Talk:Sarah Palin/Archive 31

Archive 25

←

Archive 29

Archive 30

Archive 31

Archive 32

Archive 33

→

Archive 35

Most Googled Person in history

According to Google Trends Palin has had the highest number of searches for any person in its history (over a one week period). Is this worth mentioning? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.178.93.150 (talk) 09:23, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Is there an article, posting or press release on this? "most google person in history" seems unlikely, but you never know... --Paul (talk) 17:55, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Aside from the lack of link, that "(over a one week period)" isn't just a parenthetical detail but undermines the whole claim that she's the most googled in history. Clearly it would be pretty hard for her to be the most googled because of the short time most people have even been aware of her. Presumably she's far behind Britney Spears and many other people in the total number of searches "in history". —KCinDC (talk) 18:08, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, or paris hilton after her tape dropped... this is totally nonfactual! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.183.190.233 (talk) 18:50, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

discuss here if you insist a June 2008 article is present tense for a position

Someone keeps insisting Palin "continues" to support the Knik bridge even thought the feasibility reports etc. are in. The article cited is from June, when she ordered the study. Later articles still refer to her position as of June. There is no reason to insinst on the present tense when no cite is used to support the present tense in the article. This has, in fact, been rehashed here in the past. If you want to revert it again, then at least post here first. Thanks! Collect (talk) 01:09, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Collect, unless you have evidence that suggests she stopped supporting the bridge at some point after June, then the default is that she continues to support the bridge. That is how it works with all politicians political opinions. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 02:00, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Bobblehead, I agree with your statement of the general principle. We should not, however, give the reader a misleading picture of the chronology. The language with "until" was wrong because it implied that she'd changed her position based on the study, and we have no source for that assertion. On the other hand, we shouldn't say something like the phrasing at the beginning of Collect's comment, because we shouldn't imply that she has expressed support for the bridge after commissioning the study (or after seeing its results) . Your latest version is "As of June 2008, Palin continued to support the Knik Arm Bridge idea but she has ordered a funding and feasibility review." That seems correct to me in terms of the chronology -- no false implications -- but I think "idea" is a little vague and I'll change it to "proposal". JamesMLane t c 07:06, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for noting my osition that an article which is dated in the past, and which states that something was ordered which would affect the "present tense" at the start of the article has been undertaken, should have the initial statement placed in the past tense. My mom taught Latin, and using the correct tense is important. I sought to make the precise correct phrasing, as I understand it to be. Thanks. Collect (talk) 11:10, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Changed "as of" to "in" as "as of" has a specific meaning of "starting at" and "in" is precisely correct. "Until" is still more accurate than "as of" due to the idiomatic meaning. Thanks! Collect (talk) 13:17, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

The AP article cited in the article (http://community.adn.com/node/131399) notes her continued support. It's dated September 16, 2008. GreekParadise (talk) 14:31, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Read the dates in the article before upsetting an agreed-upon compromise. Thank you most kindly. Collect (talk) 15:34, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Collect has reverted the time from September to June on the grounds, as he wrote in the history that "neither cite remotely supports September -- the date was June". Here's what the article, dated September 16, 2008, says (emphasis added by me):

"A $600 million bridge and highway project to link Alaska's largest city to Palin's town of 7,000 residents is moving full speed ahead"

"A Democratic council member in Anchorage will try Tuesday to spike the city's sponsorship of the project, which Palin supports with some reservations."

"Palin still supports the second bridge, officially named Don Young's Way in honor of the congressman"

"She called for a review of the bridge's financing plans and raised concerns about its financial risks for the state. Still, the planning process is marching forward."

"The bridge is popular with property developers - including a group comprised of Young's son-in-law, the former legislative director for indicted Republican Sen. Ted Stevens and three others - who own land across from Anchorage on the inlet's western side."

Collect contends that even though the September article says twice "Palin supports the bridge" and describes the process as "marching forward" "full speed ahead" that actually the article doesn't "remotely" suggest that as of September (two weeks ago), she supports the bridge. I contend that the aricle, which says "Palin supports the bridge" actually means "Palin supports the bridge" and request permission to revert back.GreekParadise (talk) 15:47, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

(On a separate issue, "less frequently" is better than "rarely" for use of both bridges as "bridge to nowhere", because the mention of both bridges has 50,000 hits on Google. While this is less frequent than the 400,000 hits the Gravina Bridge has, I don't know that 50,000 is rare. It is just "less frequent.")GreekParadise (talk) 15:47, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

"Bridges to nowhere" has 233 News mentions today. "Bridge to nowhere" has over ten thousand. I consider a ration of over forty to one to justify "rarely." Your search includes tons of non-news relatred blogs etc. Collect (talk) 15:55, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

The NYT article says she supports, and does it more than once. Now you're trying to censor that... Grsz^X 15:50, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Of the two cites given (currently 101 and 114) NEITHER is reasonably citable as stating a current position. And one of them still claims the purpose of the Knik brdge was to serve Wasilla! Clims by opponents as to one's opinions are not valid -- find any statement by Palin after June that she specifically supports the Knik Arm Bridge as proposed, and then change the tense. Absent that, stick with the agreement reached here. Thanks! Collect (talk) 16:00, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure why I have to find a statement by Palin, three months after her statement in June 2008, to note that she continues to support the bridge when a September article states her continued support twice and shows the process moving forward. Would it be wrong to say Bush supports social security private accounts, even though he hasn't give a speech on it for more than three months? If she didn't support the bridge, would it continue to be moving full speed ahead? If she didn't support the bridge, wouldn't someone issue a correction to a widely reported Associated Press which stated her support twice? If she didn't support the bridge, why would some council member have to move to "spike" the project?

In sum, we can reasonably assume that when a politician says she/he supports something and moves "full speed ahead" with it, that that support continues unless and until that politician says she/he no longer supports it, right?GreekParadise (talk) 16:09, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Precisely and 180 degrees from what is right. Palin asked for a review. That means that she wanted further information. That is what "review" means. Collect (talk) 16:12, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I fully agree that the June review should be in the section and am not seeking to remove it. Maybe I'm missing your point here. We have a verified source, Associate Press, that says she supports it. Do you have some contrary source that says she does not?GreekParadise (talk) 16:18, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Journalists don't always include a verbatim quotation when reporting a politician's position on an issue. If we accept the publication as a reliable source, then that means that we trust the reporter and the publication to be giving us an accurate statement as to a matter of fact. We can report it as a fact unless there's some evidence to create a good-faith doubt on the point. Here, it's not just an AP story, it's an AP story datelined in Anchorage, so the reporter was on the scene; it was published in the Anchorage Daily News [1], the newspaper most likely to have some editor who'd say, "Wait, Palin changed her position on that in a speech last month"; and it was picked up by Fox News [2], which is totally in the tank for the Republican Party and would have had every incentive to ferret out any inaccuracy in this report. Under these circumstances, there's absolutely no basis for dismissing this information just because the reporter didn't choose to include a verbatim quotation. Furthermore, Collect, there is no basis for your insistence on sticking to an alleged prior agreement. When I agreed with using the past tense, I had not read this AP story. It's a reliable source, it says "supports", so our article should say "supports".

After "supports", though, the source says "with some reservations". That qualifier apparently refers to this passage: "She called for a review of the bridge's financing plans and raised concerns about its financial risks for the state." That should be reflected in our article so as not to oversimplify her position. I suggest the following wording:

In June 2008, she ordered a funding and feasibility review concerning the Knik Arm Bridge, because of concerns about its financial impact, but as of September 2008 she continues to support it.

We could just say "with some reservations" but I think the fuller exposition of her view is worth including. JamesMLane t c 17:04, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Collect, the burden of proof is upon you to provide us with reliable sources that says Palin no longer approves of the bridge. Just because she has requested that a review be run on the project does not mean she no longer approves of the project, particularly when the sources that say she is ordering the review also say that she still supports the project. Considering how the bridge is behind schedule, over budget, and the top two people heading the project of resigned, I'd be seriously worried if she hadn't ordered a review of the project. That being said, I approve JamesMLane's wording. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 18:03, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Nope. Unless, of course, you want me to take Dunninger pills, there is no way to say that a claim must be shown to be false. Rather WP requires the positive of a claim to be shown. And the date of the claim was, and remains, June 2008. Thank you most kindly. Collect (talk) 20:06, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Did you not see the September 16, AP article that has "Palin supports $600 million 'other' bridge project" as the summary and "which Palin supports with some reservations" and "Palin still supports the second bridge, officially named Don Young's Way in honor of the congressman." in the body. Hate to break it to you, but unless you have a reliable source, that counters the AP article, sounds like it is a current position to me.. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 20:31, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I also support JamesMLanes' sentence. As he states, the sources are right on the scene and, I'm sure, they are well aware of the National interest the bridge(s) have created. If Gov. Palin had changed her stance, even the slightest, they would be on it like flies on _____!--Buster7 (talk) 22:44, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I will put JamesMLane's sentence in the article with one (hopefully non-controversial) addition, the quote from the article that the project is "moving full speed ahead."GreekParadise (talk) 00:14, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with your repeated denial of an agreed upon version. Your unilateral changes are contrary to all accepted WP practices. You have repeatedly reverted a consensus version to your own version. Your past reversion violations seem to be ignored. Will someone kindly change the wording back to what everyone else accepted as a compromise? Thanks! Collect (talk) 00:18, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Collect, on this segment, I count Bobblehead, JamesMLane, Grsz, Buster7, and GreekParadise (five of us) as in agreement. And you alone -- with no allies -- in disagreement. I realize we shouldn't do wikivoting, but I fervently submit that "support" really does mean "support" and thus far, you have found no sources or allies who believe to the contrary. Right now, you are the only person outside the consensus. But show me a single article from a neutral source saying she has abandoned her support and I promise I will change my mind. Indeed, find me such an article and I will revert it myself.GreekParadise (talk) 00:28, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Oh? James: "we shouldn't imply that she has expressed support for the bridge after commissioning the study (or after seeing its results)" Bobble: "Collect, the burden of proof is upon you to provide us with reliable sources that says Palin no longer approves of the bridge" which is an absurd position. It is the requirement to show something is true that is the burden, not a requirement to prove a negative. GP, your September cite names Democratic opponents as saying she still supports the bridge. I don't care if you have a thousand allies --- saying something that ain't so does not belong in WP. In short -- all you are doing is fomenting still more unproven political claims into a page which I have done my damndest to make NPOV and actually a legitimate article. Care to explain that to the world when you also explain why you stove mightily to have the AIP in the article, strove to claim Palin was a Buchanan supporter, that Palin "flew annually to Washington to get earmrks", that Palin supports secession, that she has extreme religious beliefs and so on ad nauseam? At some point, I trust you have realized all those were wrong to push for. Collect (talk) 00:49, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Collect, your quotation from my comments is disingenuous. I subsequently wrote, "When I agreed with using the past tense, I had not read this AP story." What's proper for the article depends on what the reliable sources say, and if there's new information, or old information that was previously overlooked, that will often affect the article.

Your understanding of "burden of proof" is also incorrect and you are applying it quite selectively. This article recounts many political positions of Sarah Palin, not all of which were reiterated by her yesterday in a speech that was quoted verbatim by a reliable source. That doesn't mean we remove the statements until someone can find such a quotation. If you're going to make such a deal about burden of proof, you should read our Burden of proof article, and in particular this passage:

An "evidentiary burden" or "burden of leading evidence" is an obligation that shifts between parties over the course of the hearing or trial. A party may submit evidence that the court will consider prima facie proof of some state of affairs. This creates an evidentiary burden upon the opposing party to present evidence to refute the presumption.

In this instance, evidence that Palin took a particular position as of June 2008 fulfills the burden of including that position in the article. The burden shifts to anyone who wants to contend that her prior statement is "inoperative" because of a subsequent change of position. Such a change of position is always possible, but we don't assume it. It must be established.

My point about the tense was that we should not falsely imply that she had specifically reaffirmed her position after seeing a particular report. On the state of the evidence I then relied on, it was improper to say "She supports the bridge and continued to do so after receiving a report about financing" but it was proper to say "She has supported the bridge but in June she ordered a study". (I'm paraphrasing for conciseness.) Now, the fairly recent AP story justifies "she supports it" -- unless, of course, you and anyone else who wants to remove it can meet your burden of proof.

Finally, I must say that you seem to have a tendency to discover consensus in favor of your personal position where others do not see such consensus. I respectfully request that you be a bit more cautious in asserting the existence of consensus. You should also bear in mind that, on Wikipedia, no consensus is carved in stone, and the resolution of an issue may change even if at one point there really was consensus. JamesMLane t c 06:15, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Source does not say Democratic opponents say she supports. It says she supports. Collect, please stop saying the source says what it does not. Please give direct quotations from now on, as I have. People won't be fooled. All they have to do is read the source to know if quotations are accurate.GreekParadise (talk) 05:38, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Yankee Division Highway

An "official name" for the Connecticut Turnpike is "Yankee Division Highway." It has the same relevance as insisting on adding "Don Young's Way" to every mention of the Knik bridge. Collect (talk) 15:33, 2 October 2008 (UTC) NY Thruway: "Thomas E. Dewey." Triborough Bridge "Robert F. Kennedy." What would you suppose the average New Yorker would tell you if you asked directions to the "Robert F. Kennedy Bridge"? Finger counts do not apply! Collect (talk) 15:41, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't insist on adding Don Young's Way to every mention of the bridge, but I do insist on at least a single mention. Don Young's Way matters because it is a symbol of pork barrel spending and because Young's family has property interests in the bridge. While we include benefits of both bridges in the article, we also should say why both are considered pork barrel.

I should also note that I had heard of "Don Young's Way" years ago and only recently heard of Knik Arm. While my own experience is certainly no grounds for a wikipedia entry, Google gives "Don Young's Way" about 4,000 hits and "Knik Arm Bridge" about 16,000. For NEWS entries, "Knik Arm Bridge" has 33 cites and "Don Young's Way" has 76 cites, or more than twice as much.

