40, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Zredsox, do you have a reason? Homunq (talk) 19:44, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

After reviewing the proposed edits, I am moving my position to Neutral. I have a feeling this entire section is soon going to need a rewrite anyway. [2] zredsox (talk) 20:03, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

• I approve of the suggested changes. It looks like each individual edit will need a new section, so I'm going to start another section to address the chronology issue. After that maybe we can deal with JamesMLane's suggestions. T0mpr1c3 (talk) 20:19, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

• More discussion please; consensus is not clear. In particular, I'd like to see the opinion of more editors. GRBerry 20:26, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

• I was about to point out an inaccuracy in a passage that's new in Version 2: "who had violated department policy during a child custody battle". That suggests that his violations were in connection with the child custody battle, which is certainly false, and I think it's false even if it merely means during the pendency of the battle. (The divorce proceeding was going on but "the child custody battle" usually refers to the custody dispute after the granting of the divorce.) Also, the context of "because Wooten had already been disciplined and the case was officially closed" is confusing. Those facts are why Monegan refused to fire Wooten, not why he thought the pressure was improper. Homunq, I take your point about the referents. Really, the easiest thing would be to restore the prior version that was perfectly fine before the Palin partisans set to work trying to sanitize it, but now to get that result we apparently have to go sentence-by-sentence and start several different subsections. I hope the geniuses who decided on protection are happy. I'll try to propose a Version 3 but right now I have RL issues to attend to. JamesMLane t c 20:36, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

re: custody battle - at least some of his violations (death threat, perhaps also taser) related to the custody battle. I agree that the moose hunt did not, but we are trying to summarize, and it is technically true that he violated policy during the battle, and the details are all in the sub-article. The inte rest here is to give a feeling for the he-said-she-said without going into every detail, and I think this phrasing works. Homunq (talk) 20:56, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Having read this article: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/03/AR2008090303210.html?nav%3Dhcmodule&sub=AR ... I think that it is necessary to add: "Though acknowledging that she and her staff...". Homunq (talk) 20:56, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I think this section is misleading because it gives the reader the impression that she wanted Mike Wooten dismissed simply because she was upset about the divorce. I think it would better round the story to state that she believed Wooten tasered his son and made a death threat against a retired school teacher http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/us_elections/article4663977.ece To not include her motivation for the firing leaves the read to assume her motivation. --RobertGary1 (talk) 15:14, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Does version 3 address this concern? Note that we can't be going into detail on all the accusations against Wooten, as this is a summary section, yet I now see it is important to pose them as separate from the custody battle. Homunq (talk) 15:38, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

N Edit declined. It is not clear what edit is requested and/or has consensus. Please use {{editprotected}} only after consensus has been achieved.  Sandstein  16:35, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Sandstein: there is not consensus on a final version. There is consensus that an edit is needed, and there are no voices opposing anything about the current proposed version of the edit. I understand the desire to be conservative with regards to an article that has been subject to edit wars, but I propose that the standard of total consensus is unattainable for anything beyond simple copyedits. I suggest that we should try to stay as close as possible to the normal process of editing, with successive imperfect versions, as WP:BLP allows. That is, any good-faith editprotect request that is not an obvious violation of WP:POV, WP:BLP, or some clear talk page consensus should be carried out. The remedy is not fewer edits, it's more. Nobody even remotely alleges that any of the above edits would constitute the kind of violation for which this page was protected, so lets let a thousand flowers bloom, or a thousand points of light, or whatever. 216.106.170.103 (talk) 18:34, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

The problem is, the complainant won't specify what he's complaining about. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 19:47, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Is your honor talking about me? I am saying 2 things.

1. I think that the above version 3, immediately preceded by {{editprotect}}, should be added to the article.

2. I think that the threshold of perfect consensus before putting an edit in place is unreasonable given the controversy involved. I think that anything which is clearly a good-faith attempt at compromise within the principles of Wikipedia should be implemented provisionally, and that debate should continue if warranted.

Is that clear enough for the court? Homunq (talk) 20:17, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I oppose "version 3". It takes this section off on a tangent. The title of the section is "Public Safety Commisioner dismissal". This issue involves Governor Palin, the Alaska Legislature, former commissioner Monagan, charges of abuse-of-power, and the resulting (and on-going) investigations. The messy, multi-year, family feud between the Palin's and Trooper Wooten is immaterial. I'd like to hear objections to using the version at the bottom of this post in place of the existing paragraph. It's considerably less obfuscated, eliminates text not consistant with a summarization of the section title, lists occurances in the correct order, and is entirely sourced. (the two links I recovered from an earlier version of this article would need converting to proper references).

N Edit declined. Everyone, please form a consensus first and then use {{editprotected}}. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 19:47, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

"On July 11, 2008, Palin dismissed Public Safety Commissioner Walter Monegan, citing performance-related issues.[82] Monegan alleged he had been pressured to fire Palin’s former brother-in-law, Alaska State Trooper Mike Wooten, and that his dismissal was retaliation for his failure to do so.[85][86] Palin publicly denied that any pressure to fire Wooten had been applied on Monegan. On August 1, the Alaska Legislature hired an independent investigator to review the situation.[91] Palin then asked the Alaska Attorney General to launch his own internal investigation [3] which led to her acknowledging on August 13 that there had been over twenty contacts made by her administration relating to Wooten[4], one of which resulted in her then suspending her Director of Boards and Commissions, Frank Bailey[5]. Palin stated that most of those calls were made without her knowledge, and reiterated that she did not fire Monegan because of Wooten.[85][88] The legislative investigation is scheduled to be completed in October 2008.[85]"

216.170.33.149 (talk) 20:58, 5 September 2008 (UTC) Paul

I agree with you, Wooten is immaterial. If this were a court room, his misdeeds do not belong. But it's not. Part of the defense of Palin is that Wooten deserved it. That may hold no legal water, but apparently it holds water with some people. It is not our job to decide for them. Wooten being disciplined belongs in, because it is clearly WP:V and WP:N for this article.

Also, your version is light on the actual nature of the contact from Palin to Monegan. There are two specific contacts - the taped Bailey call, and the emails from Palin herself - which stand out as not fitting under a blanket "over twenty contacts" statement. I would be OK with choosing one of these two cases as representative, and covering it in a subclause. Probably the Bailey call is the right one, as it is also the basis for the separate Police Union ethics complaint against Palin. Homunq (talk) 22:17, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Homunq, I haven't seen any source for your assertion, "Part of the defense of Palin is that Wooten deserved it." My understanding is that, although Palin believes that to be true, she also asserts it to be immaterial, and expressly disclaims that it's part of her defense. Her actual defense is that Monegan's firing had absolutely nothing to do with the Wooten issue. If she's now defending the firing by saying that Monegan was being slack about Wooten's misdeeds, that would be a shift in her position, and we would need to document that she's actual argued that. JamesMLane t c 01:30, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I didn't say "palin's defense", I meant other people defending Palin. Wooten's conduct is a significant portion of the sub-article and it deserves some mention here. Just look how many times drive-bys say "he tased his son!!!" - if we leave this information out completely, we are practically asking for those same people to put it in. (I also think that she (or her lawyers) actually does mention Wooten's misdeeds in her own defense - not that he deserved it, but that she was keeping Monegan informed of death threats and other ongoing issues, or something.)

However, I don't want to be taking ownership of this section. I consider this counter-proposed edit to be a clear improvement over the status quo, and would be happy to see it implemented - and then improved further. Homunq (talk) 05:41, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I think the Hatfield/McCoy (Palin/Wooten) dispute deserves mention somewhere, but I disagree that this is the place. This controversy is based upon alleged misconduct by the governor. Do we want to go insert lines into the Clinton's Lewinski section noting that "by the way, Monica often wore tight sweaters"? Whether citing claims that Wooten tortures puppies and pulls the wings off flies, or that he was suspended for letting his son volunteer for an asinine taser demo, or fined for dropping a moose on his then-wife's (Palin's younger sister) tag after she said "Here! You shoot it!", just injects a sympathetic slant that is contrary to any statements made by Governor Palin regarding the "Public Safety Commisioner dismissal". Do we wish to impart that "Well, if it turns out she did break the law, she was justified"?

As to "Your version is light on the actual nature of the contact from Palin to Monegan": I'm asking that additional information, regarding contacts, be added to what is now posted in the article. That facts that were scrubbed be replaced. The fact that she denied that any contact had taken place, then had to admit to two dozen contacts is a huge aspect of this investigation. Any mention of the intiial denial was recently edited out, and "two dozen contacts" became simply "contacts". Removing those key facts, just a few words, renders this summary a hollow, over-simplified misrepresentation of the facts. Specific details of the individual contacts ought to go into the sub-article?

75.88.83.220 (talk) 02:37, 6 September 2008 (UTC) Paul (216.170.33.149 when at the office. I can't remember my old WP login from my old email address... I'll go signup for a new one.)

OK. I still think Wooten's misconduct should go in, and something specific about the Bailey call (she admits it's pressure but disciplined Bailey?), but let's start somewhere. I approve this change. Homunq (talk) 05:41, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Hello all. I'm the former anon who shuffled the lines around a bit for this last version that seems to have some support as an improvement over the status quo (thanks!). I did neglect a couple things: A good reference to follow "Palin publicly denied that any pressure to fire Wooten had been applied on Monegan" would be useful. There are satisfactory examples from the Washinton Post, the Washinton Times, the Anchoorage Dialy News... I could dig one up if you like. Also, I was remiss in identifying the "Attorney General" that Palin instructed to perform an inquiry. Clarification is in order to ensure a reader doesn't get the impression that Michael Mukasey is involved ;) The firng and investigation are logically one event, a part of Palin's public life. The long-term Palin/McCann/Wooten dispute is certainly relevant as a preamble, or lead-in, but needs it's own paragraph to describe this part of her private life. Frankly, it would need it's own section, if the title of this section is to remain the same. Kopp seems to logically fit best as a one-liner kept seperate? Spiff1959 (talk) 06:49, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

(Undent) Just a few brief comments. This talk page section is messy and unclear, and it starts with the title, which uses the acronym "PSC". I just assumed it referred to something very tangential, given that no "PSC" is mentioned in the article. But no! "PSC" refers to the Public Safety Commissioner Dismissal. Why on Earth not put that into the section heading?

