Talk:Sarah Palin/Archive 34

The Golden Flurry
The chart was relevant to the improvement of the article by pointing out to Ferrylodge that while he accused Killerchihuahua of WP:BRRR 3 times in a day, in that same day he himself had made 11 edits to KC's single edit. This was done in the hope that he would see this as hypocrisy and amend his ways. Are you sure you prefer the prose version? I found the chart lighter and more humorous. Anarchangel (talk) 17:49, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

--removing discussion irrelevant to the improvement of the article.--
 * Tempodivalse (talk) 20:46, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Seems you are accusing an editor of "hypocrisy"? I doubt that falls under AGF. ... Collect (talk) 18:44, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Beluga suit?
The claim was made that Palin sued to take the Beluga Whale off the Endangered Species List. The cite given was from the Independent. Alas, the cite does not make the claim ascribed to it. Using a cite to back a statement not found in the cite does not work, alas. Collect (talk) 04:50, 10 October 2008 (UTC) Two new cites for belugas. Neither back the claims made. Collect (talk) 14:59, 10 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Correct, but there's an additional problem that the passage now refers to "listing" of the polar bears without further explanation. The fact is that she opposed listing under the ESA of the polar bears and of the whales; the Department of the Interior listed the polar bears, so she brought suit to set aside that listing, but the whales haven't yet been listed, so all she did was submit a statement in opposition.  I'll try to clean this up. JamesMLane t c 22:05, 10 October 2008 (UTC)


 * This made three times that claims have been made for cites which are not borne out by the cites. It appears the word "beluga" is important for some even though there appears to be no issue regarding Palin and beluga. Collect (talk) 22:53, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
 * "Opposed strengthening protection for" is about as far as you can stretch the cites given now. The whales are protected by the Dept. of Fish and Game under Alaska law, and there is essentially no harvest done, unlike the early 1990s. http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2004/07/22/1090089254352.html?from=storylhs  Collect (talk) 23:05, 10 October 2008 (UTC)


 * This made ___ times (I can't fill in the number because I've lost count) that ardent Palin supporters criticized something without troubling to read it. The Time piece is an overview.  In the edit that I actually made, I supplemented that citation with a citation to this press release by Palin's office.  I'll copy the first sentence from the Palin press release in the hope of increasing the chance that someone will actually read the source before denouncing the edit as unsupported: "Governor Sarah Palin has told the federal government that the state is extremely concerned about a proposal to list Cook Inlet beluga whales as an endangered species under the federal Endangered Species Act, and urged the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) not to list the species."


 * So, no, Collect, my edit wasn't made because, as you speculate, "the word 'beluga' is important for some even though there appears to be no issue regarding Palin and beluga." My edit was made because it conforms exactly to the source that I cited.  She opposed the listing.  There is no need for this vague "opposed strengthening protection for" language.  I will restore the original, correct language. JamesMLane t c 02:36, 11 October 2008 (UTC)


 * OK -- compare "and also opposed listing the beluga whales in Alaska’s Cook Inlet.[219][220]" with the exact wording in the Time cite: "She opposes strengthening protections for beluga whales in Alaska's Cook Inlet, " and the wording of the Alaska cite: "Governor Sarah Palin has told the federal government that the state is extremely concerned about a proposal to list Cook Inlet beluga whales as an endangered species ... 'We are all doing everything we can to help protect these important marine mammals.'... in 2000, NMFS ruled that listing the Cook Inlet belugas as endangered was not warranted because hunting was the only factor causing their decline, and hunting has since been effectively regulated through cooperative agreements with Alaska Native organizations. "  Your wording implies she does not think the beluga whales should be protected. The Time wording, the wording I used, is that she opposes "strengthening protections." Thus I quoted one of your cites exactly, and you quote neither cite correctly. I submit that this represents a real difference, and in such a case, a precise quote is better than an inaccurate and misleading inference that she opposes protection for the beluga whales. Clear? Do you really think my exact quote is misleading about the Time cite? Or that your implication that she wants no protection is correct? I would hope not. Collect (talk) 02:48, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I now use the EXACT quote from the Alaska cite since you did not like the Time quote. I submit an exact quote is better than an inaccurate and misleading summary which is not borne out by the cites, don't you? Collect (talk) 02:58, 11 October 2008 (UTC)


 * You write, "Your wording implies she does not think the beluga whales should be protected." I didn't say she said they shouldn't be protected in any way, shape, or form.  My wording was simply that she "opposed listing".  Her office's press release said that she "urged the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) not to list the species."  Obviously, my paraphrase is completely accurate.  In fact, the headline of her own press release was, "Palin Urges Feds to not list as Endangered".


 * Now, if we think the issue is important enough, we could add to that point by including her other statements from the press release. I think that's a level of detail that can be left to the daughter article.  Nevertheless, at this point I'll content myself with making sure that our article reports the undisputed information (she opposed listing) that her own office put in the headline but that you keep trying to expunge.  If you feel compelled to add more detail from the press release, I'll consider it excessive but I won't revert unless other editors agree with me. JamesMLane t c 04:31, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Huh? You are deliberately issuing and promulgating your own "interpretation" instead of stating what your cites state. That is intellectually dishonest. What is wrong with the actual quotation? Or is misstating the facts about the beluga issue important enough for you to ignore the concept of seeking compromise at all costs? IK consider your claims abysmally inaccurate and misleading and POV. Keep it if you need to, but keeping misleading material in an article speaks very poorly of any thought of WP as a repository of facts at all. As for your lie that I am expunging anything -- I regard that as a personal attack of the first water. My sole aim has been that ANY claims must be solidly based in cites, and not be "interpretations" of them. In that I am trying to uphold the legitimate interests of WP. Thank you most kindly. Collect (talk) 04:39, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Sheesh, we're about as far apart as Alaska and DC. And I don't think I can even see where you are from my house.  Comments:
 * You describe my language as my "intepretation". You've never explained this point.  The source says that she "urged the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) not to list the species."  I wrote that she "opposed listing".  How is that an interpretation?  How can her press release be read any other way?
 * As for what you describe as "the actual quotation", I explained what's wrong with it. What's wrong is to use an actual quotation of vague and self-serving language from later in the press release, while omitting any "actual quotation" or accurate paraphrase of its first and most important sentence.  I said that, if the key point -- opposition to listing -- were included, then I would leave it to other editors to remove the blather.  I've kept that promise.  So, if the main point is in, then what's wrong with including the quotation you want is that this article has only a summary and the quotation you want is so vague and pointless that it doesn't merit inclusion in this article.  We can't quote everything Palin or her flacks have ever written.  A feel-good statement about hoping that some sort of plan can be worked out isn't very important, in my opinion.
 * You characterize my view as "abysmally inaccurate and misleading and POV". I'm totally lost.  Do you deny that she opposed the listing?  If you don't deny that, then how is it inaccurate or misleading or POV?  A POV way to state it would be, "Palin, as she always does, placed short-term economic gain above any concept of broader ecological responsibility."  That characterization would be perfectly accurate but of course can't appear as a statement of fact in Wikipedia, and I haven't tried to insert that or anything remotely comparable.
 * This one's the real knee-slapper: "As for your lie that I am expunging anything -- I regard that as a personal attack of the first water." First, you repeatedly expunged the key fact that she opposed the listing, even after I cited the source -- her own office's press release -- that established that fact.  So, it wasn't a lie.  Second, I wasn't saying anything about you personally, but about a specific edit of yours.  "Love men, slay errors" (per St. Augustine) is always my approach.  You see, Collect, Wikipedians are allowed to disagree with you and even criticize your edits without its being a personal attack.  If you think I've violated WP:NPA, you have recourse.  The ArbCom doesn't decide content disputes but it will hear a complaint that an editor has violated WP:NPA.  Go to WP:RfAr and have at it.  I promise that I won't counterclaim based on your "abysmally inaccurate and misleading and POV" statement; your statement is false and intemperate but is not a personal attack.
 * The current text contains the blather quotation, which I'll leave in, but the lead-in "Specifically" is inaccurate, because that quotation doesn't provide more detail about her opposition to the listing. She opposed the listing AND called for a plan.  Also, we need to explain "NMFS".  I'll make these minor fixes while continuing to hope that some other editor will remove the sentence entirely, leaving it to the daughter article to add this minor detail. JamesMLane t c 05:51, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
 * First -- the species was not listed -- and that was during a PRIOR administration. Her statement was that she supported protection for the beluga whales, when the intent of your intepretation was to imply she opposed protecting them. Clear. Using the ACTUAL wording from the Alaska press release was therefore proper. I "expunged" nothing. "Expunge" as you know is a specific legal term. Using a correct uotation is not "expunging" anything, and I find your claim that I "repeatedly expunged" to be a personal attack. One which you proudly repeat. As for your calling your changes a "fix"??? Thank you most kindly. Collect (talk) 12:08, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Sarah Palin Aerial Hunting
Editors can bring out the delete hatchet all they want but this is a relevant area of her biography that needs addressing.

No mention of it all seems like a glaring omission to me.

Here comes the hatchet. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Abraxas72 (talk • contribs) 16:56, 10 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Why do so many folks think this isn't mentioned? They clearly aren't reading the article. Maybe it's because www.democraticunderground.com says that:"'Wikipedia did not allow animal rights additions to their 'democratically edited' page. Instead Wikipedia's Palin page is full of warmongers' articles.'"My question is why should it be mentioned in her biography? She isn't known for this policy, it sort of comes with the territory as an Alaskan politician and is mentioned in the Governor article.--Paul (talk) 17:13, 10 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Wolves are, indeed, predators. The Alaskan boards dealing with predators do not like wolves. A bounty aimed at deferring costs for hunters of predators operating under control of these boards was offered by one board. A court ruled that it was the other board which had the right to offer such a bounty. Clearly quite joyfully irrelevant to this article in the first place. Collect (talk) 18:22, 10 October 2008 (UTC)


 * A decision she made as Governor is irrelevant to her bio article? Hardly.  The serious issue is which of her actions are significant enough to be mentioned here.  This one attracted a lot of attention so it should be reported.  As for how to report it, highlighting one side's argument (wolves are predators) is POV.  We shouldn't talk about "predator control" or "slaughter of beautiful wild animals".  The simple "Aerial hunting of wolves" is a good title.  Reference to the detailed pros and cons of the policy can be in the text here but is probably better elsewhere. JamesMLane t c 22:33, 10 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Hashed out long ago. And the precise court decision is referenced. I doubt you can alter the opinion of the court. Collect (talk) 02:50, 11 October 2008 (UTC)


 * In order to abide by Wikipedian laws, the ONLY thing that can be included, in a seperate hobbies section in her bio, would be hunting, but to put it in the terms that you wish to, tends to conjure up negative images, which breaks neutrality law. C. Pineda (クリス) (talk) 02:56, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

What does this mean?
"Later, as vice-presidential candidate, she would disavow any support for the bridge."

She cancelled the bridge in September 2007. Why do we want to say that she disavowed the bridge later than that? I will modify this trillionth attempt to distort the facts.Ferrylodge (talk) 17:34, 10 October 2008 (UTC)


 * She said she told Congress "thanks but no thanks" to the bridge. Is this somehow not a complete disavowal? Which facts are being distorted? By whom? A trillion attempts to distort facts sounds like a massive conspiracy. Reverted your reversion peagnding some further explanation.Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 17:49, 10 October 2008 (UTC)


 * This is easy "She said (in 2008) she told Congress (in 2007) 'thanks but no thanks'" to the bridge. It isn't a biographical relevant fact that she said something today about something she did yesterday. The relevant fact is what she did.--Paul (talk) 17:57, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

(undent)She disavowed support for the bridge in September 2007. Why do people insist on saying that she did not disavow it until 2008? She cancelled the damn thing in 2007, before she ever became a national candidate. I also suggest we leave discussion of the 2008 campaign to the section on the 2008 campaign.Ferrylodge (talk) 18:13, 10 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Unless I am missing something, she canceled the project in 2007, and in 2008 she disavowed support for it, implying that she had never supported it. This is a highly relevant expression of her support (or nonsupport) of a controversial political issue. I also see nothing indicated she disavowed her support for it in 2007.Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 18:19, 10 October 2008 (UTC)


 * If you want the article to say that she alleged in 2008 that she had never supported the Gravina Bridge, then say so in the article. Don't say in the article that she did not disavow the bridge until 2008, which is false. And please include a ref, if you're going to allege that in 2008 she said she never supported the Gravina Bridge.  And please move this to the 2008 campaiugn section where it belongs.


 * And here is the September 2007 press release in which she disavowed support for the Gravina Bridge.Ferrylodge (talk) 18:23, 10 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I didn't make the edit in question. The statement in question does NOT say that she never disavowed support for the bridge until 2008... it merely says that she did so in 2008. If she also did so previously, this should be sourced and put into the article. I don't have a source for that claim nor do I know it to be true so I can't proceed on that. Finally, the statement belongs in the bridge discussion because it is directly and obviously relevant. Perhaps it should also be mentioned in the 2008 campaign section?Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 18:27, 10 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Uhm, that article substantiates the fact that she ceased her support for the bridge in 2007. In 2008 she disavowed support for the bridge, implying (contrary to fact) that she had never supported the bridge. Ceased support in 2007, disavowed support in 2008. Two different words with different meanings. Ok?Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 18:31, 10 October 2008 (UTC)


 * So it isn't a "biographical relevant fact," whatever that means, according to PaulH. Big deal. What a politician says is highly relevant politics. Since this article is about a politician campaigning for vice-president, it is highly relevant. As for reliable sources, the article is filled with sources indicated that she has disavowed the bridge. She said so ar the RNC, most of the country actually heard her say so, and it was widely reported. SO I fail to see how this could be at all controversial. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 18:34, 10 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Ferrylodge. That link doesn't disavow the bridge.  In fact, the implication is that if Congress would only supply the money they would build the bridge. Aprock (talk) 21:16, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

(undent)The edit in question was made here by an editor without any talk page discussion, and without any footnote. There is no consensus for what that editor did, so I don't understand why things should have to be reverted back to what that editor did.

As far as the suggestion to repeat material about the bridge in both sections, I'm against that because it obviously gives the material WP:Undue weight. Also, it's poor form to write an encylopedia article that redundantly states the same info twice. Material about the 2008 campaign ought to go in that section of the article, including bridge material, and many editors have discussed this many times.