I suspect that's because Don Young's Way is a symbol of the pork barrel spending, and his name on the bridge is one of the things that made the bridge famous. The other roads mentioned by Collect have not been widely criticized as pork barrel, so perhaps that's why we don't know their name, but I do know there are a huge number of roads named for Senator Robert Byrd of West Virginia, even though I have no idea what their "local names" are. And, in fact, the wikipedia entry on Robert Byrd mentions the "Robert C. Byrd Biotechnology Science Center" without mentioning the science center's original or local name at all.GreekParadise (talk) 15:58, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Alas -- phobes tous etc. Bridges generally do not get referred to as their "official name" by anyone who is not into bronze plaques. I can furnish you several HUNDRED more cites that calling it "Don Young's Way" is not typical of anyone other than those involved in politics. As such, it does not belong in a BLP. Unless, of course, her name were Don Young. Is it? Collect (talk) 16:10, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with BLP. It simply explains why a bridge has been considered pork barrel. That's why we included the Gravina population of 50, along with the benefits of that bridge. On each bridge, we should give both pork barrel negatives and development positives.GreekParadise (talk) 16:20, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm from Alaska. I've been hearing about the Knik Arm Bridge all of my life. Never once, until reading these talk pages, have I heard anyone call it Don Young's Way. Anyone who lives here knows that the largest city in Alaska has only two roads leading in and out, and the huge amount of traffic pouring down these freeways everyday on snowy, icy roads is a major source of accidents. Attaching a senator's name to a project for the sole purposes of labling it Pork-Barrel seems a bit one sided. I say use the name that everybody will call it if it ever gets made. Don Young's Way, sounds like it's Don Young's Philosophy or something like that.Zaereth (talk) 16:23, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

The proper discussion of "Don Young's Way" under Don Young is fine. Under Palin, the title should be "Knik Arm" as that is its descriptive name. Personally, I think the Gravina population is "excess trivia" somewhat akin to listing maternal grandmothers. I would not delete it on other than trivia grounds. In the case of using a name which is not one in genuine use ("Dewey Thruway"?), I would regard the local name as attested above by a "local" to be far superior in any article. Good luck on the cabbie taking you to the Robert F. Kennedy Bridge, by the way! Collect (talk) 16:30, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I strongly suspect that in Alaska, where the bridge is known by its location, the bridge is primarily known as "Knik Arm Bridge" while in the Lower 48, where the bridge is primarily known as a symbol of pork barrel spending, the bridge is primarily known as "Don Young's Way." I think we should include both names in the article, and I'm willing to limit "Don Young's Way" to a single mention.GreekParadise (talk) 16:32, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Finally, I think we should look both at full Google and Google News for cites, but in section on the "bridge" v. "bridges", Collect felt that Google News was far more justified than Google proper. Given that Google News mentions "Don Young's Way" more than twice as often as "Knik Arm Bridge", Collect's preference for the News would suggest that Don Young's Way should be the primary title with Knik Arm Bridge secondary. But I'm not arguing for that. I'm merely arguing that Don Young's Way should be mentioned in the article. And by Collect's own criteria -- how well it's known based on Google News -- Don Young's Way is more well known than "Knik Arm Bridge."

So Collect, which Google source do you trust? I say trust both and use both. But I don't think you can't argue to use "news" for one and "general" for the other. Or I could make the exact same arguments in reverse.GreekParadise (talk) 16:32, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I think what we need to ask ourselves is this: If the election were over, would the name Don Young's Way being in this article matter to you? Ten years from now, let's say the bridge gets built, would we still be calling it that, or would we by then change the article to reflect common usage. I think any decision should be made with these thoughts in mind. I would like to hear from some other editors on this matter Zaereth (talk) 16:44, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

GP, you are confusing epithets ("Bridge to nowhere") with the names used by local people with regard to a bridge. I demonstrated that of the two epithets you used with regard to the projects, that "bridges to nowhere" is much more rarely used than "bridge to nowhere." I did not remove the plural, just noted that "less frequently" is used to mean "less, but reasonably often." On the other hand when one usage is only 2% as often, I consider that usage "rare." Note than I did not remove your rare usage. On the other hand, the local usage of DYW is probably well under 2% of the rational usage. Just as your cabbie probably gave you a salute for asking for the "Robert F. Kennedy Bridge"! Collect (talk) 16:50, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

(undent) I'd rather leave "Don Young's Bridge" out of this. That name is much less common for the Knik Arm Bridge, and can be mentioned in the subarticle. I mean, do we also want to mention in this article that Alaska is known as "Seward's Folly" or "Seward's Ice Box" or "Last Frontier" or "Land of the Midnight Sun" or "Icebergia" or "Polaria" or "Walrussia"?

This bridge material is going to be confusing enough already without introducing another synonym. We're already using two names for the Gravina bridge, and we say that the Knik Arm Bridge is rarely known as a bridge to nowhere, so Don Young would be the third name for this bridge, and the fifth bridge name overall in this section. Enough already. Thanks.Ferrylodge (talk) 17:06, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

"CITIZEN"..."Step away from the Bridge!!!"....--Buster7 (talk) 17:20, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

It's precisely because there are multiple terms floating around that we should clarify the situation for the reader. Some readers will come to this article having heard of Don Young's Way as a controversial bridge. If that term is omitted from the article, they'll say, "OK, now I've read about the Gravina Island Bridge and the Knik Arm Bridge, but what's Palin's stance and record on Don Young's Way?" Tossing in one parenthetical reference, and thereafter using only the "Knik Arm" name, is completely appropriate. (In a Yahoo! search for "Don Young's Way" without "Knik", there were 19,600 hits, from the 2005 debate on the bill [3] and from this year [4]. Let's throw a lifeline to the people who read those articles, or who saw the two terms explained somewhere but who aren't so completely immersed in Palin-tology as we sad cases are, and so have forgotten the linkage.)

The analogies don't hold water (or bear traffic). No one will come to this article who's heard of "Seward's Folly" but hasn't heard of "Alaska". As for the bridge here in NYC, the bill to rename it for Robert F. Kennedy was passed less than four months ago [5], and our article on the Triborough Bridge says the Governor didn't even sign the bill until less than two months ago. Furthermore, renaming a bridge for someone who died forty years ago raises different issues from using the name of a living person who's still a powerful legislator. The latter scenario will generate more criticism and is therefore more noteworthy. JamesMLane t c 17:29, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

First, we should use whichever - or however many - names people who read Wikipedia (which means, mostly people who are not from Alaska) will have heard, simply for the sake of clarity (although once given, we do not have to keep repeating every name). Second, if there is any controversy over the name that is related to Palin's political career, we should summarize it, as concisely as possible, while providing all notable views from verifiable sources. This can't be too hard to do. Slrubenstein | Talk 18:13, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

There are 40,000 Google hits for "Bridge" and “Knik Arm." In contrast, there are only 1500 Google hits for "Bridge" and “Don Young’s Way” without “Knik Arm”. That's less than 4% so I don't think we should use the suggested third name for this particular bridge in this article.Ferrylodge (talk) 18:19, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't see the relevance of this ratio. If we were somehow constrained to use only one name, then, yes, we'd look at the ratio and decide to use "Knik Arm". For the current purpose, though, the issue isn't how much more often that name is used. The issue is whether the "Don Young's Way" name is used often enough that a significant number of readers will be familiar with it. What's the problem with inserting one little parenthetical to explain the nomenclature the first time it occurs? I agree with not using both names throughout. JamesMLane t c 18:56, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

"One little parenthetical" is not the issue if you have been following the revision history of this section for the past three weeks. This has been an ongoing issue, with excessive reversions causing editors to be blocked, etc. It is cleaner to simply keep the rare usage of DYW out, than to open the floodgates to the prior arguments. Thanks! Collect (talk) 19:07, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I have no problem with one reference to DYW in parenthesis, except that it seems like extra clutter. I'm sure a reader that comes here looking for DYW but finds the unknown, (to them), KAB will have no problem clicking on the link to find out more about it. It seems to me that we should stick to one common name in this article, and leave alternate names in the main KAB article.Zaereth (talk) 19:25, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

And since the title of that article is Knik Arm Bridge, I especially think that's the name we should use here.Zaereth (talk) 19:33, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Originally the title was "Knik Arm Bridge (Don Young's Way)" and I would support that change back.GreekParadise (talk) 05:11, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. Nothing is ever settled with you, is it GreekParadise? Every dispute must be extended indefinitely, it seems. Previously you said that the present heading is "great" after endless negotiations. Please stop recycling every possible controversy. It's a waste of your energy, and the energy of your fellow editors. Thanks.Ferrylodge (talk) 05:23, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Based on the discussion here, I will add the brief parenthetical reference. I note that "Don Young's Way" is used twice as often as "Knik Arm Bridge" in Google News, which Collect believes, on another point, is more relevant than Google general.GreekParadise (talk) 23:54, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Kindly do not misstate what I said. I did not state that "Google news ... is more relevant than Google general". It makes for ill feelings. The prior choice was between two almost identical epithets primarily of interest only to political junkies -- and I said BOTH epithets would be ok, but that where one was used less than 2% as often as the other, that the usage should be described as "rare" and not just "less frequent." Thus the issues at hand are vastly different. But then again -- feel free to ask a cabbie to drive you to the Robert F. Kennedy Bridge. Collect (talk) 00:06, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

It's 2% on Google News but more than 10% on Google general (50,000+ vs. less than 500,000). I don't think 50,000 mentions is "rare", do you? I would agree with "more rare" if you prefer that term instead of "less frequently." But "rare" is subjective whereas "more rare" is objective. I don't think we can say 50,000 hits is rare. I do think it's unequivocally true that 50,000 is more rare than 500,000 and that 2% is more rare than 100%. Are you OK with changing the subjective "rarely" to the objective "more rarely"?GreekParadise (talk) 00:17, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

In the fervent hope that Collect and I can agree on at least one thing ( :-) ), I've added the word "more" before "rarely" on the two bridges.GreekParadise (talk) 00:23, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

You are pushing AGF. I would like to point out that "Don Young's Way" applies only to the original earmark legislation. I can find no sign that it would be the name for any Knik Arm Bridge in the future. Sorry to burst that bubble! Do "DYW" applies only to the earmark, not to any future bridge! Isn;t that neat? All of a sudden, the name is joyfully irrelevant! BTW, "rarely" is quite objective -- and applies to the choice between two virtually identical epithets at a ratio of fifty to one -- how you can continue to distinguish between commonness of two nearly identical terms and the difference between a local name for a bridge and a name which may never be actually attached to the bridge is amazing! Collect (talk) 00:25, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

The current Google (general) references to "bridge to nowhere"+Alaska and "bridges to nowhere"+Alaska have increased since I last checked. They are 926,000 to 53,000 or about 17 to 1. It is my position that 53,000 references is not "rare". That is subjective. But it clearly is "more rare" than 926,000.GreekParadise (talk) 00:33, 3 October 2008 (UTC)GreekParadise (talk) 00:37, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Please give your source for your claim that Don Young's Way would NOT be the name of the Knik Arm Bridge if it is ever built. This source (http://www.adn.com/news/alaska/ap_alaska/v-printer/story/527524.html) doesn't mention that the DYW name is restricted to the earmark legislation, but it does mention the name Don Young's Way as the "official name" of the proposed bridge.GreekParadise (talk) 00:43, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

From your own cite:

"Anchorage Assembly members Patrick Flynn and Matt Claman, both Democrats, plan to introduce a proposal to kill the bridge on Tuesday. They argue the money would be better used to set up commuter van pools and fix Alaska's existing highways, some of which are so rutted that cars go skidding off the road.

"She clearly hasn't said 'no thanks' to this particular bridge," Claman said. "If money were not an issue and we had no limits, maybe we'd build a bridge. But this is not a pragmatic or efficient way to spend scarce resources."

Thus all you have is what two Democrats have said. Not her words. As for DYW, the ONLY place I have found designating it as the name is in the original federal legislation. Alaska is under zero obligation to ever use that name. Congrats on proving yourself wrong again! Collect (talk) 00:54, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Read my source. It's there with no mention of the original federal legislation.GreekParadise (talk) 05:11, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

"Someone" has gone into the "multiple reversion game" again. The fact is the statement about Palin "continuing" support is from two Democrats, not from Palin. I added that uncontrovertible fact found in the cite given, and had it reverted without any notice or comment. OK -- GP revert a thousand times to play games. You win -- the article is, in my point of view, now trashed by those who play revert wars rather than compromise. Collect (talk) 01:12, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I didn't revert that.GreekParadise (talk) 05:11, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

GreekParadise, do you believe that you have consensus to insert "Don Young's Way" into this article? If not, then why do you insist on doing so?[6] Do you think that you have a right to insert whatever stuff into this article that you want to?Ferrylodge (talk) 03:18, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I believe I have consensus. I realize you and Collect disagree. But JamesMLane and Slrubenstein and even our resident Alaskan Zareth believe a brief mention is appropriate. And you have made no effort to respond to the very powerful arguments of the four of us. Ferrylodge, what's the harm in telling wikipedians -- some of which, like me, heard of Don Young's Way years before we heard about Knik Arm, that it's the same bridge? You can't dispute the truth, or the relevance, or the briefness. And I'm not even sure it hurts Palin, if that's your concern. It's just a fact.GreekParadise (talk) 04:12, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Zaereth also disagrees: "It seems to me that we should stick to one common name in this article, and leave alternate names in the main KAB article." So that's three who disagree with putting it in: Ferrylodge, Collect, and Zaereth. And three agree with putting it in: GreekParadise, JamesMLane, and Slrubenstein. You obviously do not have a consensus to put it in.Ferrylodge (talk) 04:16, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Zaereth said he has no problem with the parenthetical. Please state clearly, Ferrylodge, WHY you would exclude a fact that you agree is true, verified, notable, relevant, and takes up very little space. Don't just tell me you oppose it. Tell me why you oppose it. Why not let wikipedians who know the phrase know it applies to this bridge? I think far more Americans have heard of "Don Young" than "Knik Arm."GreekParadise (talk) 05:11, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Please don't pretend that I've simply opposed without giving any reasons. You know very well that I gave not only reasons but also links. And please stop quoting other editors such as Zaereth out of context. Yes, he said that he has no problem with the parenthetical, with an exception: "I have no problem with one reference to DYW in parenthesis, except that it seems like extra clutter." So he does have a problem with it, and he adds: "It seems to me that we should stick to one common name in this article, and leave alternate names in the main KAB article."

