Talk:Sarah Palin/Archive 23

WP:FA nomination
Perhaps it's time to nominate Sarah Palin for featured article status WP:FA. There has been a lot of bumping and trading paint to get the article to the status it is today. I, for one, think it has gotten to a pretty refined state. I would encourage an editor with more history on this page to make the nomination. Mytwocents (talk) 16:48, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I haven't been paying too close attention, but one qualification for FA status is stability. This article is still getting heavy editing on pretty big article aspects.--Loodog (talk) 16:55, 15 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Don't you think you are skipping a few steps? This article hasn't even qualified for A-class rating, let alone featured. Plus, with over 50-100+ edits a day, and the frequent bickering and edit warring, I don't see it qualifying for A-rating anytime soon. Duuude007 (talk) 18:53, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Article has a long way to go for any consideration like that. I would wait until after the election at the very least before raising that issue. Ronnotel (talk) 19:47, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Not that Wikipedia is beholden to the same rules as other media, but in the interest of fairness, equal time practices should be given consideration until after the November election. Robert K S (talk) 19:49, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
 * The main reason I think we should start the WP:FA is that Barack Obama and Joe Biden are FA's. Admittedly, the Palin article is new, and in flux, but I think we could achieve an A-class rating and FA status if a group of editors work with those goals in mind.  Mytwocents (talk) 22:26, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
 * It wouldn't pass due to stability. See 1 (e) stability: it is not subject to ongoing edit wars and its content does not change significantly from day to day, except in response to the featured article process. The sheer volume of edits precludes this from FA/A/GA. Stability is a criteria for FA/GA processes, and A is not really used by many projects. Regards. Woody (talk) 22:31, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
 * The Obama, McCain, and Biden articles have been in existence for much longer than the Palin article (well, at least to a degree in which they had substantial information about the subject), while Palin's article existed as little more than a stub until two-three weeks ago. It should also be noted that Biden's article is not a featured article. It is currently B-class, but has been nominated as a good article. --Bobblehead (rants) 23:15, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, wait for this thing to simmer down and then nom for GA. It may take until October. It may have to wait until post-election, just because of the stability issue.--Loodog (talk) 15:07, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: both McCain and Obama are FAs. Obama's achieved FA in 2004 before becoming very high profile.  McCain's became FA in mid-August during a considerable lull in McCain news.  It will take a while for Palin's article to calm down.--Loodog (talk) 15:13, 16 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Actually Obama was quite high profile at the time he was FAed - it was within weeks of the keynote address and during a high profile Senate race/walkover (which was getting noticed even in international news coverage). Mind you at a glance the 2004 incarnation of that article looks very B class by today's standards. Timrollpickering (talk) 15:22, 16 September 2008 (UTC)


 * It's possible to be high-profile and get FA, but this article is the subject of a new edit war with each passing news cycle. FA nomination would be instant fail.  Coemgenus 21:08, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Public Safety Commissioner: Kopp resignation (resolved)
A notable event in Palin's administration was the turmoil concering Charles Kopp, Monegan's replacement. Suppose there had never been a Troopergate re Monegan -- he uneventfully retired for health reasons, for example. The Governor appointed a new Public Safety Commissioner who, after two weeks, resigned under circumstances like these (i.e., criticism based on a prior letter of repriimand for sexual harassment (information that was available on any minimal background check), plus a $10k severance payment). Would such an event be notable in reporting on the administration of a governor? Of course it would be. The question shouldn't be distorted just because the circumstances of Monegan's departure were even more notable. The bigger story (about Monegan) creates a subsection in our article that's the most obvious place for reporting on Kopp, but if there were no Monegan story, we'd still have to find a home for a short (two sentences) description of the high-profile resignation of a cabinet member. I've restored those two sentences. I've added a third about Kopp's successor, just so no one thinks the post is still vacant, but I think that sentence is much less important and could well be dropped. If people don't want the Kopp affair in the same section as Monegan, we can put it elsewhere, but it deserves a brief mention somewhere here. Of course, the full details concerning Kopp are left to the daughter article. JamesMLane t c 07:51, 16 September 2008 (UTC)


 * James, this summary section mentioned that "Monegan's replacement resigned on July 25 due to unrelated misconduct." That is more than enough.  Kopp is a very very peripheral figure to the dismissal of Monegan.  Kopp does not help to explain why Monegan was dismissed.  This is a frigging summary for Christ's sake.  (It's late and I'm irritable.)  You want to insert a little novella about Kopp in this SUMMARY of the Monegan dismissal: "To replace Monegan, Palin appointed Charles M. Kopp, chief of the Kenai police department, on July 11, 2008. He resigned on July 25 after it was revealed that he had received a letter of reprimand for sexual harassment in his previous position.  After the tenure of an acting commissioner, Palin appointed Joseph Masters to the post on September 12."


 * Can't you humor me just this once, PLEASE? All of this stuff can go in the subarticle.  People resign in disgrace all the time.  People get replaced all the time.  Why do we have to feature Kopp here?  Geez.  Putting in this kind of excessive detail is just a flaming invitation for people to jam in all kinds of other details.  You won't even let me put info related to the dismissal into the subarticle, and yet you want to put all this into the main article summary, even though it bears NO RELATION WHATSOEVER to the dismissal of Monegan.  Can't you please STOP, so we don't have to go round and round and round here?Ferrylodge (talk) 08:06, 16 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't mind your being irritable. I have a thick skin.  What I do mind, however, is your failure to pay attention to my arguments.  You harp on how Kopp's dismissal is unrelated to Monegan's.  Please read what I wrote above -- I'm not arguing for inclusion on the basis that it enlightens the reader about Monegan, so you needn't refute that straw man.
 * I'm arguing for inclusion in the article on the basis that, when an important commissioner resigns after two weeks under scandalous circumstances, that's a notable event in a governor's administration. It deserves mention somewhere in the governorship section.  Your ES says that people are hired and resign all the time -- yes, but not under circumstances like this.  If you have evidence that a $10k severance payment for a two-week stint was typical of the Palin administration, or that several other commissioners resigned because of issues relating to sexual harassment, I'd be interested in seeing it.  This wasn't business as usual.  (You even say, "People resign in disgrace all the time."  If other Palin commissioners resigned in disgrace, we should consider those events for inclusion, but I'd guess that the Kopp resignation was unusually dramatic even as resignations in disgrace go.)
 * I'm arguing for inclusion in the "dismissal" section because the Kopp affair was an indirect consequence of the Monegan affair and that section is where people would logically look for it. As I said above, if people are going to go into hysterics (or even just get irritable) about including it here, I'm not averse to putting it somewhere else.  I think the "dismissal" section is the best place but putting it in the second-best place would be better than bickering about it.


 * You describe my insert as a "novella". C'mon, the discussion of Kopp is a mere two sentences.  As I stated above, the third sentence was just so that no one could accuse me of trying to imply that the position was still unfilled.  Drop that one if you want to.


 * As for going round and round and round, the two-sentence "novella" was in this version at the end of September 15. I think it had been in there for several days, but I'm not going to wade through the history to compile a chronology.  As far as I can tell, it was deleted without talk-page discussion.  If you want us to stop going round and round and round, stop deleting it.


 * Finally, as to what I allegedly won't let you put into the daughter article, you're being disingenuous (which is also far less excusable than being irritable). You refer to "info related to the dismissal".  As you know perfectly well, I contend that the information from 1993 is not related to the dismissal.  That issue is being hashed out at Talk:Alaska Public Safety Commissioner dismissal and at Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard.  Let's leave it to those fora; it doesn't affect whether we should include Kopp's resignation here. JamesMLane t c 08:59, 16 September 2008 (UTC)


 * How does it enlighten anything with monehgan, as the only connection seems to be one you are trying to arbitrarily pencil in yourself. further, you assert a background check was not done(Or was ignored), but could you cite me the Alskan state laws that allow such inquiries to even occur? My state has certain laws agains such things, and you have posited the claim this search is simplistic to do-- where's your proof a state employer can do such? It may not have been the case at all, but it's interesting that you come from that angle. You also suggest there is something odd with severance pay, but do you have any evidence it's odd for police chief in alaska or anywhere else for that matter to not have such a contract? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.190.29.150 (talk) 09:17, 16 September 2008 (UTC)


 * You ask how this enlightens anything with Monegan. I'll say to you what I said to Ferrylodge: Please read what I actually wrote.  "I'm not arguing for inclusion on the basis that it enlightens the reader about Monegan...." (emphasis added)  As for the background check issue, Palin says she knew of the Kenai Police Department investigation of Kopp.  She somehow had the impression that he'd been cleared.  She faulted him for not telling her about the letter of reprimand, he said she never asked, blah blah blah.  We don't need to get into that level of detail here.  The point -- pardon me for repeating myself yet again but it's apparently necessary -- is that a commissioner was appointed and then resigned two weeks later under extraordinary circumstances.  The severance payment was certainly odd at least to the extent that Monegan didn't get one after his much longer service.  Please note also that I'm not suggesting we include, in this main article, any information about the severance payment or any of the back-and-forth about why Palin didn't know of Kopp's record in Kenai before she appointed him. JamesMLane t c 09:29, 16 September 2008 (UTC)


 * James, because I'm such a nice guy, I just unilaterally dropped my request to mention the extremely relevant San Fransico Chronicle article in our Wikipedia sub-article. So now that's moot, as a favor to you.  As far as Kopp is concerned, I've extended a nice big fat olive branch to you by maintaining a mention of it in the main article, with a footnote for people who are interested in learning more ("Monegan's replacement resigned on July 25 due to unrelated misconduct").  That seems like plenty.  It's just not very notable.  I get 92 Google News hits for "Kopp" and "Palin".  In contrast, I get 6957 Google News hits for "Monegan" and "Palin".  As far as failed appointments and people resigning in disgrace are concerned, Bernie Kerik is not mentioned in our George W. Bush article, Bert Lance is not mentioned in our Jimmy Carter article, John Tower is not mentioned in our article about George H.W. Bush, Webb Hubbell is not mentioned in our Bill Clinton article etc., etc., etc.  I know it must pain you to contemplate not describing Palin's appointment of an alleged sex fiend in the main article, but really we must stick to the most notable things.  :-)Ferrylodge (talk) 09:45, 16 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, we do need to get into those kind of details because you've asserted things that are merely assumptions on your part to include material that may be in violation of the rules of biographies. If Palin could not access the record on what reprimands he received, then his hiring is no fault of her own. The woman in question that was allegedly sexually harrassed never filed anything that would mark a permanent record that I know she could access, such as a lawsuit. So I have no evidence she was privy to this infromation of any kind of a reprimand, and form the sounds of it, nor are you. I just did my own investigation. Palin had no access to this information. Further, no reprimand EVEN EXISTS anymore because of an agreement made by Kopp with the city. Additionally, Kopp contends that he never sexually harrassed anyone and no actual judicial proceeding was every initiated to prove or disprove the allegations and never brought any formal suit whatsoever. He resigned because of media attention to this incident in his past, as it was interfering with his current position to perform his duties.66.190.29.150 (talk) 10:04, 16 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Ferrylodge, thanks for unilaterally dropping your request, after everyone who responded to the thread you started (well, all three editors who responded) disagreed with you. If you make one more post here arguing that Kopp is less important than Monegan (true), and concluding that Kopp is therefore unimportant (a complete non sequitur), then I myself may get a little irritable.  Did any other top-level Palin appointees resign after two weeks?  It's also apples-and-oranges to make comparisons to articles about presidents.  A four- or eight-year stint as President of the United States generates more notable events than twenty-some months as Governor of a state with fewer people than Austin, Texas.  As a result, the standard for inclusion in an article about a President is higher.  Is this really a contentious point?  (As an aside, however, I would include Lance's resignation in the Carter article, along with the article's current references to him.  His resignation was a fairly big deal.  Kerik and Tower never took office.  Hubbell was in between and I could go either way on that one.)  Putting aside Presidents, a better comparison would be to some other state or local official.  The first one that occurred to me was Rudy Giuliani, who spent eight years overseeing more than ten times as many employees as Palin has managed for less than two years.  Giuliani's article does indeed include the noteworthy troubles of some of his appointed commissioners.


 * To the anon: You seem to be responding to a proposal that this article include a full-fledged flaying of Palin for her inadequate vetting of Kopp. No one has made such a proposal.  My actual proposal is to state that Kopp resigned "after it was revealed that he had received a letter of reprimand", a phrasing perfectly consistent with your point of view that the revelation came only after his appointment.  My proposal does not include what I believe to be an undisputed fact, namely that Palin knew before she appointed him that he'd been accused of sexual harassment.  That fact certainly supports a criticism that Palin should've checked more carefully into the disposition of the accusation.  Nevertheless, my two-sentence novella omits that fact.  We can go into it in the daughter article, along with any well-sourced information that says the Kenai Police Department would've refused to tell the Governor what happened.  For purposes of this article, though, the issue isn't whether the incident shows fault on the part of Palin, but whether it was a notable event in her governorship.  Conceivably we could say: "On July 25, after it was revealed that he had received a letter of reprimand for sexual harassment in his previous position, he resigned, stating that the resulting media firestorm was interfering with his performance of his duties."  I'm inclined to see that as too much detail here, though.  The reader can infer that, if the state's newly appointed top cop is found to have been reprimanded for sexual harassment, the media would be all over it. JamesMLane t c 10:24, 16 September 2008 (UTC)


 * James, regarding my unilaterally dropped request, I assure you that I would not ordinarily drop a request like that at such an early stage. But this Palin article desperately needs editors to be more cooperative so that some of the zillions of disputes can be settled.  As you know, this is a BLP, and so consensus is required to insert stuff, not to remove stuff.  I do not anticipate budging one inch on this Kopp matter.  You can put as much about him as you like in the subarticle, but it is not sufficiently notable for the main Palin article.  The brief sentence in the article now should be more than enough, and I'm apprently not the only one who thinks so.  I could cite other analogies to you besides presidential ones, but I'm sure you'd find some reason to discount them too.  For example, there is nothing in the Frank Murkowski article about Tom Irwin ("Supporters of an all-Alaska gas pipeline, including Republican and Democratic candidates for governor, reacted with outrage Friday to what is being called the Thursday Afternoon Massacre, Gov. Frank Murkowski's dismissal of the state Department of Natural Resources commissioner Tom Irwin, followed immediately by the resignation of six Irwin aides.")  There is also nothing in the Murkowski article about Renkes or Blatchford ("two members of his cabinet, Attorney General Gregg Renkes and Commerce Commissioner Edgar Blatchford, resigned under ethical clouds").