To say that she disavowed support for the bridge in 2008 implies that she did no do so earlier. This is false and misleading. Here is the September 2007 press release in which she disavowed support for the Gravina Bridge.

There is a difference between disavowing support for something, versus disavowing that she had ever supported it.Ferrylodge (talk) 18:36, 10 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I think what we have here is a difference in vocabulary rather than in opinion. Ferrylodge seems to understand the word "disavow" to mean much the same as "renounce".  She used to support the bridge, then she changed her mind and renounced, or disavowed it.  But  this dictionary definition seems to support the atyourservice's understanding.  In 2007 Palin reversed her previous support for the bridge, but she didn't disavow it; that is, she acknowledged that she used to support it, but no longer did.  In 2008 she is alleged to have disavowed her support, that is to have claimed that she never supported it in the first place.  We can argue whether this is in fact the case, but at least let's agree on what the word means. -- Zsero (talk) 18:41, 10 October 2008 (UTC)


 * To disavow means to repudiate. She repudiated her support for the bridge in 2007.  Anyway, I've rephrased in the article for clarity.Ferrylodge (talk) 18:46, 10 October 2008 (UTC)


 * (ec) That is absurd. To say that the Yankees won the World Series in 2000 does not "imply" that they did not win the World Series in 1999.  To say that "I ate breakfast this morning" does not imply I did not eat it yesterday.  We have a link from this section to another.  To add one sentence explaining the link does not give it undue weight.  It simply explains the connection between these events and later events.  And in Sarah Palin's political career, this is precisely the point: what she said or did as governor is highly significant to her campaign for higher office.  To indicate that is not giving anything undue weight.


 * Also, please stop making up rules. Wikipedia articles have never been written by editors discussing things on the talk page before editing the article.  I made an edit that improved the article.  That is what is important.


 * By the way, "redundantly states the same info twice" is redundant.


 * And, thanks Zsero for making a useful point. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 18:47, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I fear you missed the exact reason why "redundantly states the same info twice" was worded as it was.  The issue at times here is that some people will try to place the exact same material in, over and over, despite not having a cite which backs their claims. This is "gaming the system" and sometimes they even leave their spoor in other articles. As for deciding that major edits should be made and then require long discussions before they are removed, that is actually not backed up by best practice. Collect (talk) 18:53, 10 October 2008 (UTC)


 * This is a controversial article. It's standard practice to discuss major changes at the talk page before making those changes.  And to say that "the Yankees gave up playing baseball in 2008 and switched to being football players" does kind of suggest that they had not already done so in 2007.Ferrylodge (talk) 18:50, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Regardless of what usage of what word is settled on, it seems manifestly clear to me that this belongs in the Bridge section, not the Campaign 2008 section. It's about the bridge. The statement better goes in a "what is this statement about?" category than a "in what year was this statement made?" category.Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 18:52, 10 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Are you aware that there is material in the 2008 campaign section about the bridge?Ferrylodge (talk) 18:54, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I do not object to having bridge material in the campaign section, as long as there is a sentence in the bridge section drawing the connection. Ferrylodge recently edited what I wrote, and I am happy to accept his version if it ends this trivial argument.  I too do not like redundancies, indeed, the rewrite I made yesterday was principally to eliminate redundancies within the section.  I explained my edit on this talk page, and when Ferrylodge reverted and raised objections to my edit, it turned out that the content he objected to in my edit was in his own reversion.  And when I saw he objected, I made further edits - which he could have made, but I don't mind having made them.  This is how a consensus version evolves.  To return to redundancies, I agree they should be minimal but all good writing has some repetition in order to introduce, summarize, make transitions, or draw connections between different parts.  What we now have in this article is minimal, and effective. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 19:01, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
 * This article currently says, "Later, as vice-presidential candidate, she claimed that she had never supported the Gravina bridge." If you are happy with this, then please provide a reliable source.  Otherwise, it should be deleted.


 * Additionally, assuming you can find a reliable source, the statement "she claimed that she had never supported the Gravina bridge" ought to be moved to the 2008 campaign section. In either event, we could rephrase the sentence in the bridge section: "Later, as vice-presidential candidate, her speeches would include various controversial statements about the Gravina bridge proposal. See Use of "Bridge to Nowhere" in 2008 campaign."Ferrylodge (talk) 19:11, 10 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Removed the paraphrasing that we are never going to agree on. Substituted a direct quote and attributed it to a source. This statement should not be moved out of this section. FWIW, the common usage of "disavow" is as I stated, not as Ferrylodge stated.Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 19:21, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

(undent) So, you're going to insist that the "Thanks but no thanks" quote should continue to occur in this article at least three different times? Would it be okay with you if we include a fourth and a fifth?

The bridge section presently says: "Later, as vice-presidential candidate, she claimed that she had told Congress 'thanks, but no thanks, on that bridge to nowhere,' angering many Alaskans who said that the claim was false and a betrayal of Palin's previous support for their community."

This is weaselly. See WP:Weasel. Who are the "many Alaskans"? The cited source says that they are "In the city of Ketchikan...political leaders of both parties." The only other person who the article says is angry with Palin is Gail Phillips "who supported Palin's opponent, Democrat Tony Knowles, in the 2006 gubernatorial race."

Therefore, it would be better for the sentence in this artuicle to say: "Later, as a vice-presidential candidate, she claimed that she had told Congress 'thanks, but no thanks, on that bridge to nowhere,' angering political leaders in Ketchikan who said that the claim was false and a betrayal of Palin's previous support for their community." I don't think that the remark of one other person, Gail Phillips who opposed Palin for Governor, is notable (also, Philips didn't call the statement by Palin a "betrayal", and instead criticized Palin's reversal on the bridge rather than criticizing Palin's later statement about it).

And, again, this belongs in the 2008 campaign section, if it belongs anywhere in this article.Ferrylodge (talk) 19:31, 10 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Repudiating statements of a reliable source based on your own beliefs and opinions is OR.Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 19:38, 10 October 2008 (UTC)


 * And what do you think I've repudiated?Ferrylodge (talk) 19:39, 10 October 2008 (UTC)


 * The article says, in both the headline and the opening paragraph, that the statement has angered many Alaskans. The article cites multiple politicians in support of this claim. End of story. Editors are not allowed to second guess reliable sources. That is original research.Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 19:43, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Factchecker please do not insert WP:Weasel into the article anywhere. And do not try to create abusive redundancy in the article. Hobartimus (talk) 19:45, 10 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Bullshit. The article says that the "many Alaskans" who accused Palin of betrayal are politicians in Ketchikan.  The cited source says: "In the city Ketchikan, the planned site of the so-called 'Bridge to Nowhere,' political leaders of both parties said the claim was false and a betrayal of their community...."Ferrylodge (talk) 19:45, 10 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't know how many ways I can say this. No Wikipedia policy allows editors to accuse Reuters or AP or whatever of using "weasel words". "Weasel words" refers to the particular wording of a paraphrased statement so the statement creates an unsourced analysis. When the SOURCE says "many Alaskans were angered", you take it at face value. To do otherwise is OR. Period. The whole point of RELIABLE SOURCES is that they can make a generalization like this and we accept their factchecking and judgment instead of requiring that the article list the individual names of thousands of people who share the view that is being references as being held by "many Alaskans".


 * PS, Civility please.Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 19:49, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Why don't you read WP:Weasel words instead of inventing your own policies and guidelines? Do you expect us to use your words above instead of the actual WP:Weasel or what? Hobartimus (talk) 19:56, 10 October 2008 (UTC)


 * The cited source does not use weasel words. They say "many Alaskans" and then they specify who they mean.  You picked out the former, and omitted the latter, which is weaselly.  You took the sentence "In the city Ketchikan, the planned site of the so-called 'Bridge to Nowhere,' political leaders of both parties said the claim was false and a betrayal of their community...." and you replaced the first part of the sentence with "many Alaskans."Ferrylodge (talk) 19:55, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

As a way out of the weasel dilemma, how about "Source says 'many Alaskans' think..."?GreekParadise (talk) 19:58, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
 * How about we don't mislead readers, and don't give the false impression that the cited source attributes to people statewide the accusation that Palin betrayed them? And how about we don't use the "Thanks, but no thanks" quote three times in this single article?  And how about if we put 2008 campaign material in the 2008 campaiogn section?Ferrylodge (talk) 20:02, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Er, wow. The overuse of quotes seems necessary as editors usually cannot agree on what a reasonable characterization of her words is, for some reason. I don't want to use the quote any more than anyone else. But, I guess "disavowed her support for the bridge in 2008", which is THE accurate, grammatically clear, NPOV eight word summary of the statement, is patently unacceptable. Due to policy we must achieve WP:Consensus. What would suffice? "In 2008, speaking of her plans to rein in corrupt Congressional spending practices, Palin triumphantly pointed out that in 2007 she had canceled plans for a massive transportation earmark after supporting it for over a year despite not having authored it herself." Is that OK? I still don't see what's wrong with "disavowed her support". It meant what it said.

Anyway, yes, she said this in 2008. Yes, while campaigning for VPOTUS. It is also currently the final resolution of Palin's involvement on the subject, so far as I understand. To omit a brief mention of it from the section specifically addressing the bridge is highly disruptive. To justify this based on the need to keep 2008 statements confined to a chronological organization scheme is ... unjustified. To repeatedly appeal to summary status of this article in order to exclude only material which is critical and which is included in order to balance the rest presented here in order to prevent the article from taking an overwhelmingly supportive or promotional tone is also unjustified. And to try to disqualify the whole thing based on overuse of that quote which only becomes necessary because you dispute a brief, dry and correctly worded NPOV paraphrase is just pure straw-man tactics.

As for anti-weaselification of the source attribution, would you be happy with "According to Reuters, many Alaskans, such as blah blah blah, were angry blah blah blah?" That way, everyone will know that a specific news organization thinks exactly three politicians and nobody else was angry? I mean, seriously. What is acceptable to you? The use of "many" in the article didn't imply a majority, or even thousands statewide. Neither did the use of "many" in the article. That word ought to be included. So how shall we qualify it? "According to Reuters, many Alaskans angry, such as politicians XYZ?" Plus that unwieldy statement in my first paragraph, because the 8 word one is unacceptable?Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 20:43, 10 October 2008 (UTC)


 * The "Thanks but no thanks" quote is now in the article three times. Isn't once enough?Ferrylodge (talk) 20:56, 10 October 2008 (UTC)


 * As I just said, we can do without the quote if you'll drop your objection to the paraphrasing based on your misunderstanding of what "disavow" means. You're insisting on using the dictionary definition of a synonym instead of the dictionary definition of the word (to wit... 1  : to deny responsibility for : repudiate   2  : to refuse to acknowledge or accept). Neither of these things is by any stretch of the imagination the same thing as simply changing her position on the bridge, which is what she did in 2007. Changing your mind from "for" to "against" is not what "disavow" means. She literally, in 2008, dictionary-definition disavowed it... denied responsibility.. refused to acknowledge or accept .. her involvement in supporting the spending. That is what made people mad, because they wanted the bridge, and that is what the article is about.Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 21:15, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I think "She disavowed her support" is just fine. She did support it, then she denied that she supported it. There are countless sources (many cited) for this. What is the problem? Manticore55 (talk) 21:21, 10 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Question is, did she actually do that? I recall a lot of polemics about it, but I don't recall her actually claiming or implying that she had never supported the Gravina bridge.  -- Zsero (talk) 21:38, 10 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Factchecker atyourservice, this is what the article said earlier today: "Later, as vice-presidential candidate, she claimed that she had never supported the Gravina bridge." Is that the meaning that you want this article to convey?  If so, then why did you insert a quote instead?  If you want to reinsert this language I've just quoted, then you will have to get a reliable source for it,  Is that asking so much?  And like I said, material about the 2008 campaign belongs in the 2008 campaign section.Ferrylodge (talk) 22:34, 10 October 2008 (UTC)


 * If you want to include that statement you quoted, but change "claimed" to "implied" and leave the Reuters article as a source, then that's fine with me. As for the question of whether she did imply that she didn't support the bridge, allow me to explain the point of view that "obviously, yes she did". Palin was talking in the context of reining in Congressional spending. By saying she said "thanks but no thanks to that bridge to nowhere", this directly implies that she was offered federal funding for the bridge, but refused it. In fact, she supported the effort to get the federal funding, argued in defense of the project after it became controversial, and only canceled the project after it was clear that there was not enough federal money, as evidenced by her statement at some point to the effect of "it's clear the federal government is not interested in providing more funding".


 * Hence, by directly implying that she refused federal money for the bridge, she also indirectly implies that she never sought it. Thus the thanks but no thanks line amounted to a disavowal. But, whatever.. I'm fine with the current revision. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 22:50, 10 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Quoting her directly is better than bickering over whether "disavowed" is an accurate summation. As the foregoing discussion demonstrates, the word "disavowed" has different connotations for different people, so we do best to avoid it.  I don't consider it undue weight to use the quotation in two different sections in text, given that it's relevant to each and given the heavy emphasis she and the campaign placed on this aspect of her record.