I don't see why I should bother trying to explain myself further. Your position is that you can do whatever you damn well please, regardless of consensus, and I have no taste for endless, futile arguments. Whether your motives are sincere, or whether you are instead motivated by a desire to use an uncommon name of this bridge to insinuate that Palin is supporting a vain and pork-laden project, I do not know. And it is irrelevant, because you do not have consensus to insert this material, which places undue weight on an uncommon name for the bridge, thus making the bridge (and Palin's support for it) appear to be a slimy thing. It may well be a slimy thing, but its official name has very little bearing on its sliminess. I do not think your stated reason is plausible (i.e. inserting the third name --- Don Young's Way --- accommodates the small percentage of people who never heard of the other two names for this bridge), but even if you're sincere using a third name for the bridge is still overkill, it still slimes Palin with the notion that she is merely catering to Don Young's vanity, and it is still not supported by consensus.Ferrylodge (talk) 05:29, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I am persuaded by GreekParadise's arguments. Not to mention his or her commendable patience in putting them forward. Oh darn it (as Mrs. Palin would say), I mentioned it. — Writegeist (talk) 05:48, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

If your goal, Ferrylodge, is to prevent information you consider to be anti-bridge in POV ("slimy" in your words) then I must insist we remove pro-bridge material as well. Why is wrong to include both sides? In this case, no one's arguing that Palin's catering to Young's vanity and certainly not me. But the name is one reason why the bridge was a symbol for pork barrel spending. It is one reason this bridge was called the "bridge to nowhere." You would have us give 100 words supporting this bridge but none to show why it was criticized as pork barrel? Do you agree that outside of Alaska, few have heard of Knik Arm but some have heard of Don Young?GreekParadise (talk) 05:45, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

This article does include information that makes the bridge look bad. The goal here is be as neutral and informative as possible, providing info that may make the bridge look bad, as well as info that may make the bridge look good. The way we do this is by a process called CONSENSUS. Consensus does not mean that Greek Paradise shall be the final arbiter. It means that info comes out of the BLP if there is not consensus to include it. This is the most fundamental principle of Wikipedia, and I hope to live to see the day when you finally recognize, acknowledge and abide by it.Ferrylodge (talk) 05:50, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

In response to my support for "one little parenthetical to explain the nomenclature", Collect argued: "'One little parenthetical' is not the issue if you have been following the revision history of this section for the past three weeks." Well, actually, I wasn't trying to do a thorough historical analysis of the dispute. I was responding to what GreekParadise wrote, at the top of this particular thread, in response to Collect's denunciation of "adding 'Don Young's Way' to every mention" of the bridge. I was agreeing with GreekParadise's call for "at least a single mention".

Assuming solely for the sake of the argument that the phrase "Don Young's Way" was used formally only in connection with the federal earmark, the fact is that many people have heard that term, and sources even into 2008 continue to use it. Therefore, our bridge discussion will be clearer to many readers if there's a parenthetical. Perhaps, instead of "Knik Arm Bridge (Don Young's Way)", the initial reference should be "Knik Arm Bridge (formerly Don Young's Way)" or "Knik Arm Bridge (designated in at least one bill as 'Don Young's Way')" or some such. If Ferrylodge is insistent that any mention of Young must be segregated from Palin, then we would have to get more elaborate: "Knik Arm Bridge. (In at least one federal bill voted on before Palin became governor, this bridge was designated as 'Don Young's Way'.)" I think that's more trouble than it's worth, even if the sources support so narrowly limiting the reference, which I'm not convinced they do.

Ferrylodge gives this interpretation of consensus policy: "It means that info comes out of the BLP if there is not consensus to include it." That's not my understanding. The BLP policy states: "In order to ensure that biographical material of living people is always policy-compliant, written neutrally to a high standard, and based on good quality reliable sources, the burden of proof is on those who wish to retain, restore, or undelete disputed material." In the present case, there's no dispute that the term "Don Young's Way" has indeed been applied to this particular bridge. There's an editorial decision about whether to include it, but the process for making that decision is no different just because this is a BLP. The process is that editors are supposed to try to reach consensus. If we can't do so, I suppose we'll have to go to RfC on the point. The alternative interpretation would mean that anything in this article could be removed by one editor, or by whatever small number of editors is necessary to show the absence of consensus for inclusion, and the removal would be nonnegotiable and unappealable as long as Palin is alive. I don't think that's what BLP means. JamesMLane t c 06:49, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

We're having a discussion about it at the BLP noticeboard.[7].Ferrylodge (talk) 06:57, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up. I have flamed you commented there. JamesMLane t c 09:10, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Good God, is this still going on. To clear things up for those who misrepresent my previous statements, I do believe I said "I have no problem, except... I do not think the name hurts or helps Palin in any way. I simply think its not necessary.Zaereth (talk) 18:33, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Scare quotes

"'Quotation marks' for emphasis of a single word or phrase, or scare quotes, are discouraged."[8] Therefore, I'll remove the scare quotes.Ferrylodge (talk) 03:10, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Ferrylodge...I noticed that you removed the word access along with the quote marks. Was this in error? ty--Buster7 (talk) 04:16, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

If the road is not for accessing the bridge, it doesn't seem like an access road anymore.Ferrylodge (talk) 20:36, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Please correct FALSE last sentence in bridge section. Source 97 says exactly the opposite from what it is claimed to say

As noted above in section entitled "discuss here if you insist a June 2008 article is present tense for a position", the Associated Press and the Anchorage Daily News in this article dated September 16:

http://community.adn.com/node/131399

states TWICE that Palin currently supports the Knik Arm bridge and state TWICE that the bridge is going forward full speed ahead. Here are the quotes

$600 million bridge and highway project to link Alaska's largest city to Palin's town of 7,000 residents is moving full speed ahead"

"A Democratic council member in Anchorage will try Tuesday to spike the city's sponsorship of the project, which Palin supports with some reservations."

"Palin still supports the second bridge, officially named Don Young's Way in honor of the congressman"

"She called for a review of the bridge's financing plans and raised concerns about its financial risks for the state. Still, the planning process is marching forward."

NOWHERE IN THE ARTICLE is there a suggestion that Palin's position is unclear.

Yet a single wikipedia editor, for the third time, has written a FALSE statement and attributed it to this article. This editor wrote "her opinion of the bridge since being nominated as the 2008 Republican vice presidential candidate is unclear.[97] 97 is the very source that says exactly the opposite above!

Bobblehead, JamesMLane, Grsz, Buster7, and I all agree that when the source says Palin supports the bridge, it means Palin supports the bridge. A single editor (Collect) believes that "still supports the bridge" and "supports with some reservations" actually means "her opinion . . . is unclear." Collect believes this so strongly that even though not a single wikipedia editor agrees with him, he has reverted to the false statement three separate times.

I have reverted it back once and would like to stick to 1RR. Could someone else please undo the patently false statement and return it to the version that is based on the source? Collect can't revert it back again, because if he did that would be 4RR.

The last sentence of the bridge section should read as follows:

In June 2008, Palin ordered a funding and feasibility review concerning the Knik Arm Bridge, because of concerns about its financial impact, but as of September 2008 she continues to support the Knik Arm Bridge and the project "is moving full speed ahead." GreekParadise (talk) 04:12, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

While I support this change and salute your continued effort, GP, to maintain a truthful balance regarding the Bridge(s), I cannot bring myself to cross them again. I know they have been your personal focus for a few weeks now. But, I think you would be better served to move on.--Buster7 (talk) 04:27, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I can't move on, Buster. The article they're citing to says TWICE that Palin supports the bridge. The article as edited by Collect, cites to this source and claims it doesn't say "support" when it says so twice. I can't sit back and allow a wikipeida article to cite to a source that clearly says the opposite of what the article claims it says. I won't give up. And I would ask you politely to please revert it back so that the text matches the source. Only one editor believes in actively using a source to say the opposite of what it says, to claim "support" does not mean "support." And I'm confident I can convince even pro-Palin supporters to use the source accurately. I have asked this editor to find a single source that supports the view he expresses in the article. He cannot. And every other editor who has looked at this (so far five) think the source should be quoted accuratedly. If we can't trust a wikipedia article to be backed up by its sources, then there's no point to wikipedia at all.GreekParadise (talk) 05:07, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

What he said. With brass knobs on. — Writegeist (talk) 05:43, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, Ferrylodge, for fixing this.GreekParadise (talk) 06:09, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome.Ferrylodge (talk) 06:10, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks FL, I hope these endless bridge discussions to nowhere will stop. They have become very disruptive. IP75 75.25.28.167 (talk) 06:39, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I wish we could all just agree to leave in BOTH sides of the controversy. Now a single editor has once again for the umpteenth time deleted all explanation of why the bridges were criticized as "to nowhere" while leaving in pro-bridge arguments. Readers will know the bridges were "criticized" but have no idea why, given that all the anti-bridge arguments have once again been removed.GreekParadise (talk) 14:32, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

mistaken party affiliation dates

This is a complaint.

sarah palin has NOT been a republican since 1982. Up until recently (about 2000) she was 'Alaskan Liberation party' or something very similar, a group of Alaskans who wanted to secede the state from the US government. I'll look for some sources to show you, I think it's at least worth checking out. Dave/Sly/Slydawg (talk) 08:48, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Please review the archives of this talk page. The matter has been discussed in some detail. There do not appear to be any reliable sources for this, just someone from the party making that claim plus a few sources reporting that the claim was made. I may be mistaken and I'm just trying to give you a pointer, but I think she never actually registered for the party, just attended a few events.Wikidemon (talk) 08:52, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Palin has been a registered Republican since 1982. Read the entry at factcheck.org: [[9]] IP75 75.25.28.167 (talk) 09:53, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

It will get back in the article for sure. Check the archives, it was removed by an old consensus, and a new consensus will appear. Collect (talk) 12:12, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

reasons for criticism should be included

I hate to add anything to the can of worms that I'm sure this article has been (and kudos to those of you who have dared to write and edit!), but I notice that, while mention is made that Palin's performance in recent interviews has been "widely criticized," there's no explanation of the actual substance of these criticisms.

This strikes me as a highly pertinent and important piece of information, and one that is hardly under debate, since the vast majority of Palin's critics in BOTH parties are citing EXACTLY the same reasons for their dissatisfaction - avoidance of certain questions by subject-changing or retreat into generalities, consistent failure to provide facts or examples, etc.

Without agreeing or disagreeing with those criticisms (i.e., without offering an opinion, since that would be inappropriate here), it should be possible to at least state them clearly, perhaps providing a single example of one of the most criticized responses and/or a link to an official transcript such as the ones at the CBS news website, or a direct quote from a reasonably articulate and respected critic in either party (or, better yet, both).

Good luck, all!

24.62.163.33 (talk) 09:35, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

More "Reception" Interpretation

"Palin debated Vice-Presidential candidate Joe Biden on October 2, 2008. [158] a month before the election on November 4. Her performance was widely deemed to have adhered to general principles, in contrast to Biden's detailed responses. Palin made several points without regard to the questions being asked by the moderator, at one point declaring that she was taking her case "directly to the American people," and thereby seizing an opportunity to state her positions free of the "filter" of news media."

Borderline laughable. I believe the above belongs in the upcoming site: "Wikipundit".. It has no place here, that's for sure. Wikiport (talk) 18:56, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't believe the above should have been added without consensus and certainly not without proper sourcing. It kind of sounds like someone's opinion. That said, I didn't watch the debate, so I don't know whether I agree with this person's opinion. However, as with most opinion, it is subjective and quite likely countered by differing opinion. Suggest we try to avoid expressing our own or other's opinions, particularly as they arrive hot-off-the-press.Fcreid (talk) 14:15, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

theres weasel wording with "widely deemed" ... by who??? she "seized the opportunity" sounds like peacock language. in other words, totally unsourced npov violation... a cnn poll and a cbs poll of uncommitted voters offers a more accurate assessment of the debate... 99.251.171.248 (talk) 16:22, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

As I have already stated, I think this entire section is a POV magnet. It's about the opinion of others. "Opinion" is just another way of saying "Point of View", and since there is no such thing as a wrong opinion, people are free to source whatever opinion matches their own. I say quote everybody who has an opinion on the subject, or none at all. Quote the National Enquirer for all it matters ... it's not like we're looking for facts here. I don't see how this section serves any encyclopedic purpose. Give the people facts, not opinions, and let them decide.Zaereth (talk) 17:00, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the article could be improved by boiling down this entire section to only mentioning that Palin appeared on the national scene out of nowhere and has been the subject of tremendous curiosity (the comment elsewhere on this page of Palin apparently being the most Googled person of all time would be a good reference). Anything going beyond that just gets into dueling political spinning which has no place in a biographical article.--Paul (talk) 17:18, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Agreed.Ferrylodge (talk) 17:22, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I can live with that. But, as long as the title remains "Reception", that still seems imply this is a nesting ground for opinion. (ie: how is she being received by the media).Zaereth (talk) 17:49, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Or we can just handle it in a more encyclopedic manner and remove the reception header and then interleave it into the rest of the VP section. Breaking out her "reception" into a separate section can end up being a POV magnet, but there is quite a bit of good information in the section that should probably be retained in the VP section. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 18:53, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

i agree "reception" is a POV magnet... include one pundit and you have to include them all including the hacks... we should cut the reception down alot... the only reception that matters is reliable polls of actual voters. here's another one. 99.251.171.248 (talk) 18:13, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I removed the reception heading last night because it didn't seem descriptive of the content.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 18:50, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Good edit Cdog. I also agree with the above comments by Bobblehead.