 * I am not arguing that Kopp is less important than Monegan, I am arguing that he is VASTLY less important than Monegan in the grand Palin scheme. Did any other top-level Palin appointees resign after two weeks? Probably not, I don't know.  It doesn't really matter, IMHO.


 * In any event, is there any chance that you might let this drop now? Please?Ferrylodge (talk) 10:52, 16 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I still don't see much relvance to the discussion of whether to include completely different information (the 1993 incident) in the daughter article, when no one is arguing that it belongs in this article. Because you raise it, though, I'll note that you said, "When I get a chance, I may bring it up at the BLP noticeboard for their opinion. Will that convince you, James?"  I responded that I would abide by a consensus on the BLP noticeboard.  You did bring it up there and no one agreed with you.  If your implication is that dropping the point in the face of such opposition shows you to be a nice person, and that you're owed a favor in return on the main article, then, sorry, I just don't see it that way.


 * Turning to the real issues, your interpretation of WP:BLP doesn't seem to be supported by the policy. "New material should generally be discussed in order to arrive at a consensus concerning relevance, availability of sources, and reliability of sources."  As I pointed out, this isn't new material.  Beyond that, there seems to be no serious contest on these points -- the material is relevant to Palin and it's confirmed by reliable sources.  The issue is rather one of editorial judgment, specifically whether it's important enough to expand your favored one-sentence version into two sentences.  I don't read the BLP policy as giving automatic preference to either side in a dispute of that sort.


 * I'm completely ignorant about Murkowski's sacking of Irwin. Your quotation about it gives me the initial impression that it should be mentioned in the Murkowski article.  I see no discussion of this subject on Talk:Frank Murkowski.  Thus, my reaction is: First, it appears that the people editing Frank Murkowski have not reached a considered decision that this should be omitted; rather, it seems simply not to have been brought up.  Second, even if they had considered and rejected it, that wouldn't be binding as to other articles.  Certainly there is no blanket policy that the resignation or firing of an executive's appointee must be omitted from the executive's bio article.


 * As to your concluding request, I believe there are several respects in which this article reflects an improper pro-Palin POV. The attempt to suppress information about Kopp, an incident that obviously could lead many people to question her executive ability, is not an isolated example.  Unfortunately, I haven't been able to devote nearly so much time to this corner of Wikipedia as would've been necessary to even try to correct all the problems.  In this instance, I thought that turning one sentence back into two, undoing an undiscussed deletion of information, would be a comparatively easy fix to accomplish.  The length of this thread shows that my powers of Wikiprognostication are minimal.


 * So, where do we go from here? In light of your statement, I'll stop trying to reason with you.  For the moment, I won't get in a revert war with you, although I regard your unilateral deletion of the information as clearly wrong.  Instead, when I have time I'll work with the open-minded editors to craft appropriate language.  If there's a passage that has broad support, but you continue to try to keep it out, then I suppose we'll have to go to RfC over it.  The short-term result will be, as it too often is on Wikipedia, that obstinacy is far more important in shaping the articles than is reason.  For the longer term, if your goal is for editors to be more cooperative, then I respectfully suggest that deleting properly sourced material that's been in for several days, and making this deletion with no talk page discussion, and announcing that you will not budge on your deletion, is not an approach that is likely to generate a spirit of cooperation. JamesMLane t c 15:33, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
 * If your goal is to disparage others for not agreeing with your decided POV, then I must respectfully (and tersely) demur. If your goal is, instead, to imply that you and your friends will be obstinate in your own turn, then I sincerely regret ever trying to make this page truly NPOV. Collect (talk) 17:38, 16 September 2008 (UTC)


 * You seem to be ignorant of the facts in this situation, and you have continually asserted things that you don't know are true, and are, in fact, demonstrably untrue. The reprimand does not exist. Read that again. The reprimand does not exist. Kopp had always asserted he was innocent in any wrong doing and he maintain his part of an agreement with the city that ensured the reprimand no longer existed. Assume he had cancer and was in remission and given a clean bill of health, yet then he died after appointment to the position, of a return of cancer, would you still aggitate so readily for inclusion?? You really have made no compelling argument whatsoever, instead you continue to let your agenda slip out in your psuedo-arguments for inclusion. This is not despotic communist country and Palin is not omniprescent. You might as well fault her for any wrong doing anyone from a trooper to a garbage man did during her ternure are governor. 66.190.29.150 (talk) 21:26, 16 September 2008 (UTC)


 * James, I'm disappointed here. It is not true that no one agreed with me regarding the BLP issue.  Additionally, I have not differed with you about Kopp due to "obstinacy" on my part.  I have differed with you for a variety of different reasons that I fully explained.  I provided link after link after link, for four different Wikipedia presidential articles, and for multiple resignations during the Murkowski administration, to support my position, in addition to providing you with contrasting search results from Google News.  In response, you have provided nothing.  I gave you plenty of reasons for saying that "I do not anticipate budging one inch on this Kopp matter."  I am not refusing to budge if you provide compelling reasons in response to my objections, but I do not anticipate you doing so.


 * And I note that others have provided some additional reasoning in this talk page section why the Kopp matter is already adequately addressed in this Wikipedia article. It is not being suppressed.  This Wikipedia article mentions the matter, and provides a footnote with link.  And I already invited you to write as much about it as you would like in the sub-article.Ferrylodge (talk) 22:32, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) Several points in response to Collect, Ferrylodge, and the anon: This thread hasn't attracted wide participation, so when I'm ready to devote time to restoring the information to the article, I'll start a new thread. JamesMLane t c 01:07, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Collect's first comment, with two "If" clauses that are both divorced from reality, hardly merits mention. What I actually said was that I would not re-insert the material unilaterally deleted by Ferrylodge, but would instead work with others to develop language that would, if necessary, be put to RfC.  That's pretty much the opposite of obstinacy.
 * The anon continues to assert that no reprimand even exists, allegedly because of a subsequent agreement between Kopp and Kenai. No such agreement can change history.  I believe these facts to be undisputed: Kopp was reprimanded at some point in the past; the reprimand was not public knowledge at the time Palin appointed him Commissioner; the reprimand became public knowledge during his tenure as Commissioner (I think it was on or about July 22); the report of the past reprimand generated much media attention and criticism of Kopp (and if you think that was all an outrage because the reprimand "didn't exist", you're entitled to your opinion, but the fact of the public criticism is not a matter of opinion and cannot reasonably be disputed); soon after the media firestorm broke, Kopp resigned.  The daughter article can go into this detail, including whatever well-sourced information supports a contention that the reprimand had become nonexistent and, even more dubiously, that everyone was morally obligated to ignore it because of subsequent dealings between Kopp and Kenai.  For the Palin article, the point is simply that saying that Kopp resigned "after it was revealed that he had received a letter of reprimand for sexual harassment in his previous position" is completely accurate.  It's an important aspect of Palin's administration, and it's reasonable for us to use a few extra words to state the cause, which received widespread public attention, instead of leaving the reader hanging as the current version does by coyly saying he "resigned...due to unrelated misconduct".
 * In fact, the current version asserts that Kopp engaged in misconduct, which is arguably a BLP and NPOV violation given that Kopp denies it. By contrast, the statement that he had received a letter of reprimand is an objective fact.  BLP protects Palin but it also protects people like Kopp.  The BLP violation could be cured by changing "unrelated misconduct" to "unrelated issues", leaving the reader to wonder if Kopp had a heart attack or some such, and further obscuring any inconvenient facts that might sully Palin's desired image as a skilled government reformer.
 * Contrary to the anon's implication, the issue isn't whether we can "fault" Palin in the Kopp affair. This is neither a campaign puff piece nor a hit job.  In fact, it isn't even a balanced consideration of whether or not she should be VP.  It's a biography of her life, and the issue is whether the Kopp affair was notable enough to be mentioned in that context.  It doesn't have to be relevant to her qualifications for national office, any more than her high-school role as a point guard is.
 * Ferrylodge, you should check the timestamps. When I wrote my comment, it was true that no one at Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard agreed with you.  Thereafter, almost ten hours after you said you would drop it, and some hours after I wrote, one editor did chime in on your side.  Please consider my comment updated accordingly.
 * You write, "I have not differed with you about Kopp due to 'obstinacy' on my part." I agree.  "James, I disagree with you" could not be characterized as obstinacy.  "I do not anticipate budging one inch on this Kopp matter" can be so characterized, and the latter is what you wrote.
 * You're entitled to your opinion that I have provided "nothing" in response to your arguments. To my mind, I distinguished the presidential examples and the Murkowski example, and I provided the Giuliani counterexample.  Your Google searches compared Kopp with Monegan, and I have written again and again that "Monegan-level notability" is not the standard for inclusion here.  Most aspects of Palin's life would have fewer Google hits than would Monegan.  I continue to believe that if Monegan had resigned for health reasons, it would be obvious to every unbiased editor that the resignation of an appointed Commissioner, after two weeks in office, under circumstances of public scandal or controversy or outcry or whatever you want to call it, was a significant enough event to merit two sentences in the main article.
 * Finally, you state that "others have provided some additional reasoning" here. Except for Collect's comment, which provides no reasoning about the substance, this thread has consisted of you, me, and an anon who implausibly asserts, "The reprimand does not exist."  I've answered the anon above.  If you, as a lawyer, agree with that position, that is of course your prerogative.
 * That's a good point about the word "misconduct" in the current article. I'll fix it to clarify that it was just an allegation.  Also, in view of the timestamps, you're correct that no one was supporting me at the BLP Noticeboard when I dropped the matter.  However, I intend to leave the matter dropped, even though there is now support for my position there, because I want to encourage some give and take here.  I do not look forward to going through this Kopp matter again and again.  But I do apologize for my recent irritability; I usually try to be sweeter than that.  :-)  Anyway, you're free to revise and extend this debate as long as you would like, though I wish you would not.  I hope you will keep in mind that this section of the present article also omits details that I wish could be included, such as the fact that Wooten had been disciplined for making a death threat, and that the state Senator overseeing the investigation predicted it would be damaging and called for impeachment long before the report was due to be issued.  So, you're not the only one unhappy with the present summary.Ferrylodge (talk) 01:19, 17 September 2008 (UTC)


 * If we mention the alleged death threat, then, to be fair to Wooten, we have to mention that he denies it; to be fair to Monegan, we have to mention that Wooten had been disciplined over the matter before Monegan took office (so that we don't give the misleading impression that Monegan didn't care about the death threat and wanted to let it slide). The issue is whether going into that much detail about the specifics of the charges against Wooten is appropriate in the Palin bio.  Do you want to do that, or do you want to "save space" by mentioning only the death threat, without that other information?


 * I'm struck by the contrast in your approaches to Wooten and Kopp. In each case, we have an accusation of misconduct, denied by the person involved but adjudicated against him in any agency proceeding of some level of formality, resulting in an official disciplinary action.  In the Palin bio article, you want to tell the reader the specific nature of the alleged misconduct by Wooten, a lowly state trooper whom none of us would ever have heard of if he hadn't married Molly McCann; but you want to conceal from the reader the analogous fact about Kopp, whom Palin appointed to her cabinet, and specifically to the state's highest law enforcement position.  To me, it seems obvious that the priorities should be the other way around. JamesMLane t c 15:34, 17 September 2008 (UTC)


 * The onus is on you to provide compelling reasons why this is material which should be included in a biography. You have yet to support that position. Despite wrting much, you say little. The fact Kopp was appointed by Palin and he later resigned is not satisfactory. If there was something more here, then perhaps so. But if there is, you sure haven't provided it thus far. The reprimand does not exist. The reprimand did not exist on his record. There was no error in his background check, as yu erronously asserted. Even you tried to add the "Extra" bit required to make it something even remotely worth considering for the wki, too bad it was a complete lie.66.190.29.150 (talk) 04:38, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
 * @66.190.29.150...Please use some method of specifying which "you" you are responding to. It's hard enough to follow. You may get an edit-conflict and your response will not directly fall in place where you had intended, leading to confusion...Thanks...--Buster7 (talk) 06:59, 17 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Dear Buster,I believe that the indentation is sufficient to determine whom I am speaking to. It really does not matter if someone else also replies, assuming they do not modify the identation of the person we both responded to.
 * Dear 66...For those who understand, no explanation is needed. For those who do not understand, no explanation is possible.--Buster7 (talk) 08:48, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Ferrylodge, please do not discuss unrelated "concessions" - while they are clear reasons for us to continue to assume your good faith, they are irrelevant to the point at hand. There are way too many irrelevant issues being raised here.