Also, it's unclear what the big gripe is with the section as currently written, or what the pending suggested alternatives are.

And, it's unclear why the section begins with three different versions of a paragraph starting with "Monegan alleged that his dismissal...." Shouldn't there be some introductory explanation or something? Some of us are dummies here, and we need things to be user-friendly.  :-)Ferrylodge (talk) 07:09, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Gripes

The gripe with the section as written has been described repeatedly. It has had the fact that Palin denied any pressure was applied by her office removed, it has had the fact that there were actually LOTS (two dozen) of contacts made regarding Wooten reduced to just "contacts". It portrays a chronology of events that indicates that Palin launched her investigation, and made the admission of contacts withut any prompting, and in advance of the State investigation, when the fact is she launched her internal inquiry and admitted to the contacts only AFTER learning of the investigation launched by the state legislature. Someone parked an <editrequested> tag over the 4th example, which seems to be gaining some consensus, it does not begin with "Monegan alleged...". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Spiff1959 (talk • contribs) 14:56, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Gripe #1 is that we should mention here that Palin initially denied any pressure was applied by her office. This is a tricky point, because Palin continues to say that the only intentional pressure was in one unauthorized call by Bailey. She acknowledges that the serial nature of the other calls may have been perceived as pressure, but she says they were not intended as such. And, she continues to say that Monegan was not fired because of Wooten, which implies that she never put pressure on Monegan. I think that the present version of the article treats this gripe as well as it can be treated in a brief summary.Ferrylodge (talk) 19:12, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

You're the first to chime in and say this proposed edit is not at least an improvement over the existing text. I am happy to respond to your defense of the recently inserted pro-Palin version of this section. Your description of "Gripe #1" jumps right over the gripe and camoflages the whole point that Palin initially denied that ANY pressure had been applied regarding Wooten, then late admitted there was. Somehow the gripe becomes a "tricky point" because when she recanted her denial, she then tries to qualify the amount of previously-denied pressure? Your counter did nothing to debunk the fact that she made the denial, had to back-track, and that this summary (now) fails to mention it. This is a key fact of this story, it's previous removal is not NPOV.Spiff1959 (talk) 21:46, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

The proposed new improved section says, "Palin publicly denied that any pressure to fire Wooten had been applied on Monegan." The proposed new improved section does not say anything about her admitting that she was wrong about that, or admitting that any pressure was ever applied against Wooten. Therefore, I do not understand why it's worth mentioning that she denied there was pressure on Monegan, given that the proposed section also says that Monegan was not fired because of Wooten. This seems redundant. You are trying to imply that she admits all of the contacts with Monegan were for the purpose of pressure, but she denies that.Ferrylodge (talk) 22:22, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I see. You wish to base this section entirely upon Palin's own statements. The revision could include a breakout of the contacts, and detail the one contact that happened to get recorded for which she put Bailey on paid leave. You've read this? [6] Have you listened to the released recording of the call that reads "Todd and Sarah are scratching their heads, Why on earth hasn't this, why is this guy still representing the department?". There was a denial of pressure, and after the legislature launched an investigation, she admitted there had been pressure. This is pertinent and easily worked into the framework of a concise, informative, and factual summary. This article should be based upon facts, not claims made by the Governor.Spiff1959 (talk) 23:24, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, you haven't worked Bailey into your draft section that's now under consideration. Your proposed section does not mention Bailey, or even refer vaguely to Bailey. I feel that people can click on the link to the sub-article, and learn all about Bailey. No need to infuse such details here.Ferrylodge (talk) 00:11, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

You are correct, the Bailey call is the most important (as far as we know) of the two-dozen contacts, and the one that directly refutes Palin's earleir denial that any pressure had taken place, and the one that resulted in her suspending one of her Directors. I've added to that sentence to include Bailey and think we're still well within the WP:SS guidelines.Spiff1959 (talk) 02:58, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Gripe #2 is that Palin actually launched an internal investigation after the legislature announced its own investigation, rather than before. But I don't see that the article presently says anything about the internal investigation. So, I think this gripe is not a good one.Ferrylodge (talk) 19:12, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Gripe #2, You don't see that Palin asked her Attorney General to conduct his own investigation (which she states is where she learned of the previouly denied contacts) because it was removed in the recent butchering of the section, a fact which I would have thought you'd be aware. If's it is the consensus that Palin's internal inquiry is not noteworthy, then fine, omit it. Again, you brush right over the clearly explained gist of the gripe. Gripe #2 is: The article implies Palin came clean about the improper contact(s) prior to the State launching an investigation. Listing the events in an order other than they actually occured, imparts more pro-Palin spin. You don't find it noteworthy to mention she denied there was presuure before admitting there was. You don't consider it important to portray an incorrect timeline of events, one that implies she "came clean" without any impetus.Spiff1959 (talk) 21:46, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Again, I think you're putting words in her mouth. She said, "Many of these inquiries were completely appropriate. However, the serial nature of the contacts could be perceived as some kind of pressure, presumably at my direction." She did not admit that there was intentional pressure, only an incorrect perception of pressure (except regarding Bailey). And, the current version does not suggest that she made statements without an impetus: the article makes very clear that her statements were not initiated by herself but rather were in response to allegations by Monegan.Ferrylodge (talk) 22:31, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

You're repeating quotes from Gripe #1, in which there is no doubt that "pressure" had been applied to fire Wooten. We report the facts, the user draws the conclusion, huh? You support: Wooten complained/Palin disclosed/Legislature investigates. That is factually incorrect, the order of events was Wooten complains/Legislature investigates/Palin discloses. Whether you feel the incorrect timeline creates no false perception, or I feel that it does, is moot. The timeline is in error, and needs to be corrected.Spiff1959 (talk) 23:24, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

You wrote: “Wooten complained/Palin disclosed/Legislature investigates. That is factually incorrect, the order of events was Wooten complains/Legislature investigates/Palin discloses." I assume you meant Monegan, not Wooten. The present article says, “Palin stated that most of those calls were made without her knowledge….” I would have no problem with inserting a date there, so that it reads, “Palin stated on August 13, 2008 that most of those calls were made without her knowledge….” It would be difficult to be any more clear about the chronology than that.Ferrylodge (talk) 00:23, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, It can be made more clear; by inserting the sentence regarding the Aug 1 investigation prior to the sentence describing the Aug 13 disclosure. The proposed edit reflects the correct sentence placement.Spiff1959 (talk) 02:58, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Gripe #3 is that the number of contacts from Palin's people to Monegan's is not provided. I don't think a summary article like this one has to get into precise numbers like that. But, I would have no objection if we modify the article like so: "Though acknowledging that her staff had frequently contacted Monegan or his staff regarding a death threat made by Wooten...." Otherwise, it appears that the Governor's office had no legitimate reason to contact Monegan about Wooten.Ferrylodge (talk) 19:15, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Why do you wish to infuse details about a years-long family feud regarding Governor Palin's personal life into a section summary titled "Public Safety Commissioner Dismissal"? This section involves Governor Palin, Monegan, potential abuse-of-power, and the Alaska State Legislatures on-going investigation. If you wish to go into details starting years ago of the family problems of McCann and her ex-husband Wooten and how that involves Palin, you'll be needing a new section with a number of paragraphs to list all the messy proven-and-unproven accusations, the he-said/she-said's, or to delve into Wooten's morality or lack thereof. A good title might be "If Palin is guilty of abuse-of-power, then it was justified because Wooten is a jerk". If that flies, I'll go add a section to the Clinton article titled "Bill was jusified because Monica had big knockers and wore tight sweaters".Spiff1959 (talk) 23:24, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I hardly think that a mere five words constitutes "infusing details." And the reason why it is relevant here is because Palin's people say that's what they were contacting Monegan's people about.Ferrylodge (talk) 00:05, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Please refer to my reply to this point where it is repeated below Spiff1959 (talk) 02:08, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm not surprised then that you use "this is a summary" to dismiss adding two words that I and many others consider an important fact of the story: The extent of contacts made by Palin's office regarding her ex-brother-in-law Wooten. I get the impression you'd prefer that a section describing an on-going investigation of a vice-presedential candidate being conducted by her own state legislature did not appear in this article at all. Spiff1959 (talk) 21:46, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

So you're fine with including the death threat if we also include the precise number of contacts? Incidentally, I absolutely do think that a section on this matter needs to be included in this article, and I think the presently-worded section does a pretty good job.Ferrylodge (talk) 22:36, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

That's ridiculous. The "death threat" has no place in this summary section. Spiff1959 (talk) 23:24, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Even if that's what Palin's people contacted Monegan's people about?Ferrylodge (talk) 00:06, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