 * Also, we shouldn't say that she "claims" to have opposed it. See WP:WTA.  I've reworded such instances, except where the word occurs in a direct quotation. JamesMLane t c 22:45, 10 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Um -- so cutting funds for something might mean she still supported the spending? An interesting sort of logic, that. And if she states she cut the funds, that means she might only "claim" to not want to spend the funds? Collect (talk) 22:57, 10 October 2008 (UTC)


 * If you read the Governor's press release that Ferrylodge posted you'll see that the official line was “The original purpose of this project was to improve access to Gravina Island, and we will continue to work with the community to help them attain that goal.” It looks like they still supported building the bridge, but were forced to cancel because the feds didn't come through with the money. Aprock (talk) 22:54, 11 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Did you get that out of one of my comments? How?72.91.198.209 (talk) 22:59, 10 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I support disavowed or direct quotes ("thanks but not thanks"). Since it's her most famous quote, I think it bears repeating. If there's an alternative that opponents want, I'm all ears.GreekParadise (talk) 03:49, 11 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I support "disavowed" because we have lots of reliable sources that this is exactly what she did at the RNC. However, Ferrylodge objected to that language and instead changed it to "Later, as vice-presidential candidate, she claimed that she had never supported the Gravina bridge. See Use of "Bridge to Nowhere" in 2008 campaign."  He didn't discuss his reasoning on the talk-page for this specific wording, and I don't know what sources he was using, but I assume he was acting in good faith, and I do not challenge the verifiability of his edit.  He made the edit, that is good enough for me.  All I want is one sentence showing how this section is connected to the other section for which we provide a link.  I would rather compromise and defer to Ferrylodge's version than prolong this.Slrubenstein   |  Talk 04:05, 11 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I started this section of the talk page to discuss exactly the subject that you say I "didn't discuss". Now you say you want "one sentence".  Do you mean one sentence here at the talk page, or one sentence in the article, or what?  I'll give you more than one sentnece here.  You're apparently asking how the section on the bridges is rerelated to the section on the 2008 campaign.  Well, it seems rather obvious that there is considerable overlap.  The bridge stuff was controversial before she ran for vice-president, as part of her governorship.  Then, when she ran for VP, the bridge issue cropped up in that context as well.  I hope that answers your question.Ferrylodge (talk) 17:17, 13 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Slrubenstein, you once said: "Wikipedia articles have never been written by editors discussing things on the talk page before editing the article." I disagree with that attitude, and I do try to discuss substantial edits that I make.  Why else would I have started this talk page section?  See Controversial articles.Ferrylodge (talk) 17:25, 13 October 2008 (UTC)


 * AGF and FL don't go well together. &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149; dissera! 14:44, 11 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Certainly I never get any AGF from you, Jim.Ferrylodge (talk) 17:17, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Large scale weasel hunt in "Public safety commissioner dismissal" section
It seems as though the wording of this section is carefully chosen to distort its cited references and undermine the apparent credibility of the investigative probe while upholding Palin's actions. I am taking measures to eliminate some instances of this, as detailed below:

1st paragraph ORIGINAL: "Monegan told the Palins that there was nothing he could do because the matter was closed.[117] "

This is weaselly in multiple ways. The wording implies that Monegan thought something should have been done but his hands were tied. This is not supported by the reference. Also, BLP guidelines make it HIGHLY questionable to include apparently damning material about this investigation into Wooten without including the actual results of the investigation conducted by the trooper's office.

CHANGING TO "Monegan told the Palins that the department had already conducted its own investigation into the matter. This investigation had found all but two of the allegations to be unsubstantiated and had subjected Wooten to disciplinary measures for the others." (Providing http://www.adn.com/politics/story/469135.html as a reference to this latter statement.)


 * PARTIAL RETRACTION: Though the published evidence indicates that Wooten could do nothing because the investigation was already complete, the cited article does use the words "there was nothing he could do." It also does not mention whether he told them about the investigation itself. For this reason I left those original words in the article.Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 19:06, 11 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment: I agree with your retraction here. Not only does the source not say that he told them all about the investigation; I believe that other sources expressly say he didn't, because it was information from a confidential personnel file.  As of early 2007, the Palins didn't know that Wooten had been disciplined.  The result of the Palins' continued interest in Wooten was that, eventually, a lot of this information became public, but that was only later.  The disclosure is the basis of a pending complaint; see Alaska Public Safety Commissioner dismissal. JamesMLane t c 06:36, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

1st paragraph ORIGINAL: "Monegan initially said he was not certain why he was dismissed but that his refusal to fire Wooten could have been connected,[119]"

This is weaselly because the wording is chosen to make it appear that Wooten "flip flopped" and only later attributed his firing to the Wooten incident. In fact, and as substantiated by the source, Wooten had noted the pressure to fire Wooten from the very beginning. While he does say in the first article that he isn't certain his refusal to bow to pressure was behind his firing, most of the article is spent detailing this pressure. Thus the pressure should be mentioned alongside the statement of his uncertainty to avoid giving the impression that he was not aware of the pressure at that point.

CHANGING TO: "Initially, Monegan acknowledged the pressure to fire Wooten but said that he could not be certain that his own firing was connected to that issue; he later asserted that his refusal to fire Wooten was a major reason for his own firing."

2nd paragraph ORIGINAL: "After ordering her own internal investigation, Palin acknowledged on August 13 that 'pressure could have been perceived to exist, although I have only now become aware of it.'"

This is weaselly because the word "acknowledged" implies, contrary to any possible substantiation, that what was acknowledged is factual. Changing to:

CHANGE TO: "After ordering her own internal investigation, Palin stated on August 13 that 'pressure could have been perceived to exist, although I have only now become aware of it.'"

2nd paragraph ORIGINAL: "She placed an aide on paid leave due to one tape-recorded contact that she deemed improper."

Needs some kind of context or detail other than that it was "one contact which Palin deemed improper". Providing context, changing to:

CHANGE TO: "She placed an aide on paid leave due to one tape-recorded phone conversation that she deemed improper, in which the aide appeared to be acting on her behalf and complained that Wooten had not been fired."

3rd paragraph

ORIGINAL: "Then, an opponent of hers in the legislature speculated about damage to her administration, subpoenas were issued, and Palin stopped cooperating."

This is highly weaselly in multiple ways. First, the sentence structure implies, without basis, that this "opponent's speculation" directly caused Palin to cease cooperating. Without a citation, this is OR.

Next, one at a time:

ORIGINAL: "Then, an opponent of hers in the legislature speculated about damage to her administration," The source refers to Sen. Hollis as "The Alaska state senator running an investigation of Gov. Palin" ... the editor making this edit paraphrased this as "an opponent of hers in the legislature" ... terminology not used in either of the attributed sources and not supported by either source. Without a source, it's OR.

ORIGINAL: "subpoenas were issued and Palin stopped cooperating." ... This is nonsensically vague, along the lines of "fists were flying and Palin got out of Dodge". CHANGE TO "subpoenas were issued to Palin, her husband, and her employees, and Palin stopped cooperating with the investigation."

Overall, the wording of "Then, an opponent of hers in the legislature speculated about damage to her administration" is just plainly designed to make the whole thing seem like a biased partisan attack. The total changes result in:

CHANGE TO: "In a news story published September 2nd, the Senator running the investigation complained that Palin's hiring of private lawyers hampered their efforts, and suggested that the results of the investigation were 'likely to be damaging to the Governor's administration.' After subpoenas were issued to Palin, her husband, and several employees, Palin stopped cooperating with the probe."

3rd paragraph ORIGINAL: On September 1, Palin asked the legislature to drop its investigation, saying that the state Personnel Board had jurisdiction over ethics issues.

This is misleading unless it includes the crucial detail that the members of Personnel Board were appointed by Palin. Changing to:

CHANGE TO: "On September 1, Palin asked the legislature to drop its investigation, saying that the state Personnel Board, a three-member panel whose members she had appointed, had jurisdiction over ethics issues."

That's all for now.Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 18:37, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Well done. Without casting aspersions or suggesting anything other than good faith all around... I support your changes. Tvoz / talk 18:57, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Too long entirely still. Collect (talk) 19:04, 11 October 2008 (UTC)


 * If the article must be too long to be accurate and NPOV, it must be too long. If it cannot be shortened without POV-pushing, it cannot be shortened. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 19:09, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Amazing -- seems fixing tenses and really strange sentence construction reduced its length. NO POV at all. Collect (talk) 19:15, 11 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Excellent work F'checker. Dates, where sources exist, would be an additional improvement here and there. E.g. in place of "initially" in "Initially Monegan acknowledged..."; in place of "later" in "he later asserted..."; to specify when "she placed an aide on paid leave" etc. Maybe repeat "investigation" in lieu of "probe" in "Palin stopped cooperating with the probe", which could bring to (a twisted) mind cringe-making visions of Saint Sarah losing her dignity during abduction by aliens or examination by Wasilla's proctologist. Writegeist (talk) 19:18, 11 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Collect, I considered using wording similar to the edit you just made, but decided not to do so because I didn't see anything in any of the sources indicating that Monegan actually told the Palins anything about the investigation itself, other than the fact it was already over and done with. Also, I'm not sure if Monegan was actually involved in the investigation and disciplining of Wooten. One of the articles said that he discovered the investigation "after looking into it". Anyway, I am trying to pick my battles and will not revert that edit, but I think you may have accidentally introduced some factual incorrectness.


 * Write, while your comments made me lawl, I have no problem eliminating use of the word "probe". On the subject of dates, however, the task of untangling things seems quite daunting. There are a TON of news articles on this subject, and few if any of them actually pin down the dates of the events they talk about. With only the publication date of each story, I wanted to avoid making too many assumptions. I am loathe to try to construct a timeline with the scant evidence I've seen.Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 19:22, 11 October 2008 (UTC)


 * D'accord. Your suggested revisions are already a huge improvement. Writegeist (talk) 21:30, 11 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment on Factchecker's final point: The cited source doesn't say that Palin appointed the Personnel Board members. They are gubernatorial appointees but all the current members were appointed by her Republican predecessor, Frank Murkowski, though she reappointed one of them in 2008.   An interesting question would be whether they serve for fixed terms or if she can remove a current member at any time.  Of course, even if she can't remove them, she has the power to not reappoint them, which is relevant.  Still, the current text is inaccurate and unfair to Palin.  I'll change "whose members she had appointed" to "whose members are gubernatorial appointees".  If we find that she can remove them, then it would be more accurate to say "whose members serve at the Governor's pleasure" but at this point I don't know whether that's true. JamesMLane t c 07:15, 13 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Sounds good, thanks for catching that.Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 15:42, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Troopergate not in the WP:LEAD?
We have a huge section in this article on Troopergate, not to mention the fact it has its own 110kb long separate article, so can someone tell me why it isn't in the lead section of this article? MickMacNee (talk) 20:02, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Because Ferrylodge is working for the McCainaanites.  &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149; dissera! 20:08, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
 * That is false.Ferrylodge (talk) 17:20, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Please mind the personal attacks. The lead is meant to summarize the major points of the subject and the article below.  In the long term, is troopergate really a substantial part of a biography of Palin?  I'd say definitely not.  Remember, this article is a biography, not a news article based primarily on recent events.  Troopergate might be in the news today but that doesn't indicate that it has significant long term notability to Palin. Oren0 (talk) 20:20, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
 * It's likely not in the lead, because Governor Palin isn't facing impeachment. If she were, then it would be mega-notable. GoodDay (talk) 20:26, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Putting it in the lead would violate WP:LEAD. The lead summarizes major points of her life and why she is notable. She is not notable for the scandal, nor is the scandal a major point of her life. Erik the Red  2    20:34, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
 * LEAD states summarise the article, not summarise your opinion of what is and is not important in her life. Troopergate is a massive part of her bio according to wikipedia judging by the section length and the sub-article, and has massive implications on her career. Or have I got this all wrong and all state govenors are investigated like this all the time? How on Earth could anybody say it was not relevant to her? MickMacNee (talk) 21:52, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Of course it is important for inclusion in the article, and it is included in the article, but not the lead. The lead, according to the policy on leads, states the lead should serve as a "short, independent summary of the important aspects of the article's topic." A scandal is not an important aspect of this article's topic. Bill Clinton's article says nothing about the Lewinsky scandal, and Nixon's article mentions Watergate only in passing. A scandal that might cause the impeachment of the governor of Alaska is not important enough for the lead. There are plenty of other things that could be put in the lead instead. Erik the Red  2    22:01, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
 * How exactly does creationism compare with allegations of misuse of office with regard relevance for a bio of a politician? MickMacNee (talk) 00:54, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm glad the Bill Clinton article was brought up. It doesn't mention Clinton's being impeached in its lead. Yet, impeachment is mentioned in the Andrew Johnson article's lead. GoodDay (talk) 23:22, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
 * It is now. (Mick, please see Don Siegelman, for a comparable example {though many think he was framed}. His indictments are in the lead, and detailed at great length.)LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 23:39, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Ask first. Looked to me like the consensus was that it not be in the lede. And misstated to boot.  Stating some one committed a crime when no prosecution is made is outre.  We were careful not to say Kernell committed a crime, remember?  Thanks! Collect (talk) 00:05, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
 * The Don Siegelman example is ludicrous. He was indicted, prosecuted, and convicted of a crime.  Palin has not been accused of violating any laws, nor has she been indicted of anything. Oren0 (talk) 00:23, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
 * True, Palin hasn't committed any impeachable offence. GoodDay (talk) 00:25, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

I do not believe this should be in the first paragraph. The first paragraph ought to introduce the article as a whole and not give special attention to recent news no matter how notable (I agree that if the eport on troopergate has the consequence of ending her political career, then it would be notable enough for the lead). To be clear, I think this news is highly significant and deserves adequate coverage in this article. I just do not see how it is appropriate to put it into the lead.Slrubenstein  |  Talk 00:26, 12 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Indeed. This happened YESTERDAY. How can anyone know if it is a significant event in Sarah Palin's biography? The only thing that would happen a day or two ago that would end up automatically important enough for the lead paragraph of a biography would be a death. How about a little perspective folks?--Paul (talk) 00:36, 12 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Well I must have it all wrong, because I could have sworn the the lead of WP:LEAD stated "including any notable controversies that may exist. ". Now, are people honestly claiming this isn't notable? Seriously, this is lead material in terms of her entire career, it's not like she has a 50 years of political life behind her. Or again, am I wrong, is this honestly an everyday event for a state governor? Is it? The size of the section and sub-article is justification enough to be in the lead, any assertion otherwise is pure POV. This just happened yesterday? Are you serious? MickMacNee (talk) 00:50, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

I would not be so quick to dismiss a finding of wrongdoing by a governor issued by a bipartisan committee from her state legislature. It would be relevant in a biography of Rod Blagojevich or of Huey Long, so why not Palin? Being NPOV requires includint negative material about a subject of a biography which has received a huge amount of coverage in reliable sources. Edison (talk) 00:45, 12 October 2008 (UTC)


 * MMCNee's original question was why it isn't in the lead which, due to the events of Friday, is a very valid request. Troopergate wasnt included in the lead because it was still to be adjudicated. There was discussion off and on related to Palin and her husband and her staff's reluctance (refusal) to testify and whether that should be included (in the article, not the Lead). Now that it has been, it most certainly should be in the Lead.--Buster7 (talk) 01:28, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