We all agree that this is notable for at least one sentence. The question is only, should this sentence read "unrelated alegations", or "after it was revealed that he had been reprimanded for alleged sexual harassment". I find it hard to see how anyone can argue that the latter is not an important part of this subplot. "Unrelated allegations" is just a weasel, a compromise that nobody would suggest in its own right, and as such it (infinitesimally) reduces the quality of this article. I will add the "after" verbiage. Homunq (talk) 15:13, 17 September 2008 (UTC)


 * ...and it was swiftly removed, leaving the bare fact of the resignation. I'm not going to flirt with 3RR here, but I think that the removal does not respect this discussion, and I would encourage others to add the language such as I suggest above. Homunq (talk) 17:04, 17 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Homunq, the suggestion initially in this section was to have not one sentence bu three: "To replace Monegan, Palin appointed Charles M. Kopp, chief of the Kenai police department, on July 11, 2008. He resigned on July 25 after it was revealed that he had received a letter of reprimand for sexual harassment in his previous position. After the tenure of an acting commissioner, Palin appointed Joseph Masters to the post on September 12." Then there was an offer to omit the last, still leaving two sentences.  The very small number of Google News hits for Kopp would have been even smaller if the media spotlight had not already been on the Public Safety Commissioner due to the Monegan situation.  Additinoally, there was no "unrelated concession" on my part.  I made a related concession intended to encourage a compromise.  The material in the article right now about Kopp's resignation is plenty, IMHO.Ferrylodge (talk) 17:43, 17 September 2008 (UTC)


 * re: concessions: Sorry, I skimmed here, did not understand. Enough said.
 * Let's not get into couterfactuals - I think there would be MORE articles if it weren't overshadowed, but no proof.
 * Regardless of how this discussion started out, we are now debating between one short sentence, and one somewhat longer sentence. You say short is enough. Why? It seems to me that the short sentence is useless. If the resignation is notable, it is only BECAUSE of the specific reason. Noting one but not the other is worse than nothing. I'm not going to edit this again today, anyway, but I reiterate the invitation for others to restore the extra clause. Homunq (talk) 18:38, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I have added back in that Kopp resigned amid allegations of sexual harassment, and that Wooten's custody battle involved an alleged death threat.Ferrylodge (talk) 19:03, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Great! It's great to get consensus, thanks. Homunq (talk) 20:25, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
 * As I pointed out above, if we include the allegation of the death threat we must include the undisputed fact that there had been a disciplinary proceeding involving this issue. It's inaccurate to give the impression that Monegan was shrugging off such an accusation against a trooper, when his actual stance was that the matter had been dealt with and couldn't be reopened.  I've now added this.  Alas, Homunq, I must say that, even with this change, we don't have perfect consensus.  I reserve my right to return to this later, because the current version limits the information about Kopp to "accusations" without disclosing that he'd already been officially reprimanded and without making clear that the letter of reprimand wasn't generally known as of the time of his appointment.  The version that Ferrylodge called a "novella" was a few words longer and far more informative. JamesMLane t c 03:19, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I oppose turning the summary into a detailed analysis. Kopp may have been reprimanded, but he was not proven guilty in a court of law, and the nature of the reprimand is disputed.  If you want to include this info about Kopp, then we wouild have to also detail the fact that Wooten was also reprimanded, a fact which was never disclosed to the Palins until after Monegan's dismissal.  I oppose trying to put more details into this article on this subject.  If any more detail is put in, then I'm sure someone will come along and chop the whole section down to a few sentences, and rightly so.  Look James, the article says Kopp was accused of sexual harassment in his previous job.  That is enough.  People can get all the details in the sub-article.Ferrylodge (talk) 03:46, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I stand by my post, and demur on attacks of being "divorced from reality." Cordially, Collect (talk) 22:43, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

accent
Her accent is very notable, especially as it adds to her folksy-ness. I was going to add a note on this in the article, but I realized many people are probably more knowledgable about this than me. Her accent rings very similar to one I heard when living in Minnesota, but I've heard people call it an Idaho or Alaska accent as well:


 * "flat prairie accent"
 * "strange Northern accent"
 * "charming quasi Minnesotan / Canadian accent"
 * "chirpy Matanuska Valley girl accent"
 * "nouveaux-"Fargo" accent"
 * "Fargo-meets-"Northern Exposure" accent"
 * "grand Pacific Northwest/Alaska variant on the Midwestern accent"

Thoughts?--Loodog (talk) 14:09, 16 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Maybe for Public_image_of_Sarah_Palin? I'm not sure. FangedFaerie (talk) 15:39, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
 * It's interesting and semi-amusing, but in my opinion a color detail like that should only be included in an important article as a throw-away if it's generally understood to be an uncontroversial way of setting up context rather than a sly insult or put-down. The sources so far are not terribly reliable, and do not mention it in such a major way that we can conclude that it is a significant biographical detail.  In fact, it might say more about people's reaction to her accent, particularly for light-hearted entertainment, than her accent itself.  Also, on matters like this even serious journalists are prone to make unreliable statements because for many, neither they nor their editors seems to think normal journalistic standards apply.  This is one of those things like saying something happened "in droves", repeating aphorisms, anthropomorphizing animals, writing hook lines, saying that "Freud would have a field day" or that some other scientist is spinning in his grave, etc., where you can't necessarily trust an otherwise reliable source.Wikidemon (talk) 16:34, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
 * It's not meant as a commentary on her. It's an interesting and notable piece of information like Giuliani's lateral lisp.--Loodog (talk) 17:29, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Is that mentioned in his bio? If not, I would argue that this thread be removed as this is not a forum. --Tom 19:48, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, it is. So is Churchill's stutter. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:08, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

. It's a blog, but very detailed with regard to her speech patterns, says it has "classic western/northwestern features" as well as Upper Midwestern (e.g. Minnesota, Wisconsin)examples.--Loodog (talk) 20:28, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Would anyone object to a note calling her accent "Upper Midwestern"?--Loodog (talk) 13:26, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Got it. She speaks North Central American English.  I'm including a note on this in the article.--Loodog (talk) 14:16, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Everyone has an accent. The only reason you may think of it as very noticable is because --you-- are not accustomed to it. To people from the upper-midwest, it's surely not noticable, nor does it convey anything "folsky", which itself is a strange term being applied here. 66.190.29.150 (talk) 22:16, 16 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for stating the obvious. She does not speak "standard" American English like Obama, McCain, Biden, newscasters, movie stars, sports commentators, sitcom actors.  Maybe if you read some of the links I provided, you could say something useful.--Loodog (talk) 03:01, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
 * She doesn't speak "standard" english? Oh really? I think you should actually understand the terms you use, particulalry when you take such condescending tone. Michelle Obama is the one who does not use standard English, "my babies' daddy" for instance. Let me go take a look over at the Bill Clinton wiki and see if his accent is mentioned Oh, isn't that interesting. Not only is his characteristic, er, "folksy" accent not mentioned, but you happen to be a patron editor of the Bill Clinton wiki. Quite interesting given the running political joke of his accent becoming more and more pronounced the further south he was during his many times on the campaign trail. Do you have an excuse for your double standards or is this where you slink away in hypocrisy?(Looks like he wants to try and delete my points instead of addressing them. What a shock.)66.190.29.150 (talk) 08:18, 17 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Look, you are way off topic, not saying anything useful, and borderline trolling. Do you have anything constructive and non-obvious to say abot Palin's accent?--Loodog (talk) 13:16, 17 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm not way off topic. You are the one veering off of it, because you've lost the debate. And instead of conceding you were wrong, you continue to try to derail the points. Try answering my questions. Why have you not argued for the inclusion of this accent thing in the Clinton wiki? Why have you argued for its inclusion here? How do you explain the hypocrisy that between the two positions, or lackthereof.66.190.29.150 (talk) 13:45, 17 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Since any discussion of Bill Clinton or of me is off-topic, I've moved it to your talk page.--Loodog (talk) 14:05, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Charging for post-rape medical exams - second term in wasilla
The following content was removed a while ago:

''In 2000, the fact that rape victims in Wasilla were being billed for post-incident medical examinations caught the attention of Alaska legislators. The Legislature banned the practice state-wide that year. Sources say Palin was probably aware of the situation and did nothing to change it. Palin's campaign supporters have said that Palin "does not believe, nor has she ever believed, that rape victims should have to pay for an evidence-gathering test." ''

Apparently this "has been discussed on the talk page" here, and it was decided that the well sourced information should not be kept up. I disagree. While I agree that we should not report that Palin definately knew about the practice (as no source confirms that), I think we should put up the fact that it happened, and the fact that it has caused controversy. It is well sourced and notable information.

Comments? Fresheneesz (talk) 21:51, 16 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I very much disagree with including this material. The issue is already dealt with in Mayoralty of Sarah Palin.  This summary is not accurate, and much of it is not supported by the cited source.Ferrylodge (talk) 22:12, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
 * The material is less likely to be noticed in a subarticle; I trust this is not Ferrylodge's intention. We should at least mention a few words on the subject, so that the reader will know which subarticle to look at, and future editors will know it is somewhere. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:27, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I also disagree with including this in the biography article. The source does not provide any evidence that Palin knew of or approved of the practice. A biography should not be a collection of rumors and charges. Besides, this is hardly a matter for a biography at all!--Paul (talk) 22:53, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

This has already been discussed - see here. »S0CO ( talk 23:32, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't think this is permissible in a BLP, one sentence is pure speculation for example. Even using the word "probably" outright which should be a HUGE red flag. Hobartimus (talk) 00:30, 17 September 2008 (UTC)


 * The "probably" sentence should go. In its place, after the quotation from the Palin spokeswoman, should be the additional information, as reported by USA Today, that the spokeswoman did not answer the question whether Palin knew about the practice.  The current state of our knowledge about her knowledge is that her own spokeswoman won't say, so that's what we report. This subject has received attention in the media.  Some people would say that if Palin knew, that's interesting, and if she didn't know, that's also interesting.  (They argue that it shouldn't be hard to keep track of stuff like this in a town of 6,000.  With these changes, the material should be restored. JamesMLane t c 01:37, 17 September 2008 (UTC)


 * It would still be POV rubbish. "Palin's campaign supporters have said...."  Come on.  Try her spokesperson.  Additionally, this doesn't mention that insurance companies may well have picked up the tab, or that the Police Chief wanted to make the rapists pay for it rather than having taxpayers pay.  This matter is already adequately addressed in the sub-article and it is not significant enough to mention here.  Rape is obviously a very sensitive subject, and we would need to take up too much space in this article to address the matter neutrally.  There is no evidence that Palin had any role here.Ferrylodge (talk) 01:45, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

According to Wasilla, the city has never charged for these exams (" City Documents - Recently Requested - Former Mayor Palin" → "Billing of sexual assault victims for forensic exams" PDF).  Grsz  talk  04:41, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Your link does not seem to work, Grsz.Ferrylodge (talk) 04:48, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Instructions given.  Grsz  talk  04:51, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

"A review of files and case reports within the Wasilla Police Department has found no record of sexual assault victims billed for forensic exams." Straight from the city itself. It's just more of the tabloid-esque hit pieces/lies the leftist media has beenpumping out the last couple weeks as Obama slips further and further downin the polls. Desperate times require desperate measures.66.190.29.150 (talk) 05:43, 17 September 2008 (UTC) http://pushingrope.blogspot.com/2008/09/more-on-sarah-palin-rape-controversy.html links to http://www.cityofwasilla.com/Modules/ShowDocument.aspx?documentid=544 which states no one was billed for such exams from the beginning of fiscal year 2000 up to August 14 when such billings would have become illegal. This appears to be a source which should be included, as it appears to negate some other statements found here. Collect (talk) 14:16, 17 September 2008 (UTC)


 * "Tabloids" like the local newspaper. If Palin did not read or was not made aware of what her own police chief was quoted as saying in a local paper, that fact is just as scary as if she did know, and didn't renounce the chief. If the city never charged for them, how do you explain this quote from the paper? "Wasilla Police Chief Charlie Fannon does not agree with the new legislation, saying the law will require the city and communities to come up with more funds to cover the costs of the forensic exams."--Appraiser (talk) 14:44, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
 * In a letter released by (current mayor and Palin's cousin) Dianne Keller, she said no victims were charged in Fiscal Year 2000, 2001, or 2002. Does anyone know when FY 2000 began in Wasilla? By August of 2000, the practice was illegal in Alaska, so it would be more telling to see the figures for the several years prior to that. Approximately 10 reported sexual assaults occurred in Wasilla in each of those years.--Appraiser (talk) 15:08, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Let's keep it short, including the fact that her knowledge is in dispute and the number of charged victims may be zero. How about: "In 2000, the fact that Wasilla police had a policy of billing rape victims for post-incident medical examinations caught the attention of Alaska legislators, who banned such billing state-wide. This policy was not instituted by Palin, and no victims had actually been billed during that fiscal year." Homunq (talk) 15:48, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Multiple sources indicate that Wasilla operates on a 1 July start of the fiscal year. http://www.matsugov.us/Assembly/minutes/2001/050801spc.htm Collect (talk) 22:53, 17 September 2008 (UTC)


 * That wasn't even the exact policy, at least not according the police chief in question, he did argue against the idea of the government having to pickup the tab, but he intendted to charge the perps for the cost of the exams during sentencing as a form of restitution. And the police department has no record of ever charging a victim for the testings.66.190.29.150 (talk) 00:26, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Do you have a source for that?

In 2000, the fact that Wasilla police would not pay for "rape kits", which include both post-incident medical examinations and emergency contraception, caught the attention of Alaska legislators, who passed a state law forbidding cities from billing victims. This policy was not instituted by Palin, and there have been no documented reports that victims were actually billed. 216.106.170.103 (talk) 04:01, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Possible Misquote
"In a 2008 speech, Palin urged a group of graduating ministry students at her former church to pray for the military and to consider the military's job as a task from God.[204] In the same remarks Palin asserted that "God's will" coincides with the building of the Alaskan national gas pipeline project,[205][206]"

I'm not sure if it's considered a misquote or not, but at the very least, this can be misleading. The section is referenced, but it seems that some of the information in the second sentence, is taken from two different sources in order to misconstrue her words.

Also, it seems that the first sentence is paraphrased incorrectly. Palin's original words are:

"Pray for our military men and women who are, striving to do what is right also for our country, that our leaders, our national leaders are sending them out on a task that is from God. That is what we have to make sure we are praying for: that there is a plan, and that that plan is God's Plan... So bless them with your prayers..."

I transcribed that from the video that was cited in [204]

I don't see (and didn't hear) her tell the graduates that they should consider the war a "task from God" --&#91;&#91;User:Mr.Vanker&#124; Mr.Vanker&#93;&#93; (talk) 21:59, 16 September 2008 (UTC)


 * You won't succeed in making this neutral. Some here are bent on erroneously painting her as a religious zealot based on this singular commencement speech to a graduating class of ministry students just finishing a year in a Pentacostal church program. Unfortunately, their position is bolstered by the others who are simply afraid of anyone who exhibits religious beliefs, even when those happen in the church. Our suppose our next generation of leaders must be atheist to succeed. Fcreid (talk) 23:00, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
 * At least it's refreshing to see we've moved beyond race and gender and are focusing on those prejudices that count! Fcreid (talk) 23:06, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, such prejudice! I have a dream... a dream that someday we might see a Christian President of the United States. Or even 43 of them. Consecutively. :) In all seriousness, religion is probably a notable topic here, since it has both been a focus of Palin's public persona and of reliably-sourced coverage of her, but I do agree that it's being pushed a bit too hard. It's hardly exceptional or remarkable that an American prays for the safety of the troops or for wise leadership, or for the success of a personal venture; I suspect hundreds of millions of Americans do that. We don't need to catalog every time Palin has mentioned the word "God" in this article. MastCell Talk 18:22, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Questioning the content
Why did Wikidemon archive #18 and #36. I thought the subject of the discussion was how to improve the Palin page. Both questioned the biased tone of the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.135.56.32 (talk) 22:25, 16 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Any discussions that are not active are up for archiving. General complaints about tone do not tend to spark useful discussion as much as specific points. Homunq (talk) 19:08, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
 * There are three ARTICLE POLICIES, one of them being Neutral Point of View. It is relevant to the validity of the entire site.  The topic is still being addressed in several other posts.  Some people only like to read or post half of a sentence from a source.  Archiving is one way they promote their political agenda on this site.  I believe Wikidemon said that the IP was "vandalising" the Obama site by contributing to the discussion.  Demon has a clear political agenda here.