IP75 75.25.28.167 (talk) 19:19, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 20:00, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I like Bobblehead's better. Save the facts, thow the opinions, and the section, out. I wouldn't mind hearing from some others before a hasty decision is made, though. Zaereth (talk) 19:32, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

We should really see a proposed wording here before anyone goes about removing things from the section though. Considering the amount of edit warring that has gone over that section, it'd probably be best to work it out on the discussion page rather than in main space. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 20:14, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

The debate is an important source of information. I think this article has to provide some account of it. Th debate in and of itself is important, and we do not need to get boged down in discussion of its reception. The question is, has a transcript of the debate been made available, or is the whole thing available? We can quote it directly and as long as we make no editorial comments, we would not be violating NOR. I think we should certainly include Palin's declaration that she would not always answer the moderator or Biden's questions. There is no need to comment on it: people who like her will see this as something positive, people who do not like her will see it as negative, people who are undecided can think about it and reach their own conclusions - but it is notable because it is Palin herself expressing her attitude concerning her relationships with the poress, her opponent, and the electorate. other things that might be worthy of quoting are points where both Palin and Biden agreed that they agree with each other, and points where Palin stated explicitly she disagreed with Biden. That would provide our readership with a fair and concise account of hat we all learned about her poltiical position from the debate, straight from the horse's mouth. And like I said, this can be written up with no editorial comment, no analysis or judgement, at all. Just, "During the debate, Palin expressed the following views..." Slrubenstein | Talk 16:36, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

But without fact-checking, simply reporting her views or her statements as factual can itself be NPOV. I think the only useful thing to do is to go to the [post-debate polls http://voices.kansascity.com/node/2299]. Really, this is an election, and the only thing that matters is how the public receives it -- not pundits. And we definitely shouldn't become a vanity page that repeats our favorite quotes with no independent analysis/criticism. 99.251.171.248 (talk) 17:58, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

No, I do not agre with you. To convince me you have to tell me specifically what part of NPOV this would violate, and explain to me how it would violate NPOV. As long as we make it clear that this is what Palin said, these are her views, I do not see how it could possible violate NPOV. This being the article on Palin, one thing it must include are Palin's own views. Also, I thought it would be clear that when I said no editorializing, no analysis, no interpretation, i meant by wikipedia editors - that is why I mentioned our NOR policy. And you are a little mistaken when you write "This is an election, and the only thing that matters is how the public receives it." What is important is the frame of reference. As for the US public, the only thing that really matters is the election and after the election we can add to this article the election results. in the meantime, for the electorate and outside observers to know what Palin's positions are, they need to be able to read about her positions. An article on Sarah Palin should include her positions. The article on Karl Marx describes marx's views. The article on Charles Darwin describes his views. The article on Martin Luther King quotes his speeches. How you can then argue that it would violate some policy for the Palin article to quote her on what she thinks makes no sense at all to me. Slrubenstein | Talk 18:22, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely concur. I didn't watch the debate, and I certainly don't need a pundit or a poll telling me how she did. I'd rather read the boring transcript as it speaks to specific issues and decide myself whether I agree or not. If there are specific points that require more context, e.g. an inexplicable statement, I'm sure I can find outside sources to provide that context. Fcreid (talk) 18:28, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

The dispute here is not about keeping out the debate. It is not about axing the opinions of the subject, as long as her opinions are known, and it is a fact those are her opinions, then they belong in the article, of course. What is in dispute is including everybody else' opinion. No opinion about Palin should be included.Zaereth (talk) 18:54, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Wrong - what you just wrote is a call to violate NPOV. BLP and NPOV are not in conflict. As long as we have a notable view from a reliable source on what she said, NPOV demands that we include it. We can debate over whether viewpoint is notable, and we can argue over whether a source is reliable. But there is no arbument about including public discussion of things she has said -NPOV demands that! Slrubenstein | Talk 19:10, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

As long as it's not an interpretive view. By which I mean things like, "It seems Palin was trying to speak directly to Group XYZ with this statement" or, "If you couple her earlier statement of ABC with this later point on XYZ, you can conclude she supports Alphabet Soup" and the like. Fcreid (talk) 19:17, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Respectfully, I disagree. "Viewpoint", "Opinion", "Point of View" ... These words are all synonymous. Directly interchangable. Since an opinion can not be wrong, how can you say that one source is more reliable than another?Zaereth (talk) 19:18, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry Fcreid, I did not see your statement before hitting send.Zaereth (talk) 19:22, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Right now the article mearly states that the debate occurred. Since there was much apprehension before and relief afterwards, we really do need to 'as Bobblehead suggested, work out an acceptable compromise here. I'll try but don't wait for me if you want to begin, be bold!.....--Buster7 (talk) 19:26, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Fully in agreement with Buster7. I do not have time to sit and work out something myself, but I'd love to see what the many good editors here can work out. (having given his own opinion, Zaereth departs ...)Zaereth (talk) 19:49, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Zaereth writes "Since an opinion can not be wrong, how can you say that one source is more reliable than another?" Zaereth, I do not say that one source is more reliable than another. Wikipedia policy says that one source is more reliable than another. With all due respect, I cannot imagine how you could have even asked this question, unless you are unfamiliar with our policies. I urge you to read WP:NPOV and WP:RS. Some views are more notable than others. Some sources are more reliable than others. Any notable view from a reliable source that is relevant to this topic ("Sarah Palin") has to go into the article in order to comply with our core policies. If this does not make sense to you I simply ask you to read our policies. NPOV is non-negotiable. Slrubenstein | Talk 20:02, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

I see you're point, and respect your concerns. Wikipedia policy on NPOV, as I understood it, says "Assert facts, including facts about opinions - but do not assert opinions themselves." If you look to the previous discussion on this section, you'll note how the sourcing war over which opinion should be included escalated into dowm right name calling contest. In the interest of fairness, my position is to include all opinions, or none at all. If you disagree, I'm fine with that. Let's hear from some other editors on the subject. Buster7 here is trying diligently to come up with a compromiseZaereth (talk) 21:00, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Zaereth, you seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding of what WP:NPOV means. It does not mean No POV, it means Neutral POV, in that all significant points of view can and should be included in the article and that these POV should be included in the article as neutrally as possible. In the case of debates, the important POV is not what the participants said, but rather the reaction to those debates. This means we have to include opinions of some sort, be it the results of polling, or a representative group of pundits. I'm a little less excited about the pundits as they have a propensity to.. shall we say.. Exaggerate a bit.;) --Bobblehead ^(rants) 21:57, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

All right, I conceed. My concerns noted, I shall make no further comment on this section. Zaereth (talk) 22:26, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

A new thread with a work-in-progress para has started below...see VP debate.--Buster7 (talk) 20

51, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

VP debate

Do we want to mention anything she said in the debate? Mention of expanded Vice Presidency, emphasis on "cleaning-up" record?--Loodog (talk) 19:51, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

If it's done with the proper citations and in an NPOV way. •Jim62sch•^dissera! 20:08, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

reporting one pundit would be POV... reporting all pundits would be a mess, and probably irrelevant and inaccurate anyway... picking choice quotes would also violate WP:Undue weight, especially if we reported quotes that might not actually be true. the only summary of the debate that would be appropriate are snap polls of how she performed against biden... theres a bunch out there and i'd trust any number of them... 99.251.171.248 (talk) 18:02, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

First we need to report on what she actually said. If Biden disagreed, it might be worth adding that. If reporters - not "pundits" but actul reporters - investigate anything she says and finds evidence that she was misrepresenting something, then we can add that as long as we have reliable sources and the reporter is notable. Slrubenstein | Talk 18:26, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

well we can't quote the whole debate... so someone has to choose which are the most important quotes... who chooses that? again this is an issue of WP:undue weight. we are better off finding a third party assessment of the debate that both sides can agree is fair or objective, rather than having wikipedians choose their favorite quote to bolster or slander her. i can't think of a more fair assessment than polls of actual voters... 99.251.171.248 (talk) 20:17, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

I am glad you agree with me that we should not quote the whole debate, and that we should not just pick our favorite quotes. I have proposed some criteria for selection. I think they are reasonable but they need not be the only criteria. If you know of any notable polls of a diverse sample of the electorate that actually generated notable quotes that would be fine with me although I have neard of no such polls. Slrubenstein | Talk 20:40, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Folkes...look up....a paragraph has begun...under ---vice presidential debate-----Buster7 (talk) 20:30, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Buster, I just moved that section down here only because the most active threads are usually lower down. Here is the section Buster is refering to (Slrubenstein | Talk 20:44, 4 October 2008 (UTC)):

Testing, Testing, 1,2,3,....

Senator Biden and Gov Palin met at Washington University in St. Louis, Missouri in the only Vice Presidential debate of the 2008 campaign. The commentator, PBS's Gwen Ifill wrote and asked all the questions. Both candidates spoke to many issues, were friendly and cordial to each other, and defended the Presidential candidates of their respected parties....

Just a starting point...feel free to chop away!!!--Buster7 (talk) 20:24, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

First two sentences are fine. Third sentence makes interpretive and evaluative claims that we can include only if they come from reliable sources - we cannot put in our own views, and while I agree this is how most people see it, it would be good (given the history of contention here) to have some sources. As I suggest above, I think there are some lines that we should just quote, directly, including Palin's declaration that she would not answer every question, statements where she and Biden agreed that they are in agreement, and statements where Biden explicitly stated his disagreement ... I am proposing these criteria because I think they indicate statements most salient to the campaign. Another criteria would be to quote directly whatever statements have been repeated or commented upon by notable reliable sources, my logic being that if a few reliable sources find those statements notable, then they are notable enough to quote in this article. Slrubenstein | Talk 20:36, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

While I see your point, Slr, and agree in principle, this para is about as white bread as you can get. If we did put it in (as it is) (which I don't suggest) I don't thnik it would require any sources at all. Of course debaters speak to the prevailing issues...most of the time they are cordial...and they speak well of the guy at the head of the ticket. IMHO, its the very least that can be said without verification! --Buster7 (talk) 21:04, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

I see no reason to include anything more than the first sentence of the proposed paragraph. This is an encyclopedia biography, not a newspaper.--Paul (talk) 21:51, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

i think paul is right... we don't want to get into overcoverage of what happened at the debate and give it WP:undue weight... trying to cover every area of disagreement between her and biden would lead to one huge paragraph or even worse... and i don't think there's any fair or objective way to judge which areas of disagreement between the candidates were more important than others... but saying "they talked about a variety of issues" doesn't tell us anything either... we want to keep it short, neutral, but still offering some fair, reliable, and independent assessment of what happened... i suggest a paragraph like this:

• Senator Biden and Governor Palin met at Washington University in St. Louis, Missouri in the only Vice Presidential debate of the 2008 campaign. Polling from CNN, Fox and CBS found that Palin exceeded many voters expectations, but more voters felt that Biden had won the debate.[10][11][12]

if people want to read about sarah palin's views, it's not like candidate introduce new ideas at debates... they defend what they've already been pushing for... so we're probably covering her views just fine so far... here's another focus group, but i don't know if other people feel they are reliable... 99.251.171.248 (talk) 21:59, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

• The commentator is known for fairness and impartiality.
• Explaining that she, Ifill, composed the questions informs the reader as to the source :of the questions (not the audience, neither campaign, not the media, etc.)
• The last sentence is just a proposed starting point for other editors or newspaper moguls...:>)...--Buster7 (talk) 22:09, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

I like 99's except for "...voters felt that...". Instead---viewers, observers, politicos, surveys, appraisers, critics, evaluators, etc.

i guess if you were talking about a randomly sampled poll... you'd say "subjects"... i think it's fair to show that this is a poll using a sample of likely voters with a margin of error and so on... 99.251.171.248 (talk) 22:25, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

99...its 22:30...lets add para around 24:00...your version unless more ed's come to change it in the meantime..OK? (Otherwise it"s headed for the bottom of the birdcage)--Buster7 (talk) 22:39, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

u can add it, i can't as an anonymous which i prefer to remain... i think it's the kind of thing that is close to the truth and would need only small tweaks not a total trashing... but we'll see... go ahead... and thanks... 99.251.171.248 (talk) 22:47, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

looks good! glad that group of editors were able to tweak it and find a new consensus too... i think this is a pretty fair and independent way to summarize the debate... 99.251.171.248 (talk) 00:46, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Alaska photo

Forgive me for not slogging through 30(!!) pages of archives, but has anyone tried contacting Alaska for permission to use this photo in Wikipedia? I'm sure this has come up, but I gotta make sure, because it would be a great improvement over what we've got. --JaGa^talk 08:12, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I did, but no luck. We'll get a better pic soon, I'm sure. I'll go to Flickr now and see if they've got anything new.Ferrylodge (talk) 08:33, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

I'll see if I can contact someone from the Palin camp from here. (But don't hold your breath.)Zaereth (talk) 18:40, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

"Bible-believer" internal link

Paul, I don't mean to press this issue too much, but I don't see why we shouldn't interpret her words to mean what they appear to mean. The phrase "bible-believing Christian" has a very specific meaning, why should we think she meant anything other than what she said? (And correspondingly link to the appropriate article?) --Quietly (talk) 16:42, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

What do you think they mean? That, for instance, she believes in "young Earth"? And what would be the appropriate article? Fcreid (talk) 17:28, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

No, I had (briefly) linked the words in her quote to the Bible believer article, so it read "Bible-believing Christian". Paul.h reverted the edit, saying "cannot wiki-link inside a direct quote; not at all clear that Palin's def and Wikipedia's def would be the same". Now I am wondering what other people think as well. I think making any claims about her actual beliefs regarding anything like creationism or young earth views would be completely inappropriate, but I don't think it is inappropriate to link her words to a matching article. --Quietly (talk) 17:57, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Manual of Style cautions against wiki-linking inside of direct quotations as follows: "Unless there is a good reason to do so, Wikipedia avoids linking from within quotes, which may clutter the quotation, violate the principle of leaving quotations unchanged, and mislead or confuse the reader."--Paul (talk) 18:46, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