The only reason to describe the content of the contacts between Palin's administration and Monegan's organization would be to determine whether pressure to fire Wooten was or was not applied. The recorded call from Bailey was proven to be "pressure" for which he received a suspension with pay. The reported transcript of that call does not mention the "death threat". I can find no source where Palin or her representatives stated that all the remaining contacts were specifically regarding the "death threat". Therefore, we would need to break up the two-dozen contacts into which of which are known to discuss what topics, which are unknown, etc. To be fair, we would have to include statements from all parties as to what these contacts entailed. That may be valid for the sub-article, but not the summary. Again, details of these contacts are relevant under this subject heading only as to whether they consisted of "applying pressure to fire Wooten" or not. Delving into the dirty personal laundry of the McCann/Wooten/Palin affair would belong elsewhere.Spiff1959 (talk) 02:08, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I've made a couple changes to the proposed edit. I clarified which Attorney General we are speaking of, added the Aug 13 date to when the Palin office revealed the two dozen contacts, and added to that same sentence to mention Frank Bailey, whose contact is the most newsworthy of the contacts of which we know the details. Spiff1959 (talk) 02:34, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm done. I've presented my case that this proposed edit covers the salient points of the section title in an accurate, chronologcally-correct fashion with all statements referenced in an attempt to eliminate the existing POV reflected in the current disjointed, out-of-order paragraph that included trivialities and neglected key points. I had one or two approvals, as well as my own, and just your objection. Maybe others will reads this Gripes section, and the proposed edit, and cast a vote of their own. Thanks, FL, I enjoyed the debate.Spiff1959 (talk) 02:58, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Oppose. The proposed language (immediately below the yellow edit-request box) does not hint at why Palin's people might have been appropriately contacting Monegan's people; the Palin people assert that Wooten was a security threat, having threatened the life of Palin's father. The proposed language also does not hint at what "performance-related" issues Palin claims motivated her to fire Monegan, e.g. that Monegan was allegedly not a team player on budgeting issues, and had not been hiring enough troopers. The existing language in the article also does not address these two problems, and I feel that the proposed changes would just perpetuate that situation. The proposed changes also give the impression that the 20 contacts were intended to pressure Monegan to fire Wooten, whereas Governor Palin only admits that that was true of the contact by Bailey. There's also no hint in the proposed language that the Governor has plenary constitutional power to fire her cabinet officers for any reason, so doing that cannot be considered a violation of law. Although the present section of the article is not great, it is much better than the proposed language, I think. As mentioned above, I would have no objection if we modify the article to say: "Though acknowledging that her staff had frequently contacted Monegan or his staff regarding a death threat made by Wooten...." I would also have no objection if we modify the article to say: "Palin stated on August 13, 2008 that most of those calls were made without her knowledge….”Ferrylodge (talk) 03:42, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I'm not done. The admitted contacts were all regarding Wooten, calls to Monegan inquiring about the weather are not in that count. The proposed edit does not imply they were all nefarious, it just states the facts from the cited press release of Gov. Palin. It is unknown whether the contacts regarding Wooten were inquiries to the condition of his gout, or veiled hints to boot the guy, or personal references to his impeccable integrity. The edit lists the major facts form the press release and allow the reader to make their own interpretation. The very next sentance states " [Palin] reiterated that she did not fire Monegan because of Wooten". That relays from the press report her version of what the contacts were not. The "performance-related" text you object to also exists in the earlier edit that you alone support versus the new edit. Spelling out her what her stated performance issues are does not add value to a summary and should be in the spinoff article. You're arguing that abuse-of-power is not a violation of law, therefore an edit that 4 have approved (2 here, one in "Add information on Monegan firing" and myself) should not replace an edit that also does not make that argument? If she's allowed to fire anyone for any reason, someone should pass that along to her lawyers so they can end this whole thing now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Spiff1959 (talk • contribs) 04:16, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I never mentioned calls about the weather. Good night.Ferrylodge (talk) 06:00, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I'd also like to add that any decent summary of this situation would mention that the Democratic state senator overseeing the secret investigation expects to "damage" Palin, and warns of an "October surprise". See Isikoff, Michael and Hosenball, Mark. “Team McCain and the Trooper”, Newsweek (2008-09-05).Ferrylodge (talk) 04:36, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to add that to remain "decent" we would have to state that that quote is from the Republican charged with removing French from overseeing the investigation, and he suggested that the entire Palin investigation ought to be shut down entirely. We'd have to include that French stated that he is not conducting the investigation directly and will have no part in preparing the report to be submitted by the special investigator hired by the legislature. But then, if we included all that partison back-and-forth banter from both sides, to keep things "decent", we wouldn't have a summary anymore. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Spiff1959 (talk • contribs) 05:23, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

(undent)Oh give me a break. It was the Democratic state senator, Hollis French, speaking:[7]

"It's likely to be damaging to the Governor's administration," said Senator Hollis French, a Democrat…”She has a credibility problem," he said…. "Now they may have to deal with an October surprise," he said, referring to the scheduled release Oct. 31 of the committee's final report.

Ferrylodge (talk) 05:39, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

You farst stated "The Senator... expects to damage Palin". That first source you used is a paraphrasing from the Republican of what the Democrat said. This new source is the actual quote from the Democrat where he said "It's [the report] likely to be damaging to the Governor's administration". Not at all the same thing. And not worthy of a summary. Spiff1959 (talk

I'm sorry; what specific change to the wording is being contemplated here? MastCell ^Talk 06:27, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

The propsed edit appears slightly above the "Gripes" sub-heading above, immediately below the <editprotected > tag. (Warning: this is a long read!)Spiff1959 (talk) 06:31, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Unresolved

For those who missed it

A while back I made what I considered to be a fair summary, using input from the talk page. It's prose, it summarizes, it represents what reliable, independent sources say. How does it look now? Phlegm Rooster (talk) 02:17, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Political positions

Palin has described the Republican party platform as "the right agenda for America," adding "individual freedom and independence is extremely important to me and that's why I'm a Republican."

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

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

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

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

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

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

Any comments?

• Approve A much better summary! Bravo. Sure, it needs a little work, but all in all a 100% improvement on what we currently have.zredsox (talk) 02:20, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
• Strongly disapprove A summary section should be a short summary, capturing the general principles, not a rehash of every point on the sub page. --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:23, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
• Nope - way too much detail on hot-button "wedge issues" and too long per WP:SS. Kelly ^hi! 02:24, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Those are her positions. Palin is proud of them. The only other one I am aware of is she supports Israel. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 02:40, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
    • Who doesn't? :) Kelly ^hi! 02:46, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose As I said earlier the summary section should be no longer than the summary in the comparative article Joe Biden. The goal here is a short summary of most important positions and not dropping things like "A 2006 article in the Anchorage Daily News" or quotes several lines in length that's not a summary that's simply rehashing the whole subarticle here. We need an actual summary. Hobartimus (talk) 02:35, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I did mention in a section above that we should not be using Joe Biden's summary as an example but rather Obama's Summary and here is why.It basically says that the Political Issues in Biden's summary should either be expanded or removed because there is not enough there and that is part of what is holding it back from being a good article. Clearly it is a strong indication we need to expand the current summary.zredsox (talk) 02:20, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Normally I would agree, but, as I've mentioned before, one of the major problems with Political positions of Sarah Palin (which this section summarizes) is that it doesn't have enough "boring stuff" like fiscal policy, etc. I can understand why - the controversial issues attract a lot of early attention. I'll try to research some of that stuff over the weekend, but for now I am uncomfortable with the emphasis in this summary on wedge issues like gun control, enviromentalism, creationism, etc., which are important to some single-issue voters but extremely minor in the large scheme of things. Kelly ^hi! 02:38, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Kelly, reliable sources find these interesting. Calling them "hot button" implies they are important. Find me a sources that says the evolution issue is minor, or that drilling in the Arctic is minor. Otherwise it's just you guarding the article from anything that might lose Palin votes. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 02:45, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure where this meme is coming from that I'm trying to get votes for someone. Have you ever seen me oppose an edit that was within policies? Ever seen me put positive fluff into the article? Diffs, please. Kelly ^hi! 02:49, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Phlegm: Please stay WP:CIVIL. You may feel that Kelly is guarding the article, but the vote thing is below the belt. Kelly: Please reread your comment two above. You are perfectly justified, but I think it does count as "opposing an edit that (is) within policies". And we all know that you did hundreds of edits, so "diffs please" seems a little weak. We are justified in forming our impression of you from your words here and on your talk page. Homunq (talk) 02:58, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

As I understand it, her historical campaign style has actually been to deliberately emphasize wedge issues (for example bringing religion, abortion, and gun rights into a Mayoral race). It's not obvious to me whether she even has positions on some of the other things (for instance, I suspect she's playing catch-up on most foriegn policy issues). I agree with you in spirit that we should be comprehensive in our coverage, but we also have to keep in mind that some topics, like pro-life positions, gun rights, and oil exploration, are more developed in part because those are things Palin herself has chosen to emphasize during her career. Dragons flight (talk) 03:00, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

If you want to suggest an expansion of the current summary, please feel free. A complete rehash of the sub article is not acceptable though. The proposed version doesn't match Obama's in any way (in style), nor does it match Biden's or McCain's. At least the current version roughly resembles both Biden's & McCain's in style. Also comparing to Obama probably isn't the best option since a presidential candidate is obviously more important than a VP candidate. --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:42, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

• Approve This looks to be a fair summary of important issues and it is not at all a rehash of everything on the subpage - that page is where much more detail would appear, if it is known. We have to look at each individual separately - we don';t decide what to do here based on what other editors have decided to do on Joe Biden's page - these are their biographies not campaign pieces for them. In her case since so little is generally known about her, it would seem appropriate to have a bit more detail here in the main article, as this summary does. In fact, I would support it being even a bit longer, if there are other important subjects not covered. Tvoz/talk 02:47, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

  Tvoz, this article is under an extraordinary amount of media attention. I'm even getting requests from the press for comment about the libel being put into the article over the past week. I understand your point, but realpolitik says we have to keep some level of parity with Joe Biden or teh drahmaz will ensue. Kelly ^hi! 02:51, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Kelly, did you seriously think I don't know that? I've been through this before on other political articles, as I think you know, including press scrutiny, and I still maintain that "parity" with Biden is irrelevant and not the way Wikipedia works. Tvoz/talk 04:11, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

We should not let the bad decisions on the Biden article effect the stewardship of this article. If we are truthfully working to make this a Good Article, we need to enhance and expand the summary. Crazy as it sounds, that means Sarah Palin's views will be visible to the world. zredsox (talk) 03:10, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Why not just merge the whole article back in then. That's essentially what the proposal does anyway. In any case, I fail to see how forcing someone to click a highly visible link constitutes hiding the information 'from the world'. Do you feel that people who might vote against her because of her positions are too lazy/dumb to click through? --ThaddeusB (talk) 03:18, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Approve Thaddeus's proposal.zredsox (talk) 03:31, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

That would be ok with me - until this article gets too long. Tvoz/talk 04:11, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose. Too long per WP:SS and it is certain to require revision shortly: insufficient weight is given to her own emphasis in the current campaign and this has yet to be factored into the secondary sources. patsw (talk) 03:09, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the link! I went there and there was nothing that mentioned long being a bad thing (within reason.) However if you read my link above (and below) you will find that being too short a summary is reason for its removal. zredsox (talk) 03:50, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose. Mr. Rooster has made a valiant effort here, but ultimately it will not work. I support leaving virtually all the specific positions for the Political positions of Sarah Palin article. As another editor once put it,[8] "trying to boil positions down to very short summaries is inherently a dubious proposition: you get superficiality and sound-bites and oversimplification. The whole point of the separate article is to avoid all that." What we need here are some over-arching themes and meta-analysis. Another problem with going into specific issues like this is that the article will never ever become stable.Ferrylodge (talk) 03:17, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

If your are truly opposed then we should delete the entire summary as being insufficient based on the discussion had here .