Caribou Barbie?
Where did "Nickname(s) 	Caribou Barbie" in the InfoBox come from? Any source for this or is that someone's idea of a joke?WTucker (talk) 23:13, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I removed it. Pending a reliable source, of course.  Right now, it felt very "recentism-ish"  Emphasis on the "ish"....  Keeper  &#448;  76  23:17, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
 * It seems to be both, a sourced joke. According to David Freddoso (author of The Case Against Barack Obama), leftists used the word to describe her supposed ditsiness, and commentators picked up the word.  Sourced or not it seems too frivolous for the article.  I find it kind of sweet and disarming, and fail to see why Barbie is such a bad thing.  But nevertheless it does demean her unless and until they call Obama "Sasquatch Ken" or something - that's a joke! - I support its removal.Wikidemon (talk) 23:21, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Source is Liberal talker Stephanie Miller, later picked up by Liberal talker Mike Malloy. Would a cite to a specific show date be sufficient?  --BenBurch (talk) 00:03, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Agree with the removal. Hobartimus (talk) 00:23, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
 * There was a poll on Democratic Underground to pick a nickname. "Caribou Barbie" won overwhelmingly.  Nicknames generally need to achieve a lot of use in the general media before we include them.  I don't think this one is yet close to that level of currency. JamesMLane t c 00:32, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
 * And here I thought it was a reference to her action figure. --Evb-wiki (talk) 00:54, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Frankly this is inappropriate to include regardless of the usage. Hobartimus (talk) 00:46, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
 * The article about Richard Nixon mentions "Tricky Dick". A nickname that reaches that level of usage is appropriate for inclusion.  Obviously, though, that's not common. JamesMLane t c 01:40, 17 September 2008 (UTC)


 * 'Caribou Barbie' is a common name for her? This is the only place I've ever that term mentioned ever. The Squicks (talk) 01:44, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Nixon is not a living person, it's not comparable in Wikipedia terms. Hobartimus (talk) 10:17, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
 * You're right, Hobartimus. If everyone were calling her that, it would still be inappropriate, unless her own response were in itself notable. Homunq (talk) 15:52, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

VP Selection Process
I think the following sentence is WP:OR and also has the wrong ref.: "Palin had been under consideration since a private meeting with McCain in a February National Governors Association meeting at which Palin made a favorable impression on McCain."

The source only says she made a favorable impression on McCain during their 15 minute private meeting in February. The selection process did not begin until March. None of the sources state she was "under consideration" at that time IP75 75.36.70.205 (talk) 02:55, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Do we have a source for that assertion? If this is a disputed fact we can simple attribute the assertion to the person(s) that made it. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:32, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
 * This Washington Post article is the correct citation for the sentence.[] The text in the article has been edited and is now fine. IP75  75.36.70.205 (talk) 16:13, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Partisan? 9/16/08
I was reading the article and it's tone struck me as off...it seems very much in Sarah Palin's favor, and doesn't seem to give much of a balanced perspective, especially in regards to her use of travel funds. I think someone should take a closer look at who has been editing this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Modelliv (talk • contribs) 05:24, 17 September 2008 (UTC)


 * You must have read a different wiki. 66.190.29.150 (talk) 05:39, 17 September 2008 (UTC)


 * IT'S ALL A CONSPIRACY!


 * Seriously guys, stick to possible improvements to the article. Keep the tinfoils hats off and remember WP:AGF. The Squicks (talk) 06:04, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, other people would say quite the opposite - that it contains a lot of tangential stuff that looks bad but has little to do with her. Plus, for every thing that actually ends up in the article there must be ten things that keep getting proposed.  You should see the stuff that ends up here on the talk page.  Please keep in mind that the purpose of this particular article is to present a balanced, informative picture of her life - meaning her personal and professional history.  This article is not about the campaign or about whether she will be elected, or a good or bad Vice President.  Some of that is in articles related to this.  Other stuff is best left for sources outside of Wikipedia - forums, newspapers, and the like.  Some scandal or mistake, misstatement, personal embarrassment, might be better put in the article about her tenure as Governor, in the campaign, or just not on Wikipedia.  We're not trying to favor her or disfavor her, just say who she is.  When you get down to it, that usually sounds more positive than not for most people.  It's not supposed to be a 50/50 balance, it's supposed to tell her story.  So when we decide whether something fits or not we're supposed to ask the question, first, is it solid, verifiable, sourceable factual information.  But after that it has to be relevant, not too long or too short, avoid being tabloid/bloggy, and so on.  We try to be neutral, which a little different than trying to be equally balanced between good and bad.   I know that's kind of long but I hope it helps explain the focus here.  Wikidemon (talk) 06:22, 17 September 2008 (UTC)


 * @ Wikidemon. A well-stated explanation of "the process that is Wikipedia". Worthy of BOLD Script. My hope is that Wikipedia survives the "bad press" it gets at times for its content during the process of editing. The continuous efforts of all the editors envolved here at Sarah Palin is a testament to the free and fair mind of the common man at work. No matter all the pulling and tugging, we should all be proud of the finished product. (Whenever that is?)--Buster7 (talk) 07:36, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
 * @ Squicks...I thought we were supposed to use aluminum foil???--Buster7 (talk) 07:42, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Well said Wikidemon. (I'm sure this has been discussed many times on this talk page, but for completeness to this discussion.... ) One addition to your explanation of decision to include &mdash; Wikipedia's policy on Biographies of living persons (BLP) must be followed. &mdash; ERcheck (talk) 13:58, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

VP Selection Process
The key turning point in Sarah Palin's life was her selection as Vice Presidential Candidate. So the factors leading to the selection are very relevant to this article. Several times, I have tried to include the specific sourced information (from NY Times) that: "McCain had wanted to name Joe Lieberman. But outrage from Christian conservatives over the possibility that McCain would select Lieberman, a supporter of abortion rights, became too intense to be ignored. With this in mind, he called Palin on August 24 to discuss the possibility of having her join him on the ticket." I have seen this same information in other reliable news sources, and have not seen this disputed. If it is disputed by other reliable sources, that information could be included. However, Hobartimus simply reverted the edit, saying it was unsourced. Not true. Either Hobartimus is lying or did not read the referenced article. Next, Hobartimus wrote a nasty note on my talk page, threatening to have me blocked from editing wikipedia. Hobartimus said I was being defamatory and including unreferenced materials, when the facts are totally opposite. If anything, Hobartimus is the one who perhaps should be blocked for threatening me and making mis-statements. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sarah_Palin&oldid=238924768 was my edit, so anyone can verify that my edit does have a reference (139), which is still in the article.

I am requesting to include the specific factual information concerning the VP selection process, and not in some watered-down version. Wikipedia is here to report the facts as best as they can be determined, not to make spin for either Democrats or Republicans. On a separate issue. I request that Hobartimus stop the bullying tactics and heavy-handed threats. If possible, I would like to have Hobartimus' unfair and inappropriate comments removed from my talk page. Dagoldman (talk) 07:01, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Is your factual information a direct quote from McCain? Becuase McCain did not say antyhing even remotely close to what you have claimed here when I heard him speaking about how he arrived at his choice of Palin. It sounds like you are trying to pass off some op-ed heresay as "factual". 66.190.29.150 (talk) 07:18, 17 September 2008 (UTC)


 * It was not an op-ed. And the source was advisers close to the McCain campaign. You obviously did not even take the trouble to read the reference. Dagoldman (talk) 07:34, 17 September 2008 (UTC)


 * In principle, I would agreee with you, Dagoldman. And WikiDemon does an excellent job in the section just above to explain why I feel that way. This is a BLP. What a wonderful, fullfilling life achievement it must be to be nominated for such a high office. I certainly don't know how or where you'll squeeze it in but I support your efforts. I would suggest you KEEP the comments on your page...should you ever need them or if others want to "witness" them.--Buster7 (talk) 07:51, 17 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Anything unsourced by the times is essentially an op-ed. That rag has lost nearly all credibility these days. The reality is that it's claims are completely at odds with what I've heard McCain himself say in the interviews. given that's the case, it would require the addition of too much material to properly place in context her selection, not even getting into the obviousness of McCain's words are infinitely more important than unsourced "aides" from the NYT.66.190.29.150 (talk) 07:58, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
 * @66.190.29.150.. "That rag", as you call it, is still a reliable source. At least it is not anonymous.--Buster7 (talk) 08:12, 17 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Ironically, the anonymous comments are the real op-ed. On wikipedia, personal opinions about the New York Times or your opinions about what McCain said don't matter at all. Our job is to include relevant, factual, sourced information for the article, as best as it can be determined. I agree with Buster7 about the need to make it shorter, and could do that. Also, I appreciate Buster7's suggestion to KEEP the discourteous and highly inappropriate remarks on my talk page. But I'd still prefer they be removed. I don't think false and defamatory remarks should be tolerated on wikipedia. I must go to sleep now, but will respond to further comments in about 8 hours. Dagoldman (talk) 08:24, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
 * You added "McCain had wanted to name Joe Lieberman." to the Sarah Palin article, this statement was completely unreferenced. In Wikipedia terms an acceptable reference for such an execptional statement about someones thoughts or thought process would be a direct quote from McCain. In this case it doesn't matter if the Times is a rag or not or wrote an op-ed or not since the Times never made the claim that "McCain had wanted to name Joe Lieberman.". Hobartimus (talk) 11:20, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
 * The newspaper may not have made the claim (in an editorial), but the claim certainly appeared in at least one news article: "For weeks, advisers close to the campaign said, Mr. McCain had wanted to name as his running mate his good friend Senator Joseph I. Lieberman of Connecticut, the Democrat turned independent. But by the end of last weekend, the outrage from Christian conservatives over the possibility that Mr. McCain would fill out the Republican ticket with Mr. Lieberman, a supporter of abortion rights, had become too intense to be ignored." Quoted from Elizabeth Bumiller and Michael Cooper, "Conservative Ire Pushed McCain From Lieberman", NYT, 30 Aug 2008. -- Hoary (talk) 12:29, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Why are you limiting this to McCain's thought process?. He has a close inner circle of advisors that he consults with in addition to official campaign spokesman that are commonly in communication with and quoted by the MSM. Please read WP:RS - Direct quotes are not required. IP75 75.36.70.205 (talk) 12:55, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I trust you will understand how these are completely different claims. "According to the NYT Anonymous sources said McCain had wanted Lieberman" and "McCain had wanted Lieberman" as a statement of fact by Wikipedia. One statement is about an allegation made by anonymous sources one is about McCain. What was put in the article was completely unsourced. Compare these two statements from this source "Muammar Qaddafi, a man who takes his Islam very seriously, said on television that Obama is a Muslim." and "Obama is a Muslim". Clearly these are not the same statements but completely different. And this fact won't change if the statement was made to a newspaper anonymously by "A powerful foreign leader who takes Islam very seriously said that Obama was a Muslim". You still can't put that "Obama is a Muslim" in the article any more that you can put "McCain had wanted Lieberman as VP" in the article. The two statements have nothing to do with each other please do not claim that the one statement was sourced in any way. Hobartimus (talk) 13:14, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes I agree. In your example above, the editor is not accurately reflecting the source. They are taking it out of context which results in a distortion. IP75 75.36.70.205 (talk) 14:13, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
 * The fact that McCain considered Lieberman is noted. The fact that his pick of Palin may have been intended to boost support from Christian conservatives is noted and cited.  Further exploration of McCain's thought process and vp selection process may be appropriate for the 2008 campaign article, but not in Sarah Palin's biography (this article).  Kaisershatner (talk) 14:57, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Hobartimus - Another example of what I believe you are referring to is in my comments about a sentence that is still in the article. It is in the "VP Selection Process" section above this section (Both sections have the same name). This is the correct citation for the sentence: []. Could you please review it and revise the "under consideration" wording if you think it is not accurate. Thanks, IP75 75.36.70.205 (talk) 15:14, 17 September 2008 (UTC)


 * 1) Here is the original text from the New York Times article: "For weeks, advisers close to the campaign said, Mr. McCain had wanted to name as his running mate his good friend Senator Joseph I. Lieberman of Connecticut, the Democrat turned independent. But by the end of last weekend, the outrage from Christian conservatives over the possibility that Mr. McCain would fill out the Republican ticket with Mr. Lieberman, a supporter of abortion rights, had become too intense to be ignored." This is certainly the basic information that I wanted to have included. 2) The article was referenced, as I pointed out. The reference to the NYT article was after the next sentence, which was from the same NYT article. How can Hobartimus say it was "completely unreferenced"? 3) Hobartimus goes on to say it had to be a direct quote from McCain. That is certainly different from "completely unreferenced". Hobartimus is just arbitrarily shifting the argument, looking for new objections. Show me where Wikipedia says that a direct quote would be required. 4) I am certainly willing to include "advisers close to the campaign", as you currently suggest. Here is the text I would propose, which I think is factual, relevant and sourced. Any objections or suggested improvements to this text:

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 had been under consideration since a private meeting with McCain in a February National Governors Association meeting at which Palin made a favorable impression on McCain. According to close campaign advisers, McCain had wanted to name Joe Lieberman. But outrage from Christian conservatives over the possibility that McCain would select Lieberman, a supporter of abortion rights, became too intense to be ignored. With this in mind, he called Palin on August 24 to discuss the possibility of having her join him on the ticket. On August 27, Palin visited McCain's vacation home near Sedona, Arizona, where she was offered the position of vice-presidential candidate. Palin was the only prospective running mate who had a face-to-face interview with McCain to discuss joining the ticket that week. Nonetheless, Palin's selection was a surprise to many as speculation had centered on other candidates, such as Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty, former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney, Lieberman, and former Pennsylvania Governor Tom Ridge.