I actually do see Paul's point. To wiki-link her quote to a specific WP article that describes a series of beliefs in much greater detail than what she's actually provided in the quote is probably inaccurate. Fcreid (talk) 18:03, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree, Since her Religion of choice is still not clear, to send the reader off to another page is a bit of a wild goose chase.--Buster7 (talk) 18:09, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

The WP article doesn't specify a whole lot though, and the whole point is that this is as close as she has gotten to "her Religion of choice". It's not like the bible-believer article says much with certainty. And if she had used a word like fundamentalist would it be inappropriate to link? Linking the word Christian in her quote wouldn't be considered inaccurate would it? --Quietly (talk) 18:26, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

We shouldn't interpret her words for the simple reason that this violates WP:NOR. period. We can quote her words. And if there are notable views from reliable sources that interpret her words, we need to (for NPOV) include them. But we never put in our own interpretations. I do not see the need for linking, if we link her own words that is an interpretive act, and it is a fact that we cannot claim for sure that what she means by a word is what our linked articles describes. And really, be serious: you don't think if a reader wants to learn more about Christianity they can't just type it into the search box? Slrubenstein | Talk 18:31, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Slrubenstein, I am disagreeing with the idea that this is an interpretation of her words, and I apologize if I do not seem serious, I do not intend to be halfhearted. If she had used more common terminology, we would link it. For instance, if someone talks about a scientific theory by name, you would not object to linking to the article about that scientific theory, even within a direct quote. Nor would most people object to linking well established religious terminology. If she had mentioned by name an obscure religious sect, we would link to that as well. As for linking it to educate people about Christianity that isn't my intent, it is to clarify her beliefs as far as is allowable. What I don't understand is why it is okay to interpret her words as meaning anything other than what is established among Christians. --Quietly (talk) 18:44, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

That's the problem. I really don't know, and apparently no one else here does either. Maybe someone can snag a copy of her biography that's floating around to see if she's mentioned specific beliefs, but I gotta lay out my concern in advance... which is hard to do without offending anyone, but here goes. In the past month, every attempt to add "insight" into her specific religious beliefs has been a transparent attempt to elicit that "squirmy" feeling one gets right before getting proselytized after an unexpected knock on the front door. Now, one of the things we do know is that Palin "does not wear her religion on her sleeve", and that's reliably sourced from myriad people, including her arch-rival in Wasilla, Stein, and others who simply dislike her. So, I'm not so convinced that we need to itemize which specific elements of the Bible she takes literally on faith or those she simply integrates into her life figuratively. If she doesn't feel compelled to impress those beliefs upon others, I don't know why we should be doing so here. Fcreid (talk) 18:40, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

I guess I can agree that if she seems so reluctant to clarify, we can omit it as well, so I will drop it. Thank you for your clarification Fcreid. --Quietly (talk) 18:44, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

My pleasure, and I appreciate your sincere participation in this. Fcreid (talk) 18:51, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

(ec)Quietly, I knoiw this is now a moot point and I appreciate the quick way you and Fcreid reached an agreement. Just to clarify my own statement, I want to add that I appreciate your comment and I know you are being serious. When it comes to "Christianity" all I can say is this: when I talk to evolutionary scientists, they all agree on all the major elements of evolutionary theory and the facts of evolution. When I talk to a lawyer, they all agree about the basic job description of a lawyer. But when i have talked to Christians, I have learned that many of them disagree, widely about what Christianity is, and even on who is a real Christian. This is why if you wanted to link the word "Alaska" in anything she said to the Alaska article, I would have no problem with it, but I think that linking it to the article on "Christianity" raises big issues about whether the linked article really is what she is talking about. And I have to admit, I just do not think it is necessary. I've read lots of articles with quotations and usually it is the words we editors write that are in blue and not words in the quotes. Quotes are bits of "primary sources" and I think we should write around them, but otherwise leave them alone. Slrubenstein | Talk 18:54, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

(unindent)...Another example of what we, as editors need to stay away from, happened just prior to the debate. Gov Palin was shown with her eyes closed and her hands folded in front of her. Granted, the appearance was of someone in prayer, and the commentator said as much. But just as possible was her calming her self with deep breaths and affirmations having nothing to do with religion or God. We need verifiable facts, not what our eyes tell us, so to speak. If anything, I would suggest we choose whatever religious designation the article had on, lets say, January 08.--Buster7 (talk) 19:02, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Archiving

Does anyone know if a bot is automatically archiving, or if we have to do it? This page is getting unmanagably long and something needs to be archived. Slrubenstein | Talk 20:59, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, MiszaBot is configured to auto-archive. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:17, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Miszabot is currently archiving any discussion that hasn't had a comment in 48 hours. Last night/this morning it archived about 150k of discussions. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 22:00, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Grammatical Error in Sarah Palin article

I pretty new to Wikipedia. I'm studying changes in the article about Sarah Palin for a class and I read a sentence that didn't make sense:

"The Knik Arm Bridge, is a $600 million project to open up development and provide an alternate link from Anchorage to Wasilla;[102] the bridge is being evaluated by officials as a possible threat to nearby beluga whales. [102]

This is in the "Bridge to Nowhere" and Knik Arm Bridge section. It looks like when "officially named 'Don Young's Way' after Alaska Congressman Don Young in the original legislation" was taken out of the sentence the comma before it was not. I know this is minor but...

Amandatrpt (talk) 00:40, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Fixed. LonelyMarble (talk) 02:56, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Rape Kit Controversy? Take 2

Mary Pemberton of the Associated Press reports in a story headlined "Palin's town billed rape victims to get evidence"[13]

(cut-and-paste of article redacted)

According to Alaska officials, Palin did not inherit the policy and the previous police chief allocated funds for rape kits in his budget.

Her new chief, Charley Fannon reduced and then eliminated the fund in 1999, putting the burden on the victims. It was this action that inspired the state legislature to step in and require municipalities to pay for the kits. The fund reduction, reflecting the change in policy, is detailed in the 1999 budget which was signed by Palon.

So, yes, it was her policy, implemented by her staff in 1999 with her knowledge. The documents are available on line from the wasilla mayors office.

Okay. What do you want us to do about it? Include it? This was talked about before here, here, and here. Overall people seemed to think it was adequately covered in another article and was not significant/relevant enough about her to be worth describing here.Wikidemon (talk) 08:41, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Some people thought that. Some people thought the opposite. Some people thought that more information would probably emerge that would make the dispute easier to resolve. My personal opinion is that the information now available merits inclusion, notably because Palin's spokesperson expressly declined to answer some key questions from USA Today. The suppression of this information is another instance of pro-Palin bias, but I'm willing to wait a bit longer and see if the MSM do some actual digging and come up with answers to the questions that editors raised in the talk-page threads you cite. JamesMLane t c 09:47, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

According to Alaska officials, Palin did not inherit the policy and the previous police chief allocated funds for rape kits in his budget.

Waitagoddamminnit. Where are you getting this from? It's not in the article that you linked as a reference. I call shenanigans. -- Zsero (talk) 12:53, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

And I assume good faith.--Buster7 (talk) 09:41, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

The rape kit controversy should be included in the article. It is significant enough that it is the subject of an article in the NY Times today - [14] - --Zeamays (talk) 20:18, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

No, that's not an article. It's an opinion piece.Ferrylodge (talk) 20:21, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Ferrylodge, I agree: The NY Times article is an opinion piece, but I didn't propose the article as a reference, rather to show that the issue is significant enough to be discussed in such a prominent forum. Therefore, your point is irrelevant. --Zeamays (talk) 03:05, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

The NYT parroting the latest desperate Democratic talking points doesn't make them significant. -- Zsero (talk) 00:39, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh, but it does. Coverage in the major media is part of what goes into making a subject important. Or is it your view that a subject is important only if it comports with the personal political opinions of Wikipedia editors? We have a whole article about the lies that were told about John Kerry's military service. Those lies were mere Republican talking points but they got enough coverage to make them important. JamesMLane t c 22:27, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

What would make it significant would be if there was move evidence that she knew it was happening. If there is, I haven't seen it. Regards, Ben Aveling 12:18, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

If, as mayor of a town of 7000, Palin did not know what her staff was up to, that is arguably more disturbing than if she was just trying to save some money in an insensitive way.--agr (talk)

The coverage I listened to said the Chief of Police was her appointee, and mocked the idea that he would take such a controversial stand without telling his mentor. Geo Swan (talk) 10:59, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

• Slate debunks this smear, and Palin herself specifically denies it in an interview with her home town newspaper. It also turns out that Wasilla and its police chief were never mentioned in the state testimony about the bill outlawing the practice; it was passed because of hospitals that were employing the practice.--Paul (talk) 04:27, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Personal life section addition

Should we add that Palin doesn't know what an achilles heel is? Grsz^X 16:36, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I couldn't care less if she is not as well versed in mythology as I am. But, I guess that's my Sigurd's Shoulder.Zaereth (talk) 17:21, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure she knows what an Achilles heel is. That she (and, to some extent, Biden) evaded the question doesn't necessarily mean that she misunderstood it. MastCell ^Talk 17:23, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure why moderators of these debates always have a "mea culpa" question, e.g. "tell me something bad about yourself." No one should be surprised when the debate participants sidestep such questions.--Paul (talk) 17:38, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

In job interviews it's standard to ask questions like, "what is your weakest area?" Debates between political candidates are a form of job interview, so it seems like a reasonable question. And, like in job interviews, it often gets a predictable answer, like "I'm too devoted to my job" or "I care too much." ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:58, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Ah, assumptions that she knows what an Achilles' heel is and that her evasion doesn't indicate ignorance. Occam's razor? — Writegeist (talk) 17:57, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

No, seriously. It never crossed my mind that she was misanswering the question out of ignorance. She'd been similarly avoiding direct answers all night. "Name something you'll have to cut back because of the economy." for example. "Name a position you've changed on." or "Name a Supreme Court decision you disagree with." Even if she didn't, it's absurdly easy to figure it out from context, "Palin, it's been said your Achilles' Heel is your lack of experience and Biden, yours is lack of discipline."--Loodog (talk) 19:47, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Times Online says "the Alaskan governor appeared to have no clue as to the meaning of 'Achilles' heel'."[15]. Guardian.co.uk [16] says she either didn't understand the question or chose to ignore it. National Post, Canada said [17] "Is it possible her real Achilles heel is her ability to process and respond to questions?" Atlantic Online [18] said she ignored or misheard the question. Edison (talk) 23:25, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

In the previous statement I see "appeared to", "either,or", and "possible". Does anyone have a statement of fact?Zaereth (talk) 00:13, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

See WP:V. The statement is verified, and from reliable sources. End of debate. •Jim62sch•^dissera! 20:28, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

The possibility she did not know the meaning of "achilles' heel" is discussed in reliable sources, but it certainly is not verified. Edison (talk) 04:02, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

AP article on her personal life

This article is a solid piece on her personal life. It'd be a good additional reference for some material already included and has some details that actually belong in a *Personal life* section, for a change. --Evb-wiki (talk) 14:37, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Eh, that's okay. I think the following are better sources: Sarah Palin and outsider who charms (NYT), Why John McCain's beauty queen running mate has a grizzly bear on her office wall (Daily Mail), Palin's strengths rooted in Alaska (Washington Post) and Sarah Baracuda tidbits (Anchorage Daily News). The problem is that whenever actual facts about her personal life are added to this article they are reverted (incorrectly in my opinion) as being 'non-notable'--Paul (talk) 15:22, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

We do have to be careful about BLP. BUT unless someone can provide a solid case for how an addition violates a specific provision of our BLP policy, anything that comes from a reliable source seems fair. Couldn't we agree on a standard that if a fact appears in two reliable sources it should go in? even if one source got it from the other, it means that the second source made an editorial judgement that the fact is notable. I think if it is notable enough to be in two reliable sources (and does not clearly violate our BLP policy) it should go in. Anyone who keeps removing it without demonstrating that it violates policy should be warned for disruptive behavior. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:27, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Thus my confusion on what I referred to as the "Marathon Yardstick" several days ago. In 2005, Palin ran a marathon in under four hours. That is a significant accomplishment at any age and, no doubt, required extensive training, conditioning and dedicated focus. It is a well-documented event, yet every time it was added into her personal section, someone quickly came along and removed it (claiming it to be superfluous, inappropriate or just "puffy"). Some events speak volumes on the character of an individual, and that would be among them in my book. Fcreid (talk) 17:19, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Put it back in and insist that before anyone remove it they quote the policy that it violates. Slrubenstein | Talk 18:24, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks and concur. I think Paul was the one who most recently entered it (and had it removed). Paul? Fcreid (talk) 18:27, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

@ FcReid and SIr...Reports that I have read say that the Marathon that Gov Palin ran was ALL downhill, which would explain her above average time. The race began in Alaska but finished in Canada. Were it not for that she would have broken the state record for "Hockey Moms over 40"....:>)...--Buster7 (talk) 18:36, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Okay, this is helpful. here is what I think. (1) "notability" should not just be a subjective judgement on our part. If this story was reported in her home town paper, I would not consider it notable. If it was reported widely, especially if it was reported in any national news media, I would consider it notable enough to conclude regardless of the specifics. This is the first issue. (2) I think Buster7 is concerned people may misinterpret what the story means. So my suggestion is that if it is notable enough to have been widely reported, we also report other details that were widely reported that provide some context. If the same articles also report what the fastest time on thismarathon was, or the average time, or how this marathon differed from other marathon's, as long as this contextual information is in a reliable source, I think it should be included. That's what I think, "for the record." Now, a personal note: I am just speculating, but I would think that the "story" here is not how fit she is for a 40 year old woman (I am pretty sure I would lose any marathon even if it just involved jumping of a 23 mile high tower), the story could be about the Alaskan governor trying to set an example about the importance of physical fitness. My point is that we don't know what her running the marathon "means" until we read realiable sources and see how it was reported. Slrubenstein | Talk 18:45, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