It's not an important part of her history, so it should stay out of the lead. Besides, as the story said, she did nothing illegal.-- Gen. Bedford his Forest 01:32, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
 * It should be noted that she has not been convicted of anything by anyone, there merely was an inquiry that concluded she abused her power. She has not been impeached, brought to court, nor are there any impeachment charges pending. This is recentism at its worst. How can something that happened yesterday suddenly be "known" to be notable enough to be in the summary of the main points of her life (which is what the lead is)? Erik the Red  2    02:19, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
 * A self-appointed committee of her political enemies criticized her. They didn't even accuse her of breaking any laws, they just think she did something "improper".  Big deal.  It certainly doesn't belong in the lede.  -- Zsero (talk) 02:16, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
 * They actually accused her of abusing her power as governor, but that doesn't change much. Erik the Red  2    02:19, 12 October 2008 (UTC)


 * What if she killed someone, does that qualify per WP:LEAD as including any notable controversies that may exist. ? If this only happened yesterday, people have been awfully busy to be able to write a page long section here, and a 110Kb sub-article. But, no 'big deal' I guess. And why the assumption that I want anything implying guilt to be mentioned, I never said anything of the sort, all I want is a mention of the notable event, you can even put in the 'by her political enemies' POV if you want. Including it is not unreasonable to a neutral editor interested in satisfying WP:LEAD. Let's just stop pretending this is WP:NEWS or otherwise unimportant in the life of a state governor ok? MickMacNee (talk) 02:37, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
 * But she didn't kill anyone. Your comparison between abuse of power and murder is invalid. It is notable for inclusion in her biography but not in the introduction. Erik the Red  2    14:54, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Both sides: it is not our job to decide whether these charges are serious, only whether they are notable enough to belong in the lead. (I personally read the report as clearly stating that she broke a law - but that's basically irrelevant.) It is very hard to make any objective determination of that while the report is still fresh. I am confident that after that point, it will clearly merit inclusion in the lead, but until then, I have to agree that there is no way to build a consensus. 216.106.170.195 (talk) 03:44, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Howabout, we settle this thing, after the US prez election? GoodDay (talk) 14:47, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
 * 1. How on earth could you suggest such a thing, GoodDay? Are you joking? 2. Re: charges of recentism: this is not recent - the controversy has been ongoing for quite some time. This sentence simply added one of the final conclusions of this long controversy, (quoting an article in the New York Daily News): "In mid-October 2008, Palin was found to have violated a statute of the Alaska Executive Branch Ethics Act when she allowed personal matters to dictate her approach to handle the firing of the Public Safety Commissioner. " 3. Significance: Any finding that a public official has violated his/her obligations to uphold the highest ethical standards is ALWAYS notable and significant, especially (not less so) when they are running for the second highest of offices in the land. My impression is that those who are arguing against inclusion are coming from a partisan place, not a good-faith wikipedia-editing place. Wikipedia comes first.LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 18:45, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
 * LLLL -- no consensus placing the report in the lede exists. Further, I actually read the 200+ page report, and its main criticism of Palin is that she allowed Todd into her office where he could interact with state employees, and that she did not keep people from contacting Monegan, even if she did not know they were doing so. Hence, the report did not even vaguely suggest a prosecution. see pp48 on. Collect (talk) 20:20, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
 * No one has said anything about prosecution. What we have all been talking about is the finding that she engaged in "abuse of power" and violation of the Ethics Act.LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 20:52, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Have you read section IV of the report? By the way, the report only finds the two things I gave in a precis. Basically she allowed Todd into her office and she did not stop contacts which she may not have known about. That is the net result of section IV. Collect (talk) 21:04, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Frankly, I'm not concerning myself with what she did or didn't do. I have trusted the independent commission to investigate that, and to determine in conclusion whether it summed up to abuse of power. It did. LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 23:14, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Are you saying you know what the report says even without reading it? The report is not by a commission in itself, as I am sure you are aware. The Legislative Council voted to publish it, and that is all. Again, read section IV before making pronouncements. Collect (talk) 23:46, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Church and State
This material can be used in this and related articles: ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:50, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
 * You should also know Biden and others have attended religious gatherings -- at taxpayer expense . This Burking of Palin has no relevance to the article at hand. And I know of no politician who turns down invitations to speak because a gathering is religious ... and I knew politicians who missed almost no funerals either.  perhaps you can name one? Collect (talk) 22:57, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
 * This article is about Palin, not about Biden. You may discuss Biden in Biden's article talk page. Also note that the AP article is not only about attending religious gatherings at taxpayers' expense. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:01, 11 October 2008 (UTC)


 * (ec) for example:
 * ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:04, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Leaving aside all other considerations, what has that got to do with either the state or religion? She was on a private hospital board, and voted for policies she believed the hospital should have.  She wasn't acting in her capacity as mayor, and she wasn't pushing anything religious.  So what's it doing here? -- Zsero (talk) 01:38, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
 * The article doesn't say, "Oh my god, she went to church!" It says, "Oh my god, she's using her power as governor to promote religious causes!" There is a big difference. Erik the Red  2    23:02, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
 * The article doesn't say, "Oh my god, she went to church!" It says, "Oh my god, she's using her power as governor to promote religious causes!" There is a big difference. Erik the Red  2    23:02, 11 October 2008 (UTC)


 * While that article is relevant and absolutely jaw-dropping in its implications, doesn't Wikipedia policy state that it's inappropriate for an editor to post a particular source on the talk page and invite other editors to cite from it? I vaguely recall this being referred to as "source solicitation" and something of a no-no. If so, let's try to avoid it.Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 23:59, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Fact, you are right to recall that Wikipedia has a statement concerning source solicitation. You are wrong to think that it applied to jossi's action.  First, source solicitation is not a policy, it is in a guideline and I have to repeat, guidelines are just that, and not binding.  Second, the guideline is wp:spam and you are welcome to read the details for yourself but source solicitation primarily refers to an anonymous user - often commercial - promoting a source on a range of articles across a category, in other words, it is not far from what any of us would call spam.  This is clearly not what Jossi is doing.  He is not an anonymous user.  he is not doing this to promote a commercial product.  He is not posting this indiscriminately to a range of articles.  On the contrary, he is calling our attention to s apecific source that meets our NPOV, V and RS criteria and that is directly relevant to this article.  This is not "source solicitation," it is "collaborative" and "consensus-building" editing.  In fact, knowledgable editors do this all the time; I have listed scholarly sources from the field of "White studies" on the White people talk page; I know people who have listed recent articles from evolutionary biology journals on the evolution talk page ... this is quite normal and desirable at Wikip0edia.  jossi, thank you.  i agree it is useful.  I encourage you or Eric the Red 2 to use it to add appropriate content to the article.  Slrubenstein   |  Talk 00:23, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Jossi cited an article in Newsweek by an Associated Press writer. Sounds like a reliable source to me, and quite suitable for use as a reference in related articles. If anyone finds similarly reliable sources which say about Biden or others statements like "Palin uses her elected office to promote religious causes, at times with public money" then by all means add them to the relevant articles. Edison (talk) 00:36, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
 * New York State: http://www.ny.gov/governor/keydocs/proclamations/proc_jewishheritagemonth.html http://www.ny.gov/governor/keydocs/proclamations/proc_dayofprayer.html http://www.ny.gov/governor/keydocs/proclamations/proc_yomhashoah.html http://www.ny.gov/governor/keydocs/proclamations/proc_stpatricks.html among many others.
 * California (just to give two representative states and their proclamations) : http://gov.ca.gov/proclamation/10629/ http://gov.ca.gov/proclamation/8146/   and so on ...
 * Not counting commencement addresses by all levels of officials ...  http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/05/20010521-1.html  http://www.educatednation.com/2006/06/06/secretary-condoleezza-rice-commencement-address-at-boston-college/  http://www.ed.gov/news/pressreleases/2006/07/07152006.html  and a few thousand more examples. Collect (talk) 00:57, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

(outdent} I don't see what the significance of any of this is. Politicians travel to give speeches where they're invited.  If she gave a commencement speech a university and spoke about the value of community service or something, would anyone complain that she traveled there at public expense?  So why is a speech at a religious institution less worthy?  The same applies to faith-based social service organisations; they're entitled to the same access to public subsidies as anyone else providing the same service, and going by the article's own reporting that's all Palin gave them.  There just doesn't seem to be anything to this at all, unless you believe that religious views and organisations are less deserving than any other views or organisations, and that the government should discriminate against them.  Which is a radical view, not supported by either law or history, and that  would be notable; that Palin doesn't hold this radical view is not particularly notable. -- Zsero (talk) 01:44, 12 October 2008 (UTC)


 * All I can say is to suggest that there is something here you just don't get. Nobody is suggesting that a politician can't attend an event at a church or reach out to religious constituents. But the activities described in the article go far beyond this and involve the use of significant public monies, at times to advance a biased partisan/religious agenda. Anyway, there is a significant state interest in upholding education institutions such as universities, and none for upholding particular religious institutions.. in case you don't notice, this goes right to the heart of the doctrine of separation of church and state.


 * According to what is presented in the article, Palin billed taxpayers for expenses to visit her own hometown church, similar perhaps to the per-diem expenses for living in her own house. She used her political office to oust members of a hospital board that supported abortion rights and to influence that hospital's application of abortion laws during a controversial period where those very laws were under immediate challenge in the state's supreme court. She gave tainted donation money to a "charity" aimed at "sharing God's love" to dissuade young women from having abortions.. translation: religion-neutral taxpayer money used to pay a religious pro-lifer to try and convince a pregnant teenager to bring the pregnancy to term instead of having an abortion.. at what cost to the state and society?


 * The argument about a "faith-based organizations being entitled to the same public subsidies as anyone else providing the same service" fails to hold water when the so-called "service" is actually a politically charged attempt to illegalize abortion or dissuade vulnerable young women from exercising their constitutionally protected rights based on particular religious beliefs. Furthermore "subsidies" to such organizations aren't really the focus of the piece, rather it's the manner in which Palin appears to have billed taxpayers for her own extracurricular religious campaigning, including family travel expenses, as if it were all official state business.Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 02:24, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
 * This is full of misstatements. 1. She didn't get a per diem allowance for living at home; she got it for working at her Anchorage office.  Because she drove home every day she didn't bill the state for hotels, as she could have done.  2. Where on earth are you getting the notion that she ousted members of the hospital board?  Let alone that she did so using the power of her office?  How could she possibly have done so, since it was a private hospital?  3. How was the money she gave to the charity "taxpayer money"?  It was up to her to give it to anyone she liked, and she gave it to a charity that seemed worthy to her.  What's wrong with that?  And you have a problem with convincing women not to have abortions?  Remind me again of how "nobody is pro-abortion", and how we must refer to that side of the debate as "pro-choice" instead.  If you're against persuading women to choose not to abort, then you're pro-abortion.  4. The federal grants for the faith-based service organisations is the only item in the article that can be in the least bit controversial; her travel to make speeches is completely normal, no matter whom she's talking to.  -- Zsero (talk) 06:06, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Ok, granted the per diem expenses while living in her own house were for travel expenses. Misstatement acknowledged. However this doesn't alter the fact that she billed travel expenses for visiting her own churches in both Wasilla and Juneau, along with thousands of dollars to visit other churches. And just as a reminder, the reason churches have all these nice facilities to host politicians at events, in the first place, is because they have a special tax exempt status which is supposed to owe to them being politically neutral. It sure doesn't make the institutions look politically neutral when Palin spends so much time and money visiting them and delivering religiously charged speeches and supporting religious legislation on abortion and creationism. What about people who don't attend church -- are they second-class? On that note, I wonder how much taxpayer money Palin spent to visit abortion doctors at abortion clinics? Since it's an issue she is quite interested in, I wonder how much time she has spent looking at the flip side of the coin.


 * As for the hospital board, her church and mother-in-law were instrumental in ousting board members from the hospital where she ultimately took a board seat in order to ensure that the hospital enforced a controversial, unconstitutional law forbidding 17-year-olds from having an abortion without parental consent. While she may not have officially been "the person" who ousted those board members, it seems that her religious-political allies did, and she was part of the same "grass-roots movement" that stepped in to force the hospital to enforce the unconstitutional law. She was part of the movement that ousted those board members and she used her political office (Mayor of Wasilla) to unduly influence a controversial issue of the law over which she had no rightful say.


 * Why this is all troubling is not because of Palin's faith or beliefs; it's to do with the apparently special status she places on religious beliefs, religious people, and religious organizations.


 * And I certainly don't object to anyone counseling girls not to have abortions for actual reasons, economic, social, moral, for example, that have nothing to do with "sharing God's love". Palin's donation of the tainted donation money looks more like a donation to her own political allies than a donation to "charity". On that note, calling me "pro-abortion" because I object to calling this "charity" a charity is a mindless and irrational criticism, not to mention an ad hominem attack on me. Shall I call you "anti-abortion" and myself "pro-life, pro-choice" just to irk you? Make stump speeches on the talk page all you want, but leave me out of it.Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 17:01, 12 October 2008 (UTC)


 * If her church and her mother-in-law ousted board members in her favor, then what has it got to do with the power of her office? Private people used their own influence to remove from the board of a private body people they disagreed with, and replace them with people they did agree with; what on earth has that got to do with the topic at hand?  What counts as a charity is up to the giver, not to you; I'm still waiting to hear how that money had anything at all to do with the taxpayer.  And politicians aren't expected to be politically neutral in deciding where they will speak, or what they will say.  They accept those invitations they want to.  And since speaking at such events is part of a governor's or president's job, they travel to them at gov't expense.  There is no principle of good government that would require Palin to speak to abortionists, any more than she would be required to speak to communists or neo-Nazis.  -- Zsero (talk) 19:16, 12 October 2008 (UTC)


 * The church and the mother in law have nothing to do with her office. Her office came into play when, as mayor, she joined the hospital board for the purpose of ensuring the hospital abided by the controversial view she supported. She knew it was under debate in the supreme court and prudence would seem to dictate a moratorium on enforcing such a controversial law rather than using every political tool available to enforce it while she had the power to do so. You don't see what she did as profoundly improper; I do. And again, the article states she was part of the same "grass roots effort" that appears to have ousted those board members, even if she did not specifically push for that. The tainted donation money had nothing to do with taxpayers although faith based grant money certainly is. I only referred to it (accidentally) as taxpayer money in that first post and didn't repeat the mistake. And I'm sorry for the misstatements in the first place. I should not have been posting at 2am but was quite shocked by your own comment that none of this was relevant or significant. Have to say I disagree. And just to clarify, I'm not suggesting that she did anything illegal or outside her authority, merely that it's a fair subject of discussion how much of the official state business she chooses to conduct seems to involve giving religious-themed speeches at, and praying in, churches. Personally, I don't see how having religious constituents somehow turns prayer into state business. Anyway, this is all relevant to her political stature.