 * What's the justification for the statement "But outrage from Christian conservatives over the possibility that McCain would select Lieberman, a supporter of abortion rights, became too intense to be ignored."? Seems like you're focusing on just one reason for what was undoubtedly a complex decision. Pingku (talk) 19:46, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
 * The justification is presented within a NYT article whose relevant part is quoted twice and which is explicitly linked in this very section of the discussion page. Just press the "Page Up" key on your keyboard. It seems like McCain or his advisers or both focused on just one reason for what may have been a simple decision. (I don't claim that it was simple, but I have reason to doubt that it was complex.) -- Hoary (talk) 02:36, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

true?
Is it true Sarah Palin's e-mail was hacked, some serious stuff was found and posted on 4chan? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.118.182.53 (talk) 07:32, 17 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Since editing the article is limited to registered users, why doesn't that also apply to the discussion page? Dagoldman (talk) 07:35, 17 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Um, maybe yes, most likely not. It's dubious that anyone with the means to hack Palin's email would choose 4Chan as their place to disclose.  And if it's true Wikipedia will be the last to know.  Why ask here?  We try to stay at least a few days behind the latest gossip and news.  If something is true and important enough to say it will appear in legitimate news sources long before it gets into Wikipedia.  Hope that helps.  Wikidemon (talk) 07:47, 17 September 2008 (UTC)


 * In reply to Dagoldman, Wikipedia is intended to be editable by everyone. In certain cases we limit editing on particular articles to registered users, or, less often, to just administrators. When that happens, people who are not able to edit the article directly are encouraged to suggests edits on the talk page.--agr (talk) 13:40, 17 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the clarification. I find the anonymous posters irritating, but I guess that's just a necessary (and positive) part of the whole process. Dagoldman (talk) 19:28, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Found this: http://rs307.rapidshare.com/files/145931046/WWIII.7z Has screenshots and stuff.

http://gawker.com/5051193/sarah-palins-personal-email-account-hacked Rhinowing (talk) 23:31, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

also, this strikes me as exactly the kind of thing 4chan would doRhinowing (talk) 23:32, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

There's some interesting info on this whole situation here: http://pastebin.com/f652c44fb According to this Wired Blog: http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2008/09/group-posts-e-m.html its confirmed to have actually occured. and/or folks contacted have admitted the leaked emails are genuine. sherpajohn (talk) 23:36, 17 September 2008 (UTC)


 * There is now a discussion going on below at Dhraaammaaa warning/ Yahoo email hacked.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 01:09, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

NOW supports Obama? What a shock!
Not sure how this crept in the article. NOW is a highly partisan organization, and I doubt you'll find an example of NOW ever supporting any conservative candidate. Unless we want to list the position of the national women's advocacy groups, NOW's position has no relevance to this article. Fcreid (talk) 08:32, 17 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Agreed. It should be removed immediately, or balanced with material from women's group's who are supporting McCain/Palin. SnapCount (talk) 13:01, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
 * How about making a master list of every possible organization and who it backs? And a full list of 527s would be nice. Or, better yet, simply not list organizations whose opinions are explicitly partisan as not being worthy of an encyclopedia article. Somehow I think not listing organizations makes more sense. Collect (talk) 13:31, 17 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Agreed and obviously my original point. Regardless of whether I agree with their social politics, you have to respect Femnists for Life (Palin's organization) by their statement, "as a nonpartisan organization, we cannot endorse any candidates" . If only all "nonpartisan" organizations could be so, well, nonpartisan. Fcreid (talk) 13:39, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

In general, seems to me who endorses/opposes the McCain/Palin ticket and the Obama/Biden ticket would be possible subjects to consider in related campaign articles, but not really suited for individual biographical articles.--Cube lurker (talk) 13:47, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Agree with the removal. At this point I'm seeing this constantly being pushed into the article, whoever is doing it it's starting to get tendentious. Hobartimus (talk) 19:35, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
 * See the other discussion below. --Evb-wiki (talk) 19:41, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

For purposes of Clarification.

From what I can gather, is McCains pick of Palin caused them to drop their mostly neutral stance and take a position in the campaign.

Their  last presidental  endorsement was 24 years ago and that was for Mondale who ran on a ticket to feature a woman as vice president. Their political statement concerning GOP ticket is their opinion that McCain has a track record of voting against issues important to women. Reading the article their concern is  equal pay for equal work. Woman being paid 77 percent of what men are paid.

They have a wiki link National Organization for WomenThey are very pro choice, hence, their not supporting Palin  would make perfect  sense.

Here is a link to the Washington Post: http://voices.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/09/16/faced_with_palin_womens_groups.html --207.232.97.13 (talk) 23:07, 17 September 2008 (UTC)fred

Huge interest in Palin
Sarah Palin is so far the most visited regular article this month, accessed by nearly a third of a million times per day (nearly 5 times more than Barack Obama and more than 10 times the number of VP hopeful Joe Biden - Palin is accessed more than 4 times more frequently than John McCain). And this talk page is probably one of the most edited in Wikipedia's history. Maybe that should be acknowledged in a "infobox" template on the top of this talkpage? --Hapsala (talk) 14:10, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Why should we? I see no reason to. Honestly, I doubt that the numbers are correct but even if they are, so what? It's a high traffic page, sparked by a current event. It will change sooner or later anyway...  So Why  14:22, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Why do you think that the numbers are incorrect..? --Hapsala (talk) 15:31, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
 * We've also gotten countless external reviews of this article stating how contentious the editing is.--Loodog (talk) 14:58, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Besides, at least 254,000 of those accesses are attributable to the ten most active editors here. Kaisershatner (talk) 19:52, 17 September 2008 (UTC)


 * It was at the top, but it started landing below 100,000 now and no longer is all that remarkable (at least by the standards of the other candidates). That's despite briefly having more traffic than the Main Page immediately after the nomination.  If there wasn't cause to post a notice before, there certainly isn't now.  Dragons flight (talk) 20:57, 17 September 2008 (UTC)


 * If you love the language, how can you not be addicted to this article?! The very first time I visited, I saw a statement saying "Palin refuses to acknowledge that global warming is man-made" or words to that effect. At first I chuckled at the insidious insertion of the disputed premise as fact, but I then thought to myself, "What if no one catches that?" Well, someone did catch that one, but the hilarity has been non-stop ever since. Even when I promised myself I wasn't going to eat up any more of my time on here, I'm always drawn back. What a marvelous concept! Fcreid (talk) 21:22, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Censorship redux
http://www.cityofwasilla.com/index.aspx?page=136 presents a comprehensive list of city records which have been asked for. One, with regard to book banning or reshelving, is of interest as it does not corroborate claims about Palin seeking the banning of a specific book. The only book in any relevant period is "Heather has two mommies." Collect (talk) 14:35, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Rocky Start?
"Despite the rocky start, by the end of her first term, Palin had gained favor with Wasilla voters." I question the neutrality of this sentence. The term "rocky start" is not npov and I propose it should be removed. 206.180.38.20 (talk) 14:53, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
 * It's kind of a weird statement anyway. I mean, how did she not gain the favor of the voters if she were voted in to begin with? Is it insinuating that early in her mayorial term she lost their favor??66.190.29.150 (talk) 14:59, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

The section of the article preceding this paragraph deals with firing folks which is a bit rocky, so the sentence is a bridge to the next paragraph which details her many accomplishments in her first term. For more background on that sentence, read the reference, but here is the meat of the material it is based on:"She became embroiled in personnel challenges, a thwarted attempt to pack the City Council and a standoff with her local newspaper. Her first months were so contentious and polarizing that critics started talking recall. [....] But the situation calmed, and rather than being recalled, Palin was re-elected. She later acknowledged, 'I grew tremendously in my early months as mayor.'"Perhaps the sentence would read better as "Despite the rocky start, by the end of her first term Palin was very popular and easily won reelection"?--Paul (talk) 15:14, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
 * How about using the exact words, i.e. "Despite being embroiled in personnel challenges early in her first term, Plain was very popular and easily won reelection to a second term". Fcreid (talk) 17:46, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Don't forget the recall effort and the popular revolt against her decision to fire the non-book-banning librarian that forced Palin to rescind her decision. Seems "rockier" than most small-town mayors.GreekParadise (talk) 19:46, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, the citation indicates she was investigating the book issue on behalf of her constituents. Fcreid (talk) 20:01, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, it says she was investigating to see what they (the town) would say if the constituents brought up the issue.  Grsz  talk  20:04, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
 * How about "Despite challenges faced early in her first term, Palin became very popular and easily won reelection to a second term." Fcreid (talk) 22:35, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Billed state for eating at home Per diem charges
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/08/AR2008090803088_pf.html

This has been raised once in archive 18 (I think) but the people pushing it were using an inflammatory tone. Without being inflammatory, I believe that this is notable. Please use this section to discuss how to include it (without undue weight - one or a MAX of two sentences total). Homunq (talk) 15:23, 17 September 2008 (UTC)


 * It's about as notable as how often she has to shovel her front porch in the Alaskan winter per year Or if she takes the office stapler home with her some nights. Nothing odd at all with per diem charges, espceially in a huge state like Alaska, as it is the largest state in the union, by far. 66.190.29.150 (talk) 15:32, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

It can be indeed added to the article, without innuendo or inappropriate tone. Present the facts as reported, and we will do just fine. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:41, 17 September 2008 (UTC)


 * This is not a biographically significant detail. It's politics, and semantics. A per diem covers more than food. This article has no perspective, and looks much more like an editorial designed by a committee than a biography. The section on her first three years as mayor spends twice as much space on how no books were removed from the library during this first four months of her tenure, as it spends on how she cut taxes, improved roads and sewers, expanded the police department, and installed bike trails and new water treatment facilities. Adding every little insignificant charge is in direct conflict with WP:UNDUE, WP:BLP (Criticism and praise of the subject should be represented if it is relevant to the subject's notability and can be sourced to reliable secondary sources, and so long as the material is written in a manner that does not overwhelm the article or appear to take sides) and WP:COATRACK.  WP:RS is not by itself sufficient grounds for inclusion of material in a biography of a living person.--Paul (talk) 15:51, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Agreed, --Tom 15:55, 17 September 2008 (UTC)


 * OK, you're right, "eating at home" is biased. But COATRACK is totally immaterial here - we are talking about one sentence, which is directly about actions of Palin herself, not tangential. Mentioning BLP is redundant - you are just arguing that it is UNDUE. I'd say that RS is enough for one sentence. The article in question (just one of several articles that come up in a search on this) gives the governor's office saying "perfectly normal" and a former (democratic) governor saying that the same behavior by a functionary in 1988 was "quite the little scandal". I'd say that this brings it to the level of notable. Homunq (talk) 16:09, 17 September 2008 (UTC)


 * My reference to WP:COATRACK was directed generally at the article but my discomfort includes the per-diem detail being discussed here. The "coats" in this article are an unending stream of "gotchas" and criticisms that are basically tangential to the biography of Sarah Palin. For example: "she fired a police chief," "she didn't really fire the chef," "she flew on an airplane while in labor," "she doesn't like whales," "she talked about God while in church!,"  "she lost money when she sold the state jet," etcetera, etcetera. In order to keep some perspective and to keep these kinds of things from "overwhelm[ing] the article" editors need to continually evaluate the notability and importance of items added to the article. Ask yourself, "what will this look like in 20 years?" "Will it look like a political food fight or a biography?" Folks that work on Wikipedia articles are called "editors" which means they are expected to exercise judgment while developing encyclopedia-quality articles.--Paul (talk) 16:40, 17 September 2008 (UTC)


 * We can certainly agree on all of that. But it's irrelevant here. (Personally, I see the "God in church" stuff as laughably COATRACK - by trying to stir up controversy, it just makes her look good.) Homunq (talk) 16:53, 17 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Sorry, we hit an edit conflict, you added a useful passage from policy. Point by point: Criticism and praise of the subject should be represented if it is relevant to the subject's notability... actions as a politician, I assume that this point is not a matter of debate. ... and can be sourced to reliable secondary sources,... check ... and so long as the material is written in a manner that does not overwhelm the article... one sentence cannot overwhelm a giant article ... or appear to take sides. OK, granted.


 * How about "Palin has charged a $58 "per diem" allowance, which covers meals and expenses while traveling on state business, for 312 day trips during her first 19 months in office." I think that "day trips" is good neutral language (significantly moderated from the controversy-seeking language of the cited article) to say that she slept at home. Her detractors would want to add that evidence suggests that some of these "day trips" were 45-mile commutes from her home to her regular office; her supporters would want to say something like "Her spokeswoman said that such expenses are not unusual." But the sentence itself is eminently neutral, and suggesting that one sentence will overwhelm the article is silly. (The relative balance of library and taxes is irrelevant here). Homunq (talk) 16:30, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
 * The issue of Palin's billing the state government for travel/per diem expenses is notable enough for a sentence or perhaps two, given its coverage by reliable sources. The only aspect that attracted non-partisan criticism was Palin's billing the government for her childrens' travel; the state comptroller said: "We cover the expenses of anyone who's conducting state business. I can't imagine kids could be doing that." But that's all in the footnoted sources; I think one sentence to the effect that she charged a travel allowance for 312 day trips in her first 19 months is reasonable, without additional spin; this much coverage seems justified to reflect the issue's coverage by reliable sources (not just the Post, though they first reported it). MastCell Talk 16:36, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Except that they weren't "day trips", legally speaking. Whatever the practical status, legally she was on a long trip from Juneau, and she was entitled to stay at a hotel in Anchorage and charge the state for that. Instead she chose to drive home every night and stay there for free, thus saving the state a lot of money.  -- Zsero (talk) 17:36, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Great explanation. Can you suggest a netral wording? Homunq (talk) 17:39, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) Let's not editorialize about "saving the state money", since that is, at best, highly debatable. If you prefer changing "day trips" to "nights spent at home", which is actually closer to the sources, then I'd be fine with that. MastCell Talk 17:40, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Here's the new version:

Since the office in Anchorage is far from Juneau, while she works there she is legally entitled to a $58 per diem travel allowance, which she has taken (a total of $16,951), and to reimbursement for hotels, which she has not, choosing instead to drive 45 miles to her home in Wasilla.[91] She also chose not to use the former governor's private chef.[92] In response to criticism for taking the per diem, and for $43,490 in travel expenses for the the times her family accompanied her on state business, the governor's staffers said that these practices were in line with state policy, and that Palin's gubernatorial expenses are 80% below those of her predecessor, Frank Murkowski.[93]

Note that this is approximately 1 sentence more than the corresponding section before I started this talk page section, and that the old sentences have been tightened.