I think Buster was yanking our chains, SLR.  :) Fcreid (talk) 18:53, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Yank,,,yank,,,it's Saturday...the bosses are away!QQQQQQ

DOH! Slrubenstein | Talk 19:13, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Binocular vision disorder

sourceless speculation
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Much has been made of her "Tina Fey glasses." But is there any MSM coverage of the reason why she wears highly-specialized corrective lenses? — Esotropic Flautist (talk) 19:32, 3 October 2008 (UTC) What makes you think they're highly specialized? If you're asking about something you've seen or heard somewhere, why not say where? Otherwise it looks like you're just spreading a rumor. —KCinDC (talk) 19:49, 3 October 2008 (UTC) No rumor, it's quite apparent her glasses correct a binocular vision disorder. I'm asking if the media has covered it. — Esotropic Flautist (talk) 19:54, 3 October 2008 (UTC) It's a real condition called accommodative esotropia, and lots of kids struggle with this and have learning difficulties as a result. How early on was this addressed? Was it a factor in Palin's education, or in her on-again, off-again college career? I'm curious how it has impacted her life. — Esotropic Flautist (talk) 20:12, 3 October 2008 (UTC) What the !@#$% is your source for all this? -- Zsero (talk) 20:54, 3 October 2008 (UTC) Sara Palin's glasses: USA Today: Palin has created quite a stir ... with her designer glasses "Palin is nearsighted and has slight astigmatism, Leedham says. She does not wear bifocal lenses." Whew. I'm glad we've got that straight.--Paul (talk) 21:03, 3 October 2008 (UTC) See this 1984 video of Sarah Palin playing the flute without corrective lenses and judge for yourself. I'm not saying she isn't also nearsighted and astigmatic. — Esotropic Flautist (talk) 21:14, 3 October 2008 (UTC) So you created a Wikipedia account for the single purpose of spreading your medical diagnosis based on a blurry YouTube video, and people are supposed to take that seriously? —KCinDC (talk) 21:23, 3 October 2008 (UTC) Unfortunately that is original research and is not something that we can include in the article. Unless you can find a reliable source that says she is wearing the glasses for a reason other than the one Paul provided above, we can't include her having binocular vision in the article. --Bobblehead (rants) 21:19, 3 October 2008 (UTC) She has stated that as Vice President she will be an advocate for special needs children. She herself has a vision problem which probably manifest at an early age and which can easily affect learning processes and cognitive development (particularly when it is not adequately addressed). Does Sarah Palin consider vision difficulties like hers a "special need"? How would an American child with Sarah Palin's condition fare under a McCain-Palin administration? The question is worth asking. — Esotropic Flautist (talk) 21:07, 3 October 2008 (UTC) The roadblock goes up at...probably. You can ask the question but the answer has no relavance until verified.--Buster7 (talk) 21:29, 3 October 2008 (UTC) If this can be sourced, it's nearly trivia. If anywhere, it belongs under Public image and reception of Sarah Palin along with her accent.--Loodog (talk) 21:30, 3 October 2008 (UTC) Esotropic Flautist writes "the question is worth asking." Only if you are a doctor or a reporter. Wikipedia is neither a medical journal nor a newspaper. If you want to be a reporter, go to journalism school, get a job for a newspaper, and when your article is published there maybe we will use it. She also writes "judge for yourself." I guess she hasn't read our WP:V policy. Only notable views from reliable sources go into articles. EF, you are not notable (no editor is) nor is your judgment a reliable source (neither is mine or any other editor's). Unless there is a reliable source - from a mainstream news outlet, or a peer-reviewed journal article, or a book published by a reputable house, this is a pointless discussion and should just be dropped. Slrubenstein | Talk 22:22, 3 October 2008 (UTC) My question was, in fact, whether this issue had been raised by the media. By posting a comment on the Talk page, I figured I would get feedback. Go back and read the thread, will you? Interesting that the people defending Palin are so vehement they can't even acknowledge the obvious symptoms. Millions of people have noticed she has some kind of eye problem. — Esotropic Flautist (talk) 16:27, 5 October 2008 (UTC) Darn it! Some Philistine dismissed my post on this subject—which as I think we're all agreed is hugely important to SP's BLP—as "nonsense", and deleted it. That's just so wrong on so many levels. (No wonder the Palin article is, as Dave Collect so rightly says, the laughing-stock of WP.) I cited an unimpeachable source for the first but erroneous part about playing the flute cross-eyed; the info in the second (and accurate) part is from a friend of a friend who knows someone whose sister was married to a cousin of the Wasilla taxidermist who stuffs the moose heads for display on the walls of the Palin children's bedrooms. I hereby reinstate it: Not MSM, but what calls itself "the most prestigious law school admissions discussion board in the world" carries a cryptic claim that SP is a "cross-eyed retard who can play flute while walking"[19] -- a scurrilous suggestion which, more likely by accident than design, is also an oxymoron. The fact is Mrs. P has a serious winking disorder that's only partially corrected by the spectacles. — Writegeist (talk) 20:04, 3 October 2008 (UTC) The video of her playing the flute proves zero about her vision. No flautist would need glasses to play a memorized piece, since it is not necessary to look at the instrument while playing it. There is no basis at this point for any mention of the supposed esotropia based on a blurry video. If her wearing of Tina Fey glasses [20] brings people flocking to eyewear stores to copy it, like some people started wearing Goldwater glasses in 1964 [21], that would certainly be worth mentioning in the article. Edison (talk) 23:08, 3 October 2008 (UTC) I mention the "Tina Fey glasses" only because a lot has been made of them without any mention of why Palin needs them. It's clear from the video — and from many other clips online — that her glasses correct for a binocular vision disorder, which is apparent both today and in video taken fourteen years ago. My question was whether the media had delved into the diagnosis or asked the question of the campaign. Apparently not. — Esotropic Flautist (talk) 23:23, 3 October 2008 (UTC) Clear to whom? To me, they look like a fairly typical glasses with a mild correction, i.e. not “Coke bottle” lenses. I don’t know what point you are trying to make with this claim, but if you brought your axe, we are fresh out of grindstones. —Travistalk 01:14, 4 October 2008 (UTC) FWIW, you don't need "Coke bottle" lenses to correct for her particular eye-alignment problem. —Esotropic Flautist (talk) 03:53, 5 October 2008 (UTC) Is this common in flautists? Fcreid (talk) 23:50, 3 October 2008 (UTC) Need we include every bit of trivia, no matter how mundane? So she wears glasses. Lots of people wear glasses. I think seeing them on her face is enough to let us know her vision probably, (oops, there's that word again), isn't 100%. I seriously doubt many people care what the exact medical condition is.Zaereth (talk) 00:05, 4 October 2008 (UTC) ←Uh, folks: "A serious winking disorder"? "The Wasilla taxidermist who stuffs the moose heads for display on the walls of the Palin children's bedrooms"? Stephen Colbert, anyone? Tvoz/talk 00:18, 4 October 2008 (UTC) I think everyone understands that Writegeist was joking. What Esotropic Flautist is up to is less clear, but since there's been no hint of a reliable source or notability in this whole mass of text I think it's best to drop this discussion as unproductive. —KCinDC (talk) 00:27, 4 October 2008 (UTC) I was joking too, but I didn't want to give it away with a sardonic emoticon. I was curious where Esotropic Flautist was going with it. Thought maybe it was one of those "silent" problems no one talks about. Fcreid (talk) 17:31, 4 October 2008 (UTC) One hopes. Tvoz/talk 00:34, 4 October 2008 (UTC) No joke, people familiar with her condition are wondering if her winking might have been involuntary. The question was asked here. — Esotropic Flautist (talk) 03:53, 5 October 2008 (UTC) She should throw away the glasses and let her eyes cross. It's so sexy. (La Streisand being the exception that proves the rule.) As for the serious winking disorder, that was a major WP scoop! Let's each send that Wasilla moose-stuffer a dollar. Keep him sweet for future nuggets. He might be the guy to corroborate the rumor that her head has been all tall and pointy (i.e. the hairdo isn't really a beehive) ever since she was abducted by aliens in 1997. - Writegeist (talk) 08:20, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

References

Resolved

 – The references were longer than a third of the page, which is generally considered excessive. Ottre 17:08, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

This is the first article I've seen where the references are longer than the article itself. I don't know about anyone else, but to me, that's an issue. Too many references, not enough comments to keep up. Colonel Marksman (talk) 09:45, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not paper. The average Wikipedia article already has far more citations and references than almost any other encyclopedia's article ... this is indeed one of Wikipedia's strength (it makes the research transparent, and provides a useful resource for other researchers). On top of this I think BLP means we need to be very careful about sources especially for current events. So i just do not see this as a problem. If it does not violate a policy - if it does no harm - why not? I think complex and contentious issues often call for bibliographies that are longer than the article itself. I think there is only one question your comment usefully raises: is there any important content NOT currently in the article? If you are proposing to add content to the article, especially if you feel the sources we cite provide important content that is not actually in the article, well, great! Start proposing specific content to add. If it comes from a source already in the references, we know there is no RS issue, so the only issues are NPOV and WEIGHT. If you propose ading content that complies with NPOV and WEIGHT I am all for it! Slrubenstein | Talk 13:34, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Road and Young

The section on the bridges keeps getting huge. See WP:Undue weight. Some people seem to be under the misimpression that they have a right to insert any factual material about the bridges that they like, regardless of consensus. Not so. One editor could insert a million factually accurate words about the bridges into that section, but not without a consensus to do so.

I've removed the info about the road. When the section was shorter, I tolerated the material about the road. But now the section has become huge. The $25 million road is trivial compared to the billion dollar bridges. Leave the road for the sub-article.

Likewise, I've removed "Don Young's Way" again. We don't need three names here for one bridge ("Knik Arm", "Bridge to Nowhere" and "Don Young's Bridge"). Leave Young for the sub-article.Ferrylodge (talk) 20:36, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, UNDUE weight abuses should be cut down and aggressively. Policies must be respected at some point. Hobartimus (talk) 20:38, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

I see subjectivity at play in the invocation of WP:Undue weight: Why does it violate WP:Undue weight? Could it have been fixed rather than being removed? •Jim62sch•^dissera! 20:42, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Did you read WP:Undue weight? Your "fixing" comment sounds a bit as if you were unfamiliar. What would this "fixing" that you mention possibly look like? Hobartimus (talk) 20:46, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

I restored it. It is not trivial. Fixing means --"write it so it's shorter". This is not hard to comprehend. •Jim62sch•^dissera! 20:51, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

It violates undue weight because a $25 million dollar road is much less notable than a billion dollar proposal for bridges. The latter are also getting massively more news media attention than the road. Likewise, the "Knik Arm Bridge" is known much more commonly by that name, and also much more commonly by the "Bridge to Nowhere" moniker, than the name "Don Young's Way". I was willing to leave the road and Young in the article, except that the section keeps getting bigger and bigger, so something should come out, and these are the most trivial things that I see.Ferrylodge (talk) 20:52, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

"write it so it's shorter" sounds very well and easy to comprehedn but unfortunately that's not what you really tried to do, as it finally turned out "fixing" had the real meaning of "reverting without discussion". Please don't do that. Hobartimus (talk) 21:01, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

No, when it comes to current events weight is a reflection of how much discussion there is in national news media. I agree with Jim62sch, who i am pretty sure from other experiences is quite familiar with undue weight principles. But I am betting he is also quite familiar with another longstanding principle at Wikipedia which is not to delete content that is compliant with our core policies (NPOV, V, and NOR) and accurate. There are a couple of ways to deal with the undue weight issue besides deletion. The most common way is to add more content bearing on weightier points of view. In this particular case I propose another quite common solution: create a spin-off article on the bridge, with as much NPOV, V, RS and NOR content as people care to add. Then we put a link to that article in this article, and have a section that summarizes what is in the linked article (if the linked article is relatively unstable, we just need to check it once or twice a week to see if the summary in this article needs to be updated). I bet we can reach an agreement as to what would be a reasonable length for the summary in this article (two or three paragraphs? Or just one? either way, let's discuss it.) Slrubenstein | Talk 20:56, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

In addition to WP:Undue weight, this material is part of a summary section. The main article is Governorship of Sarah Palin. Please see WP:Summary style. No one is suggesting eliminating material from Wikipedia, but rather using a summary procedure that will keep this section from overwhelming the article.Ferrylodge (talk) 21:00, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I misunderstood you - I though by "removed" you meant "deleted." If you moved it to the main article, no one should object to what you did. Slrubenstein | Talk 21:02, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

He did mean deleted. My guess is that FL is not familiar with the federal contract process: any contract can be cancelled without cause at a very minimal cost. Given that I've done this as a COTR, I think I know that of which I write. •Jim62sch•^dissera! 21:07, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

No, Jim. I have no objection to the material I removed existing in the sub-article.Ferrylodge (talk) 21:09, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Then why did you not move it into a sub-article? I repeat what I wrote before: we should not delete any content that conforms with our core policies of NPOV, V, and NOR. Add to it, or move it, but do not delete it. Your deleting it just creates an antagonistic anti-consensus-building environment, and this puzzles me as it semms like this is unnecessary, given that you just said you wouldn't object to it being in the other article. if you really believe that, deleting it seems like a provocation! Slrubenstein | Talk 00:40, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

A summary should be a good summary, highlighting the main points and controversies if any. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:19, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

That's right, it should Jossi. We agree 100% on that.Ferrylodge (talk) 21:22, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Exactly my point re fixing it rather than removing it. FL, the main point is the not the dosh amount, but the decision not to void a contract for a minimal cost. This is not difficult to understand as such decisions indicate the type of president she would be should anything happen to the president. That not a POV statement, just solid PoliSci. •Jim62sch•^dissera! 21:26, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

What is your proposal that represents the "fixing" that would shorten the section that it could possibly come close to satisfying WP:UNDUE. Hobartimus (talk) 21:34, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Is there an UNDUE issue in that section? I do not see evidence of that. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:35, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

This section I think was opened partly on the ever increasing nature of the material. It had about 5 times the material than the pipeline which costs tens of billions, or the VP debate that was watched by 70 million people just on the networks or could compare it with the whole personal life section etc. The "bridge" was ultimately a plan in the past that was abandoned, there is no actual bridge to show for the huge section. Hobartimus (talk) 21:43, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't either, Jossi, but this is as much excision as I can see making it still be comprehensible.

