Talk:Sarah Palin/Archive 5

No Governor for AK?
There is a real problem developing here, but I'm not sure it's been reported on yet. Palin is a potential Vice President, and her Lieutenant Governor Sean Parnell is (possibly they're still counting primary votes) the GOP nominee for Alaska's lone seat in the House. Leaving... who exactly to be the Governor if they should both succeed? I'm going to try to find some sources, it's hard to believe nobody in the press has noticed this yet. HEY NPR ARE YOU READING THIS? Beeblbrox (talk) 18:43, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Next in line would be AK Attorney General Talis Colberg. Dragons flight (talk) 18:52, 1 September 2008 (UTC)


 * The governor may designate an interim Lieutenant Governor, subject to legislative confirmation. She has designated the present Alaska Attorney General. If both offices are held by non-elected individuals, a special election is required. It's in the Alaska newspapers. cite below. -- Yellowdesk (talk) 18:57, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Hey, thanks for finding that, I got called away just as I was starting to look into it. Beeblbrox (talk) 21:02, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Hey, thanks for finding that, I got called away just as I was starting to look into it. Beeblbrox (talk) 21:02, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Veto against banning same-sex couple benifits should be added to political postions section (Whitewash)
The topic on same-sex marriages and so forth should also include the reference to her veto that would of banned same-sex couple benefits - the veto upheld public same-sex employees being granted benefits as established by the Alaskan courts. Not sure if this should be counted as sources or not:


 * http://dwb.adn.com/news/government/legislature/story/8525563p-8419318c.html
 * http://seaqwa.com/blogs/qnews/archive/2008/08/29/palin-s-reluctant-pro-gay-veto.aspx

This does accurately reflect the political position of Palin. The others in context, reflect her personal opinion in weight of this.

Theosis4u (talk) 18:55, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I disagree. This is a SUMMARY section.  Her full position is explain on the "political positions of Sarah Palin" page.  The section in question is already too detailed. --ThaddeusB (talk) 19:15, 1 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I'd say that the veto was in regards to the bill being unconstitutional is more important in relation to Palin's political views than what the bill was actually about. 3-sphere (talk) 19:18, 1 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I think the veto is a political position on the record, the other points in the article are simply opinions (in contrast to the veto). Though, I think those opinions should be in the article to color the actual veto. I believe both are necessary with this section - though it will make people on the extremes equally disappointed. Theosis4u (talk) 19:32, 1 September 2008 (UTC)


 * There's no evidence that the veto reflects anything about her position on granting benefits to same-sex couples. Her statement about it suggests that it does not. —KCinDC (talk) 19:49, 1 September 2008 (UTC)


 * It belongs. Whitewashing is bad.  Bad, I say.  This is a notable issue anmd needs to be incorporated into this artice.   &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149; dissera! 19:55, 1 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Using the veto to misleadingly make Palin appear more gay-friendly is whitewashing. She vetoed it because it was unconstitutional, not because she supports benefits for same-sex couples. —KCinDC (talk) 19:59, 1 September 2008 (UTC)


 * And likewise to only state her personal opinions and not a political action on the issue is whitewashing, like I said - neither extreme is going to be happy. I believe JUST stating her veto would be inaccurate as well. Theosis4u (talk) 20:02, 1 September 2008 (UTC)


 * KC, if what you say is true and can be supported, then it should reported that way. Leaving it out and arguing that the inclusion of the veto will be misconscrewed is a very large pile of moose turds.   &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149; dissera! 20:08, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
 * You've got it backward. The veto should be left out as irrelevant unless there's evidence that it does indicate something about her position on same-sex benefits. The available evidence suggests that it doesn't. —KCinDC (talk) 20:21, 1 September 2008 (UTC)


 * No, it isn't. This is a whitewash of the issue. The veto is an indication of how Palin believes the issue should be addressed politically. The veto was against Legislature from banning same-sex health benefits for state employees without the general populations consent and then for a constitutional amendment. Even the statement in this article is whitewashing about "...a non-binding referendum for a constitutional amendment to deny state health benefits to same-sex couples" without the full inclusion of the source - "will be nonbinding but is intended to help guide legislators, Palin has said." This clearly goes to show Palin's belief about this issue and the political process around it. The sources are even picked to remove the full details of the story - this is the one that should be sourced. Theosis4u (talk) 20:59, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
 * http://dwb.adn.com/news/government/legislature/story/8525563p-8419318c.html


 * Answer this then, KCinDC - If Palin didn't veto it and supported the Legislature to ban same-sex health benefits, wouldn't you want that included? Theosis4u (talk) 21:19, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Sure, because signing the legislation, especially in the face of advice that it was unconstitutional, would indicate that she supported it. In this case, she's stated that the reason for the veto was constitutional, so it doesn't indicate anything about her position on same-sex benefits. Publicizing the veto seems to be part of a campaign to make Palin look more gay-friendly than she is. I certainly don't think it needs to be in the summary, and in any case including it without also including text indicating that the veto was about constitutionality, not her position on same-sex benefits, misleadingly implies that she favors the benefits. —KCinDC (talk) 21:35, 1 September 2008 (UTC)