 * It's an improvement. If we're going to quote someone on the context or appropriateness, though, I'd prefer we quote the state comptroller rather than Palin's staffers. The state comptroller was quoted in the Washington Post piece essentially defending the per diem as the governor's right, but questioning the use of state funds to pay for Palin's children to travel since they were presumably not directly engaged in "state business". MastCell Talk 18:16, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

The apparent consensus paragraph has been altered to only show the controller's doubts, and not the original contents of the paragraph. The result is a decided change in what had, I thought, basically found agreement. Collect (talk) 22:32, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Rather than delete any source (Washington Post) I thought it fair to include material which had been left out of the cite, which might otherwise tend to be misleading as to the content of the story as published. It is not as good as the earluier paragraph, to be sure, but I would not want anyone to misinterpret a citation. Collect (talk) 23:55, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Article for Deletion: Clone article about Mike Wooten
I authored it, and now I have deemed it a coatrack, unnecessary to remain, because all of the information it has also exists in the Sarah Palin subarticle: Alaska Public Safety Commissioner dismissal. if you have an opinion on the matter, please participate in the discussion at the Articles for deletion/Mike Wooten (trooper) page. Duuude007 (talk) 17:04, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Palin/McCain have lost the endorsement of National Organization of Woman
I have added it to reception of Palin and it is removed? Why? It is making news in every paper just google it. I am left with the impression that this is not good wiki but censorship.

Associated Press Sept 16th

"WASHINGTON (AFP) — Prominent US women's rights groups on Tuesday backed Democrat Barack Obama for the White House and slammed his Republican rival John McCain for trying to lure women voters by choosing Sarah Palin as a running mate.

"The nation's oldest and largest women's rights organization... the National Organization for Women (NOW), proudly endorses Senator Barack Obama for president of the United States," NOW chief Kim Gandy told a news conference held jointly with other groups claiming to represent millions of women voters." --MisterAlbert (talk) 19:05, 17 September 2008 (UTC)


 * This is simply the wrong article for it. Try 2008 U.S. presidential election, Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2008 or John McCain presidential campaign, 2008. --Evb-wiki (talk) 19:11, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
 * See the other discussion basicly this is inappropriate for this article. Hobartimus (talk) 19:52, 17 September 2008 (UTC)


 * While the original poster's edit may well have been unsourced, I do think that something along these lines is appropriate. Read the section: it consists 100% of who was surprised and/or happy with Palin's selection, it has no mention of any specific group with a negative reaction. One sentence on feminist groups such as NOW would be a welcome balance. Homunq (talk) 20:39, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't get the section title here. Did McCain have their endorsement before he picked Palin? How could he lose it if he didn't? Hobartimus (talk) 20:41, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

"Lost" implies that they once had it, or even a chance of getting it. NOW is never going to endorse any Republican, and everyone knows it, so this is not notable. -- Zsero (talk) 20:41, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, this talk section is mistitled. I still say that the article section lacks balance. Clearly any sentence which mentions NOW should qualify them with "traditionally Democratic" or some such leftist qualifier. Homunq (talk) 20:45, 17 September 2008 (UTC)


 * That's not entirely true. They do occassionally endorse liberal Republicans in congressional races.  Though I think you have to be pro-choice to even be considered, so it is fairly obvious they wouldn't endorse McCain-Palin.  Dragons flight (talk) 20:49, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

In an extended look online, I found no endorsements of a Republican in a contested race. If one exists, so be it. That does not seem to alter the essentially partisan character of NOW. Collect (talk) 21:14, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Never mind conservatives... NOW won't even support individual women who represent flies in their ointment agenda. Ask Linda Tripp about the NOW support she received while she was getting railroaded for exposing the pecadilloes of her boss ten years ago! :) Seriously, one can find countless objective citations that demonstrably prove NOW is on the extreme left. In fact, a nonpartisan organization is, by definition, not supposed to be supporting any candidate or party. Fcreid (talk) 20:46, 17 September 2008 (UTC)


 * It's not a very notable kind of thing. That it was so expected makes it even less relevant.  If a reader comes here wanting to know who Sarah Palin is, the fact that one particular group or another endorses her co-runner's candidacy is not that important - more so to the campaign article where a list of endorsements might make more sense.  Wikidemon (talk) 20:52, 17 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Howsoever, it is clear that Palin's nomination has not been universally acclaimed, as the "reception" section would seem to indicate. At least a sentence, maybe as much as a paragraph, in that section, detailing the objections (lack of experience, maybe also the "gimmick (for women)" issue such as the on-mic Noonan comment) would be appropriate.

A loud "?" to the last unsigned comment. Unless one lives in a fully totalitarian state, one expects some opposition to just about anything. Finding that an extremely partisan organisation is partisan does not sound very notable at all. Collect (talk) 21:05, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

They have a wiki link National Organization for WomenThey are  very pro choice, hence, their not supporting Palin makes perfect  sense. From what I can gather, is McCains pick of Palin caused them to drop their mostly neutral stance and take a position in the campaign.

I found a link discussing Now, the endorsement, and who and what they are. what they from the Washington Post: http://voices.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/09/16/faced_with_palin_womens_groups.html

So according to the ariticle the last presidental endorsement was 24 years ago and that was for Mondale who ran on a ticket to feature a woman as vice president. Their political statement concerning GOP ticket is their opinion that McCain has a track record of voting against issues important to women. Reading the article their concern is  equal pay for equal work. Woman being paid 77 percent of what men are paid.

From what I can gather, is McCains pick of Palin caused them to drop their mostly neutral stance and take a position in the campaign.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/09/16/faced_with_palin_womens_groups.html --207.232.97.13 (talk) 22:59, 17 September 2008 (UTC)fred - Mostly neutral? 24 years? No endorsements? http://www.faqs.org/abstracts/Womens-issues-gender-studies/NOW-conference-declares-emergency-NOW-PAC-urges-votes-for-Kerry-Nov2.html "A decision to prioritize the mobilization of women to vote for Senator John Kerry in the November 2004 elections by NOW at its 2004 National NOW Conference is reported. It is observed that Kerry shows strong support for women's rights through his public statements and voting records over the years." Still haven;t found an endorsement of a Republican yet. Collect (talk) 23:23, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

NOW is definitely Pro Choice and in so  many words are saying to Palin they want government to stay out of a woman's uterus. --207.232.97.13 (talk) 23:44, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Wolf Bounty Correction
I have added a correct cite for the judge's ruling against wolf bounties, and added wording indicating the basis on which the judge ruled. I trust no one will object. Collect (talk) 21:01, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Publication of her signature, is it fair?
Do you think that publicating the signature is legal, fair, and do you have permission from Sarah Palin to do that? If not then you should immediately remove that! I'm just can't imagine this, because the signature is something that can be used to verify lots of things, and this is also regarded as a proof on juries. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.131.246.234 (talk) 23:05, 17 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Since the 1992 elections, there are only 4 major party nominees (VP or otherwise) who did not have signatures listed here:

Joe Lieberman

Bob Dole

Jack Kemp, Jr.

Dan Quayle

In contrast, 11 candidates over 20 opportunities to run in one of these spots do have their signature listed here, including every candidate in the last 3 election cycles.

So yes, it definitely is fair and has a valid place in the article. Duuude007 (talk) 01:00, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Image for Deletion
I am posting this here because the image is tied to the Sarah Palin official merged subarticle: Gravina Island Bridge. Kelly just submitted the for deletion. In Kelly's argument, he claims that this Fair Use copyright confirmed image with the source of http://www.andrewhalcro.com/files/FH000020.jpg has no sort of copyright, and does not' exist at the source. Furthermore, he thinks it would be just as easy to replace this image with "any" image of Palin. That again is a flawed argument, as it assumes that this image was a generic depiction; it was not. It was a specific, exclusive themed event that she put herself in, and is impossible to recreate the image's cited context with an alternate image of her. I ask that anyone who is interested in the role of this image to participate in the, so we can get this picture dilemma resolved once and for all. Thanks. Duuude007 (talk) 01:26, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Ethics advisor
This article currently says:

"Palin's ethics advisor urged her in July to apologize for 'overreaching or perceived overreaching' to get Wooten fired.[1]"

[1]Carlton, Jim. "Ethics Adviser Warned Palin About Trooper Issue", The Wall Street Journal (2008-09-11).

This is problematic and I'd like to remove it. In fact, I did remove it, but was reverted here. The problem is that CNN subsequently reported that this "ethics advisor" was actually an "informal" and "former" advisor who was merely offering Palin "unsolicited" advice.  As such, this only merits mention in the sub-article, if there. I'm sure lots of people give Palin unsolicited advice, but it's not notable enough for a brief summary of this matter, IMHO. Because the person in question turned out to not be "Palin's ethics advisor", I think this material currently in the article is currently false.Ferrylodge (talk) 02:06, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I read the source and you're correct - the sentence gives the wrong impression and doesn't belong here. Kelly  hi! 02:15, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Heres' the pertinent part of the CNN report (emphasis mine): "A former ethics adviser to Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin warned in July that firing her public safety commissioner would become a "grave concern" for her administration….Shea had acted as an informal ethics adviser to Palin, but he told CNN that his advice on the Monegan firing was unsolicited."Ferrylodge (talk) 02:18, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
 * P.S. I've started an article about Walt Monegan.Ferrylodge (talk) 02:20, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I suspect "informal" is the rule for ethics advisors; few politicians would admit to formally employing someone to tell them right from wrong. That said, I'd agree this level of detail is probably most appropriate for the subarticle, not for this parent biography. MastCell Talk 05:36, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Palin's Church
Sarah Palins church is not recognized by the Assembly of God Denomination. her congregation is a end times apocalypse styled church not a pentecostal —Preceding unsigned comment added by Adamkrattkc (talk • contribs) 21:46, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Palin's Assembly of God church is a New Apostolic Reformation, of "Third Wave". This movement is NOT the same as Pentecostalism of the Asssemblies of God —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.62.200.20 (talk) 21:42, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Does this, by any chance, mean that she'll launch nuclear weapons as soon as she gets control of them, in an attempt to bring about the Apocalypse? I am very concerned about this. Kelly  hi! 21:48, 18 September 2008 (UTC)


 * The comments preceeding Kelly's sarcastic response might be more credible if they didn't directly contradict the facts.  GRBerry 21:53, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

ZOMG - TANNING BED!!!11!1!
Politico is reporting that Palin installed a tanning bed in the Governor's Mansion in defiance of the American Cancer Society! This needs to go into the article immediately, preferably in the lead! Palin is pro-cancer!

Seriously, could this election get any more inane and tabloidy? :) Kelly  hi! 01:50, 16 September 2008 (UTC)


 * And if Politico says it, it must be important and true. I had an argument with an IP a couple days ago about how just because Politico says Obama got a discount on home loans 10 years ago, there is no reason to insert it into the "Early life and career" sections. Erik the Red  2 ( AVE · CAESAR ) 01:59, 16 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Excuse me, but Wikipedia is not a chat forum. If this sourced fact was raised in order to consider its inclusion into the article that would be one thing. But apparently, the issue is being raised for the sole purposes of ridicule and sarcasm. It's not really appropriate to bring this kind of stuff up on the talk pages. In fact, the whole section should be removed. Thanks, J Readings (talk) 02:03, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
 * It's just commentary on the sources we have to filter here. Lighten up, Francis. Kelly  hi! 02:08, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Who is Francis? And again, how does it help us to edit an encyclopedia entry? *sigh* J Readings (talk) 02:12, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
 * "Francis" is from this film and is meant in a light-hearted way. Very well, I formally propose that we add the fact that Palin installed a tanning bed in the Governor's Mansion, based on Politico's hard-hitting reporting. :) Kelly  hi! 02:15, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Pvt. Francis "Psycho" Sawyer. That's the character's name apparently, right? I see. J Readings (talk) 02:32, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
 * If you haven't seen the film, I guess you wouldn't understand. But honestly, no offense intended. With respect - Kelly  hi! 02:39, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
 * The press has gone insane on both sides in this election. Since we have to rely on them for sources, it sucks to be us. I wish some of the editors who have successfully kept out garbage on the Obama article would help us out here. Maybe they will trickle over here eventually, but for now the insanity continues. Kelly  hi! 02:07, 16 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi. I'll try to slow the garbage, although it might be challenging. Erik the Red  2 ( AVE · CAESAR ) 02:10, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Awesome, thanks - we need all the good editors we can get here. Kelly  hi! 02:17, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I'll jump in too, though my schedule is tight at the moment. --Clubjuggle T/ C 02:44, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
 * The press is doing OK. They're actually calling out some of the more blatant untruths in campaign ads, which is more than they usually do. What do you expect from them? Everyone wants to know more about Sarah Palin, she has virtually no record on issues of national significance, and the campaign has her avoid unscripted encounters like a vampire avoids holy water. Reportage on tanning beds is the natural, and perhaps intended, result. MastCell Talk 05:42, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Mastcell, there are may other sources that are not frivolous, such as this: - Better focus on these sources... ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:46, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
 * (ec)Yeah, you've got a point there. You can't really blame the campaign for being a little skittish, though, given all the garbage the press threw out there about the family, and some of the frankly vicious stuff in the op-ed columns. I'm happy to see the press getting punished, after being forced to deal with their trashy reporting here at this article. :) If the McCain campaign is smart, they'll just bypass any hostile press and talk directly to the American people. Kelly  hi! 05:50, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
 * (ec) Or this one from The Sydney Morning Herald: ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:51, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for an irrelevant, non-original news source. The article is a rehash of articles and columns from the US, including the NYT story, and editorial columns. It would make a really bad example of a source in WP. Collect (talk) 12:59, 16 September 2008 (UTC)