Palin spent $25 million in federal funds on a Gravina Island road to where the bridge would have gone, as the $25 million would have had to be returned to the Federal government. A McCain-Palin spokesperson said that "because the contract for the road was already signed before she got into office, the governor was left no viable alternative." The Alaska Department of Transportation and the Federal Highway Administration dispute this assessment, saying the contract could have been cancelled at minimal cost and that the federal money could have been returned to Congress for other uses. •Jim62sch•^dissera! 21:38, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

(undent) There are two guidelines at issue here: WP:Undue weight and WP:Summary style. The stuff about the road should come out according to either one of those guidelines.

As mentioned, it's a $25 million dollar project in the context of a billion dollar bridge proposal. There's been much much less media coverage about the road, and the road is covered adequately in the sub-article. It's a detail.

Jim thinks it's very significant because it shows Palin doesn't understand how to void a contract, which she could have voided the day she took office. However, the only cited source making this argument is "Propublica" which is not a neutral organization.[22] Additionally, this obscure accusation from this obscure organization overlooks a few things. First, Palin did not cancel the Gravina Bridge itself until well into her term, so it doesn't really make much sense that she should have cancelled the road on the first day; Palin didn't officially cancel the bridge itself until September 2007, several months after construction had started on the road. Second, Palin had reason to proceed with the road even if the bridge was cancelled; her spokesperson said that the island road would open territory for development even without the bridge.[23]

I still think that including the road in this main article is a detail that ought to be covered in the sub-article and not here. Ferrylodge (talk) 21:52, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

FL, I've voided contracts: it's not hard. •Jim62sch•^dissera! 22:01, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Jim, that's fascinating the way you've now made the material much more concise.[24] You've accomplished that by removing every single fact that would support Palin's side of it. Well done! Now the article does not mention that she wanted to open areas for development. And you still use Propublica as a RS when it is not, including their absurd argument that disregards that she did not cancel the Gravina Bridge until well into her term after road construction had already begun. Very impressive. Good chutzpa.

This whole issue is relatively non-notable, and should come out of the article. If it stays in the article, it ought to be converted from anti-Palin propaganda into something resembling neutrality.Ferrylodge (talk) 22:05, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

This is not like taking a $500 penalty for canceling a bathroom upgrade, Joe. There were undoubtedly huge liabilities that, without knowing the exact terms of proposal and bidding process, could actually have cost as much as or even more(!) than the original amount. Do you know if it was fixed-cost? Whether government buyer was responsible for all pre-purchased materials, or worse that material were government-furnished? While it seems easy to conjecture, there is just no way anyone could determine the scope of liability without a significant legal review. And this is Alaska! When I left Adak (in the Aleutians) they were still paving an access road to military facilities that had already been vacation a year earlier. Does government contracting need to be fixed? Probably so, but not in a way that would leave private industry "holding the bag" for poor government planning. And this will be the last I speak of bridges and roads! :) Fcreid (talk) 23:33, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Wanna bet?--Buster7 (talk) 23:44, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

I'd made a solemn oath to myself! :) Fcreid (talk) 23:54, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Ferrylodge, I do not understand your reaction to jim's version. There is one statement of fact, then a statement from the McCain/Palin point of view, then a statement from the opposite point of view. Isn't this how NPOV should work? Look, there is only one way that we will make progress on this article: if we stop making assumptions or inferences about one another's motives, and also stop caring about whether the finished product makes us happy or angry - given the stakes of the election, one might predict that ANY sentence or passage will make at least half of everyone unhappy - and instead just ask: which sentence gives undue weight to a non-notable view, or is from an unreliable source, and should be removed, and what notable view from a reliable source needs to be added. Let's focus on our policies. Instead of criticizing one another we should just be saying: I do/do not think this view is notable because ... And, I do/do not think this source is notable because ... If we all worked this way, we could work together regardless of our emotions. Slrubenstein | Talk 00:37, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

"...caring about whether the finished product makes us happy or angry'...reminds me of a question posed to Mrs. Eisenhower, "But why don't you just become a Democrat and enjoy politics?"\\:>)--Buster7 (talk) 01:20, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Slrubenstein. The last paragraph has three sentences: description of issue, Palin view, opposite view. Seems both concise and neutral to me. How would you change it Ferrylodge to make it "more neutral" without deleting it?GreekParadise (talk) 17:54, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

I've already said what I think: we're using biased sources, omitting balancing information, and not adhering to WP:Summary style. This section is way too big, and it got that way become some editors have refused to acknowledge that the burden is on them to establish that information is appropriate for inclusion, rather than the burden being on those wishing to leave the information in the sub-article. The best way to cut this section down to a reasonable size would be to get rid of the info about the $25 million dollar road. It is small potatoes compared to the billion dollar bridges. Leave it for the sub-article.

But if you're going to insist on jamming the road into this main article, then please stop relying on biased sources (Propublica), please stop omitting balancing information (e.g. that Palin stated a goal of the road is not merely to keep the money from the feds but is also to open territory for development), and please stop arguing that Palin could have cancelled the road immediately on taking office (when in fact she had no reason to cancel the road until the bridge was cancelled in Septemebr 2007 after road construction was well under way).Ferrylodge (talk) 00:31, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Overwhelming infobox

The current infobox is too packed with information about positions help by Palin. Shouldn't this kind of information be put at the bottom along with the Political Office template? Eklipse (talk) 15:41, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

The AGC chaiperson section, could be removed. GoodDay (talk) 17:25, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

I moved it to the bottom, but I won't remove it from the infobox; the refs don't seem to work. Eklipse (talk) 18:31, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't see a problem with the infobox listing her major positions. And the AGC chairperson was certainly a major statewide position that required appointment by the Governor, just like a judgeship or the like.Ferrylodge (talk) 01:03, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Pic Overload

Is there a reason why there are so many pics? One should suffice. •Jim62sch•^dissera! 21:07, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, IMO two of them actually significantly add to the article: the infobox one and the Nowhere t-shirt one. However, we currently have one per section, which is image-rich but within boundries, and so long as none of them are of Tina Fey or a pig I'm not going to object. KillerChihuahua^?!? 22:06, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

If we're going to reduce the photo overload, I suggest starting with one of the three from her single foreign trip to visit the Alaska National Guard. People have been complaining about the overrepresentation of military- and foreign-travel-oriented photos since McCain chose her. —KCinDC (talk) 23:44, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

What could be removed is a picture provided by the Democratic mayor of Ketchikan a political opponent, who "hates her" and who tried to use wide distribution of the picture to hurt Palin's image. Remember that old picture of Obama that was released allegedly by the Hillary campaign about Obama in muslim clothing on an African trip? That was distributed to hurt the public perception of the attacked in a very similar way. Hobartimus (talk) 00:04, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I think that the problem of out-of-country pics was addressed by tweaking the captions. Only one of the present captions mentions that she's in another country. I agree with KC (!) that the current amount of pics is within boundaries.Ferrylodge (talk) 00:07, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Way too many, IMO. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:01, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I like the pictures and don't think it's too many.GreekParadise (talk) 01:37, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

[outdent] I find the amount of picture to be acceptable. 2¢ --Evb-wiki (talk) 01:41, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Amount of pics is fine. 4¢ -----Buster7 (talk) 02:25, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Picture

What's with the main picture? It was fine, this one is fuzzy.

This has been addressed in lengthy discussions and consensus was reached. Please see archives. Thanks, IP75 75.25.28.167 (talk) 20:27, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

It is kinda fuzzy, but I'm more so questioning why her current picture has been photoshopped. For example, in Palin's current picture her eyes and skin have been brightened, lips reddened, and eye lashes thickened. Is there not a more accurate picture of her available? I'm not saying put a bad picture of her up, just one that's not touched up. Original Photoshopped J.H (talk) 02:23, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Could Palin have canceled the Road to Nowhere?

The current article quotes a McCain-Palin spokesman via CNN saying "because the contract for the road was already signed before she got into office, the governor was left no viable alternative." However, the assertion that she had no viable alternative was subsequently contradicted by a spokesman for the Alaska Department of Transportation, via ProPublica:

But the governor did have a viable alternative. Gov. Frank Murkowski (R) signed the contract for the road on Dec. 1, 2006, three days before he left office. Palin could have cancelled that contract upon taking office, according to Alaska Department of Transportation spokesman Roger Wetherell. In such cases, contractors are reimbursed for any expenses incurred in association with the project.

So if she had cancelled it (as she did a road in Juneau) the federal government would have saved almost all the money (though it wouldn't have saved Alaska anything). Crust (talk) 20:32, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Have you studied Contract Law? 20:48, 3 October 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Collect (talk • contribs)

Additionally, Palin didn't officially cancel the bridge itself until September 2007, several months after construction had started on the road. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 20:56, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I think it's a good point, Crust, and I will add a shortened version of it to the article.GreekParadise (talk) 16:51, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

..."HEY YOU KIDS!!!!! Get off that Bridge...someones gonna fall n' git hurt, darn it":>)--Buster7 (talk) 18:21, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Mom, they're playing on the bridge down below again! :) Fcreid (talk) 22:18, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

"say it ain't so, Joe...Gosh o' golly!...Iffin I had my way I'd blast dem dern bridges ta Kingdom Come. Dat 'uud be da end a dat!"--Buster7 (talk) 22:31, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Reinstating section from archive: 'Political positions' section - request comments

• The first paragraph of the section has been expanded and now reads like a campaign commercial that is comprised of her quotes from the Time magazine interview. I feel the paragraph needs to be edited to reflect the style of rest of the section/article.

• The sentence on Iraq has been removed from the section. It used to say something like: Palin generally supports the Bush Administration’s policies on the war in Iraq. The Political positions of Sarah Palin article contains the following sentence: “Palin supports the Bush Administration's policies in Iraq, but is concerned that "dependence on foreign energy" may be obstructing efforts to "have an exit plan in place".

• Two of Palin’s positions that were discussed during the Gibson interview are not mentioned in the section. Her opposition to a ban on semi-automatic assault weapons and her opposition to embryonic stem cell research. These can be included with a brief addition to the existing text.

IP75 75.25.28.167 (talk) 21:20, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

←I'm reinstating this section for comments- I missed it the first time as this page moves so quickly. I agree with IP75 that this summary section should include her political positions on Iraq, semi-automatic assault weapons and embryonic stem cell research. These are important issues, and her positions should be included. As for the first paragraph of the section - I generally agree with IP that it could be reworded in a more balanced manner, but at the moment I feel stronger about the content issues. Tvoz/talk 20:54, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

No issue with the first two items. I haven't seen the specific transcripts referenced in the third, but I would be reluctant to conclude and advertise a specific political position from a TV interview. Seems like we could source something like those a bit better. Fcreid (talk) 22:20, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

The Los Angeles Times published an article [[25]] with interview excerpts of Palin's position on assault weapons. If you search Google News using 'Palin' and 'stem cell' there are other sources in addition to the Gibson interview transcript. Here is one from the Washington Post: [[26]] IP75 75.25.28.167 (talk) 01:44, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

If you think it's sourced sufficiently to reflect her genuine position on those issues, go ahead and snag what's already there and weave those points into a proposed modification. I doubt it would be contentious, as both seems to be natural inferences of her gun control and pro-life platforms. Fcreid (talk) 02:39, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

In principle, this is the one section that I think needs the most work. Does anyone have access to press releases from her campaign office? Has she issued position papers? Transcripts of press conferences she gave as governor? We need to be careful to use reliable sources here - I think if we are claiming something is her political position, it needs to come from a source in which she is actually saying something to the effect of "this is my political position." I have two responses to the concern about sounding like a campaign commercial. First, this will sound less like a campaign commercial as it gets more specific. Second, once it has specifics, we can then reasonably and for NPOV reasons quote her opponents and critics who have challenged her stated position. But before we do the second, we need to do the first. Slrubenstein | Talk 13:38, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

I will post a proposed draft soon. IP75 75.25.28.167 (talk) 21:34, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Tina Fey

Shouldn't mention be made of their resemblance, considering that Palin herself has remarked on it, as have many others? (there's also the almost word for word copy of part of the Couric interview on SNL last week - analyzed by the likes of MSNBC and CNN... ) 70.51.8.75 (talk) 13:02, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

I am not so sure. You all know I feel strongly that part of this article has to be devoted to current events. And the Tina Fey parody was certainly big news last week. But I wonder - it is possible that in the aftermath of the debate, people will stop talking about the Fey parody. So I advise that we wait and see. If the Couric interview/Fey parody continues to haunt Palin, if critics of Palin keep referring to it in the coming weeks, then it is clearly notable enough to belong in this article. But if the chatter dies down I don't think it is worth it. Slrubenstein | Talk 13:28, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

What about the physical resemblance? Palin herself has noted it. 70.51.8.75 (talk) 13:59, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

A good place to start is the SNL article and the Tina Fey article. here, not. Hobartimus (talk) 14:08, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Every major politician has been parodied, some more effectively than others. We don't mention every single impression on the politicians' articles. The attention SNL and Tina Fey have gotten for the quality of this impression have been mentioned in great detail on their pages.--Loodog (talk) 16:42, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

I tend to agree. To this article, its trivia at best. But definitely noteworthy in the Fey article.Zaereth (talk) 18:26, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Irrelevant to mention Tina Fey's SNL parody?