 * You avoided the question completely and also ignored my own comments that what is within the article should stay - for the same reasons you give. Your being partisan and non-objective to this issue, sorry. Theosis4u (talk) 21:45, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
 * What? How did I avoid the question? You asked a question, and I answered it. "Sure" there is equivalent to "Yes". —KCinDC (talk) 21:56, 1 September 2008 (UTC)


 * We should just remove LGBT issues from Main Page then. Why? Because neither Obama, McCain, nor Biden have LGBT issues on their main page - it's only on their Political Position wiki page. If this is kept on Palin's main page, then it's only correct to put the summary of "opposes same-sex marriage" for Obama's main page, since that would be an accurate summary. Theosis4u (talk) 23:12, 1 September 2008 (UTC)


 * The veto would be notable with regards to LGBT issues only if Palin did NOT veto other bills which were known to be inconstitutional. 85.159.97.3 (talk) 10:03, 2 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Your right! It is impossible for a person to oppose a bill that violates their morality AND oppose unconstitutional laws at the same time.  Clearly we cannot give her credit for this unless she fully supports ALL unconstitutional legistlation.--98.221.28.244 (talk) 15:43, 2 September 2008 (UTC)


 * It's whitewashing, period. For those that want to argue that the summary is correct without reference to the veto and that it should stay on the main page, they should also be including a summary on Obama's main page that he DOESN'T support same-sex marriage. For someone to not see the veto does demonstrate a position on same-sex marriage and benefits is beyond me. It doesn't demonstrate that they AGREE with it, but it does speak on how they believe the issue has to be resolved - if at all. Notice, the special election in April did favor to put the issue to ballot but I can't find anything that says Palin or the legislators plan on doing anything with it. It appears that most likely nothing will be done do to the small margin. Theosis4u (talk) 17:15, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * http://www.ktuu.com/Global/story.asp?S=6328863
 * Despite the way many people on the left and right handle issues, believing (or being forced to recognize) that legislation is unconstitutional doesn't mean opposing the goal of the legislation. If she'd vetoed a bill criminalizing white supremacist literature because it violated the First Amendment, that wouldn't be an indication that she had white supremacist leanings. Similarly, vetoing an unconstitutional bill banning benefits for same-sex couples doesn't mean she favors same-sex benefits. —KCinDC (talk) 17:34, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Your reasoning and example are flawed. It would tell us the legal opinion of the politician on the 1st amendment - regardless of their personal opinion about white supremacy. Your mixing personal beliefs with political ones and generalities with particulars. Someone can be personally against something but know their belief shouldn't be legally binding to others. If Palin decides the special election results mean that they shouldn't purse a constitutionally amendment to deny same-sex benefits it would mean she supports it legally - though she might have a different personal opinion. This section of the article is simply trying to cause a certain population of the readers to discount her on her personal beliefs rather than expose them to the possibility that her political beliefs would be different. This is the same reasoning, imo, that Obama's section doesn't have a line summary stating he is against same-sex marriage. Theosis4u (talk) 18:35, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Given that the VP is required by the Constitution to meet the criteria for being president, and given that the VP is one heartbeat from power, it very much does matter how the person decides on whether to sign or veto a bill.  &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149; dissera! 21:37, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Todd Palin DUI
Todd was arrested for DUI. Maybe this should be added to his mini bio.

''Palin spokeswoman Maria Comella confirmed Monday that Todd Palin was arrested and charged with driving under the influence of alcohol in 1986 when he was 22. Sarah and Todd Palin, who had been high school sweethearts, were dating at the time.'' Zredsox (talk) 19:46, 1 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Please explain again why this is relevant to the biography of Sarah Palin?--Paul (talk) 19:48, 1 September 2008 (UTC)


 * The same reason Todd being a snowmobiler is relevant.Zredsox (talk) 19:50, 1 September 2008 (UTC)


 * 1986? I would think not. They weren't even married. Maybe in his biography. Your comment above suggests this is a WP:POINT you're making. Cool Hand Luke 19:51, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

This is not relevant to Sarah Palin's article. It may or may not be relevant to Todd Palin's bio.--Evb-wiki (talk) 19:52, 1 September 2008 (UTC)


 * May be ok for Todd Palin, but not this article. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:53, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

A DUI is a criminal offense. She's married to a man with a criminal past, yes it is relevant. At the very least, it should be in Todd palin's article. Lakerking04 (talk) 19:55, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I brought it over to the talk page on his wiki bio page. As for the size of his mention on Sarah's page, maybe it should be reduced? Zredsox (talk) 19:57, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Overheated rhetoric much? The sitting President got a DUI once. That the spouse of a VP nominee got one is a non-issue. A.J.A. (talk) 20:08, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
 * That is an opinion, and mine is in both cases it is a big deal. That being said, I already stated that I moved the discussion to his wiki page.Zredsox (talk) 20:21, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
 * What exactly is the big deal? Bad Judgmenttm because she didn't dump him after the first bad decision he got caught making? A.J.A. (talk) 20:37, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
 * If the 13,000 + killed in the United States in alcohol related crashes last year were around to answer you, I am sure they could come up with a reason or two as to why a DUI is a big deal. Zredsox (talk) 21:12, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Emotional rhetoric. A.J.A. (talk) 22:05, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