• Approve of this summary as a point to start further work. I also very strongly disapprove of the current ("libertarianism") summary and strongly believe that we should not be waiting for perfect consensus before making edits (although all edits should be discussed on the talk page).Homunq (talk) 03:57, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
• Support. This version isn't perfect but it's far superior to the text unilaterally implemented by Moreschi. To those who complain about disclosure of Palin's positions on "hot-button issues": well, duh, those are the issues most important to inform the readers about. Readers will want to know that she favors abstinence-only education. Some will cheer her for it, some will denounce her, but all will find that more informative than the solemn pronouncement that she favors "individual freedom and independence" and opposes "corruption". (By the way, that POV about "individual freedom and independence" and her support for a "minimal state" is contradicted by her abortion position, in the opinion of millions of Americans. We shouldn't be reporting a right-wing spin as if it were fact. If she's used those words we could say "She has expressed support for 'individual freedom and independence'" to make clear that it's her own characterization of her position.) JamesMLane t c 04:32, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose The condensed and declarative current version passes all policy and guideline challenges, and reads better. Perhaps it could be expanded slightly, but that is for another day. :) Also, to maintain such a suggestion would mean constantly having to consider which quotes/sources to include as the summaries, and this becomes a magnet for POV pushers -- more than it is already. Please don't Baccyak4H (Yak!) 04:53, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Baccyak4H, throughout this article we must make editorial judgments about what's important enough to include. It's an area where the NPOV policy doesn't provide clear answers. Editors have different POV's about what's important, and any specific fact must be either included or omitted, so we can't implement neutrality between the differing opinions concerning importance. (That said, however, the current version is POV in asserting as fact Palin's self-serving spin on her position.) JamesMLane t c 05:59, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
    • I think you're losing sight of the fact that the section being discussed is supposed to be merely a summary of Political positions of Sarah Palin, similar to Joe Biden#Political positions. Kelly ^hi! 06:51, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
      • Excuse me, "the fact that"? You have a personal opinion that we should model this section after Biden's. Multiple editors have tried to explain to you why that's not the applicable standard. Not only do you not address their arguments, you even say "the fact that" to introduce an opinion that's widely rejected. It's like my saying that you're losing sight of the fact that McCain is a blatant hypocrite. I believe that, mind you, but I would never be so presumptuous as to describe my opinion as a fact. (Also, following Strunk & White, I try to avoid using "the fact that", but that's another issue.) JamesMLane t c 07:15, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
        • • Thanks for the link - I'm pretty much a hick, so I have never heard of Strunk & White. :) But I was really referring to WP:SS. Kelly ^hi! 07:24, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
            • It is great that you are citing WP:SS being it does not support your argument in the least. Yes, it should be used. No, it does not say expanding this summary to have a broader and more balanced sample of positions would be incorrect. If anything I surmised that WP:SS advocates a more inclusive summary that does not shift the balance of the source article, which this clearly does. zredsox (talk) 12:17, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
• Comment. I see a lot of comparisons to the Joe Biden article here. First, the Joe Biden article isn't that good; although I'm now the #2 editor there by edit count, that's more by default than from any great effort by me. There's a lot of areas in it that need improvement. Second, Biden is a very different case than Palin. Biden's been in the Senate for three decades, and there are a lot of interest group ratings such as ADA, ACU, National Journal, etc. that can give you a capsule idea of where he stands in general. For Palin that isn't the case. Third, Biden's views are pretty well known and established by this time; he's cast a jillion votes, made a zillion speeches on everything under the sun. That's also not the case with Palin. So the Palin editors have to figure out what's best for that article. Wasted Time R (talk) 03:16, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Requesting an edit

This article presently says the following, due to a non-consensus edit today by Bogdan during full protection:[9]

“She is a proponent of teaching both creationism and evolution in science classes, but she did not push creation science as governor of Alaska.”

The edit ought to be reverted, since it was made without consensus during full protection. But in the mean time, I think we can easily get consensus to remove the words “in science classes”, since neither the cited source[10] nor the sub-article[11] specifically says anything about “science class” or “biology class”, as opposed to some other type of class (e.g. philosophy or social studies). Zredsox has already said that he could support removing the words “in science classes”.[12] So, for the time being, I would like to propose changing the sentence to the following:

“She is a proponent of teaching about or allowing discussion about both creationism and evolution in public schools, and has not pushed creationism as governor of Alaska.”

After all, the cited source says "Palin said discussion of alternative views on the origins of life should be allowed in Alaska classrooms" and also quotes her as saying that, "It's OK to let kids know that there are theories out there."Ferrylodge (talk) 02:57, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I support this change even though I object to the rest of the material remaining in its present form. --ThaddeusB (talk) 03:01, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Needs a tweak as it is not reading cleanly:

“She is a proponent of teaching or allowing discussion of both creationism and evolution in public schools, but has not pushed creationism as governor of Alaska.”

Although, instead of making minor edits at this point we should probably be focused on the bigger picture as being discussed one section above. ;) zredsox (talk) 03:04, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I support zredsox's phrasing. It'll do for now. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 03:07, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

(undent)I would support the Zredsox version, with a slight change: “She is a proponent of teaching about or allowing discussion of both creationism and evolution in public schools, but has not pushed creationism as governor of Alaska.” I think Palin has pretty clearly said "It's OK to let kids know that there are theories out there", and that meaning is lost without the word "about".Ferrylodge (talk) 03:13, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I would not object to this version. --ThaddeusB (talk) 03:15, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, what Ferrylodge said. Kelly ^hi! 03:16, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I object. It's a lame copout. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 03:17, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

So incorrect info is better than a lame compromise? --ThaddeusB (talk) 03:19, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Mr. Rooster, you think the word "about" is a lame copout? The woman is suggesting telling students "that there are theories out there". Can you see the difference between telling students about other theories, versus telling students that those other theories are correct? Palin supports doing the former. Why do you want this article to imply that she supports the latter?Ferrylodge (talk) 03:22, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Yup because the other ah hypotheses have been so firmly demolished that calling them a theory is highly inaccurate. It's a bit like telling pupils that there is a hypothesis that life involves some kind of vital force. Technicaly true there is such a hypothesis but not useful.Geni 03:28, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Look, the fact is she totally said "teach both" in a televised debate. She wanted some votes, and said it in the forum that would get her those votes. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 03:25, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

<- Looks like a deadlock, we may need to do a request for comment to get movement. Anyone want to volunteer? I'm going to bed pretty soon. Kelly ^hi! 03:23, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I've got to run. Every source I can find has the words TEACH and CREATIONISM right next to each other with no "about" in the middle. I am sticking to my guns here. Goodnight.zredsox (talk) 03:28, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

It is impossible to teach that two conflicting theories are both correct. I've got to run too. You know, Zredsox, that I was merely looking for a shorter way to say that Palin wants to teach "that there are theories out there". But you want this article to convey that she wants to teach that one of those theories is correct.Ferrylodge (talk) 03:35, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

It's not out there. It's very firmly burried in the world of science. Certian religious groups insist on digging it from time to time.Geni 03:47, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I think "about" is a fine compromise. It's one word. How bad can it be? As a science teacher, I know that any "teaching about creationism" which is not debunking it belongs outside the science classroom anyway. Homunq (talk) 03:44, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I pretty much agree with that, Homunq, except that it might be worth mentioning in a science class that many theories once thought to be correct have since been proved incomplete, and evolution may well turn out to be among them. Also worth mentioning is that our present knowledge is very limited (e.g. we haven't yet figured out how to create organic matter out of inanimate matter).Ferrylodge (talk) 04:06, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Radiometric Dating . The End. ;) zredsox (talk) 04:14, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

{{editprotected}} Please take this out: [13]. Improper edit unsupported by the protection policy, and I don't see any consensus for it to be there in the first place. The admin that did it hasn't replied to any queries, and this isn't an admin action that requires running it by the admin before undoing. Please take it out wholly until a consensus supports some wording. rootology (C)(T) 07:28, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Note that, even if this article were not protected at all, the edit in question would have been totally inappropriate and revertable, since there was no consensus for it. I believe it substantially misdescribes what the subject of the BLP has said, and also misdescribes what the cited source has said.Ferrylodge (talk) 07:46, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

 Done - Kevin (talk) 09:35, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't see how anybody was calling for the complete removal of the material. I can only assume that this was some sort of error on Kevin's part. If any admin's edits to the article are to be reverted "per editprotected, rm edit with no consensus" in should be the first such change, by Moreschi, who also introduced unsourced material claiming Plain is a libertarian. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 10:23, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

It was not an error at all. The edit was made without consensus, and so I reverted it. If there is some version that gains consensus here, it can be re-inserted. Kevin (talk) 10:26, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