 * On the contrary, it's a good source because it speaks directly to the issue: summarizing editorial reaction to the ads. The applicable policy states:
 * "Material published by reliable sources can be put together in a way that constitutes original research. Synthesizing material occurs when an editor comes to a conclusion by putting together different sources. If the sources cited do not explicitly reach the same conclusion, or if the sources cited are not directly related to the subject of the article, then the editor is engaged in original research. (from No original research)"
 * If a Wikipedian had produced a meta-analysis of this type, it would arguably violate the policy. It's not original research, however, if the newspaper reviews several sources and synthesizes them to come to a conclusion, and we then quote the newspaper. JamesMLane t c 15:59, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I disagree. By your argument, any news release from a campaign which cites genuine sources then becomes citable in itself. Reductio ad absurdam. In the past such agglomerations of precis from other sources were regarded as less than cites for the original sources. In this case, the SMH iterates material already given in other cites in the article, and then is counted as a new source. It isn't. Collect (talk) 16:18, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
 * An international news source is indeed reliable, in partiular because it does summarize the collective sources on the subject from US news media. Please re-read WP:V. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:24, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
 * The issue is "source." This "source" is being used to reintroduce material already discussed, from sources which have alrready been discussed. It offers, in fact, absolutely nothing new.  Where the actual original source has already been discussed, and the material either allowed in or ruled out by consensus, it is disingenuous to use the back door argument of the source being "international" to get around the discussions already found on this Talk page. Collect (talk) 17:32, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
 * (1) A campaign's release is indeed citeable, whether or not it cites sources, because it's an expression of a notable opinion, and we report facts about opinions, per WP:NPOV. Of course, we don't cite every campaign release; we cite very few, but they're just about all eligible for inclusion if important enough (and if properly attributed).  The newspaper article is obviously more reliable, though.  (2) If a new source is offered, its availability can change a previous consensus.  Some editors who thought that the material had to be excluded under WP:RS might now think it could be presented in accordance with our policies.  (3) In any event, no alleged consensus on Wikipedia is cast in stone.  Individual editors (and hence the community as a whole) are allowed to change their minds even without new evidence.  I don't know if there actually was a consensus before, because I can't claim to have mastered every nook and cranny of this page's voluminous archives.  (As an aside, it would help if anyone claiming a consensus, on this or any other issue, would provide a link.)  Even assuming your assertion to be correct, though, it doesn't end the issue.  Defenders of the status quo need to address the merits of the proposed change. JamesMLane t c 00:08, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
 * In short, as long as proponents keep bringing it up, it is up to those who were here before to keep demurring, otherwise the folks who keep bringing it up, win? If you aver that it is standard and customary practice to have biassed "campaign" material placed in each BLP, I would suggest rather that it is up to you to show that this is the practice, and not have the onus fall on those who believe the status quo was correct. Can anyone show me where it is current practice to include "campaign releases" because they are a "notable opinion"? Thanks! Collect (talk) 22:39, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
 * You might consider reading the link I already provided. Neutral point of view is a "fundamental principle" of this project.  It states, "Assert facts, including facts about opinions—but do not assert the opinions themselves.  ...  When we discuss an opinion, we attribute the opinion to someone and discuss the fact that they have this opinion." (emphasis in original)  Of course, there's generally no reason to make statements of fact, even if accurate, about the opinion of some random blogger, which is why the policy also refers to "prominent adherents" (emphasis in original).  So, let's suppose, hypothetically, that the Obama campaign put out a press release that ssid "Sarah Palin is lying about the Bridge to Nowhere."  Obviously, we could not, on that basis, include in the Wikipedia article the statement "Palin lied about the Bridge to Nowhere."  We could, however, say "The Obama campaign accused Palin of lying about the Bridge to Nowhere" or the like.  That wouldn't violate WP:RS or WP:NPOV.  Usually, however, we'd have no reason to go out of our way to tell the readers that political opponents disagreed with each other, so we seldom quote such criticisms.  (Please note that this entire discussion is a tangent, in response to your reference to a "news release from a campaign".  The Sydney Morning Herald article is not a campaign news release and is on a different footing.) JamesMLane t c 04:12, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Might you give me an actual example, say, in the Obama article where a statement is attributed to the McCain campaign? I trust the SMH precis has been discussed enough, and, at this point, I see no consensus that that specific source ought be included. BTW, I did not initiate the comments about news releases. The subject of news releases was raised on 15 September, a day before I used the term. I trust you will note this fact. Collect (talk) 17:06, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

(outdent)I've quoted for you the relevant provision from a cornerstone policy of Wikipedia. The policy establishes that certain types of material don't violate NPOV. As I've repeatedly said, though, that doesn't mean that all such material must be quoted -- far from it. Whether a specific instantiation of the policy (a factual report about a McCain press release) occurs in a specific article that I scarcely edit (Barack Obama) is information that's not readily available to me and wouldn't prove anything anyway. If your belief is that we should never quote a campaign press release, or that the circumstances under which we do so should be significantly limited, you should propose a policy change at Village pump (policy). As a practical matter, if you first raise the issue at Wikipedia talk:Neutral point of view you might get some help working out proposed new language. JamesMLane t c 00:34, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the omitted admission that your claim about me was false. That is very reassuring. The issue is very clear, BLP sources are held to a higher standard than you seem to believe, as the quoted language from the WP:RS article indicates. I understand that you think, for example, that John McCain, himself, is not a reliable source on John McCain. I know you were far more active in the McCain article, and that controversies existed there. This is political "silly season" and we owe the readers the truth, not spin. The Palin article is far less sanitized than some other articles appear to be, and I would hope that you would assign the same zeal to protecting the NPOV here that others promote in other articles. Thanks! Collect (talk) 12:31, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Redirects, what?
Why is there a link specifically to Palin's Endangered Species policy in her Governorship page under her Political positions on this main page? If we must cross-link, why not to her Governorship page in general? That's kinda confusing to me. Regards. FangedFaerie (talk) 22:34, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Because the animal "rights" activist that Palin pissed off have been on her page since the second day of her nomination and only one admin (so it seems) has had the backbone to challenge them on their extreme POV entries. Example - the use of the word "gunning" rather than the term culling. Theosis4u (talk) 06:24, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Ah, I see. I don't think "culling" is neutral, either, though I do think it reflects the intentions of the parties involved better than "gunning" does. Maybe shooting? I dunno, hard to find a neutral word there. At any rate, I don't think that link belongs there. :/ FangedFaerie (talk) 15:34, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Note, I would add that we should use culling but also use Culling and allow that article to reflect the politics of the word. This way articles can use the word correctly but at the sametime easily inform readers about it's use and politics. Theosis4u (talk) 17:14, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Agreed. FangedFaerie  ( Talk  |  Edits ) 17:50, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I hereby declare my intention to remove the link. I'll wait a day to see if anyone disagrees. Regards. FangedFaerie ( Talk  |  Edits ) 01:44, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Done, and with no controversy! Hurray! :) FangedFaerie  ( Talk  |  Edits ) 21:50, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Bridge to Nowhere - Redux REDUX
A week ago, this section was short and, dare I say, elegant. It said:


 * "Bridge(s) to Nowhere"
 * See also: Gravina Island Bridge and Knik Arm Bridge (Don Young's Way)
 * Two Alaskan bridge construction proposals supported by Palin in her 2006 gubernatorial race have been derided as a symbol of pork barrel spending: a proposed bridge connecting Ketchikan to Gravina Island (population 50) where its airport lies;[91] and a proposed bridge ("Don Young's Way", named after Alaska's Congressman) crossing Knik Arm to provide an alternate route from Anchorage to Wasilla.[92] The nickname "Bridge(s) to Nowhere" has been used for the Gravina Island Bridge alone[93] or, more rarely, both bridges.[94]


 * In 2005, Congress earmarked $442 million to build the two bridges but later reversed itself under strong criticism and gave the transportation money to Alaska with no strings attached.[95] In 2006, Palin ran for governor on a "build-the-bridge" platform,[96] attacking "spinmeisters"[97] for insulting local residents by calling them "nowhere"[96] and urging speed "while our congressional delegation is in a strong position to assist."[98] About two years after the introduction of the bridge proposals, a month after the bridge received sharp criticism from John McCain,[99] and nine months into Palin's term as governor, Palin canceled the Gravina Bridge, blaming Congress for not providing enough funding.[100] Alaska will not return any of the $442 million to the federal government[101] and is spending a portion of the funding, $25 million, on a Gravina Island road to the place where the bridge would have gone, expressly so that none of the money will have to be returned.[96] Palin continues to support funding Don Young's Way, estimated as more than twice as expensive as the Gravina Bridge would have been.[102]


 * In her nomination acceptance speech and on the campaign trail, Palin has often said: "I told the Congress 'thanks, but no thanks,' for that Bridge to Nowhere."[103][104] Although Palin was originally a main proponent of the bridge, McCain-Palin television advertisements claim Palin "stopped the Bridge to Nowhere".[105] These claims have been widely questioned or described as misleading in several newspapers across the political spectrum.[106][107][108][109] Newsweek, commenting on Palin's "astonishing pivot," remarked: "Now she talks as if she always opposed the funding."[110]

Then folks started adding detail after mind-numbing detail about each of the bridges. I usually don't fight additions, though I found them unnecessary. But then I knew what would come next. After these details were added, more important details would be subtracted. The fact that Congress removed the earmark was removed. (Wouldn't that be the most important fact?) There were claims the bridge was proposed to go to the airport. (It wouldn't have. It would have gone to the island on which the airport lies.) Time was added, making sentences longer (two months after she became governor; two years after the bridge proposals...can't our readers count?  Why can't we just give the date if the other things (when she became governor; when the bridges were proposed) are already in the article?)  The detail of how Palin blamed Congress was added. OK, fine. But then a praise by TCS was added--I guess for "balance"--without noting the many critical articles on TCS' website condemning McCain/Palin for purposely misstating the facts on the bridge. Oops. Then lots of stuff on the second bridge was added, often repeating information found earlier in the very same subsection


 * Most importantly, the whole reason why the bridge was important was removed: it's use in the McCain/Palin campaign and the criticism for it.  It is doubtful there would be thousands of articles over the last week on the "Bridge to Nowhere" if it weren't used by McCain and Palin at the Republican National Convention in every campaign stop.  And yet, literally hundreds of thousands of articles according to Google have accused McCain and Palin of "lying" on the issue.  Perhaps no other accusation in the entire McCain campaign has been more contested as a lie -- by newspapers across the political spectrum from far right Wall Street Journal to mainstream to far left Nation--than the bridge to nowhere.  Even Palin herself admitted in the ABC interview with Gibson that she was for the bridge before she was against it, that she kept the earmarked money and that she only wanted to build the bridge if federal taxpayers footed the bill.  And yet, Palin continues to give it as an example of her saying no to federal spending when the truth is Alaska kept the federal spending and didn't even build the bridge.  (One could argue the only thing more fiscally irresponsible than taking federal money to build an extravagant bridge is to take the money and not build the bridge.)

At any rate, my rant is over. I propose going back to the original article, short and sweet, but so as not to delete anything, I simply added back the deleted material. I did not add back any quotations from the many critical press articles, except Newsweek's very brief one which encapsulates all the criticism.

If you like the long, convoluted article, that's your choice. But please do not remove the criticism that is at the heart of why the bridge is so notable: Palin's stating--or misstating--the facts about the bridge on the campaign trail.

(And if someone wants me to revert back to my original consensus version that lasted a good week with very few changes, just let me know, and with enough support, I'll happily do it.)GreekParadise (talk) 05:10, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Last point: perhaps the longer version, if not used here, should be used in the article on the bridge(s).GreekParadise (talk) 05:12, 17 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Yep, be bold and revert to the good version. The current text is much more suitable for the actual bridge article.  Grsz  talk  05:15, 17 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Nonsense. All the stories of the bridge fail to mention that Ketchikan is land lock and can only be reached by air or boat. That the airport is on an island across from the town. That the island provides multiples of sq. miles of development as compared to what is left in Ketchikan. Look for yourself here. Also, Palin has never said she agreed to the "bridge" as is in regards to the projected dollar amount of the project - she agreed to a link. But I suppose all those facts and contexts are worth much to make the topic exciting. And please, show me the law and the process that allows the Governor to "return" the money that Congress (Obama & Biden voted yes on by the way) gave to Alaska that use to be allocated to the "bridge to no-where"? Theosis4u (talk) 06:39, 17 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure what you're going on about Theosis4u. If you think that stuff is important, by all means bring it up.  None of those issues have been discussed much by any of the candidates of late, and as it is now the article does deal more directly with the issue as it's being debated by the candidates and in the popular press.  But that doesn't mean that the other details need not be discussed.  I do think that a balance needs to be struck between the length of material here, but certainly this stuff should be in the sub-article. Aprock (talk) 07:10, 17 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I am bringing them up and have else where. I've lived in Alaska and know many of the cities, towns, villages are only accessible from air or water. Those in the lower 48 don't appreciate this situation and will most likely not even consider this as a possibility. Also the fact that the town is constrained for development (geographically) and could use the island for expansion if a bridge was done only gives support to WHY a bridge would be consider being built. It's much more than a "because the airport was on the island". This inclusion doesn't take away or add to the debate about the cost of the project and if it was corrupt or excessive. I do believe that leaving these two points out though does slant the story to a POV agenda. Theosis4u (talk) 07:32, 17 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Also, this should be included with the above context. Palin didn't support the bridge as an "as-is" blanket statement of approval. She supported a "link" for the residents of the islands. And that she would "evaluate" the details when it was appropriate. Palin said, "The money that’s been appropriated for the project, it should remain available for a link, an access process as we continue to evaluate the scope and just how best to just get this done," from Boston Herald I think that is notable considering the current description and qoutes implies she did, when we know she didn't. Theosis4u (talk) 07:36, 17 September 2008 (UTC)


 * @GreekParadise...Yep...I agree w/Grsz11. Pre-changes, the segment was clear and NPOV. Until election day, there will be attempts to cover them (the bridges) with camoflouge (sp) since they represent many angles to Gov Palins tenure. You have stated somewhere, days and days ago, of your desire to keep this section free of partisanship. Good Luck. --Buster7 (talk) 07:22, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Please don't introduce SPAM into the article someone duplicated a whole subsection two times in the article, once in the campaign section where it belongs and once in the Governorship section, word for word, so check the article carefully before you edit it. The SPAM that appeared two times was the following, (one of those was legitimate)
 * "In her nomination acceptance speech and on the campaign trail, Palin has often said: "I told the Congress 'thanks, but no thanks,' for that Bridge to Nowhere."[103][104] Although Palin was originally a main proponent of the bridge, McCain-Palin television advertisements claim Palin "stopped the Bridge to Nowhere".[105] These claims have been widely questioned or described as misleading in several newspapers across the political spectrum.[106][107][108][109] Newsweek, commenting on Palin's "astonishing pivot," remarked: "Now she talks as if she always opposed the funding."[110]". Hobartimus (talk) 12:34, 17 September 2008 (UTC)