It starts to become WP:POV when this article contains a lot of positive factoids which have little to do with Sarah Palin, like how "he is a champion snowmobiler" but leaves out any negative information about him (like a DUI). That makes this sound more like a family's Christmas Letter, full of bragging and minutiae, and less like a balanced biography, which must include both the positive and negative. Edison2 (talk) 20:06, 1 September 2008 (UTC)


 * You are falling into the the Wikipedia NPOV trap where people argue that that for every positive thing there must be a negative thing. That's not a neutral point of view, it's a mechanical point of view. Relevancy and undue weight are just as important to consider.--Paul (talk) 20:16, 1 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Exactly! That he's a competitive snowmobiler has a hell of a lot more to do with who Todd Palin is than a DUI 22 years ago. If he had snowmobiled once back in the '80s and had driven drunk ever since, then the situation would be reversed, but that is not the case.  --Coemgenus 20:22, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
 * The fact that he is a competitive snowmobiler has nothing to do with Sarah Palin (and I think the object of this article is to define her.) That being said, I move that we cleanse the article of anything beyond a reference to him (in relationship to her) and redirect the rest to his bio page where it belongs. Zredsox (talk) 20:24, 1 September 2008 (UTC)


 * His current snowmobiling has something to do with Palin -- it's not huge but it's not nothing. I agree with Coemgenus's distinction.  His DUI has no place in this article; snowmobiling deserves a very brief mention. JamesMLane t c 20:29, 1 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, a brief mention sounds right. As to what should go in his article, I don't know, but that's not something we have to decide on this talk page, anyway.  --Coemgenus 20:39, 1 September 2008 (UTC)


 * His having received a DUI has something to do with Palin -- it's not huge but it is a political issue. She is the governor of the state whose laws were broken by him. No whitewashing please. If snowmobiling is relevant to Sarah Palin, then Todd's DUI is as well. Would Fox News have reported on it if it were not relevant to Sarah Palin? Digitalmandolin (talk) 20:59, 1 September 2008 (UTC)


 * What Fox News reports is not the standard of inclusion in an encyclopedia. --Coemgenus 21:11, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
 * How does Fox News reporting it indicate that it is relevant to her as opposed to being relevant to him? Nobody is saying that it doesn't belong on his page. Oren0 (talk) 21:15, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Why would Fox News report on it unless it were relevant to Sarah Palin? If Todd Palin's DUI were not relevant to Sarah Palin, Fox News would not have reported on it. They are trying to cover an election and this is relevant to one of the political candidates, Sarah Palin. Digitalmandolin (talk) 21:30, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
 * They are a 24-hour news station, with the standards and judgment that belong to the news business. We are an encyclopedia, with different standards.  Not everything that has ever been on the news belongs in this encyclopedia, let alone this article.  --Coemgenus 21:36, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Right, which is why the snowmobiling stuff is gratuitous. Trivial and unimportant details about Sarah Palin's husband do not belong here. If we are going to keep the snowmobiling stuff in, the DUI stuff belongs in. If we're going to keep the DUI stuff out, the snowmobiling stuff belongs out. Digitalmandolin (talk) 22:53, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Moose!
I'm not the person currently removing the moose claim - but I would like to bring up the idea here. I have to say, it seems a little weird to include that claim - it seems unencyclopedic (I mean, why don't we mention what her mother would fix her for breakfast?), but regardless, since there seems to be debate over it I suggest we decide here.- daniel  folsom  20:07, 1 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I absolutely agree. I read that and thought, "What is this?" It should be removed. JCP (talk) 20:17, 1 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I think it should be kept. It is somewhat unique to the region and helps explain who she is as a person.Zredsox (talk) 20:18, 1 September 2008 (UTC)