What about Moreschi's earlier edit, changing the section and claiming she's a "classical libertarian" in favor of the "minimal state"? Talk about a BLP concern. Look below, that has no consensus, since no sources at all can be found that say that. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 10:31, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Kevin, does your approach mean that the version that happened to be in place as of protection has a preferred status, and can't be changed absent consensus? That seems to mean that, where opinion is divided so that there is no consensus, the happenstance of what was protected governs what our most-visited article will say. That contradicts the way protection is supposed to work. (I realize that you didn't unilaterally impose protection but I'm trying to understand how you and other admins proceed under these circumstances.) JamesMLane t c 14:24, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Not at all, I have no preconception as to the correct version. My removal was based solely on the fact that the addition was made before a consensus had been reached as to it's inclusion. If a consensus is reached later, then I have no issue with inclusion, either as-is or in an altered form. The purpose of full protection is to stop edit warring. No editor, including admins, should edit the article unless there is a consensus for the edit. Kevin (talk) 22:28, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Let me clarify -- I'm not charging you with any preconception. I'm raising an issue about the protection system and rules, the result of which is apparently the same as if admins did have a preconception. If there's a 50-50 division of opinion on a proposed edit, or even 60-40, then there's no consensus for a change, so whatever language is currently in place remains. Isn't that, in practice, the way it works? There are passages in the current version that some editors consider inaccurate or otherwise objectionable. There's no consensus to include those passages, but they remain in, because there's no consensus to remove them. This setup gives too much weight to the protected version, which deserves no special status. It was (presumably) selected for protection on the basis of the happenstance that it was the version in place when an admin decided to protect, not on the basis of any admin's comprehensive review of all the different versions. JamesMLane t c 03:26, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I see. Whichever version ends up protected, from that point on any addition or removal needs consensus to go ahead. In theory the protection is placed with no particular regard for the "correct" version. Because protection is to prevent edit warring, there will always be those who feel they have won, and those who don't. It's not ideal, but it is the best we have for now. Kevin (talk) 22:50, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

This is absolutely ridiculous. How far will people go to hide Palin's views? Seriously! We were one word away from a consensus on this and yet the entire statement was removed? zredsox (talk) 12:25, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Re-proprosing "“She is a proponent of teaching about or allowing discussion of both creationism and evolution in public schools, but has not pushed creationism as governor of Alaska.” for quick inclusion. This was extremely close to consensus above. personally i think "teaching creationism" is in effect synonymous with this, but also that "proponent" is too strong. But the tortured prose of this compromise will certainly do for now. 86.44.21.70 (talk) 16:09, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

You're suggesting to insert what you think is "tortured prose"? No wonder you put that in tiny font!Ferrylodge (talk) 17:57, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

No offence! :D Would you prefer "tortuous"? :) 86.44.21.70 (talk) 18:19, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Either way is correct. Did you see this?Ferrylodge (talk) 18:41, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Edit request: 2008 vice-presidential campaign - Convention speech

I floated the idea of making this edit under two different discussion topics: "15 Convention Speech" and "19 Total Viewers Of Palin Speech - Beats Obama?". I was surpised that in over 16 hours I've received no reply in the affirmative, nor any dissentions. I will request it more officially before applying a request-edit tag and respectfully asking an administrator to enact the change.

My objection is to the final portion of the last sentence in the section. The sentence reads: "Palin delivered a 40 minute acceptance speech at the Republican National Convention that was well-received by the crowd and by media analysts.[97][98]." I object to including "and by media analysts". The term "well-received" is very broad and to cast that net over media analysts in general is inappropriate. It is a subjective judgement that is not verifiable. I do think it is generally agreed that the convention attendees approved of all aspects of the speech and therefore "well-received" is appropriate. I request that sentence be modified to read: "Palin delivered a 40 minute acceptance speech at the Republican National Convention that was well-received by the crowd." Alternatively, I think the following would also qualify as an objective statement: "Palin delivered a 40 minute acceptance speech at the Republican National Convention that was well-received by the crowd and considered well-executed by media analysts." Spiff1959 (talk) 03:45, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

• Since it was my edit, I will say I have no objection to "Palin delivered a 40 minute acceptance speech at the Republican National Convention that was well-received by the crowd and considered well-executed by media analysts." Phlegm Rooster (talk) 03:47, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I couldn't have hoped for a better endorsement than that! Thank you, Sir. Since this proposed edit has been around all day without a single objection, and has now received a stamp-of-approval from the author of the text to be modified, let's put up some colorful graphics! (my first, so I'm excited!) {{editprotected}} Please edit the final sentence of the "2008 vice-presidential campaign" section to read as follows: "Palin delivered a 40 minute acceptance speech at the Republican National Convention that was well-received by the crowd and considered well-executed by media analysts."

• Oppose (sorry to burst your bubble of excitement, Spiff1959, and I appreciate your efforts, but there are problems). Some media analysts trashed the contents of the speech. If the point of "well-executed" is to say that she was evaluated as being skilled at reading a speech off a teleprompter, it's really not important enough to include. The notable thing about the speech is that she undertook the traditional "attack dog" role of the VP candidate. She was sharply partisan, which did indeed play very well with the delegates, and more generally with the party's right-wing base, but which was deplored (as to tone and content) by some of the media analysts who frequently criticize what they see as excessive partisanship. It would hard to convey that last point in NPOV fashion, though. What if we just end the sentence after "crowd"? (I think "delegates" would be an improvement over "crowd" because this wasn't just some bunch of random Republicans who wandered into the hall to hear a speech.) JamesMLane t c 06:12, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

• Comment The following is from the Obama article: "On August 28, Obama accepted the nomination in a speech that received praise from many media commentators and political analysts.[104]" See any similarity? Do you intend to "be bold" and edit the Obama page to remove this blatant POV pushing? I think that Obama gave a great speech that was well received both by Democrats and commentators. I think it is easy to find multiple RS's that prove the same of Palin's speech. Is there a double-standard here?--Paul (talk) 06:18, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Considering that the Obama page now reads "The speech, delivered in front of 84,000 supporters, contained pointed criticism of McCain and President Bush, and added details to his stances that were not mentioned in previous campaign speeches.[105][106]", yes, there is a huge double-standard in place. Now there is no praise of the Obama speech, and in comparison to this article, the Obama speech is now portrayed as the "attack" speeech, yet we (and apparently all media analysts) continue to fawn over Sarah's speech. Spiff1959 (talk) 16:21, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

• I've done very little editing of the Obama article. If you think that language is unacceptable or unsupported, talk it up on that talk page. I'm allowed to opine about this article without running around Wikipedia editing articles that other people assign to me. JamesMLane t c 06:26, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

• Yeah, James is right. It's one of those things where only history can tell the impact, long from now. Best to avoid fleeting opinions. I agree with Paul's opinion of the Obama article comment, but that is an issue for the editors over there, not here. Kelly ^hi! 06:57, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm sick of that excuse, wiki uses that lame excuse all the time "well thats for them over THERE"....no its not. Wikipedia, when considered as a whole, needs to be NPOV on a macro level not a micro level. We have a duty, since the Obama article preexists this one, to keep Wikipedia fair on a macro level. Your excuse is lame. If you are really about NPOV, then you WILL consider how Obama's article is taken into account compared to this one as these two individuals are in a current competition. This is not about 'micro-fairness' and you know it. This article cannot possibly stand on its own as a measure of NPOV without being justifiably compared to Obama. Because Obama's article mentions the lavish praise of his speech, and this one does not, makes this article slanted. You cannot call this article NPOV when you snipe phraseology that are permitted on Obama's page, people are smarter than that. If you want to make this article truly NPOV you will balance it against Obama's. That is fair....but for the editors here....are you going to be fair like that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.18.108.5 (talk) 07:53, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Two wrongs do not make a right. It is is not a valid argument to say that this article should remain inaccurate or opinionated because that failing exists elsewhere in another article. James: So you're saying that you agree with me that citng that the speech was "well-received by... media analysts" is inappropriate. And, you're agreeing that her presentation was almost universally acclaimed as "well-executed". But, you're lodging an opposition to the edit because you feel the latter fact is not noteworthy? Isn't this throwing the baby out with the bathwater? This will result in the statement that her speech was loved by the media as a whole remining intact. I thought WP was about improving articles a little at a time, about making compromises. If you read my request, you see that I offered an edit with the "media analyst" portion of the sentence removed. As a compromise, I offered the second option including a reference to "media analysts" but restricting it's use to "well-executed". You, and I am sure the vast majority, do not object to that being factual. I feel it does have some value as content in that there was considerable speculation as to whether Palin would be able to handle the task this being the first time she spoke in the national spotlight. It seems you're nit-picking, putting a halt on what you agree is an improvement for trivial reasons (or to put a stop to my all-night Wiki party, celebrating my first contribution, while I still have 6 bottles of champagne and three cases of vienna sausage remaining!) Spiff1959 (talk) 14:31, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Spiff, you're correct that, while I see problems with your version, I would regard it as an improvement over what's in the article now. If those were the only two choices, I would support your change. I'm just hoping that, while we're focusing on this subject, we can remove all the Palin-fawning. The champagne will keep for another day or two, right? JamesMLane t c 16:40, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Deal! The <editprotected> just got denied because of opposition, but let's not let it stand as currently written. I am surprised the admin didn't notice that there is no opposition to at least a partial change for now. Removing any media reference would be fine, or, including it was "well-executed" or, adding that "A major portion of the speech was directed against the Democrats" are all accurate, and I'd find ANY combination of the above preferrable to what is currently displayed. Spiff1959 (talk) 22:18, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

James, maybe we ought to take what we can now and fight the next battle later? Yours is the only outstanding objection to the proposed change? Spiff1959 (talk) 03:23, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

N Edit declined. There is currently no consensus for this edit. Please use {{editprotected}} only after consensus has been achieved (see WP:PER).  Sandstein  21:48, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Unresolved