 * I am not really sure how to respond to your comment about her not being obligated to speak to abortionists, communists or Neo-nazis. I didn't say anything about "abortionists" although perhaps that's what you think about doctors who perform abortions; I used that example merely to highlight how her partisan role in abortion issues might put her at odds with many constituents whom she probably chooses not to visit at taxpayer expense. But, given your choice of wording, are you saying that "abortionists", whoever they are, are some kind of radical political fringe group like communists or Neo-nazis?


 * And you know what? I really don't think any of this is appropriate for the talk page. If you object to the use of this source, I am sure there are avenues for relief that don't involve hashing out church v. state debates here or insisting that the source is full of hot air based on your own views.Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 20:19, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
 * This has gone absolutely far afield. You claim "as mayor, she joined the hospital board for the purpose of ensuring the hospital abided by the controversial view she supported." Unsupported. "the article states she was part of the same 'grass roots effort' that appears to have ousted those board members, even if she did not specifically push for that." Absolutely non-fact, and pure opinion.  "The tainted donation money" auumes facts not present. "ow much of the official state business she chooses to conduct seems to involve giving religious-themed speeches at, and praying in, churches" but the problem is that ALL governors, mayors, and otherer officials are just as apt to give speeches at such places, venues and events. I gave a few simple examples supra. In sjprt, the desire to insert non-factual material which is not even unique to Palin is improper. Collect (talk) 20:30, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
 * You keep making stuff up. How did her office come into play when she joined the hospital board?  It was private hospital, so how did her office come into play?  She was clearly there in a private capacity, just like all the other board members.  And she voted to maintain a policy (not a "law") that she agreed with; just because someone was challenging it in court was no reason why the hospital had to change it unilaterally, and the fact that she was also mayor has nothing to do with it.
 * And yes, people who perform abortions are abortionists; that's what the word means. For the moment the Supreme Court claims they have a constitutional right to do so, just as communists and Nazis have an undoubted constitutional right to express their opinion.  That doesn't mean elected officials can't express their disapproval.  -- Zsero (talk) 20:59, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

I'll address you one at a time.

COLLECT:

Yeah, it has gone afield. The source is cite-worthy, I don't know exactly what you are trying to argue.

1. "You claim 'as mayor, she joined the hospital board for the purpose of ensuring the hospital abided by the controversial view she supported.' Unsupported."

From the article, "But by 1997, after she had been elected mayor, Palin joined a hospital board to make sure the abortion ban held while the courts considered whether the ban was legal, Lewis said."

2. " 'the article states she was part of the same 'grass roots effort' that appears to have ousted those board members, even if she did not specifically push for that.' Absolutely non-fact, and pure opinion."

The article states, "In that same period, she also joined a grass-roots, faith-based movement to stop the local hospital from performing abortions, a fight that ultimately lost before the Alaska Supreme Court. Palin's former church and other evangelical denominations were instrumental in ousting members of Valley Hospital's board who supported abortion rights — including the governor's mother-in-law, Faye Palin."

3. "The tainted donation money" assumes facts not present.

I'm not sure what you mean. The article states:

"Still, after the AP reported the governor had accepted tainted donations during her 2006 campaign, she announced she would donate the $2,100 to three charities, including an Anchorage nonprofit aimed at 'sharing God's love' to dissuade young women from having abortions."

The plain language says to me that the charity aims to use a religious message to dissuade abortions. Are you saying it means something else? All *I* was saying is that rather than being a traditional and neutral charity, it's a partisan effort aimed at persuading people towards a religious-themed, partisan moral viewpoint. As I said, I would have no objection to a non-religious group that invites girls to seriously consider their choices and the impact of each before deciding whether to have an abortion. I don't even have a problem if that group tells the girls they're probably going to feel guilty about it if they get an abortion. But not because God is going to punish them or love them less or whatever.

Anyway, yes it was "Palin's money" in a sense. It was a tax-exempt campaign contribution. Since it turned out to be tainted, she couldn't use it in her campaign because of the bad image. If it were a gift she'd have to pay taxes on it. By giving it to a charity there was no need to pay taxes, but at the same time, she picked a partisan, religious-aligned charity. So it was like campaign spending anyway. That's all I'm saying.

4. I looked at your examples. I didn't see anything that would suggest a particular governor other than Palin participating so deeply in religious events in an official capacity. I dig that it is a common thing to be done in general. A serious line is blurred if it becomes a major part of the governor's activity. The article seems to indicate that and suggests that the degree of activity is uncommon.

I am not suggesting or attempting to insert any non-factual material. This is the freaking talk page. The source is cite-worthy. What exactly are you arguing here?

ZSERO:

Let me introduce you to the facts of this case.

Abortion has been legal in Alaska since 1970, and since Roe v. Wade, some abortion rights have been protected against state legislatures by the constitutional law of the US Supreme Court. In the Alaskan supreme court's own words "...the Alaska Constitution provides greater protection for individual rights than the United States Constitution; [and] the right to choose an abortion is a fundamental right guaranteed by article I, section 22 of the Alaska Constitution..." The hospital in question had its facility rebuilt and expanded in the early 1980s, using $10.7 million in State funds and five acres of land donated by the City of Palmer. Hence it is a "quasi-public hospital", both in my opinion and in the rulings of Alaskan courts.

In 1992 a bunch of pro-lifers got together a campaign for the local hospital board to increase its size, packed the board with pro-lifers, and elected an Operating Board which enacted a new abortion policy for that hospital. The policy prohibited abortions at the hospital unless (1) there was documentation by one or more physicians that the fetus has a condition that is incompatible with life; (2) the mother's life was threatened; or (3) the pregnancy was a result of rape or incest.

Notice: this was not law. Women still had the right to have an abortion in Alaska. Just not at that hospital. And if that was their local hospital, too bad. So sayeth the Board.

Women sued the hospital in Superior Court. While the case was being considered, the court prohibited the hospital from enacting its new policy. The court then ruled that the policy was illegal, forced the hospital to pay the women's legal fees, and forbade the hospital:

1. from enforcing any policy, rule, regulation, practice, or custom prohibiting the performance of any lawful abortion procedure at Valley Hospital; 2. from refusing to permit the facilities of Valley Hospital to be used for the performance of any lawful abortion procedure by qualified medical personnel; 3. and from imposing any restriction on the performance or scheduling of any lawful abortion procedure at Valley Hospital which is not based on accepted, established medical practices or requirements with respect to such procedures.

The hospital appealed this ruling, and the payment of legal fees, to the Alaskan Supreme Court.

While this appeal was pending, in 1997, according to the AP article, which was citing the Alaska Right to Life director, Sarah Palin, the mayor of Wasilla, joined the hospital board to make sure the abortion ban [which had already been declared illegal by one court] would be enforced while the supreme court consider whether the previous court's decision ruling the abortion ban illegal was, itself, legal.

So. Supposing you are a woman who needs to get an abortion, and both state law and the US Supreme Court say you have a right to, but your local hospital has been taken over by people with a partisan religious/political agenda, and they don't want to perform abortions, and the courts have already ruled this ban illegal, but while the purged hospital board appeals its right to enforce a local, "non-legal" ban on abortion, the local pro-life MAYOR, WHO WANTS TO BAN ABORTION, has taken a spot on this quasi-public hospital board to ensure the already-declared-illegal-and-about-to-be-declared-illegal-again, non-government-enacted abortion ban gets enforced.

And you are telling me there is no cause whatsoever to think the mayor used her office improperly? GET OUT OF TOWN SIR.

Here's the deal: legislators get to appoint judges, but not overrule them. And executives get to enforce laws, but not enact them. And I still am not seeing your comparison between abortion doctors and neo-Nazis or communists.

Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 22:29, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Replying to hundred line screeds is difficult. Try reducing your posts to manageable levels dealing with IMPROVING AN ARTICLE. This talk page is ill-used for debates on all sorts of styff, and lengthy posts basically get ignored by me. On (1), your own cite makes clear it represents opinion only. On (2) you use an argument about a church WHICH SHE NO LONGER ATTENDED. Nice bit of irrelevancy there! On (3) it is normal practice to give improper campaign donations to charity -- as Obama has done for many thousands of dollars. On (4) Note religious proclamations, attendance at church functions, attendance at church college commencement exercises, attendance at church social events, and so on -- for politicians of all stripes. From President down to ward leader. I can cite about 125,000 hits one by one if you wish -- I thought showing a handful was sufficient. As for calling this the "freaking talk page" I would hope you would be more civil than that. As to being upset that a new member of a board would not act contrary to the existing lawsuit (which, by the way, would have been improper if you have ever been on the board of a non-profit organization) all I can say is that you have never been involved with lawsuits of such nature. Thanks! Collect (talk) 23:33, 12 October 2008 (UTC)


 * You've insisted on arguing even though it's clear this source can be used and that was supposed to be the subject of discussion. Discussion was resolved, you kept talking. I pointed out several comments earlier that the talk page is not for us to hash out this debate. You persist, I persist. On 1, whatever. The article says in plain English "Palin joined a hospital board to make sure the abortion ban held while the courts considered whether the ban was legal". On 2 I use an argument about her former church and her co-conspirators in the grassroots (read: extralegal) abortion ban campaign. Nice attempt to portray it as irrelevant just because she switched churches. She still became a leader in the abovementioned extra-legal attempt to ban abortion. On 3 I am well aware that it is customary to give tainted campaign contributions to charity, so you needn't bother trying to instruct me on that. I said nothing about that, but observed said that she chose a partisan charity that is essentially staking out a politically charged position in the ongoing controversy (attempts to re-criminalize abortion) which Palin has happily made one of her central causes. So, like I said, it's almost like she used it as campaign spending anyway... it wasn't exactly a politically neutral charity such as the March of Dimes, after all. And I never complained about any "improper lawsuit behavior"... merely complained that the pro-lifers mounted an effort to "pack" the board of the hospital in order to implement their controversial extra-legal abortion ban against the wishes of existing board members who had to be ousted in order to pave the way for this campaign.As for ME not being civil, you and your compatriots Zsero/Ferrylodge have been the most flagrant violators of civility I have seen so far, repeatedly and broadly assuming bad faith, explicitly in your comments, quipping sarcastically in trivial situations (e.g. "I'm sure you have a source for that... right?"), abusing new editors, and even using profanity in your conversations with me. You regularly complain about editors "wearing others down" yet you complain incessantly on every topic even after it is clear that there is no policy left to discuss and you simply want to bicker with the other editors... to wear them down. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 23:55, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Try going to the article before you make claims on quotes. The quote you think is neutral is from Karen Lewis, and is her opinion, and not a "matter of fact" as you seem to think. As for your calling me names, I suppose that comes with the territory of trying to make WP fact-based rather than opinion-based. As for me asking for a source, when a person makes an assertion and fails to back it up, asking for sources is essential. I would also like to have you CITE the "profanity" you assert I have used. It would be illuminating, I am sure. Thank you most kindly. Collect (talk) 20:30, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I haven't had a chance to digest the above, but just wanted to note that we've had dozens and dozens of people add in this info about her relationship with her churches, which has been deleted repeatedly by a handful of people. LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 20:34, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
 * LLLL, WP tries to be a fact-based site. I've read way too many of the archives, and the "dozens and dozens" of people who sought to add faulty information about religion were uniformly ruled out by those who try to maintain reasonable WP standards. Collect (talk) 21:09, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Wow, Collect. Wow. Do you have any real understanding of Wikipedia rules? I never said any quote is neutral. I never said any quote is fact. It would not be relevant if I did because Wikipedia doesn't rely on the opinions of its editors for its material content. This is why it has the verifiability policy. The quote was published by a reliable source. It need not be factual to be included here. Per WP:Weasel it must be attributed appropriately. If it is controversial it may be balanced with material from another source offering a different viewpoint, although of course that source must be reliable too. The BLP policies are subsumed under these comprehensive policies, which do not invalidate the inclusion of sourced opinions or other controversial materials in an article about a living person. And you are perfectly entitled to ask people for sources for the claims they make in comments, but I only pointed out that you can be rude and sarcastic in doing so, e.g. in my quote of you "I'm sure you have a source... right?" And the profanity that was used against me was the word "bullshit" although I can't be bothered to dig thru the logs and see whether it was you or Ferrylodge that said it.Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 20:56, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
 * If we used every opinion by everybody about Palin, this article would be a tad larger than it is. Therefore we must make consensus decisions. Forcing reverts to get stuff in does not qualify as finding consensus. As for you insisting I used profanity, you apparently can not be bothered to apologize. Try it someday. Collect (talk) 21:09, 13 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I didn't even make the original edit. As far as I can tell you wrote that text after grinding out consensus on how to word it. FL reverted without prior discussion and ignored the consensus that built the statement that was put in in the first place. I reverted his deletion. I was not attempting to "force something in" contrary to any consensus. I didn't put it in, and you helped craft it. I was just keeping him from unilaterally taking it out based on a bogus grammatical interpretation, directly against the substance of the consensus. Anyway, yes we make consensus decisions.. but after making a consensus, we enforce it and don't stop enforcing it unless it is overturned by another consensus. And all along the way, the consensus must be rooted in the rules and goals of Wikipedia. A show of hands isn't taken to certify a wrong decision, hence the existence of arbitration and other measures. And by the way, you ASKED ME TO CITE THE PROFANITY. So I did. Did you consider apologizing instead of calling me a liar AND criticizing me for not apologizing first for your profanity? And was it really necessary to add the infuriating extra bit, "you should try it someday" just to add that little personal dig?Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 21:49, 13 October 2008 (UTC)