 * But Zredsox, we're not trying to explain who she is as a person - ha, we'll let the campaign ads do that - we're trying to write an encyclopedic entry on her. And I mean, we've already be criticized for having this - the New York Times story mocked us :( -- daniel  folsom  20:28, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I am not overly attached to it, so don't let me stop you from removing it. I am from an area where it would be considered normal, but obviously some people here think it is saying she likes tasty animals (which she does as a meat eater) and that it is a bad thing. Zredsox (talk) 20:32, 1 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Exactly, it paints a trivial and subjective picture of the individual in question. If it must be included, its positioning should be reassessed. Having it as the introduction to the "personal life" is ridiculous. JCP (talk) 20:32, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Following that logic, maybe we should remove the entire sentence being they are all trivial details: Palin is a self-described "hockey mom" and mother of five. She hunts, goes ice fishing, eats mooseburgers, rides snowmobiles, has run a marathon, and owns a floatplane. 20:36, 1 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Zredsox: it's not so much that as the issue that it's just not really an appropriate tone for this encyclopedia. I mean, we don't talk about how Joe Biden ... (I honestly don't even know how to finish this ... so I'll make something up) ... used to have a favorite baseball club that his dad got him. It's just not really notable.-- daniel  folsom  20:37, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
 * ...but either is that she rides snowmobiles. All of these are subjective points picked from a hat to tell a story.Zredsox (talk)
 * Haha, I'm not 100% certain about the snowmobiles comment - but as to the moose comment: that's the thing: we aren't telling a story - we're writing an encyclopedia entry. The real issue is: you're right- we're picking stories out of a hat to "explain who she is as a person". But think about how arbitrary that is. First of all, there's no reasonable way to classify people, second of all, since there's no reasonable way to classify people - we're pretty much picking stories at random. I mean, you could argue that we're picking stories that define her, but who's to say how she is defined? It's just all so arbitrary that it turns into a violation of Wikipedia's NPOV (no point of view) policy-- daniel  folsom  20:45, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
 * So is there an agreement that it should be removed in its entirety? JCP (talk) 20:52, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Seemingly-- daniel  folsom  20:54, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Ok, User ThaddeusB brought up that he thought I was talking about the "mooseburgers" line; I was actually talking about the 3am line - is everyone else on the same page as me?-- daniel  folsom  21:01, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I thought you were referring to the moose burgers. Specifically, "Palin is a self-described "hockey mom" and mother of five. She hunts, goes ice fishing, eats mooseburgers, rides snowmobiles, has run a marathon, and owns a floatplane.[105]" To me, that should be removed or put in a different location. Where is the line you were talking about? JCP (talk) 21:08, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I was on a different page! Zredsox (talk) 21:14, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Lol, my fault - well Zredsox I would agree with you on the mooseburgers thing. If you want to remove that I think it'd be fine-- daniel  folsom  21:17, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I went ahead and deleted the "eats mooseburgers" phrase, as this is probably too trivial a fact even for two words. I would object to the 3am moose hunting being deleted, and especially the 5K/10K family runs part of that line, though.  That info seems relevant as part of her "character building" --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:52, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Also I do think the other parts of the mooseburgers line are at least slightly relevant. I mean it is a personal life section so what is wrong with listing some things she does in her personal life? --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:55, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I revt'd it. The cited source specifically says: "She's also a moose-burger-eating, snow-mobile-riding maverick who's not afraid to take on fellow Republicans she disagrees with." --Evb-wiki (talk) 21:58, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I would say readd the running part, but the moose hunting part is just a little unencyclopedic - especially in how it was phrased. I mean, do we need to describe all her childhood hobbies? The fact that she competed in races is arguably notable ... the fact that she hunted moose at 3am? In my view, not so much-- daniel  folsom  21:56, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
 * re-added as "As a child, she would sometimes go moose hunting with her father before school, and the family regularly ran 5K and 10K races" ... If yous till fell the moose hunting bit is unwarranted, I guess it can be removed. I do fell it adds a bit in way of explaining her later political positions though.  --ThaddeusB (talk) 22:10, 1 September 2008 (UTC)


 * That sentence could probably be summarized by sayng, "She grew up in Alaska." :-P --Evb-wiki (talk) 22:20, 1 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Okay, I agree somewhat with the "moose burger" edit. I still find it in an odd place. Casual activities preceding important issues such as family et cetera? Perhaps it can be merged with one of the subsections. As for the hunting, which daniel  folsom  has discussed, I believe this should be removed. I mean, she occasionally walks up stairs and from time-to-time breathes. We don't need to add unsubstantial hobbies. JCP (talk) 22:15, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I just noticed the new edit, which includes political travels. That should not be under "personal life." The cited article is very brief; however, it seems that Ireland may not have been related to politics. JCP (talk) 22:20, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Bristol's "marriage"
Is it accurate to state that Bristol "intends" to marry the father, Levi. This is technically speculation. Perhaps saying, "it is speculated that Bristol will marry the father of her child, Levi." "Intends" just seems to give the impression that Levi, whoever he is, has proposed to Bristol. Plus, we don't know if Levi even wants to marry Bristol. 20:23, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
 * The current write up says the press release stated she intends to marry him, which is accurate. --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:28, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Note the ring. A.J.A. (talk) 20:30, 1 September 2008 (UTC)


 * The ring is speculation, not fact. We have no proof that that is an engagement ring. This is still speculation. The press release said she intended to marry the father -- not that she was. I could say I intend to marry Anna Kournikova, that doesn't mean I am. JCP (talk) 20:35, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Now you are just being silly. After all of this whirling dervish publicity this weekend what do you think the odd are that they WON'T get married? This is worse than a shotgun wedding. It was announced they were going to get married.--Paul (talk) 20:39, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh, now that's just speculation. Also, a video of the guy getting on one knee and pulling out the very ring she's been seen wearing may well have been staged, and therefore it's only speculation. Any alleged ceremony may... A.J.A. (talk) 20:41, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Is there such a video? Saying that they must get married now isn't fact. Levi may very well feel the pressure and run. It happens all the time. Now, that was also speculation. If it is speculation, it shouldn't be included. JCP (talk) 20:44, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Unless someone can prove that Sarah Palin actually exists and that the external world is not a dream or the deception of an evil genie or demiurge, this entire article is speculation and should be deleted. A.J.A. (talk) 20:50, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
 * That goes a little too far. But I'll gladly continue that discussion over at Soul. The point is, neither the family nor Bristol or Levi have verified that they are in fact getting married. Saying so is not fact. Believe me, I wish it were. I'd speculate that I was a millionaire and was indeed married to Anna Kournikova et cetera. It would be perfect. JCP (talk) 20:55, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
 * How do we know they aren't married? Digitalmandolin (talk) 21:09, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Good point -- we don't. Perhaps the entire reference to marriage should be removed? Can we come to a consensus on this? It obviously is a controversial portion of that sentence. JCP (talk) 21:27, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