The "NPOV" regarding 2008 convention speeches is WAY off kilter, yet no one is concerned about addressing this? My edit was declined yet no one had directly objected to the change itself, we're all fine with declaring the "Palin speech was well-received by media analysts"? The Obama article now states only this regarding his speech: "The speech, delivered in front of 84,000 supporters, contained pointed criticism of McCain and President Bush, and added details to his stances that were not mentioned in previous campaign speeches.[105][106]" This Palin article addresses her speech in this manner: "On September 3, 2008, Palin delivered a 40 minute acceptance speech at the Republican National Convention that was well-received by the crowd and by media analysts.[97][98]". Were one to analyze the two speeches I doubt anyone would disagree that the finding would show a much higher percentage of Palin's speech was spent "on the offensive" than Obama's speech. Yet, we portray Obama's as the "attack" speech. I saw staunch-conservative, former Nixon speechwriter, former Reagan aide and two-time Republican presedential candidate Pat Buchanan state "That was the best acceptance speech I've ever heard". Yet, Obama's article has zero praise about the speech. I witnessed no counterpart to Buchanan extorting Palin's speech, yet it was "well-received by the crowd" and throughout the land it was "well-received by media analysts". It is shocking that millions of readers are being subjected to sourceless statements and outright partisan bias. Spiff1959 (talk) 16:53, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Version 2 of a proposed edit regarding the sentence describing the Plain RNC speech: "At the Republican National Convention, Palin delivered a 40-minute acceptance speech that was mainly directed against the opposition party." Comments? Spiff1959 (talk) 19:39, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

It is odd to see that the Palin speech that is best decribed, based on media accounts, as consisting of "pointed criticism", on WP is only referred to as "well-received by media analysts". The Obama speech that is best described, based on media accounts, as "well-received by media analysts", is labeled here as consisting of "pointed criticism". Juxtaposed. Argue whatever minutiae you wish, but you can not argue that WP is not contrary to the vast majority of media accounts.Spiff1959 (talk) 20:43, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Political positions (2)

she is known in Alaska for her strong opposition to what she views as excessive government spending and corruption - this is sourced to an op-ed piece in a British newspaper that doesn't go into the specifics of what she actually opposes or what she is known for in Alaska. Can we have a better source - perhaps from one of the Alaskan newspapers? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.67.45.129 (talk) 12:14, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

We should instead remove the statement. How many contemporary American politicians would not oppose excessive government spending and corruption? This gives the reader no information about her positions. If there's a reliable source for the assertion that she's widely perceived as particularly dedicated to this issue, then it might find a home elsewhere in the article, in some discussion of her public image. JamesMLane t c 14:29, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Though every politician pays lip service to excess government spending and corruption, most of them don't do anything about it. In her time as Governor, Palin has vetoed over 300 spending items, and worked with all parties in the legistature to pass broad governmental ethic reforms. Refs for these accomplishments should be easy to find. Later this weekend, I'll propose an edit to add supporting references. Why not make the article accurate?--Paul (talk) 14:39, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Vetoing spending bills doesn't prove that she's against corruption. The kinds of things you describe, if properly sourced, might well find a place in the summary of the main events of her administration as governor, but I don't see them as political positions because the statement of them here is so abstract as to be noncontroversial. JamesMLane t c 16:43, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

It depends on what she vetoed, who was behind each, and the alleged merits of the legislation. This gets into political debate on which honest persons can disagree, but we can at least report that Palin vetoed bill X because she considered it to lack merit, then provide the background on it. We would need to find some evidence of her justification of the vetoes, such as veto messages. Bracton (talk) 00:02, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Note that in a court of law it is admissible evidence to testify that someone "has a reputation for doing X", even if one can not testify to someone having actually done X. Palin clearly has a reputation for opposing corruption, or at least what she considers to be corruption, but it shouldn't be difficult to cite something to support that.Bracton (talk) 02:11, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

... But it needs a better source!! C'mon guys there must be something better than an op-ed in the London Times. 79.74.252.173 (talk) 09:01, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

This piece in the ADN states that Palin "gained a reputation as an ethics reformer" and "[gained] a reputation as a fiscal conservative". How about a new wording for this phrase based on the ADN source:

she gained a reputation in Alaska as a fiscal conservative and ethics reformer

T0mpr1c3 (talk) 19:32, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Who supported Sarah Palin for VP before McCain picked her?

{{editprotected}} This is a story Wikipedia readers will find very interesting and I do not see it covered at all in the article now. Here is what I've found so far:

• Adam Brickley [14] A college-aged blogger, Adam was among the first people Sarah and Todd Palin called to thank him for his early support.

• Kathryn Jean Lopez writing for The Corner on National Review Online [15]

• John Gizzi [16] Political Editor of Human Events - Wrote about Sarah Palin first out of fifteen possible VP choices for McCain on March 27, 2008 after Holly Robichaud returned from the Alaska Republican convention and praised her as the next Republican superstar.

• Newt Gingrich [17] Newt has also supported Bobby Jindal, Charlie Crist, Tim Pawlenty, Rob Portman, John Kasich and Mark Sanford.

These are interesting facts. The Steven Colbert interview of Adam Brickley is pretty funny too. RonCram (talk) 15:43, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

If you'd like this included in the page you should probably write up a proposal and see if there's any interest before asking for an admin. I could see maybe a line or two here, otherwise it might be a good fit in Republican Party (United States) vice presidential candidates, 2008 or the McCain campaign article. Joshdboz (talk) 15:52, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Josh, I think it fits best here because the article is about Sarah Palin. There is no evidence McCain was swayed by any of these endorsements. In fact, McCain had some disparaging remark about Gingrich, saying something to the effect even a blind pig finds an acorn occasionally. If I could have found a citation for that, I would have included it. Perhaps someone else can find it? RonCram (talk) 15:58, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Again, if you think this fits you need to write exactly what you'd like an admin to add to the article and where to place it. Joshdboz (talk) 16:01, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Excellent question. God, perhaps? But putting her aside, readers will be happy to hear she so quickly got thumbs up from the author of the contract on America. -- Hoary 15:53, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Reverted this unexplained tampering by 65.89.68.24 and reattached my signature. -- Hoary (talk) 04:04, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Rush Limbaugh could also be added. But then in the United States anyone can support anyone else for any office. I told my city councilman that he should run for president. :-) Steve Dufour (talk) 16:34, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

If, as RonCram says, there's no evidence that McCain was swayed by any of these endorsements, then I don't think any of them are important enough to mention in the Palin bio article. JamesMLane t c 16:47, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm not so sure, James - I haven't looked at any sources yet, but it may not be about whether McCain was swayed: if they talk about why these individuals were talking about her as a viable national candidate, that could be more about her than about McCain or the campaign and if there's any substance it could belong in her bio. But again, I haven't looked at any sources so this may not fit in her biography at all. And PS to Ron - would love to find that blind pig quote - for sure there's a placew for that. Tvoz/talk 17:18, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Tvoz, yes I wish I could find it. I learned about it watching TV. An interviewer (was it Chris Wallace?) was a guest on a show along with Newt. He had just done an interview with McCain. While talking about the upcoming airing of his interview of McCain, he was pleased to tell Newt what McCain said about him on TV. I wonder if we can find a transcript of that interview? RonCram (talk) 17:49, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Tvoz, either I am misremembering or that particular interaction was left on the cutting room floor. Here's the transcript.[18]RonCram (talk) 18:05, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Rush had said McCain's nomination would destroy the Republican Party. He seems to have backed off now that McCain has gone for his VP selection. What an amazing coincidence. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 11:11, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Changes to 2008 vice presidential campaign

{{editprotected}} Edit protected null - do not add until there is a consensus for change, not before there is one. Rjd0060 (talk) 17:35, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia readers will be interested to read who the early supporters of Palin for VP were. Here is the change I am suggesting:

On August 29, 2008, in Dayton, Ohio, Senator John McCain, the Republican presidential candidate, announced that he had chosen Palin as his running mate. Palin's selection surprised many people because national media speculation centered on others, such as Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty, former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney, United States Senator Joe Lieberman of Connecticut, and former Pennsylvania Governor Tom Ridge. Early supporters of Palin for Vice President prior to McCain’s selection were:

• Adam Brickley, a college-aged blogger, launched a blog hoping to get Palin nominated. Adam was among the first people Sarah and Todd Palin called to thank him for his early support.

• John Gizzi, Political Editor of Human Events, wrote about Sarah Palin first out of fifteen possible VP choices for McCain on March 27, 2008. He selected Palin to be profiled first after Holly Robichaud returned from the Alaska Republican convention and praised her as the next Republican superstar.

• Newt Gingrich, former Speaker of the House, spoke favorably about Palin as one of several potential choices. Newt has also supported Bobby Jindal, Charlie Crist, Tim Pawlenty, Rob Portman, John Kasich and Mark Sanford.

• Rush Limbaugh, conservative talk show host, was an early Palin booster. Limbaugh put a McCain/Palin logo on his webpage in February, 2008.

RonCram (talk) 16:48, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I fail to see how this is important enough material to warrant such a lengthy addition. --ThaddeusB (talk) 16:54, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree with ThaddeusB -- some readers might be interested but not enough for this much detail about supporters. The listing of the people who were considered top-tier candidates is what's important, and that's already in there. JamesMLane t c 16:58, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

James, you are missing the point. The article currently reads as if McCain selected her from Mars. It is true that national media attention had focused on other people but Palin had her own early supporters. Readers deserve to know who they were. To prevent readers from access to this information seems like POV pushing to me. RonCram (talk) 17:54, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Articles are supposed to be informative and interesting. Without doubt most people will find this story interesting. Adam Brickley was a guest on the Steven Colbert show because of his blog and has gotten quite of bit of other media attention. People are definitely interested in this aspect of the story. Learning the other early supporters of Palin is also interesting. The entry provides links to articles about Palin prior to her nomination but speaking directly to the issue of her chances of getting the job. RonCram (talk) 17:01, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Put it in the campaign article(s), and you are forgetting Rush Limbaugh, a very early booster. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 17:03, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Interesting information, but belongs in a branching article and Brickley will likely have his own wikipage in a bit.--Tznkai (talk) 17:13, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I didn't know Rush was an early supporter, prior to the nomination. Are there any links we can use to show Rush was an early supporter?RonCram (talk) 17:18, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Of course, he's been saying it since February, but I saw it on TV, so can't link. Just Google it. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 17:27, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I found a suitable link. Rush is added. This is why this is valuable. I learned something myself. Thanks.RonCram (talk) 17:39, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Rush never could resist a pretty face. And he had said McCain's nomination would destroy the Republican Party. That would be too much to hope for. But if McCain selected her in order to get Rush's support, that would make sense. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 11:09, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Main photo