I don't know if it's already been brought up but if it has, please forgive me for not combing through the pile of archives to figure that out. But since Tina Fey's impersonation of Palin has caught national attention and even caused a considerable amount of controversy, would it go against the rules to include such a fact in the article? --Crackthewhip775 (talk) 20:32, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry about that, it's hard to keep track of the comments when the page is so long in spite of it being constantly archived. --Crackthewhip775 (talk) 20:47, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

As someone who has been trying to protect Palin from misguided editors over the past few days, I see absolutely no problem with including such a reference in the appropriate section, so long as the description of it remains neutral. -- Drlight11 (talk) 01:23, 7 October 2008 (UTC)\

Of course it is irrelevant. A five minute sketch about you is not an important part of her life, which is what an encyclopedia biography like this one is about. Erik the Red 2 ~~~~ 01:30, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Unless it later proves to lose her the election I don't think it's noteworthy anymore than SNL's Clinton or Bush sketches (they aren't mentioned on their respected profiles either). J.H (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 02:28, 7 October 2008 (UTC).

Westbrook Pegler

In her acceptance speech, Palin's line about small towns - "We grow good people in our small towns, with honesty and sincerity and dignity." - was a quote from fascist writer Westbrook Pegler, who in his columns called for bigotry against blacks and Jews and the assassination of RFK. see http://blogs.tnr.com/tnr/blogs/the_spine/archive/2008/09/13/palin-and-pegler.aspx

The association between Palin and Pegler should be mentioned in the section on the 2008 vice-presidential campaign after the paragraph on the "bridge to nowhere."--DarthTaper (talk) 20:03, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

This has already been discussed at length here. Consensus was to not include.--Paul (talk) 20:12, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Discussion should be reopened - information about the origin of her quote is not an ad hominem attack on Palin or Pegler, and the information's relevance does not depend on the meaning of the "small town values" rhetoric. The Pegler association is informative because it tells us about the pedigree of her views and those of her handlers. It is not an ad hominem attack because it is a value-neutral fact about her intellectual pedigree.--DarthTaper (talk) 20:40, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, right. Fcreid (talk) 23:17, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

I suggest that DarthTaper look up the meaning of "ad hominem", if s/he can't see how this is almost a textbook example of one. In any case, none of her views, or those of her handlers, come from Pegler; a bon mot in a speech, given without attribution, says absolutely nothing about her views or her "intellectual pedigree", no matter who originally wrote it. -- Zsero (talk) 03:38, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

No one is attacking any claim or argument here, so nothing is "ad hominem." I care not at all whether small towns breed honest people, for example. Palin's bromides warrant no response, fallacious or otherwise. But it speaks volumes that she would quote Pegler in a major speech. Your influences are an important part of who you are. Just look at the Wikipedia information boxes for philosophers, for example Kant. Who he influenced and who he was influenced by are as basic as his dates of birth and death.--DarthTaper (talk) 04:29, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't speak even a very thin octavo volume, with wide margins and large print and lots of white space. It says nothing at all. The line is what it is, regardless of who wrote it; to pretend that it's not a good line because of who wrote it is the very definition of ad hominem. And there is no basis whatsoever for speculation that Palin has been influenced in any way by Pegler, or even that she'd ever heard of him before this latest smear attempt began. -- Zsero (talk) 04:53, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

You're right that the line is what it is regardless of who wrote it, but as I said above my argument for inclusion has nothing to do with the line itself. And yes, Palin may never have heard of Pegler, but the fact that his line was in her speech speaks to the milieu from whence she comes.--DarthTaper (talk) 16:29, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

If she, or Obama, had quoted (plagiarised?) Marx, would you still say the same thing? In fairness, she probably didn't write that bit of her speech. Regards, Ben Aveling 07:22, 5 October 2008 (UTC) was not plagiarism - although the author wasn't named, the words were clearly flagged as a quote. Ben Aveling 22:27, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

I see no reason to include such an unnecessary line. If an editor feels the line does not "tie" Palin to Pegler, then it is irrelevant, and does not belong here. If the editor DOES feel that way, then to say so constitutes OR, and does not belong here. If someone includes the point, then cites an newspaper editor who made it in an article as a source, then it is not verifiable (since a few individuals operating without some analog of review are hardly a reliable source) and does not belong here. I realize that the last part in particular is up for debate, but that's the gist of the explanation why this comment would be unnecessary. -- Drlight11 (talk) 01:31, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

←Yes, Ben - I agree with that and made that point here a few days ago too. I think this should be discussed some more here. I think a short reference to Pegler is in orde. rSome places it's been raised: Washington Monthly, Martin Peretz in The New Republic, Frank Rich in The New York Times, Thomas Frank in The Wall Street Journal, Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. in Huffington Post. Tvoz/talk 08:03, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm in two minds about this. Is this guilt by association, or is this dog whistling? Given the liklihood that whoever wrote that line knew the author's politics, I'm leaning towards that later. And that makes it includable for me. One split the difference option would be to put it in Public reaction to Sarah Palin. So we talk about, not here, but as part of out discussion of the public discussion of her. Are any of her other quotes from the same guy, or similarly minded people? Regards, Ben Aveling 10:00, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

It can't even be guilt by association as there is no association here. We have the Obama-Ayers controversy a fully notable standalone article tested at Afd for full notability and it's still not mentioned in the Obama biography. I don't see how would this not even a blip in comparsion- could survive the test for inclusion in any article of Wikipedia nevermind high profile BLPs. Hobartimus (talk) 11:05, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

The association between Palin and Pegler is more profound in terms of the apparent influence on her views than anything between Obama and Ayers. Obama and Ayers were two Chicagoans who happened to cross paths as they worked on education issues. Palin, whose views we know little about, quoted Pegler without attribution, showing that this is someone whom she or her handlers read. I'd say that this is more analogous to the Obama-Jeremiah Wright controversy, in which there was reasonable suspicion that Wright influenced Obama. That controversy, which Obama specifically addressed, made it into his article. A short reference to the Palin-Pegler connection is warranted.--DarthTaper (talk) 15:31, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

The only problem with this argument is that there is no "association between Palin and Pegler." And given that, "apparent influence on her views" and "showing that this is someone whom she or her handlers read" are great examples of begging the question.--Paul (talk) 16:52, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

There is an association between Palin and Pegler - she quoted him in her speech. You can only quote things that you've read. Whoever wrote the speech read Pegler. No question begging there...--DarthTaper (talk) 17:10, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

The most likely source for this quote is from page 31 of "Right from the Beginning" by Patrick Buchanan (1988). The use of the quote in Palin's speech doesn't prove anything about her or her speechwriter reading Pegler, or even knowing who Pegler is. By the way, I read Buchanan's columns now and then. I suppose that makes me an anti-semite?--Paul (talk) 17:33, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Your source reinforces a bizarre connection to Truman, a Democrat who rose to the presidency because of the death of the president, that Palin herself made in her speech. You're right that her use of the quote doesn't prove that she subscribes to Pegler's views; it also doesn't prove that she thinks she's the next Truman. But it says something about her milieu and mindset regarding her place in history.--DarthTaper (talk) 18:06, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

November 4 (2008) seems sooo far away. What's next, Palin herself shot RFK? GoodDay (talk) 17:17, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Maybe, GoodDay, we'll just have to wait and see what these amazing folks discover next!!! DarthTaper, let me give you an example of our point. Within the past few years, Obama gave what I consider to be an absolutely exceptional explanation of the pro-choice position, and one that I wholeheartedly agree with - it was the one that ended with saying someone who seeks to outlaw abortion must provide an explanation that appeals to "people of all faiths, including those with no faith at all." By your logic, the fact that I consider such a statement so noteworthy is indicative that I endorse Obama just as fully, when such is decidedly untrue - I favor him, but am by no means as taken with the guy overall as I am with his classic analysis on that issue. Is it really the case that no one you disfavor has ever said something that impressed you nonetheless? All this means is she liked the quaint description of low-key town life - not that she supported the politics of the maniac who said it. -- Drlight11 (talk) 01:41, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

And here I thought it was a right-wing conspiracy. . . . Heyyyyy!?!?! --Evb-wiki (talk) 18:12, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

A person who quotes "Water, water everywhere" is quoting a drug addict. One who quotes Alice in Wonderland is quoting a probable pedophile. I would suggest that it is the quote which is important, not who was quoted, absent any mention of the author? Collect (talk) 18:09, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Both those men are mainly quoted by people with no awareness of the authors' work, let alone their personal lives and desires (alleged desires, in the case of Dodgson). The expression "ne any drop drink to drink" has been repeated so often by people who have not read Coleridge that when it is quoted, it's almost invariably misquoted. Those men are read for the quality of their writing, not because of their politics. You cannot say the same for Pegler or Buchanan. Regards, Ben Aveling 20:24, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Might you show me where you know that Palin is an expert on Pegler? By the way, Coleridge is widely known as a drug addict, and Dodgson as a pedophile. Much more so that most people know about Pegler, to be sure! And might Pegler have been quoted because in the case cited he was a good wordsmith? Collect (talk) 23:39, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

"Those men are read for the quality of their writing, not because of their politics." can you be any more off topic? What's that got to do with anything in the article? Let's say your unsupported claim is true that generally people read "Pegler or Buchanan for their politics" what is the relevance of that odd claim to the article? I propose to let this thread be archived as not reasonably directed at improving the article and move on. Hobartimus (talk) 20:41, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

(ec) You raised the example, I responded to it, and now I'm off-topic?  :-) Your question was, how strong is the association between Palin and Pegler. My answer is: more than zero, which was your earlier claim; more than the association normally created by quoting popular, oft quoted authors such as in your more recent example; but most importantly, the association created is less than what would be needed to warrant including it in the article - if only slightly less. There's too much distance, so far. The possibility that the quote came via Buchanan, the probability that she probably didn't write the speech herself, the fact that it's just one line. Unless and until there are more examples of her speeches being crafted from the writings of fascists, I'd prefer to let this one slide. (I'm more worried about what the quote says of her opinions of people from large towns and cities.) Regards, Ben Aveling 21:21, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

There is still not the slightest indication that either Palin or her speech writer knew anything at all about Pegler, let alone that they were influenced by his politics. It says nothing at all about their "milieu", whatever that's supposed to mean. Theories about "dog whistles" are merely the paranoid speculation of left-wing commentators with nothing better to write about. And without that the origin of the quote is simply not at all notable, it's the ultimate in trivia, and doesn't belong in the article. Giving it even an extra word would be undue weight, and would appear to be endorsing these fantasies. The speech writer saw the line somewhere, memorised it, and on this occasion spat it out; the most obvious reason it wasn't attributed was that he couldn't remember the writer's name, and couldn't be bothered to google it. -- Zsero (talk) 21:03, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Saw the line somewhere, memorised the line word perfect, too forgetful to remember the writer's name, too lazy to google it? You're being harsher on her than I am... Regards, Ben Aveling 22:27, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

First of all, let's get one thing clear: we know who wrote the speech. It's not a mystery, it's not speculation, we know his name. And of course nobody expects such a speech to be written by the candidate herself. Even Reagan had speechwriters, whose work he could then shred and rewrite, but I think we can safely assume that the quote, which was at the beginning of the speech, came from the speech writer. And this is what professional speech writers do — they see a good line, and squirrel it away for later use. Maybe he wrote it down in a notebook, whatever. In any case it doesn't speak of any deep connection, or even a casual one. It sounded good, it expresses a valid sentiment, so they used it. Political speeches aren't expected to be original work, so plagiarism isn't an issue with them. (Biden's real problem with Kinnock's speech wasn't that he lifted it, but that those particular details of his biography didn't match, so what Kinnock truthfully said about himself was false in Biden's mouth.) -- Zsero (talk) 23:23, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Eh... I think several sources have found it... curious that the quote chosen to underline the Republicans' "small-town values" code phrase just happens to come from a notoriously rabid racist and anti-Semite who was too extreme-right for the John Birch Society. But yeah, it's probably below the notability horizon for this article. MastCell ^Talk 22:03, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

She does say writer, and identifies him as a contemporary of Truman's, so it's clear she's not talking about something from a politician in 1988. It's frustrating, you can see the nudge, nudge, wink, wink nature of it. But it's all sotto voce. As a stand-alone piece, it doesn't warrant inclusion. Regards, Ben Aveling 22:27, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, she's quite erudite, yet somehow above she doesn't understand the phrase "Achille's heel". She's a wily one. 75.148.1.26 (talk) 22:42, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

I see a lot of people here anaylyzing the news and analyzing the campaigns. Alas, Wikipedian's are not allowed to put their own analysis into articles. Unless the connection between her and Westbrook Pegler has been made by someone notable - Obama or Biden or national news media - it is a non-event. We include anything that is relevant and notable and verifiable. We do not include ourown analysis; nothing that violates WP:NOR goes in. Slrubenstein | Talk 23:00, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Tvoz posted this list of sources above - Washington Monthly, Martin Peretz in The New Republic, Frank Rich in The New York Times, Thomas Frank in The Wall Street Journal, Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. in Huffington Post --DarthTaper (talk) 23:33, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

A band of paranoids speculating wildly about someone they hate with a passion even greater than that with which they hate Bush doesn't make something notable. At least it's not notable about Palin; it might be notable about them. Until one of them advances a shred of evidence, or proves their psychic abilities, it's all garbage. -- Zsero (talk) 23:43, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Just wanna congratulate ya'll, for working things out here (at talk) before adding/deleting anything from the article (same goes for the Biden page). GoodDay (talk) 00:37, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I stand corrected. I have not looked at these links so I have no idea if what they say is pro-Palin or anti-Palin. That is because it does not matter. The New York Times, the Wall Street journal, and the New Republic are all notable and reliable sources, and whatever they say should be summarized in the article as long as it is about Palin or something she said or did. Zsero, Wikipedia's opinions are not relevant. NPOV is designed explicitly to ensure that views you or I consider "garbage" go into the article. If you reject NPOV, you are rejecting Wikipedia. Slrubenstein | Talk 01:53, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Slrubenstein, this is not about anything Palin said or did, but about her secret thoughts, or rather those of her speech writer. And unless Frank Rich and Marty Peretz are psychic, they are not reliable sources as to that, no matter who published their paranoid fantasies. Their opinions about her motives are not notable, when they have no basis whatsoever outside their own heads. -- Zsero (talk) 03:28, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Dunninger as a reference? Sounds good here. Not. Collect (talk) 01:34, 7 October 2008 (UTC)