 * What profanity am I to apologize for? I wrote none. Your claim that I wrote proanity is errant.  I am truly sorry that your response is to accuse me anew of profanity. Collect (talk) 23:49, 13 October 2008 (UTC)


 * It was Ferrylodge. Sorry for the wrongful accusation. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 01:31, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Removal of references
I have just gone through the artice and removed several redundant references - that is, I have found many places in the article where the same piece of information is being referenced multiple times. I have removed those redundancies. I have not left those pieces of information uncited;those things are now being cited just once, which is sufficient. Lucas Brown (talk) 00:55, 12 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Here on planet Earth, Mr. Spaceman, we work for our references, and choose them carefully. If your bot has trouble understanding them, then I suggest that -it- is redundant. Anarchangel (talk) 17:49, 13 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Calling an editor "Mr. Spaceman" is not quite indicative of collegial respect. Collect (talk) 18:53, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Is this necessary? The article itself helps editors keep track of references. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 20:32, 12 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Actually, it is helpful. The automated system does not actually do much more than keep numbers in order -- it is a mechanical bot, if you will. Problems arise when the same reference is listed multiple times ... it takes a human to give a "name" to each ref, and then use that name between the ref-/ref tags. Collect (talk) 20:42, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Obama "Doesn't see America like you and I do," and other controversial comments by Palin
The Palin stump statement referenced above has been viewed by many in the media as suggesting or containing racial undertones. That statement, and others Palin has recently made n the campaign, is largely responsible for having whipped up an unequivocal racist frenzy among virulent supporters, not witnessed in this country since Wallace many decades ago. Surely the role of Palin's controversial, potentially racist comments in fueling that frenzy is relevant and essential to her bio. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/12/opinion/12rich.html?_r=2&oref=slogin&oref=slogin

Additionally, given the potentially racist content of (or intentional inferences within) Palin's recent comments, the fact that she quoted during her convention speech from Pelger, a racist, takes on new significance and relevance. Given the indicia of racially-charged content and rhetoric in Palin's recent comments, it is increasingly reasonable to consider whether a pattern is forming: a pattern of Palin injecting semi-racist or racially-charged content or rhetoric in her pubic comments, which may well have begun by quoting Pelger during the convention, or perhaps even earlier than that. The public reaction speaks for itself; Palin is undeniably a central contributor to the existence of that unusually demonstrative public reaction. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.202.139.195 (talk) 01:06, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
 * This "reaction" exists only in the minds of paranoid ratbags like Frank Rich. There are no racist undertones, overtones, or sideways-tones in anything Palin has said, and it's completely dishonorable to accuse her of such a thing.  What it adds up to in the end is that any criticism of Obama will be attacked as somehow "racist".  I don't know what article this garbage belongs in, if any, but certainly not this one.  -- Zsero (talk) 01:14, 12 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree that there should be at least some mention of her controversial comments, and how some people might view it as racist. I'm not sure that it deserves its own paragraph but it should be mentioned. She seems to be creating a pattern of this. Lakerking04 (talk) 01:16, 12 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Huh? We have enough trouble agreeing on some actual facts, but trying to parse every statement for "hidden meaning" requires Dunninger pills.  Collect (talk) 01:46, 12 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Some people are blind to the subtleties of prejudice and racial undertones. Anyone that is listening can hear the offensive quality of "he's not one of us", "that one", "doesn't see America....", "terrorist, "muslim". etc. It is a definite and noticible drift in the campaign, whether or not Zsero or Collect are listening . Paranoid ratbags (as zsero calls Rich) are not the only ones that are troubled by the potential calamity that is a very possible outcome of the new Palin frankness. Even Republican leaders have requested that both Palin and McCain reconsider their recent racial rhetoric. --Buster7 (talk) 01:56, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the gratuitous slur. I am glad Dunninger pills are readily available -- I just don't have any. Collect (talk) 02:14, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I have added a sentence about the points made by Rich, while meeting NPOV and citing the op-ed in the way op-eds are cited: sourcing the POV of the author. Erik the Red  2    02:20, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
 * If you're accusing Palin of racism, there aren't any "subtleties" to be blind to. It's a foul libel, and anyone making it should be ashamed of themselves.  We had a discussion a while ago about witch-hunting in Kenya - this is a real American witch hunt, where it's impossible for the victim to defend herself, because the witchcraft exists only in the accuser's mind.  The accuser just repeats that it's "subtle", and only he can see it, but surely it's there, because he wouldn't make something like that up, would he?  Well, I'm crying foul.  Frank Rich and his like would and do make this sort of thing up regularly.  He's a hate-filled liar, and his opinions are not notable facts about his target of the moment, just because he has a newspaper column.  -- Zsero (talk) 02:42, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Indeed. Which is why I reverted it.-- Gen. Bedford  his Forest 02:50, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

(trolling rant removed) Tempodivalse (talk) 02:24, 13 October 2008 (UTC)


 * How do you know they're not made up, whoever you are? And if by some chance they aren't made up, how many people are alleged to have shouted them?  One?  Two?  Now compare to the invective shouted openly by hundreds at every anti-Bush rally for the past 8 years. Or even at Obama rallies now.   -- Zsero (talk) 23:37, 12 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Zsero, your amateur psychiatric report on Rich ("hate-filled") is I suppose all well and good in the rough and tumble of a Wikipedia talk page, but your description of him as a "paranoid ratbag" smells of the schoolyard, and your statement that he is a "liar" is potentially libelous. Please remain civil. -- Hoary (talk) 11:12, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Aside from the fact that Eich routinely calls people "liars" the fact is that he is a "public person" and calling him a "liar" is not "libelous" one whit. And, as Mr. Rich is not here, we need not AGF for his columns. Collect (talk) 17:44, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I'll take "Eich" as a typo for "Rich". Yes, Rich routinely calls people "liars", substantiating these allegations with evidence. You may question the evidence, but there it is. If some editor here wants to call Rich (or Palin, or anyone else) a liar, that editor should provide evidence for the claim. -- Hoary (talk) 00:08, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the typo correction. "But there is, in fact, a permeable membrane not quite separating fact from opinion at The Times, and it resides wholly within Keller's domain. It's the ragged line that careens like a wind-up toy through the news sections, zigging past the work of columnists, zagging by the views of critics and doing triple axels around several hybrid forms bearing names like Washington Memo, On Education, Personal Health, Sports of The Times, NYC, Public Lives, Reporter's Notebook and Frank Rich." "Several weeks ago, Daniel Okrent, this paper's public editor, courageously stated the obvious: of course The New York Times is a liberal newspaper ("Is The New York Times a Liberal Newspaper?" July 25). And he wasn't just talking about an editorial page he finds "thoroughly saturated in liberal theology" or the Sunday carvings of Frank Rich, who "slices up" President Bush and friends in the Arts & Leisure section." From the New York Times. I would humbly suggest that then the Public Editor says Rich does not separate fact from opinion, that this is a RS. No? (More examples on request. Rich was a Drama Critic as his c.v. indicates. Collect (talk) 13:01, 13 October 2008 (UTC)


 * By the way, I feel that listing editorial opinions by columnists does not qualify as "facts" for the purpose of a BLP or any biography in fact. Elsewise, we could end up with hundreds of editorials on all sides, listed, cited, quoted, and still not being "verifiable fact." Collect (talk) 03:11, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Did anyone actually read the sentence? It didn't say "Palin's attacks were racist", it says, "Frank Rich wrote that Palin's recent speeches contained racial undertones". Regardless of whether or not you agree with Frank Rich, he is still notable, and the NYT is also notable. That's like saying that all of Bush's opinions on matters should be removed because he is a hate-filled liar. Once again, the only fact the sentence reported was Frank Rich's opinion on her recent speeches. Comparing criticism of Palin to witch hunting is utterly ridiculous and offensive to people who actually have been affected by witch hunts. Erik the Red  2    03:27, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
 * As public figures with the power to influence and persuade, Sen. McCain and Gov. Palin are playing with fire, and if they are not careful, that fire will consume us all. They are playing a very dangerous game that disregards the value of the political process and cheapens our entire democracy. They can do better. The American people deserve better.--Buster7 (talk) 03:52, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
 * This is ridiculous nonsense. They're participating in a political contest, drawing attention to their opponent's flaws as they're supposed to, and his partisans are engaged in a deliberate attempt to hobble them by pretending to see racism in anything they say.  Rich is a notable person because he has a newspaper column and for no other reason; but his opinions and delusions are notable facts about him, not about his subjects.  Art Bell is also notable, but his opinions on extraterrestrial life don't belong in the WP article on that subject.  -- Zsero (talk) 05:56, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

(trolling rant removed) Tempodivalse (talk) 01:53, 13 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Neither McCain nor Palin has ever attacked Obama for his colour or his middle name. Get lost, troll.  -- Zsero (talk) 23:37, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

A number of reliable sources are describing a historically high degree of anger and racism at Palin and McCain rallies, ascribing it to incitement by the candidates and their campaigns, speakers and demonstrators at the rallies, and/or frustration over being in a weak position in the race. For example:. It is sourceable that there are coded racial undertones to some of the campaign statements. The divisiveness, or whatever you call it, is described by the sources as rising above the normal back-and-forth of a campaign. As such it is probably relevant to the campaign articles but I don't see a showing that this is biographically important to Palin. History may or may not judge her on this, but it is too early for Wikipedia to decide.Wikidemon (talk) 08:49, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
 * A source may be "reliable" as to facts (though in this campaign it's clear that sources WP generally regards as reliable are in fact not), but when that source starts speculating about matters that are inherently unknowable, that speculation is no more reliable than that of any fairground mind-reader. When someone can point at random to any attack on Obama and claim that it's somehow "coded" racism ("coded" because there isn't any racism to be actually seen), they can't be taken seriously.  In any case, neither of the sources you cited seems to describe racism at the rallies, just anger, and what's unusual or notable about that?  -- Zsero (talk) 19:08, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
 * You heard it here first. No more discussions of correlation in Wikipedia entries.  I'll be the first to say that I applaud this new policy.  Really. Aprock (talk) 21:48, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
 * It doesn't matter how many sources you provide, the sentence "Palin's [public] speeches contained racial undertones" is never going to be inserted. There is more than enough evidence to label Obama's speeches as heliocentric, and the man himself symbolises a shift away from family values, but it doesn't add anything to the article relative to the casual reader. Such comments are out of scope. Ottre 19:11, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
 * "Heliocentric"? Huh?  -- Zsero (talk) 19:28, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
 * It would be encyclopedic to say (subject to wording tweaks, verification, etc) that attendees at Palin's rallies grew increasingly angry (or if it needs in-line attributions, that a number of sources noted a growing and unusually high degree of anger and intemperate comments by speakers and attendees at these rallies, including bigoted comments). Many of these sources attribute the anger to the message delivered.  When people regularly shout "Arab", "Muslim", and "terrorist" at a rival candidae's mention, and the press takes note, it is notable.  My argument, however, is that it is not clearly relevant to Palin's biography, and this is a biographical article.  If her speeches continue to the point where the attack politics defines who she is, then maybe, but she has only been doing this for a few days and the outcome is not clear.Wikidemon (talk) 19:56, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Let's wait until after the US prez election, before we discuss adding/removing controversial happenings. GoodDay (talk) 22:25, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
 * That's fine by me. Wikipedia, unlike the election, doesn't have a deadline.  Whether a given matter is important or not will be a lot clearer in hindsight, and when in doubt I think it's best to not be in a rush to add controversial material of uncertain truth or significance.  Wikidemon (talk) 21:37, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Palin rallies
Man displays monkey at Palin rally wearing Obama sticker on its head; refers to monkey as "little Heussein," and says he brought monkey along so it could observe "real Americans." http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/10/12/man-holds-monkey-doll-wit_n_133965.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.202.139.195 (talk) 22:47, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Jeepers. GoodDay (talk) 22:57, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
 * And this is different from the innumerable references to "Chimpy" Bush, how exactly? -- Zsero (talk) 23:37, 12 October 2008 (UTC)


 * One could conceivably make the argument that the frequent racist characterization of blacks as "monkeys", "apes", or "primates" introduces at least the possibility that there is an insulting racist motivation for putting an Obama sticker on a monkey doll. Impossible to prove, of course, but since you seem to be completely oblivious to the possibility I wanted to point it out. I don't wish to debate the issue any further other than to simply point out the possibility that some might take a racist interpretation of such a gesture and have some non-zero historical reason to think of that possibility. Regards. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 23:59, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

The foregoing comments were removed with this comment: "(removing material irrelevant to the imrovement of the article. Let's keep on topic, folks. Tempodivalse (talk) 17:35, 13 October 2008 (UTC))" I'm restoring the comments, with a new subheading "Palin rallies" for clarity. The comments are not irrelevant to improving the article, because some editors obviously wanted to raise the possibility that the article would be improved by including some information along these lines.

My personal opinion is that nothing has happened at Palin rallies that merits inclusion in her bio article (as opposed to the campaign article, which I'm not addressing). Nevertheless, the comments are proper because it's a subject on which editors can disagree in good faith. JamesMLane t c 19:17, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Unless there's a source on record blaming Palin specifically for racist sentiment somehow (how would you do that?) then it's just guilt by association. I don't think any of the editorials have gone out on that limb.Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 20:36, 13 October 2008 (UTC)


 * You're approaaching this from the standpoint of a campaign article -- that all material must relate to whether or not people should vote for Palin. That's not the standard.  A sufficiently notable event should be included even if Palin doesn't deserve any credit or blame for it.  For example, our bio of Jodie Foster mentions the nutjob who tried to kill Reagan.  Foster wasn't to blame for the would-be assassin's fascination with her, but the connection is notable and is properly included in her bio.


 * While rejecting your general standard, I still don't see anything about the Palin rallies that I'd include in her bio. The campaign's overall harsher tone has been commented on, however, and the behavior of crowds at rallies might well be appropriate for inclusion in the article on the McCain campaign. JamesMLane t c 20:58, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Seeing Russia from Alaska
The (near-) absence from this article of the string "Russia" is oddly absent in view of Palin's replies to questions about her foreign affairs experience. She has suggested familiarity with Russia via proximity, but this piece explains how visible Russia would have been to her.