File:Sarah Palin headshot.jpg

I have found a new headshot photo of Palin from Flickr which is licensed under CC 2.0 and is not from a press agency. I think it should be the new main photo, but I may as well propose it here first. Best, Happyme22 (talk) 17:21, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

• It's a shame she's still facing the wrong way. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 17:24, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

• McCain's main photo is facing left as well. I still think this photo is better than the current one. Happyme22 (talk) 17:29, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I support the change, assuming it is indeed OK for use here. (I have no clue about these things.)

oppose What's wrong with the current picture (and facing direction?) Based soley on aesthetics I like the current one. This one seems very stately and would go nice on her main election article. --98.243.129.181 (talk) 17:31, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

FYI, she does not have a 'main election article'. If it seems very stately, then why not put it at the top of this page? I remember a discussion taking place on this very talk page regarding the photo we currently use, because not many people liked it. Well here is a solution. Happyme22 (talk) 17:39, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

FWIW I like this new one better, as it looks more professional and dignified. rootology (C)(T) 17:50, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

And it looks like a copyvio: [19] rootology (C)(T) 17:53, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I think the outdoor scene in the picture now used adds interest. Steve Dufour (talk) 17:57, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

While I disagree (what other vice president or vice presidential candidate has a main photo of them outdoors?), this is not the point. It appears Rootology is correct that this may indeed be a copyvio. Nothing was indicated at the Flickr image source (i.e. nothing that says "AP Image" or something like that) because if it was, I would not have uploaded it. If it is indeed a copyright violation, than I must support its deletion and withdraw this discussion. Happyme22 (talk) 18:01, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

For the curious, its a phrase we call "flickrwashing" over on Commons. Basically, take an image, claim it as yours on a free license, flickr it, and then try to pass it off. Sometimes they're hard to catch. The dates seem to be a giveaway here, but unless you know to look for it, it's hard to catch sometimes. :) rootology (C)(T) 18:05, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

And the magnificent photo uploaded to OTRS by Ferrylodge wins yet again. Mwahahahahah! Ferrylodge (talk) 18:03, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Give it time... every appearance she makes gives us more photos. :) rootology (C)(T) 18:05, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I believe its time for us to delete this photo as copyvio?--Tznkai (talk) 18:11, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I'd rather not with my admin tools on commons myself (although I do delete flickr copyvios routinely there). I'd prefer to leave these to someone else and let the DR there run out. rootology (C)(T) 18:19, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Now I look to the left! (Literally, not philosophically.)

It was commented that she is looking the wrong way in the current photo. That is trivial to fix if people think it is important. Dragons flight (talk) 18:14, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

This was discussed a while back and decided against, though I can't remember the policy/guideline that was cited. I really don't want to delve into the wiki-hell that are the talk page archives. :) Kelly ^hi! 18:23, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Flipping images is verboten.[20]Ferrylodge (talk) 18:36, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

That's new. As of May, MOS allowed flipping. Dragons flight (talk) 18:52, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose flipping the image, millions of people have seen it, and it will be noticed! Just wait, more images will be coming soon enough. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 20:02, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Flipping an image will start us on a road toward Wikipedia being manipulative and untrustworthy. We should not use doctored photos. The most we should accept is possibly to retouch a flash off the person's eye's. Eliminating wrinkles or reversing the photo or taking someone's head and putting it on a nude model should be strictly unacceptable. Spevw (talk) 23:36, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

You're right, messing with the image is a bad precedent. If they're concerned that it's looking "offscreen", there's no law that says we can't put it on the other side of the page. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 03:47, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Meta Discussion on reverting the talking points of others

In above discussion an editor made acusations against the authors and editors of this article claiming POV among other things. I respsonded and those responses keep getting removed. If I point out, in good faith the flaws in the POV of someones argument on this talk page, why is that getting reverted? Thanks. --98.243.129.181 (talk) 17:46, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I suggest digging around in the history page to find out who removed your edits, and requesting an admin to block that person. T0mpr1c3 (talk) 13:18, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Delete reference to Larry Kroon

The reference to Larry Kroon should be deleted from this article. The consensus is that he is not notable as evidenced by the deletion of articles about him. It's enough merely to state what church Sarah Palin attends. --Nowa (talk) 19:53, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

• Support. for reasons stated. --Crunch (talk) 19:57, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
• Support. Unnecessary detail.Ferrylodge (talk) 20:07, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
• Support per Nowa. Kelly ^hi! 20:14, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
• Support - unnecessary detail --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:15, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Would someone do the honors? I'm not an administrator.--Nowa (talk) 20:35, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Specifics? Woody (talk) 20:39, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

The above comment was moved from another section (presumably accidentally)--ThaddeusB (talk) 20:47, 6 September 2008 (UTC

Noiw reunited. Woody (talk) 20:59, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Do Not Support Fair is Fair on the Wiki, Obama was given much attention due to his association with a certain Pastor, Sarah's Pastor deserves the same merit.--MisterAlbert (talk) 20:39, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh gosh, I must have missed the news about Kroon making racially and politically charged sermons, and Palin responding by condemning Kroon's remarks and ending Kroon's relationship with the Palin campaign. Can you give me a link to that news, please? Also, please note that this article still mentions pastor Ed Kalnins as well. How many pastors must we mention in this article?Ferrylodge (talk) 20:48, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Um, Kroon hosted Jews for Jesus and promoted Focus on the Family's efforts to "cure" homosexuals - some people might consider that a bit politically charged. He's also profiled, along with the church, in today's New York Times. As to whether he needs to be mentioned by name, I'm agnostic, but these arguments seem a bit iffy: Kroon isn't notable enough for a standalone article, so his name can't be mentioned here? That doesn't make sense. MastCell ^Talk 23:22, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the link. That's the first I've read about Palin's church, and it seems pretty much low-key, overall. If they allowed someone from Jews for Jesus to speak there, it would seem to be a classic case of preaching to the choir, and I'm not sure it would be fair to conclude that Sarah Palin (or Kroon) has been trying to do what Mitt Romney did as a missionary in France. As for coming under fire for promoting a Focus on the Family conference dealing with the so-called curing of homosexuality, that's a one-liner from the NYT article, and it's not clear yet that Kroon (or Palin) wants to convert gays to straights or Jews to Christians or vice versa.Ferrylodge (talk) 23:50, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Poor Mitt Romney. Like I said, I don't know that we need to belabor this issue. I have a dream... a dream of a future where candidates are judged on the content of their platform, and not on who has the craziest pastor... but I seem to be in the minority these days. :) MastCell ^Talk 05:43, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

 Done Oren0 (talk) 22:08, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Oren: I would caution that consensus needs to develop over a bit longer than 40 minutes. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:46, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Just thought I'd mention that 22:08 - 19:53 = 2:15.Ferrylodge (talk) 22:50, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Jossi, with respect, the tally was 5-1. The one oppose was a WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS making a totally invalid comparison to Jeremiah Wright by an apparent sock puppet who has recently been blocked. I feel comfortable with the two hour consensus and I stand behind my action. Oren0 (talk) 23:26, 6 September 2008

(UTC)

40 minutes is not enough time to gain a consensus to delete Kroon

undo the delete,

The need to delete Kroon is a result of his recent statements??? Are editors trying to distance Palin from Kroon, he is her pastor, yes??? could the reason be below in the link?

http://www.thenation.con/blogs/campaignmatters/355534 Kroon on God an America:

"Kroon bellowed, "he'd be saying, ‘Listen, [God] is gonna deal with all the inhabitants of the earth. He is gonna strike out His hand against, yes, Wasilla; and Alaska; and the United States of America. There's no exceptions here -- there's none. It's all.'"

By the way in the last two hours since the delete of Kroon the Associated Press has done an article on Palins Church:

Palin church promotes converting gays By RACHEL D'ORO – 2 hours ago

ANCHORAGE, Alaska (AP) — Gov. Sarah Palin's church is promoting a conference that promises to convert gays into heterosexuals through the power of prayer.

"You'll be encouraged by the power of God's love and His desire to transform the lives of those impacted by homosexuality," according to the insert in the bulletin of the Wasilla Bible Church, where Palin has prayed for about six years. --MisterAlbert (talk) 23:48, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Where is 40 minutes coming from? It was two hours. And the consensus was everyone but you (and your repeated attempts to only insert negative material make me question your neutrality). 00:13, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

As for your link, blogs aren't reliable sources. Oren0 (talk) 01:14, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Well what about these links on Kroon and Palin, it appears the subject is being given national and international coverage.

http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/2008/09/05/pastor/index.html

http://www.examiner.com/Subject-Larry_Kroon.html

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/09/04/ap/politics/main4414055.shtml

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080906/ap_on_el_pr/palin_gays

http://www.thenation.com/blogs/campaignmatters/355545 --207.232.97.13 (talk) 03:27, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

• O.K., Two hours is not enough time to demonstrate consensus for deleting referenced content from the article. Edison (talk) 04:38, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
• I agree - whether 40 minutes or 2 hours, this is too rushed. There needs to be discussion, and a reasonable amount of time for people who don't live here to review material and give an informed opinion. Would there be as fast an edit if it involved adding negative material? Tvoz/talk 04:43, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, eight hours seems like plenty, and the consensus still stands.Ferrylodge (talk) 04:50, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

according to You {ferrylodge} eight hours is plenty..however it is the weekend and not all editors are out and about on the wiki...the consensus is changing, and the process is slow, and that is normal. --207.232.97.13 (talk) 05:31, 7 September 2008 (UTC)Fred

• 40 minutes is too short, but the result is correct, as there is no comparison between the Obama and the Palin situations. Passively sitting in a meeting conducted by some lunatic is 180 degrees different from being a friend of that lunatic for 20 years. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 11:15, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

• My vote is to undo the deletion. The news surrounding Obama's pastor grew and grew, it didn't surface and culminate within the span of a week; more stories on Kroon will surface in the coming weeks. That the press is covering the story merits its noteriety and mention to a degree. Mention of the pastor and perhaps an unbiased look at his extreme positions merits mention as it fleshes out Palin's character. --198.134.96.10 (talk) 16:13, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

"more stories on Kroon will surface in the coming weeks" this may or may not be true, but it is an argument for waiting to see if there is any "there there" in the Kroon story, not an argument for publishing speculation and charges. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a newspaper or blog. Let the secondary sources fight out the relevance of Kroon. If it becomes relevant, it will be added. It is clear not relevant now.--Paul (talk) 16:33, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Tall Tales, Untruths, Errors of Ommission in Palins Acceptance Speech

Palin made a number of claims in her acceptance speech which are now under examination by national media. These inconsistencies need to be added to the article , to make it current.