 * OK, I consider that sufficient support for reverting. As for the airport, I'm not saying don't include it.  I think it should be included.  It's a major, if not the major, reason why the bridge was suggested.  I'm only saying that the bridge goes to the island where the airport lies (which is accurate), rather than the bridge goes directly to the airport (which is inaccurate, since it must be reached by an access road). Sometimes, wikipedia has to bow down to the gods of accuracy.  :-) GreekParadise (talk) 12:32, 17 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Hobartimus, that's not spam but the original consensus version of the article. It does raise an interesting question, though, whether it belongs in the bridge section or the campaign section. Probably one should be shortened and refer to the other.GreekParadise (talk) 12:38, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
 * The fact that it appeared two times in the article word for word was SPAM. I have no problem with it appearing 1 time at 1 place. How it was before I removed 1 of them was pure spam, repeating the same thing word for word. One instance is legitimate 2 (copied word for word) is SPAM. Hobartimus (talk) 12:41, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
 * OMG you just introduced SPAM to the article in this edit with the exact same sentences being duplicated in two sections (campaign and governorship), please revert yourself, this clearly damages the article.Hobartimus (talk) 12:45, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

"Palin continues to support funding Don Young's Way, estimated as more than twice as expensive as the Gravina Bridge would have been.[109]" is not supported by reference 109. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122090791901411709.html?mod=loomia&loomia_si=t0:a16:g2:r4:c0.0766691. I suggest the POV statement which is not supported by the cite given ought to be removed forthwith. Collect (talk) 13:26, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
 * The reference [105], not [109], supports the claim. One of the reasons for reverting to the old consensus version was so references would be accurate. And this one is, as you can see.GreekParadise (talk) 14:04, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
 * The revised reference (I cut and pasted the reference which listed source 109) still does not support the claim. In fact it states explicitly "That revised claim would be more persuasive, however, if she had not continued to support Alaska’s other Bridge to Nowhere until as recently as last June." Hence I inserted the actual reference from the cite. Thanks! Collect (talk) 15:17, 17 September 2008 (UTC)


 * The most important fact, the fact that the earmarks were removed, was not omitted, it was corrected. Per the "other" redux conversation in the talk page, I have explained in detail how omitting a brief synopsis of why the earmark was removed strips out perspective, and adds undue weight on congress for the act, when there was more to it than that. If there were anything that needs to be reintegrated back into the article, it would be the Stevens protest of the Coburn amendment, for the 2006 appropriations bill, seeing that this wasnt simply a hovering earmark that they handed off, it was hidden in the annual national budget for transportation and housing. I am confident that his can be done in a brief synopsis manner to bring the subarticle back into NPOV. The version listed in Duuude007 (talk) 13:36, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
 * After you corrected it, D, someone removed it, considering it too long. (Check history.) I'd rather have the short version than no version at all. I've never removed your longer version, but my problem is that once you add it, folks add all kinds of tangential things until other people complain article is unwieldy. For Palin purposes, I think it is only sufficient to say that Congress removed the earmark after criticism. I think throwing in Stevens and the Coburn Amendment confuses more than it elucidates in an article on Palin, although the details absolutely should be in the article on the Gravina bridge. What is the essence of what you want to add?  That the earmark was hidden in the bill?  That could be added in a word or two without going into Stevens and the Coburn Amendment.GreekParadise (talk) 14:11, 17 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, if you remember, the almost immediate followup to the earmark being stripped from the bill was the transparency act written by Coburn and cosponsored by both Obama and McCain. this proves that the earmark was deceitful in passage even to the senate's POV, and they made sure such a thing would never happen again. Flatly blaming congress without at least a little detail pertaining to this veers away from the neutrality that we all love. I am definitely open to suggestions, if you have an idea of how to better summarize it. Duuude007 (talk) 14:22, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
 * D, would this sentence alleviate your concerns?
 * In 2005, Congress passed a $442 million earmark hidden in omnibus legislation to build the two bridges but later reversed itself...
 * My point is, if your concern is about "blaming Congress," I don't mind pointing out that the earmark was hidden in omnibus legislation. Find me a source that says this and I'm all about reincluding it, short and sweet, without details (Coburn Amendment) that cannot be explained adequately in a short amount of space. What do you think?GreekParadise (talk) 17:00, 17 September 2008 (UTC)


 * hmm, even that has something wierd with it. It implies that the bill's sole purpose was the earmark, when it was actually included in a national level trans/housing/urban dev budget for 2006. It wasn't media exposed until the amendment was put forward a month later. Plus the term omnibus is a bit unfriendly to the layman. Duuude007 (talk) 17:43, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't think it implies that the bill's sole purpose was the earmark at all. That's what I meant by "hidden in omnibus legislation." We could wikify "omnibus" in case readers don't know what it means (it's already in wikipedia), but "omnibus" is the most accurate term and is, I think, better that "was a very small part of some very large and complicated legislation".GreekParadise (talk) 17:48, 17 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I suppose. But I consider myself fairly scholarly, and that syntax is pushing my own interpretations. Would "within an omnibus 2006 budget bill" be a more layman's way of describing it, or am I fouling up the context too much in that interpretation? Duuude007 (talk) 19:15, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm OK with the language.GreekParadise (talk) 01:55, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Holy cow, are we back in consensus?! I might have a heard attack Duuude007 (talk) 02:24, 18 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, just to spare your health, I'll come along and disagree. First, to say that the earmark was "hidden" in the bill is unsupported and POV.  Don Young denies that it was hidden: "It was always transparent,” he says.  Second, it's misleading to say that the earmark was in a bill that was passed, because that would strike most readers as meaning "enacted".  I think what happened was that the House and the Senate passed different bills.  Each included the earmark but they differed in other respects, so neither was enacted; both went to a conference committee.  The conference committee reported out a version that didn't include the earmark, and that's what passed.  See this article from CQ Politics.  For this summary, we don't need all that detail, but we shouldn't misleadingly imply that the earmark was enacted, and had the force of law, but was later repealed.  Third, it's not enough to say that Congress stripped the earmark "later".  The single most important fact about the chronology is that Congress stripped the earmark before Palin ever became Governor, so we have to specify that it was stripped in 2005.  I'll make appropriate edits and hope that these changes are uncontroversial. JamesMLane t c 07:01, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm OK with JamesMLane's edits. Hope you are too, D.GreekParadise (talk) 13:22, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I couldn't have said it better myself. Well done. Duuude007 (talk) 13:26, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks but no thanks
There are five references that pertain to debunking Palin's claim "thanks but no thanks," including one offset quotation from Newsweek ("astonishing pivot"). I'm not sure the Newsweek quotation adds much except editorial outrage. The thanks/no thanks is adequately debunked by the prior 4 sources. (Propose: removing Newsweek). Kaisershatner (talk) 13:49, 17 September 2008 (UTC).
 * The references debunking the claim are in footnotes, designed to show widespread disapproval. Orginally they were cited in the main text to show that on the right (WSJ editorial), as well as in more mainstream sources, Palin's claim was debunked. (There are literally hundreds of thousands of mentions in Google attacking her claim as a "lie." The Newsweek quote is short and tries to sum up the prevailing feeling. To take it out would be to say, in effect, there is criticism without saying what the criticism is. The Newsweek quote has been discussed many times.  Check the old archives of this talk page.  It was debated and determined to leave in one quoted criticism while removing the others from the WSJ and NYT, etc.GreekParadise (talk) 14:04, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I think that including a brief quote is reasonable. I don't really like the Newsweek one, becuase as Kaisershatner noted, it basically just expresses disapproval. I prefer a quote from the lead of the Washington Post story: "Critics, the news media and nonpartisan fact checkers have called [Palin's Bridge claim] a fabrication or, at best, a half-truth." This quote underscores the previous sentence, which alludes to the broad and nonpartisan objections to Palin's claim. MastCell Talk 17:35, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I think it does more than express disapproval. It remarks on her including it all the time in the speech as if she had never said otherwise. Originally we had both Wash Post and Newsweek in article (about 10 days ago, you can find it), and I'm OK with putting WashPost back. (Others may complain.) I do think Newsweek and WashPost are saying slightly different things.  WaPo's saying it's false. Newsweek's saying Palin is acting as if she never said otherwise.  Those are different complaints.GreekParadise (talk) 17:52, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

The article has been fudged to state that she "continues" to support the Don Young's bridge, despite the fact that the cite given used the past tense. Using the present tense is not supported by the cite as given. If the person wishes to use the present tense, then another cite would have to be found. Would someone kindly place her support in the past tense as indicated in the actual cite given? I am not a "reverter." Thanks! Collect (talk) 22:01, 17 September 2008 (UTC)


 * The cite does NOT use the past tense. The cite says "So far, Gov. Palin has not “stopped” that second Bridge to Nowhere" That means her support continues.  Please read the source. It's the New York Observer.  Perhaps you're reading something else?01:54, 18 September 2008 (UTC)  GreekParadise (talk) 03:43, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

The source given says "That revised claim would be more persuasive, however, if she had not continued to support Alaska’s other Bridge to Nowhere until as recently as last June." " I consider "if she had not continued" to be an exemplar of the past tense. It does not say "she continues" as some appear to wish it said. And yes -- I quote the New York Observer article. I consider the issue of the tense to be settled.  Her support was until last June by the precise words of the article cited. Collect (talk) 02:37, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
 * With due respect, you're wrong. Perhaps the New York Observer article has some ambiguity, but not this one by the Associated Press and the Anchorage Daily News dated yesterday, September 16. http://community.adn.com/node/131399. I'll add the article to the source list so that no one questions her continued support again.GreekParadise (talk) 03:42, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
 * The cite given used the past tense, as stated. If you add another source, then you should also include the ambiguity in the source as cited. Unless another source is given, the past tense is correct. Moreover the source added contains the apparently erroneous claim that the second bridge goes to Wasilla. There is a possibility that this added source is incorrect in that regard. Would you use it for a claim that the second bridge goes to Wasilla? Collect (talk) 12:20, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

OK, the sources condemning use of Bridge to Nowhere by McCain/Palin in the campaign have been moved from the Bridge to Nowhere section to the campaign section. For the record, I preferred leaving them in the bridge section. As they are now, they are orphaned from context. In other words, the reader, if he/she only reads the campaign section, has no idea if the statements are true or false whereas a reader who has just read the Bridge section would be able to evaluate the comments for himself/herself. I would like to return the comments to the Bridge section but understand my will may not have been the wiki-majority. But given the section was moved, I think it is important to replace it, not with a duplication but with an explanation of the critique and a reference to the section where the material is now included. I have done that.GreekParadise (talk) 05:15, 18 September 2008 (UTC)


 * object This paragraph needs to be cleaned of POV inferences and cleared of it's inaccurate statements. Delete/cleanup the following:
 * "...without mentioning Palin's prior support for the first Bridge to Nowhere,"
 * It's agenda pushing to reference her prior support in regards to the convention speech UNLESS you want to also give the complete details of the situation. Better done on the subarticles.
 * "...her continued support for the second Bridge to Nowhere, "
 * It's agenda pushing to reference her prior support in regards to the convention speech UNLESS you want to also give the complete details of the situation. Better done on the subarticles.
 * "...or the fact that when she said "no thanks" to Congress, Palin determined that Alaska should keep the entire $442 million originally earmarked for both bridges."
 * Weasel wording with "Palin determined". It was Congress that killed the earmark. It was Congress that happen to include addition money [not earmarked to bridges] to Alaska that was of the same figure. This issue goes to the topics of earmarks and Congress, not Palin.
 * "This discrepancy has caused a wide variety of media sources across the political spectrum to claim the McCain/Palin campaign is "lying" or "misleading" on this point.""
 * And they claimed wrongly at the time and have backed off. She did kill it, she has never agreed to the full scope of the project, she agreed to the value of having a "link" if it could be done responsibly, and so forth. She STILL supports the ideas of a "link" at both locations. The issue is if they cost analysis and benefits makes sense.
 * Theosis4u (talk) 05:47, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
 * @ GreekParadise. How about this instead.....
 * "...or the fact that when she said "no thanks" to Congress, Palin acquiesced that Alaska should keep the entire $442 million originally earmarked for both bridges."
 * Also suggested for the second challenge."This discrepancy has caused a wide variety of media sources across the political spectrum to question the McCain/Palin campaign's sincerity on this point.""--Buster7 (talk) 06:05, 18 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Theosis4u, this section is a summary of the widespread criticism of McCain/Palin on this score. We have to give a fair summary; we can't just say "there was criticism".  It's not "agenda pushing" for us to mention the salient facts underlying the criticism.  So, for example, a reasonable summary must include the fact of her original support, but doesn't need to get into the level of detail of "September 2006 speech said this, September 2007 said that".  What we can do, however, is to make it clear that certain facts are being mentioned because they're the ones raised by media critics (not necessarily because they're the ones Wikipedia is presenting as objectively most important).  I'll try a rewording along those lines and hope that the revised perspective satisfies your concerns. JamesMLane t c 07:24, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Theosis, this is a summary of media criticism. The other more specific media criticism on the campaign's use of the bridge was moved to the campaign section (against my wish, but I'm acquiescing :-) ), so this is a summary. Buster, I think that James does a good job here. I'm afraid that "acquiescence" is a POV. She did it. Whether she "acquiesced" in doing it is subjective. I like the second quote better "question sincerity," except that that's not the words the media used. "Misleading" and "lying" are direct quotes, so I prefer James' version. I will, however, make two small corrections to James: remove a non-gramattical "is". And I will change "important facts" to "the following" to lessen POV. (Who are we to say they're "important"?  I think they're important, but that's my POV.)GreekParadise (talk) 13:31, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

After looking at it, I decided "the following" was unnecessary verbiage, and I numbered the objections.GreekParadise (talk) 13:34, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
 * This new version, compared with yesterday's, is substantially worse. The enumerations are superfluous and represent WP:OR unless they are cited, which they were in the prior version.  Kaisershatner (talk) 13:40, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
 * The full section is now at the campaign section, with a link from the bridge section. Campaign events and discussion goes into the Vice Presidential campaign section. Hobartimus (talk) 13:52, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Citations in the enumerations are all based on either the bridge article itself or the information on the bridge that was moved to the campaign article. This was a summary. Can't we just reference the wiki-article? If not, we can put multiple footnotes after each statement.GreekParadise (talk) 15:35, 18 September 2008 (UTC)