Has this already been discussed? The archives are dismayingly voluminous, and I confess that I didn't search. -- Hoary (talk) 11:19, 12 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Most everything has been discussed, Rediscussed, Rerediscussed. Until the people who are discussing it can get the consensus they sek, or at least wear down everyone else. Collect (talk) 13:00, 12 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't remember this point being discussed, but I could be mistaken.GreekParadise (talk) 14:40, 12 October 2008 (UTC)


 * The "Russia" comments were made in both the Gibson and Couric interviews. Amazingly, she repeated this foreign policy experience argument to Couric after the infamous SNL parody. The comments were widely reported in the MSM. I think they were in the article in the campaign section and later removed. IP75 (talk) 18:09, 12 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Russia is close enough that 8 Alaskan islands were transfeerd to Russia a few years back. The Diomede islands are less than 2 miles apart, which I would assume is within eyesight. Russian Arctic Ocean claims abut Alaska. Collect (talk) 18:22, 12 October 2008 (UTC)


 * So? Tvoz / talk 04:20, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
 * These islands were not part of the Seward Purchase. They merely were discovered by Americans but thereafter were visited or even inhabited for a time by Russians, so there was not so very much of a "turning over" involved (although the U.S. could have pursued a legal claim to them, it was supposed). $\sim$ Justmeherenow     04:31, 13 October 2008 (UTC)


 * The question was the nearness of Russia to Alaska. I trust that the nit is over, and the nearness is undisputed. Collect (talk) 12:18, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

The question related to possible mention of Palin's statement in support of her foreign policy credentials. Let's stick to commentary on that question instead of ranting about other editors.Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 16:22, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

US State
I originally made this edit to globalize the sentence. Simply saying Alaska is too US-centric IMO. I don't really care that much what the wording is per se, however Alaska must be clearly identified as a state in the USA, and not just 'assumed common knowledge'. Suicup (talk) 09:30, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Where is the other Alaska that it could be confused with? This isn't like Georgia where confusion between the US state and the former state withih the USSR is initially understandable and requires clarity. Did you have a problem identifying Alaska? Or are you just presupposing a problem that doesnt exist? Also, your summary mentions a discussion as tho editors had agreed. Until I answered you were talking to yourself.--Buster7 (talk) 11:36, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Book Banning
Palin's mayoral inquiries into banning books were motivated by religious concerns over content: http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1837918,00.html. Right now, the language in the article is so sanitized that it gives no reason for why Palin would inquire as to banning books. I feel this is a lack of information to the point of being misleading. I move to include the phrase "religiously-motivated" or have some kind of mention of why Palin wanted to ban certain books. RafaelRGarcia (talk) 22:07, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree with caveats. First, the statement has to be "TIME says religiously motivated" and the statement needs to be in the right place, not in the sentence about the librarian's denial. Erik the Red  2    22:12, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
 * What exactly is the "right place?" RafaelRGarcia (talk) 22:14, 12 October 2008 (UTC)


 * What source does the article give for the claim that this had anything to do with religion? It seems like a free-standing assertion by the reporter. -- Zsero (talk) 22:16, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
 * How so? "Stein says that as mayor, Palin continued to inject religious beliefs into her policy at times. "She asked the library how she could go about banning books," he says, because some voters thought they had inappropriate language in them. "The librarian was aghast.""RafaelRGarcia (talk) 22:19, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
 * The right place: "Palin tried to ban books, for religious reasons according to TIME magazine (source here)." Erik the Red  2    22:17, 12 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree with you, but I think conservatives must have objected to such direct language in the past. That must be why it's so sanitized now, saying Palin inquired without giving a reason. RafaelRGarcia (talk) 22:30, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Just read that time article. To be honest, that statement seems to be just the opinion of the author and not backed up by the quotes supplied.  One man's opinion.--Cube lurker (talk) 22:24, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
 * How is that? The former mayor, Stein, clearly says Palin wanted to ban books for religious reasons. Here is the quote: "Stein says that as mayor, Palin continued to inject religious beliefs into her policy at times. 'She asked the library how she could go about banning books,' he says, because some voters thought they had inappropriate language in them. 'The librarian was aghast.'" RafaelRGarcia (talk) 22:27, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Note the phrase Stein, clearly says Palin wanted to ban books for religious reasons is outside the quote and the already inserted fact "She asked the library how she could go about banning books," in inside the quote marks.--Cube lurker (talk) 22:32, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Right. The first line is my sentence, and then I used a blockquote. I will clarify. RafaelRGarcia (talk) 22:37, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Exactly. How is "some voters thought they had inappropriate language in them" a religious concern? -- Zsero (talk) 22:36, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Then you would support the article saying that Palin's censorship inquiries were over language concerns? RafaelRGarcia (talk) 22:38, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Check the article, also outside the quote marks. Got to be honest, if that article was an article here it'd be afd'd for WP:OR and WP:synth.--Cube lurker (talk) 22:42, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
 * What are you talking about? The article clearly supports the fact that Palin wanted to ban books for religious/language reasons, and the source is the former mayor. RafaelRGarcia (talk) 22:45, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Find one comment on Palins religious views contained within quotation marks.--Cube lurker (talk) 22:49, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

The article reads, Stein says that as mayor, Palin continued to inject religious beliefs into her policy at times. "She asked the library how she could go about banning books," he says, because some voters thought they had inappropriate language in them. "

According to Time, according to Stein, the attempt to ban books was an example of her injecting religious beliefs into her policy. Perfectly legitimate, primary-sourced, analysis/synthesis which has been published by a reliable source and is therefore fit for inclusion in appropriate format.Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 22:50, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Agree. It makes no sense whatsoever to mention Palin's attempts at book banning without saying why. RafaelRGarcia (talk) 22:53, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Are you conceding my above point?--Cube lurker (talk) 22:55, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
 * No. The article clearly reports that Palin's censorship attempt was for religious/language reasons; it just doesn't give a direct quote from Stein in the way you want it to. All reporters write this way. Unfiltered interviews are rare. RafaelRGarcia (talk) 23:06, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
 * So we have your opinion and mine. I think this is a crap op-ed type article that would be unworthy of inclusion on WP.  I feel that WP is better when based on quality secondary sources not crap ones.  But i'm just one man.  If i'm alone, so be it,  my opinion is noted here on the talk page.--Cube lurker (talk) 23:12, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Talk pages are not soapboxes, and TIME is a reliable source. RafaelRGarcia (talk) 23:20, 12 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Don't try to pull the soapbox strawman. I've expressed legitamate concerns with the reference being used.  If i'm alone in consensus, fine, i'm not an edit warrior, check my record, but don't attack my motives.--Cube lurker (talk) 23:32, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
 * For sourced facts. Nathan Thornburgh's opinions are no more valid than mine or yours.  --
 * Why not wait until after the US prez election. Then discuss what controversies to add/remove. GoodDay (talk) 23:09, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I do not think this is wise.RafaelRGarcia (talk) 23:14, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
 * It should be this way for all 4 articles (McCain, Obama, Biden & Palin). How's waiting 3 more weeks, gonna hurt? GoodDay (talk) 23:17, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
 * No real reason to do what you describe. And the article will probably be a whole lot less relevant in three weeks.Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 23:19, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I do not think your idea has popular support. It's more important to present all the relevant info before the election, not after. RafaelRGarcia (talk) 23:18, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
 * How do you mean? Adding/removing controversial material can easily be done latter. Doing so during the campaign (when tensions are high), is too emotional for some. GoodDay (talk) 23:21, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree with "for some," but not for me. I just came across this Wikipage and heard about the book banning, then was dumbfounded when I saw that no reason was given for Palin's banning inquiries, so I'm trying to fill in missing info. RafaelRGarcia (talk) 23:25, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm not clear on why individual editor opinions about individual reporters or articles is relevant...?Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 23:18, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
 * If we're trying to create a quality encyclopedia using quality references should be every editors highest concern.--Cube lurker (talk) 23:21, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
 * TIME is a reliable source. RafaelRGarcia (talk) 23:22, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
 * TIME may be a reliable source for facts, supposedly because it employs fact checkers who are supposed to check them. But the fact that Nathan Thornburgh's private opinion as to Palin's motivation &mdash; or for that matter Stein's private opinion on the same topic &mdash; was printed in TIME does not make it reliable.  No facts are adduced to support this speculation. -- Zsero (talk) 23:29, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Your statement is completely inconsequential. This opinion piece can be cited in this article in an appropriate fashion. The source is reliable and Wikipedia has established procedures for attributing material.Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 23:35, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
 * But right now, the Wiki article doesn't say why Palin inquired as to banning the books. Shouldn't we at least say it was for concerns over inappropriate language? RafaelRGarcia (talk) 23:30, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

I'll say it for about the 20th time. Attempts to disqualify or discredit individual articles based on editor opinion about individual journalists working for a source constitutes original research. This is not really a subject of discussion. Nothing whatsoever disqualifies the source.Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 23:31, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree. I think we have consensus here. RafaelRGarcia (talk) 23:31, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

The entire "book banning" tempest fails -- NO books were ever removed from the library, Palin NEVER asked for a book to be banned (official library records cited before) and Laura Welch never said religion entered into the book she mentioned, nor said multiple books were mentioned, which no one ever asked to be removed per library records. In point of fact, the entire topic reeks of politics and not of actual concerns. Collect (talk) 23:41, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Who is Laura Welch? I think there are enough sources supporting this right now. RafaelRGarcia (talk) 23:44, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Please stop your reversions. The many sources are very clear on this issue, and TIME states the motivation. RafaelRGarcia (talk) 23:45, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I edited this ONCE. Calling it "reversions" is misleading and is against AGF. NO concensus that Palin asked for censorship exists, much less that she did so for "religious reasons." Ask here before reverting again -- it is polite to seek real consensus rather than forcing the issue. Thanks! Collect (talk) 23:50, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

RafaelRGarcia read WP:BRD now's the time for more discussion not forcing your ebtry in by reversion.--Cube lurker (talk) 23:49, 12 October 2008 (UTC) Garcia is now fully at 3RR. Blatantly. Collect (talk) 23:54, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Garcia is now at 5RR. Astounding for someone who just arrived. Collect (talk) 00:13, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Guys, you're confusing issues. The issue is not what Palin said, but what Time has reported.  I've yet to see any valid argument against inclusion of this material (and obviously Time is a reliable source).  It seems like some editors are trying to cherry pick the contents of the source, which injects editorial POV in place of quoting a reliable source.  Attempts to whitewash the context of the inquiries (no matter what the motivations may be) does the entire project (and our readers) a serious disservice.  //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 23:58, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

12 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Not to mindlessly say "me too", but I have been trying to make this point for weeks now with limited success. There seems to be this idea that we sit here and say "Yeah, NY Times is good, but that guy's a total fruitcake so we won't include any of his articles." or "Yeah, he's a good writer on facts but his opinions aren't worth a damn and should not be cited here." My understanding is that this is inappropriate.Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 00:03, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Blaxtos and RRG. The TIME magazine article clearly says Sarah Palin tried to ban books for religious reasons. 128.103.233.58 (talk) 00:07, 13 October 2008 (UTC)TOSG
 * Time names no books. Assigning a religious reason for naming zero books (the library records indicate Palin asked for NO books to be banned, one patron asked for one book in 1997, and zero requests for any time during Palin's term inplies she made zero requests) to zero requests is amazing. Sort of like assigning

"religious reasons" for a person killing someone when no murders ever took place. Collect (talk) 00:13, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
 * This is delightful original research on your part. But it of course would have no place in the article. And of course it does not disqualify the use of the source. So I'll ask again... what are we discussing?Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 00:18, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Time actually says her main local political foe says she had religious reasons. It does not claim it as a fact. Just to make things clear again -- Times does NOT claim Palin had "religious reasons" only that a political foe said that she did. Collect (talk) 00:17, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
 * If the Time article says that Stein was her main local political foe, then that would be a great way to phrase it in the article itself. If the Time article does not say this, a statement to that effect would consitute unpublished synthesis of published material which advances a position -- one of the hallmarks of original research.Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 00:23, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Stein is described already in this article as being a foe. "1996, Palin defeated three-term incumbent mayor John Stein,[28] on a platform targeting wasteful spending and high taxes,[29] and Stein says that she introduced abortion, gun rights, and term limits as campaign issues." Ergo identifying him as that person who made the "religious" charge is required as it is in Time, and also in a prior paragraph in this very article. OR does not mean that we must assume absolute stupidity. It is clear from this very article that he was an opponent, and that it is he who is making these charges (which he did not make before for some odd reason). Collect (talk) 00:47, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, this is why I premised two different suggestions depending on whether or not the article said that :P Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 00:51, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Back on topic!

Collect is against adding motivations, it seems.

Zsero says it's language motivations, but the article attributes that impersonally to members of the population, not to Palin.

Cube Lurker acknowledges his backing off of this discussion on my talk page.

GoodDay moves to hold off on edits to this until after the election, but nobody seems to agree with that.