I have uncovered some interesting info and have added it to the discussion page.

<copvio copy of AP article removed - Kelly ^hi! 22:49, 6 September 2008 (UTC)> --MisterAlbert (talk) 22:45, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Discussion of the speech would probably belong in 2008 Republican National Convention, not here. Kelly ^hi! 22:49, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

OK to remove copyvios, but replacing with a convenience link is better practice. "Attacks, praise stretch truth at GOP convention - Yahoo! News". Retrieved 2008-09-06. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:55, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

FactChecking

Her claims and the fact checks would best be in her bio:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080904/ap_on_el_pr/cvn_fact_check

Similar Piece on FactChecking from CBS: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/09/02/eveningnews/main4408870.shtml

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/09/04/politics/animal/main4414049.shtml

Another article: http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5h4Os_NvbBurz0R8IejrDDj-4sRlAD930AQV01

--207.232.97.13 (talk) 06:18, 7 September 2008 (UTC)Fred

Sarah: How a Hockey Mom Turned Alaska's Political Establishment Upside Down

I got the book in the mail today. I'll be glad to add page-specific cites as soon as the article is back to semi-protection. Coemgenus 22:17, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Cool, we've been needing that. Thanks, Coemgenus! Kelly ^hi! 22:22, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I see it came out in April 2008 - that author has no idea how lucky she is! Any new info would be appreciated. Joshdboz (talk) 23:36, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually, since the recently issued (September 1) paperback edition is #15 on the Amazon bestseller chart, I'll bet the author knows EXACTLY how lucky she is, especially when the checks start to arrive. :-) -- ArglebargleIV (talk) 00:45, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

You don't have to wait for the protection to be downgraded. If you can generate consensus for any changes from that book, we can go ahead and add them. Oren0 (talk) 01:37, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Heck, adding the page numbers to the existing cites will be obviously non-controversial. Just put a list here when you have them ready. GRBerry 03:42, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I know they're not controversial, I just thought it would take way longer to ask for the revision than to just do it myself. This is the first time in four years I've regretted not being an admin. But I'll try it through the talk page and we'll see how it goes. Coemgenus 13:21, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

google cached it before it was removed.

State of Alaska > Governor > News > News Details Palin Pleased with Obama's Energy Plan Includes Alaska's Natural Gas Reserves Printer Friendly

No. 08-135

August 4, 2008, Fairbanks, Alaska - Governor Sarah Palin today responded to the energy plan put forward by the presumptive Democratic nominee for President, Illinois Senator Barack Obama.

“I am pleased to see Senator Obama acknowledge the huge potential Alaska’s natural gas reserves represent in terms of clean energy and sound jobs,” Governor Palin said. “The steps taken by the Alaska State Legislature this past week demonstrate that we are ready, willing and able to supply the energy our nation needs.”

In a speech given in Lansing, Michigan, Senator Obama called for the completion of the Alaska natural gas pipeline, stating, “Over the next five years, we should also lease more of the National Petroleum Reserve in Alaska for oil and gas production. And we should also tap more of our substantial natural gas reserves and work with the Canadian government to finally build the Alaska natural gas pipeline, delivering clean natural gas and creating good jobs in the process.”

Governor Palin also acknowledged the Senator’s proposal to offer $1,000 rebates to those struggling with the high cost of energy.

“We in Alaska feel that crunch and are taking steps to address it right here at home,” Governor Palin said. “This is a tool that must be on the table to buy us time until our long-term energy plans can be put into place. We have already enjoyed the support of Alaska Senator Ted Stevens, and it is gratifying to see Senator Obama get on board.”

The Governor did question the means to pay for Obama’s proposed rebate — a windfall profits tax on oil companies. In Alaska, the state’s resource valuation system, ACES, provides strong incentives for companies to re-invest their profits in new production.

“Windfall profits taxes alone prevent additional investment in domestic production. Without new supplies from American reserves, our dependency and addiction to foreign sources of oil will continue,” Governor Palin said

--MisterAlbert (talk) 23:16, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi again MisterAlbert, as noted above, this is not a general forum for discussion of Sarah Palin. Posting those accusatory section titles and these article snippets is not precisely discussion of how to improve the article. Do you have an addition you are proposing? Best, Kaisershatner (talk) 00:07, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Also, since the source is the Government of Alaska's own webpage, it isn't an independent secondary source. Do you have a newspaper that noticed Palin liking part of Obama's energy plan? Phlegm Rooster (talk) 10:15, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

A primary source is okay in this instance for verifiability (an official statement of political position is a reliable source for what someone's political position is), but not to establish importance or context. Also, the part about it being up for a while and taken down later is original research, and if it's not available other than by google cache we do have a sourcing issue. I agree that we ought to find a secondary source, and that without one (or better, many) there is nothing to show that this goes beyond a non-remarkable campaign detail. Even if it is okay, it's probably more apt for the campaign article. Nothing wrong with bringing it up here. Normally I would say best to link to sources rather than quoting them here, but I guess it's about to disappear off the google cache. I think we can take this as a proposal or question as to whether the material belongs in the article. Wikidemon (talk) 05:50, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Mary Ellen Emmons redirects here?

Should this be the case? It's true that she's related to Palin but not only to Palin. This is an individual who isn't notable to have an article for herself so I don't see why she should redirect here. Oren0 (talk) 01:48, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

The redirect should be removed.--Paul (talk) 01:49, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

This was the reason the editor created the redirect.

(cur) (last) 12:00, 6 September 2008 Grundle2600 (Talk | contribs) (25 bytes) (Mary Ellen Emmons is the librarian that Palin allegedly fired)

Not sure if that's a good enough reason, just providing input. Veriss (talk) 02:05, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I've removed it. ffm 02:26, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

So why is Kroon redirected? --207.232.97.13 (talk) 03:19, 7 September 2008 (UTC)Fred

It is currently up for deletion and it looks highly likely the deletion will go through. --ThaddeusB (talk) 03:45, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Where is it up for deletion? I see only a statement that it was speedied under "CSD R3", which makes no sense. Is there an AfD discussion? JamesMLane t c 02:13, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

why delete it? --207.232.97.13 (talk) 04:34, 7 September 2008 (UTC)fred

Music Group Heart doesn't want Palin to Use their song

An interesting tidbit for music buffs. Cease and desist on Barracuda.

http://www.boston.com/ae/music/blog/2008/09/heart_to_mccain.html --207.232.97.13 (talk) 03:17, 7 September 2008 (UTC)Fred

More appropriate to the campaign article (if anywhere) rather than her biography. Dragons flight (talk) 03:29, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I think it's discussed at Barracuda (song). Kelly ^hi! 03:34, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

--207.232.97.13 (talk) 06:25, 7 September 2008 (UTC) I agree, more appropriate to the Campaign article and its use is mentioned in detail at Barracuda (song) --Crunch (talk) 11:12, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

...where even there it had undue weight (though I tried to trim it a bit). It's too unremarkable to be part of her bio, and likely too trivial to even be mentioned in the article about the convention. These kinds of flaps are actually pretty common. Wikidemon (talk) 05:51, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Pic

How about an image of the GOP ticket?

Ferrylodge (talk) 06:35, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Looks good for a campaign article, but Palin's article should probably have pictures with her focused.--Tznkai (talk) 06:55, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I guess we'll just have to wait for better pics to become available.Ferrylodge (talk) 07:33, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

The Enviroment Important Information needs to be added

Source: http://seattlepi.com/opinion/377955_palinenvir07.html

Pebble Mine Palin a opposed the "clean water initiative" on the August ballot in Alaska (which then failed), favoring instead foreign mining company desires for fewer government regulations controlling their toxic effluent into salmon streams. She has supported virtually any and all mining proposals that have come her way, even likely the enormous Pebble gold and silver mine proposed in the Bristol Bay watershed. That plan put at risk the largest runs of sockeye salmon in the world, where this summer fishermen caught more than 27 million salmon.

http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/Protect_Alaska%27s_Clean_Water_Act_%282008%29

Last year, her administration offered a $150 bounty for each wolf killed until the bounty was ruled illegal by the courts. Much controversy was created when Biologists killed 14 wolf cubs, dragging them from their den after killing the parents

http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/Alaska_Wolf_and_Bear_Protection_Act_(2008) . http://www.grizzlybay.org/SarahPalinInfoPage.htm

http://www.wolfsongnews.org/news/Alaska_current_events_2825.html

http://www.defenders.org/newsroom/press_releases_folder/2008/07_23_2008_statement_regarding_illegal_killing_of_14_wolf_pups_in_alaska.php

P.S. I forgot to Mention the Safari Club International

http://www.alternet.org/environment/97207/sarah_palin%E2%80%99s_big,_sleazy_safari/

Palin has supported oil and gas drilling plans anywhere in Alaska, including in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, the central Arctic, the entire Arctic Ocean, and in fish-richBristol Bay andCook Inlet

--207.232.97.13 (talk) 08:11, 7 September 2008 (UTC)Fred

I think all that stuff is covered (albeit in a more neutral way) in Political positions of Sarah Palin. Kelly ^hi! 08:35, 7 September 2008 (UTC)