This poor girl has had quite a weekend. --Evb-wiki (talk) 20:53, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Nothing the parents could not have forestalled by being open and honest with the public. Like not waiting 7 months to announce a pregnancy. Digitalmandolin (talk) 21:07, 1 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Let's keep the discussion to the article, not the people. --Coemgenus 21:11, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
 * LOL. A.J.A. (talk) 21:27, 1 September 2008 (UTC)


 * "MONROE, Michigan (CNN) -- Sen. Barack Obama said firmly that families are off-limits in the campaign for president, reacting to news that GOP running mate Sarah Palin's 17-year-old daughter is pregnant. 'Let me be as clear as possible,' Obama said. 'I think people's families are off-limits, and people's children are especially off-limits. This shouldn't be part of our politics. It has no relevance to Gov. Palin's performance as governor or her potential performance as a vice president.' Obama said reporters should 'back off these kinds of stories' and noted that he was born to an 18-year-old mother. 'How a family deals with issues and teenage children, that shouldn't be the topic of our politics, and I hope that anybody who is supporting me understands that's off-limits.'"--Paul (talk) 21:28, 1 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I am glad for Senator Barack Obama. Can that be fit into the article somehow? Probably not since there is very little being said about the scandals in the article. Thus his quote would seem out of place. Digitalmandolin (talk) 21:38, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
 * As I am sure you know, I don't think that Obama's quote is pertinent to this article. I do wish, however, that editors would take his counsel to heart.--Paul (talk) 21:47, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh, that you want to leave out, but rumors from blogs are extremely relevant. You may find this website more to your liking.  Coemgenus 21:46, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
 * The marriage is not speculation as far as Mrs Palin is concerned. We could put that her mother, Sarah Palin says the couple will marry, as she's quoted as saying on the BBC.  Sticky Parkin 22:13, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Sticky Parkin, I believe you've found a solution. I have no objections to that. JCP (talk) 22:23, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
 * We can include the referenced fact that Sarah says there  will be a wedding. That does not make it a referenced fact that there actually will be one. Any statement about a wedding should stick to it being a statement attributed to Sarah, for the time being, until Sarah or "Levi," whomever he is, makes some public statement, or until the wedding takes place, or some other referenced fact is in evidence. Edison2 (talk) 22:52, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes: Sarah's statement is sourced; nothing else is. Coemgenus 22:54, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I think we need to not make the mistake of assuming they are not already married in how we formulate the inclusion. That assumption has not been verified. Digitalmandolin (talk) 23:10, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Trivial Points?
1) "In her high-school yearbook, she stated that her professional ambition was to sit in a broadcast booth with sports journalist Howard Cosell and broadcast basketball games starring her boyfriend at the time, Todd Palin."

2) "Shortly after Stevens was indicted on corruption charges, Palin removed a 2006 campaign ad in which she appeared with Stevens from her gubernatorial campaign Web site."

Both seem pretty trivial and not worth inclusion to me. Other opinions? --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:27, 1 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Agreed. The first is merely fluff. The second, . . . well, duh. Wouldn't you? --Evb-wiki (talk) 20:30, 1 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree that the first is fluff. The second may be substantive; however, it could be re-worded. JCP (talk) 20:38, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Depends on the length of the article, WP:WEIGHT. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:41, 1 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I disagree. I think the first item here is as important as the other info about her high school years in the article -- it is the only item that connects her high school time to her college years and time as a sportscaster -- making it a relevant piece of information, even if yearbook things ofetn sound a bit flip when one is older. I strongly support leaving it in. BTR (talk) 23:16, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Excess details about Trig's birth
Do we really need an paragraph detailing the chronology around Trig's birth? I think most of it was added as support details for the "dispicable rumor." Unless the concensus feels strongly that this level of detail satisfies WP:weight, I'd like to remove the paragraph. That would leave us with a "Family" section that is, in roughly even parts: marriage, husband, children summary, Track detail, Trig detail, Bristol detail. That seems about right for the "Family" section of a national political figure. Celestra (talk) 20:35, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
 * The rumour as we all know, has been shot down. Palin's daughter is pregnant. GoodDay (talk) 20:38, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Feel free to edit down/summarize better if you can. Some felt it justified to include the somewhat unusual circumstances of his birth, so this should stay in some form.  I still don't see any value to the surprise comment though. --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:42, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree. A.J.A. (talk) 20:43, 1 September 2008 (UTC)


 * The unusual circumstances justify some recognition. Especially since she was not cleared to fly. It should be trimmed down though. JCP (talk) 20:49, 1 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Not cleared to fly?  states that "After wrapping up the speech, Palin and her husband consulted with her physician about possibly flying home on an earlier flight. After being granted permission from her doctor, she and her husband proceeded with the trek home."   That certainly seems to me that she was cleared to fly. --Jdrushton (talk) 20:55, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
 * You might want to read the sources. First, it was a phone consultation. Second, the Doc. states that she didn't think Palin needed to be cleared to fly. And third, standard medical guidelines for PROM include immediate in person consultation and observation for approx. 48 hours before offering outpatient consultation. With all best wishes, Catuskoti (talk) 21:00, 1 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Can we refer to this as Water Breakgate yet? All the news sources seem to be recognizing this as the scandal it is. Digitalmandolin (talk) 21:16, 1 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi all. The material wasn't added to support any specific conclusion, let alone a "dispicable" one, but to only to show these remarkable circumstances for what they were. Similarly, the fact that Palin's care decision was unusual, per established medical norms, seems relevant to me. What do others think? By the way, though I understand the heat caused by the recent editing frenzy, I would appreciate it if you wouldn't assume that advocates for these edits have sinister intentions. With thanks and all best wishes, Catuskoti (talk) 20:51, 1 September 2008 (UTC)