I, Factchecker, Blaxthos, 128.103,and Erik the Red 2 support including the TIME quote. it sounds to me like we can add the motivations, attributing to Stein. It's undisputed that she did repeatedly ask about censorship, and I think it's best to include a motivation than to leave one out. RafaelRGarcia (talk) 02:29, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Responding to objections: it's true no books were banned, but the inquiries are separate from what finally happened. Remember, Emmons was fired and then later returned to her position. RafaelRGarcia (talk) 02:38, 13 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Nope. It is undisputed that Stein, her political foe, says she has religious motives. No one else did. Including Chase. Nor did Stein in ANY previous article claim she was for censorship on religious grounds. Lasttly, read up on "consensus" here. It is not gotten by violating rules. It is not gotten by making personal attacks on anyone. It is gotten by realizing that you are not the editor-in-chief.  The only possible includable statement is "Stein, a political opponent of Palin, has now stated his belief that she had religious motivations in asking about the possible removal of books from the library. No books were removed at all from the library." (using prior source) and deleting any other sentence about book removal.   I offer this as a compromise towards consensus, and would strongly oppose anything which does not identify Stein, and the newness of his claim. Collect (talk) 02:37, 13 October 2008 (UTC)


 * The "only possible includable statement" is kindly provided as a compromise towards consensus? How gracious of you. Truly, we are not worthy. Anarchangel (talk) 17:49, 13 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Are you accusing me of personally attacking someone in this talk page? In any case, talking about the "newness" of the claim is editorializing; it's certainly not in the TIME article. Talk pages are not soapboxes.RafaelRGarcia (talk) 02:41, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Simply calling Stein a "political foe" oversimplifies things, and isn't supported by the article. RafaelRGarcia (talk) 02:46, 13 October 2008 (UTC)


 * 1. Actually the article has the language motivation in the quote from Stein. 2. The religious motivation isn't in the quote from Stein.  3. How would Stein know what her motivation was, unless she said so? Does anyone claim that she said she was asking for religious reasons?  We don't add motivations for most actions we report, and with no real source for her motivations we shouldn't do so here. -- Zsero (talk) 02:39, 13 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Unless a Time copy editor was really, really lax, the Time quote: "Stein says that as mayor, Palin continued to inject religious beliefs into her policy at times. 'She asked the library how she could go about banning books'" must be construed as saying Stein as saying her religious beliefs applied to the immediately following sentence. You are, moreover, correct that the article is the source of the term, and not Mr. Stein. As he is, indeed, a political opponent, and I find zero evidence that he made this claim before, it is possible that the claim is now politically inspired rhetoric. Ought that be noted? Collect (talk) 02:48, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I added "political opponent" back. I believe we are including motivations here. --Evb-wiki (talk) 02:50, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

It now says "John Stein, the former mayor of Wasilla and Palin's political opponent, said in September of 2008 that Palin's "religious beliefs" motivated her inquiries." I'm fine with this. For the record, all I was ever going to say is that Palin made "religiously-motivated" inquiries, citing the TIME article. I don't see how this is an improvement over that, but fine. RafaelRGarcia (talk) 02:52, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I added the year Palin ran against Stein. RafaelRGarcia (talk) 02:58, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
 * On rereading the TIME article, I note that neither motivation is in quotes. The article gives two separate motivations, both out of quotes.  So which did Stein actually say, if any?  Did he say both, and the reporter just included them both, out of quotes, not noticing that he'd contradicted himself?  Or what?  In any case, I don't see how Stein could possibly know, so his mindreading shouldn't be in the article.  -- Zsero (talk) 03:02, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Disagree. Even Collect talks about how the proximity of the language shows the writer was paraphrasing Stein. The quotations go to the article, and the article is cited. The "language" concerns you've brought up are attributed to voters, not to Palin. RafaelRGarcia (talk) 03:07, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
 * If you wish, we could remove the quotations around "religious beliefs," but it's not like that changes the meaning. RafaelRGarcia (talk) 03:11, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

I note the "bejeebers" quote discussed ages ago is being put into the main text. If I recall correctly, we deemed that quite not germane to the gist of the section -- whether Palin said anything about removing a book. Chase's opinions other than that do not belong in that section. Collect (talk) 03:55, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Consensus can change. A modified version of the quote would be best. Erik the Red  2    03:59, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Try shoopping for a new consensus then. You don;t have it yet for saying "bejeebers" in a long quote which duplicates material already in the article. Collect (talk) 04:02, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Hence "modified version" of the quote. We can use it without the bejeebers. Erik the Red  2    04:04, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
 * That's fine with me - the bejeebers part is not the point. The point is that you can't provide only one side of a controversial matter in the text and put the other side into a footnote and then pretend you're being balanced. This is not NPOV. Tvoz / talk 04:13, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I just read the Chase quote and think it's absolutely relevant. I'm going to check back on this article on Tuesday night, as I must focus on other things until then. RafaelRGarcia (talk) 04:34, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

(undent) I have started a new section below about this subject. I generally agree with Zsero, Collect, and CubeLurker. The cited source did not support what was in this article.Ferrylodge (talk) 18:53, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

This article presently says:

"John Stein, the former mayor of Wasilla and Palin's 1996 political opponent, said in September 2008 that Palin's 'religious beliefs' motivated her inquiries."

I don't think that accurately reflects the cited source. Here's what the cited source says:

Stein says that as mayor, Palin continued to inject religious beliefs into her policy at times. "She asked the library how she could go about banning books," he says, because some voters thought they had inappropriate language in them. "The librarian was aghast." That woman, Mary Ellen Baker, couldn't be reached for comment, but news reports from the time show that Palin had threatened to fire Baker for not giving "full support" to the mayor. 

Stein says that she injected religious beliefs into policies, and she also asked about banning books, but Stein does not seem to be saying that she injected her religious beliefs during the book-banning incident. On the contrary, Palin's rationale (according to Stein) was that there was inappropriate language that some voters might dislike, not blasphemous language that Palin herself thought God would dislike. In other words, the cited source cites Stein as linking Palin's religious views to her policies, but Stein does not say that the book policy was one of the policies that she injected her religious beliefs into. I'll fix the article accordingly, to conform with the cited source. Are uncorroborated and defeated election opponents reliable sources anyway?Ferrylodge (talk) 18:23, 13 October 2008 (UTC)


 * You have apparently ignored the ongoing consensus-seeking debate involving 8 or 9 editors that is currently active on this talk page. It's not even archived yet. Additionally, you're plain wrong. The Time article presents the book banning as an example of Stein's claim that Palin injected religious beliefs into her policy. Reverting your deletion of the sentence.Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 18:49, 13 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for pointing out that section above. Here's a link to it.  I didn't ignore it, but rather wanted to start a fresh section about it, since the argument above seems to have become rather stale.  In any event, I generally agree with Zsero, Collect, and CubeLurker.  Why has this material been inserted and reinserted if there is no consensus for it?  I do not agree that it is supported by the cited source.


 * The cited source explcitly says that her concerns about books were motivated by her belief that some voters might find offensive language in those books. How is this an insertion of her religious beliefs?Ferrylodge (talk) 18:57, 13 October 2008 (UTC)


 * So she had strong religious beliefs about asking how Emmons would handle a request to remove a book, but never asked to have a book removed, and was a former member of a church strongly opposed to alcohol, but then favored longer bar hours than the former Police Chief did? Quite an interesting picture of someone with that strong a set of "religioous beliefs" indeed! Collect (talk) 19:13, 13 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Yeah. Makes ya wonder, huh? --Evb-wiki (talk) 19:16, 13 October 2008 (UTC)


 * First off, starting a new section has no effect other than to remove your claim from the context of the ongoing debate of which it is a part. This is highly misleading. I have moved this into the appropriate section. Second, again, you're completely wrong. The objections of Collect, Zsero, and Cubelurker revolved around objections that the source was editorial in nature, and a caveat that any material in the article should be paraphrased to mention that Stein is a political opponent of Palin. If you bother to pay attention, the wording that actually went into the article was proposed by Collect. There was nothing but consensus that the Time article says that Stein said that Palin injected religious beliefs into her politics and that the questions about book banning were an example of that.


 * So, are we now going to re-attempt to establish a consensus that the Time article doesn't say that John Stein asserted a connection between Palin's censorship inquiry and his own claim that she injected religious beliefs into her politics? Let's hear your arguments, then.Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 19:28, 13 October 2008 (UTC)


 * First of all, I thanked you for pointing out the other section, and then I put cross-references in both sections (with hyperlinks). You then deleted all that, moved my comment, and accuse me of misleading.  Please try a little AGF.


 * Second, I am unfamiliar with the rule that editors cancel themselves out when they object to including material for different reasons. Would you please point out that policy to me?


 * Third, the cited source explicitly says that her concerns about books were motivated by her belief that some voters might find offensive language in those books. How is this an insertion of her religious beliefs?


 * Fourth, why are we picking out uncorroborated accusations by someone who Palin defeated?Ferrylodge (talk) 19:49, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

As far as I know, I deleted nothing. I moved the comments here. Cross referencing is pointless when the splitting of the discussion was pointless. Splitting the discussion was misleading.Factchecker atyourservice
 * You're right, you moved the cross-references too. I've just crossed them out since they're now completely pointless.  Factchecker, when talk page sectons get too long, they're often subdivided.  Or people pick up the conversation at the bottom of the page.  There's nothing sinister about it.  Let's drop the matter now, okay?Ferrylodge (talk) 20:24, 13 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I said nothing about editors canceling each other out. You attempted to say that there was no consensus that the Time article said Stein asserted a link between Palin's censorship inquiry and his own allegation that she injected religion into politics. There WAS, in fact, a consensus to that effect. The other editors' complaints that the article is editorial in nature, and insistence that we include language indicating that Stein is Palin's political opponent, do not amount to claims that the Time article doesn't say what we agreed it said. We agreed the Time article gave the censorship inquiry as an example of Stein's claim that Palin injected religion into politics. You then ignored the whole discussion, unilaterally deleted the consensus-built statement, and started a new discussion section under the pretense that consensus had never been reached. Misleading. Bad faith.


 * No Wikipedia editor is saying that the sentence about offensive language indicates she was injecting religion into politics. Time magazine says John Stein says her censorship inquiry was an example of John Stein's claim that Sarah Palin injects religious beliefs into politics. It would be nice if you would provide some grounds for disputing that the article says this instead of just deleting it from the article. If you dispute the truth of the claim, you are simply out of luck. But if we cannot reach an agreement on how to paraphrase the article, we will just quote it, as we have done on previous occasions where you refuse to acknowledge a plain English paraphrase of an article simply because you don't like the content of the article. And then you will probably complain the article is too long and delete the quote... and we will revert your deletion... and you will complain that no consensus was reached...


 * "Fourth", Wikipedia editors do not fact check Time articles and determine whether they are corroborated or uncorroborated. I have stated repeatedly that your repeated attempts to keep sources from being used in articles represent blatant original research and an attempt to discredit reliable sources based on your own personal opinions. This is highly inappropriate. Wikipedia has clear policies for attributing controversial material so that it is clear that the material is attributed to the source and not Wikipedia. In fact, the bulk of user activity by you, Collect, and Zsero seems to involve you trying to convince other editors, completely contrary to Wikipedia guidelines and policies, that they are not allowed to use this or that particular source which you don't want to be used. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 20:15, 13 October 2008 (UTC)


 * You said previously: "The objections of Collect, Zsero, and Cubelurker revolved around objections that the source was editorial in nature...." I'm sorry that you apparently don't consider that to amount to anything that should cause you to not insert the material back into the article.  You evidently feel the same way about my objections.  What would be enough to stop you from reinserting this material again and again?


 * Disliking an editorial opinion is not grounds to exclude it from this article. I have not been "reinserting this material again and again". You made one deletion against consensus. Collect then repeated the deletion, also against the consensus that he had helped develop. Two restorations, both based on the consensus that had been established.


 * If Time Magazine articles quote a bunch of Democrats who hate Palin, and also quote a bunch of Republicans who love her, why is it okay to pick out the former and describe them in this Wikipedia article? Might it not be better to pick out neither, and instead present undisputed facts here?  Palin has explicitly denied that she allows her personal religious beliefs to influence her policy positions, but nothing like that accompanies the accusation by Stein that you've inserted into this article.  Why are we picking out uncorroborated accusations by someone who Palin defeated?


 * We're not picking Stein out. Time is. And it's a notable criticism. No individual editor is responsible for doing all the source digging required to balance every topic. Instead of attempting to blacklist sources without cause or second guess the content of the sources themselves, it would be more productive if you were to add balancing material where appropriate. Excluding both sides of the matter just because a controversy exists in the first place is the wrong way to go.


 * Additionally, the cited source explicitly says that her concerns about books were motivated by her belief that some voters might find offensive language in those books. You still have not explained how this is an insertion of anyone's religious beliefs, much less her own religious beliefs.  My opinion is that Time Magazine juxtapositioned two accurate sentences in a way that misleads readers.  That's my opinion, which may or may not differ from the opinions of other editors like Collect or Zsero.  But even if I did not believe that, I would stuill think that insertion of this material into this article is highly biased.  You're making this article into a platform for Palin's defeated opponents.  It would remain that way whether you quote your preferred parts of the Time article or not.Ferrylodge (talk) 20:39, 13 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Once again, and I don't know how many times I have to explain this to the same editors over and over, it is not up to us to question the truthfulness of reliable publications. That is clear original research, as would be disqualifying the Time article because it cites a political opponent of Palin. A one line mention of a published criticism by him certainly doesn't impart any undue weight, at least not the way I understand it.Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 22:56, 13 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Ferrylodge, you made those edits against consensus, and I'm asking you to revert yourself. It's not an editor's place to question a reliable source. Talk pages are not soapboxes, and the line about the book banning is standard format for how journalists write. They aren't just going to quote Stein nonstop; they paraphrase. RafaelRGarcia (talk) 22:17, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

(undent)You have just removed from this article that Stein "said that Palin was concerned about voters who felt there was inappropriate language in the books." You assert that this is not supported by the cited source. You are obviously wrong. The cited sources says:

"Stein says that as mayor, Palin continued to inject religious beliefs into her policy at times. 'She asked the library how she could go about banning books,' he says, because some voters thought they had inappropriate language in them. (emphasis added)"

Therefore, I will revert your edit, which I assume was an unintentional mistake on your part.Ferrylodge (talk) 22:29, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Your revert was not in the right. Consensus controls here, not strongarming one's version of the story through. I have slightly modified the consensus version from yesterday. I object to your reverting. RafaelRGarcia (talk) 22:45, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
 * The new version that you have written is virtually identical to what I put in, so it's fine with me, for the time being. I still object to inferring that Stein was talking about the book issue when he said that Palin injected her religious views into things.Ferrylodge (talk) 22:56, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Please stop reverting people: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sarah_Palin&diff=245042374&oldid=245041848 and http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sarah_Palin&diff=245095783&oldid=245093619 RafaelRGarcia (talk) 23:06, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Please stop being a pot that calls the kettle black. We have reached a tentative consensus, so you can stop reverting as well.Ferrylodge (talk) 23:11, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
 * We reached consensus yesterday. You kept on about it, so we changed it slightly. All I did was change it to "some" voters, like the article says. RafaelRGarcia (talk) 00:33, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I disagree.Ferrylodge (talk) 01:03, 14 October 2008 (UTC)


 * WP:AGF seems to be being ignored. Collect (talk) 20:34, 13 October 2008 (UTC)