 * AJA, please replace the info you reverted, and Celestra, please return the properly sourced info about medical norms you deleted. With thanks and all best wishes, Catuskoti (talk) 20:56, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
 * The details around the medical recommendations violates WP:synth, so I removed it. (It clearly is trying to present a conclusion that does not exist in either cite.) If there is a concensus otherwise, I won't object to it being added back. Celestra (talk) 21:14, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
 * As I see it, it's only looking to present a conclusion, but to contextualize. Trig seems to be fine despite the long-trip, as most PROM infants at Palin's stage of pregnancy (but not nearly all) are. Fact is, Palin's action wasn't the norm. Also, what about the risks to infants of women who conclude, e.g., by reading these encyclopedias, that waiting to receive medical care nearly 24 hours after PROM is no big deal? It's noteworthy, IMO. Catuskoti (talk) 21:31, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
 * It's an interesting point but I see why you removed it; however, I believe there should be a proper time frame. Was she "just about" to give the speech? Or was it several hours prior? JCP (talk) 21:19, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
 * premature rupture at 4am, according to news reports; at least "several hours" before a lunchtime keynote. Catuskoti (talk) 21:24, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I looked at the diff of your edit and I think that you were correct in that it violated WP:SYNTH. Any medical norms with respect to this matter need to be paraphrased from the sources that comment this particular issue.  That being said I think the passage should be left alone, since this event wasn't -that- big, unless someone from Alaska who follows the news there can give us a better perspective.  Switzpaw (talk) 23:57, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

<-- What the... are there still people pushing some kind of Baby Trutherism here? What is wrong with you people? If a reliable mainstream source says she used bad judgment in returning to Alaska, then we'll discuss including it. If not, then stop trying to synthesize some kind of crap. A woman is responsible for her own body, and decisions she makes are between her and her doctor. See WP:BLP and grow up. Kelly hi! 21:29, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Word. --mboverload @ 21:33, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
 * It's one thing to be conservative in avoiding synthesis which might be understandable, but it's another thing altogether to present something that is highly unusual as if it were utterly typical, which is what the current version does. Trashing and insulting other wikipedians to support a misportrayal doesn't promote the quality of the encyclopedia entry. Catuskoti (talk) 21:48, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Sure, whatever. What reliable source again said it was unusual? Anyhoo, no synthesis, please, and read the policies on BLP, as you've been told before, and reliable sources. Kelly  hi! 21:54, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Again, Kelly, please stop assuming bad intent. Here's your answer: http://www.adn.com/626/story/382864.html (Subsection -- "Early Arrival") Catuskoti (talk) 22:10, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Hmmm, all that says about Palin is that she consulted with a doctor before flying, as said above. Her own personal business, nobody else's. I think this meme that something about this is unusual or bad in any way was started by Alan Colmes, who wrote that the circumstances of the birth somehow caused the baby to get an extra chromosome. There's no need to give that kind of gutter idiocy any credence, and there's no need to make judgments of a woman's private medical decisions. Kelly  hi! 22:18, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't read or watch Colmes and so have no idea what he did or didn't say. The article linked to above includes a doctor stating that Palin's action violates professional guidelines. Other material that was deleted showed that the guidelines are given to promote the life of the infant (not just a woman and her doctor, in the class of a late-term pregnancy). Catuskoti (talk) 22:24, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh, the doctor was involved specifically with the Palin case? Or was it just some doctor with the spare time to yak to a newspaper reporter? And the other sources dealt with that specific Palin case as well? Exactly what point is being made with this information again? Kelly  hi! 22:28, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
 * You're pushing a POV, Kelly. It's not my job to answer the questions you ask. The info comes from a relevant authentic source. If you have a problem with the Anchorage Daily News' reporting, you might want to write them a letter to the editor. Your POV about these issues shouldn't be relevant here. Catuskoti (talk) 22:38, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Nope, pushing WP:NPOV and WP:RS. Can you point to a POV edit that I've made? Kelly  hi! 23:08, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Kelly, please stop being so rude. You were insisting, just above, that in order to mention material in a established source ABOUT the topic under discussion, I'd first need to answer a series of questions of your choosing reflecting your personal politics. If you want to have a conversation about weight, then let's have a conversation about weight. But don't attack me personally just cause I have a different perspective than yours. Seriously, chill. Catuskoti (talk) 23:35, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
 * These sources are from April and they were reported in the Alaskan press. Switzpaw (talk) 22:25, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
 * The Fairbanks News-Miner felt compelled to report on the issue as well: http://www.newsminer.com/news/2008/apr/22/palins-flight-labor-falls-under-scrutiny/ Switzpaw (talk) 22:19, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Huh - and strangely that article says that all was well with the trip and the subsequent childbirth. What was the point of this again? Kelly  hi! 22:25, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Why don't you calm down and cite exactly what part of the passage regarding Trig's birth that you are taking an issue with. Switzpaw (talk) 22:26, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh, I'm calm. The passage as currently written is fine, I just oppose people trying to synthesize some value judgment out of disconnected facts. Kelly  hi! 23:08, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I just read through the edit history and saw that some other edits were added to that section since yesterday but were removed, which must be what was generating this discussion. Sorry about that -- I just dropped and I didn't notice them before commenting here.  I agree -- I don't think that passage needs to grow any larger than the version currently in the article.  We should be prudent about the weight devoted to this.  Switzpaw (talk) 23:14, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Ditching the professional guidelines, which state that in cases of premature rupture, the child's health is considered to be at risk, has already been agreed to. The time spans are relevant and reliably sourced, IMO, and should be included. Similarly, recognition (via the Anchorage Daily News) that some doctors believe professional guidelines were violated seems important. There'd be absolutely no reasonable complaints of synthesis happening there, and it would be regarding information that was considered weighty by established sources. With all best wishes, Catuskoti (talk) 23:46, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

TMI? Maybe. If nothing else, it's interesting to read about a politician leaking something besides a news story. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 23:52, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

After trying to take into account all of this discussion, I put in the following edit, which, BTW, was meant to be constructive (i.e., to improve the article in accord with consensus): http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sarah_Palin&oldid=235708291. But then Kelly undid the whole of it. WTF????? Weren't you blocked for edit-warring YESTERDAY? Catuskoti (talk) 00:42, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Note - Kelly was not blocked yesterday. — Travis talk  02:36, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * This was the proposed edit: The circumstances of Trig's birth attracted local publicity.[120] More than a month before the baby was due, early in the morning on a day she was to deliver the keynote address at a conference in Texas, her water broke prematurely. She delivered the lunchtime speech before flying back 8 hours to Alaska, giving birth seven hours after her return at the Mat-Su Valley Regional Medical Center.[121] Palin returned to work three days later.[37] Local Alaska media raised questions about whether Palin's decision to travel was medically prudent.[118][122]
 * Completely unacceptable. Who cares what some local Alaska media "questioned"? The sources state pretty clearly that the judgment was made with her doctor. Yet that is somehow omitted. What point are you trying to make here? Kelly  hi! 00:47, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, I agree this was a premature and inaccurate edit. Kelly, you've downplayed the significance of the issue -- and it is significant. You also mislead the reader with your writing. She was not "just about" to give the speech. She leaked amniotic fluids several hours prior. Furthermore, Palin's ability to travel is still an issue in question. JCP  00:54, 2 September 2008 (UTC)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jamescp (talk • contribs)
 * Questioned by who? The source says Gov. Sarah Palin’s decision to make the eight-hour flight from Dallas to Anchorage has some people wondering about the possible safety hazards of flying while in the late stages of pregnancy. No mention of who the "some people" are. No mention even if they were wondering about Governor Palin specifically, or hazards of flying while pregnant generally. Kelly  hi! 00:58, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * The link in the referenced article leads to a claim by a Obstetrician who is active in her professional medical association. In any case, is it ever up to us to estimate how well journalistically sound established sources are? Isn't that the job of reporters, etc. not wikipedians? With all best wishes, Catuskoti (talk) 01:09, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * The sources also included statements by Palin's own OB/GYN that the travel was fine, and Palin stated the same thing. And the birth obviously went off just fine. So why are we trying to make a controversy out of the birth of her youngest child? Kelly  hi! 01:19, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * See, you keep personalizing what shouldn't be personal. I'm not "trying to make a controversy" out of anything. Her decision was already controversial in April 2008, well before she became a national figure. Now that she is a national political figure, this already existing but probably not overly significant controversy is surely worthy of mention. Mentioning is not promoting. Catuskoti (talk) 01:25, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Exactly, just because the birth had no complications doesn't mean it shouldn't be reported. We could succeed in Iraq but does that mean we should not write about everything that happened in between? JCP  01:27, 2 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm not trying to make any point. Everything is properly sourced and concise. In contrast, you're deleting material wholesale so that it accords with your personal political conceptions. Seriously, what is "completely unacceptable" about what was written accept that you think, unlike Gov. Palin, that medical decisions are fine so long as they're made with a family doctor?Catuskoti (talk) 01:04, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Exactly what are my "personal political conceptions"? Kelly  hi! 00:59, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Whatever agenda it is of yours that's prompting you to delete legitimate, properly sourced and weighted material. Honestly, you seem to have been nothing but aggressive throughout this discussion, so I really have no idea what your legitimate objections, if any, might be. Catuskoti (talk) 01:04, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * WP:WEASEL may be a legitimate objection. I'm on the fence with this edit.  I do think you may be pushing it a bit because it's hard to gauge how significant this to Alaskans, and you have also introduced an element of politicizing the issue when it otherwise flowed nicely with the personal info section.  Switzpaw (talk) 01:10, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Reading through just now, it occurred to me that I might have misunderstood what you meant by the weasel objection. First, as I understand it, the principle regards Wiki edits, not the reliability of sources. Second, the Anchorage paper states who at least one of the physicians is in the link it provides to its previous April article. Also, though I can see now why this information wouldn't fit in a Sarah Palin encyclopedia entry, it is simply a fact that established government and medical professional associations unanimously advise patients who experience premature rupture of membrane (early breaking of water with a premature infant) to immediately seek in-patient care (and for the health of the fetus). It's not like only "some" doctors recommend immediate, in person medical examination, which would have to be the case for the weasel objection to hold. Catuskoti (talk) 02:36, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I understand the issue just fine. I reverted your edit because I think this should be handled prudently. I would like other editors to chime in. I also think you might want to chill. Your editing patterns make you look like you have an agenda, despite what you said about not trying to make a point. With respect to WP:WEASEL, think about this: Another problem is that weasel words can imply that a statement is more controversial than it is. For example, saying "some people claim that Queen was a popular band" unnecessarily raises a (false) question about the statement's truth. Now stating that some Alaskan newspapers raised questions does exactly that: it highlights an issue that may not really be that notable.  Switzpaw (talk) 02:50, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * You're probably right that I need to chill a bit, and yeah, I'd like other editors to chime in too. In the meantime, please note that 1) the Anchorage Daily News isn't a fringe of one-among-many Alaskan publication, and 2) yes, I do have a stake but not an agenda in this outcome, insofar as I'd rather that a moderately if not hugely significant event not be whitewashed by Young Trigg-like Palin partisans. But for now I'm off. All best wishes, Catuskoti (talk) 03:06, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * The Anchorage Daily News has the second largest circulation in Alaska. It's hardly an insignificant newspaper. Also, they've now mentioned doubts about the medical prudence of Palin's decision twice, first in April and more recently in August. With all best wishes, Catuskoti (talk) 01:20, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * i.e., clearly an important element of Alaskan society (the Anchorage Daily News) has thought this issue was worthy of mention for awhile now. So hence, no weasel (great rule though!). Catuskoti (talk) 01:28, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Just stop, please. Your actions are obviously controversial for a BLP and you're repeatedly inserting these allegations. The discussion of her son's birth is just fine as it is. Seek dispute resolution if cannot accept that. Kelly  hi! 01:37, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I guess I'm just not seeing what's controversial about the information you're repeatedly deleting. Nobody seems to be denying that the information was true or that it was reported by established sources? I *can* see why this information might look very good for Palin, but the job of this entry isn't to make her look like a flawless person. Plus, how is the information you've deleted different in structure from the information about Pro-Life organizations praising Trig's birth, which you've kept intact? Catuskoti (talk) 02:56, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Unless someone has information that Palin failed to follow the advise of her physician, I don't understand why any of this discussion is relevant. I could care less if she squatted over straw to birth and then severed the umbilical cord with her teeth before jumping back on a snowmobile, if that's what her physician directed. Is someone making the suggestion that her baby's health was harmed as a result of her actions? Fcreid (talk) 04:46, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * The point was never about Palin's wisdom or recklessness but about what happened and what was reported. Wholescale, reflexive deletions, without targeting specific problems in earlier edits, have made this issue a lot more complicated and cantankorous than it needed to be.Catuskoti (talk) 09:51, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

The present phrasing about Trig's birth seems to leave the reader dangling, and a good encyclopedia does not tantalize like the lead-in tease for the ten o'clock news. It says "Palin's announcement in March 2008 that she was seven months pregnant generated publicity and surprise, as did the circumstances of Trig's birth.[149][150][151]" We should not have that sentence without stating why there was "publicity and surprise" and describing "the circumstances of Trig's birth." Edison2 (talk) 19:06, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * The present phrasing has been arrived at only by progressively deleting the edits of other wikipedians, with little (though some) effort to restate in ways that are perceived to be more accurate or balanced. Hence, it's a mess. We need to back up a fair distance I think. Catuskoti (talk) 19:47, 2 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree with both of you that the teasing version is unacceptable. I've restored the version that emerged from the discussion in the thread immediately below,, with a few minor modifications that someone else made later.  If it weren't for the whole ruckus about Trig perhaps being her grandson, it would be obvious to everyone that the unusual events of her flight from Texas warranted a bit of exposition. JamesMLane t c 21:04, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Vague aspersions of prenatal endangerment
Reading the paragraph, it seems the above title would be appropriate. May I add it? ;) Proofreader77 (talk)
 * If you want to add it, we could definitely get into a lot more detail about the specific dangers of this class of medical condition.Catuskoti (talk) 02:41, 2 September 2008 (UTC)


 * As a "disinterested third party" who has not touched that paragraph (other than to playfully try out the above title over the article in preview), my impression is that the above title may represent the viewpoint of those who feel the paragraph is, um, problematic. I assume there are roughly three positions:
 * A. Governor Palin's behavior (in this situation) constitutes a "bad act" (exact classification to be determined) which should be highlighted and discussed in depth for the benefit of society. THEREFORE: All verifiable information (within reason) should be included.
 * B. Governor Palin's behavior was perhaps, or even probably, a "bad act"(...) but there is not enough verifiable information for us to examine it in depth at this time. A small paragraph indicating something may deserve further scrutiny should be included.
 * C. This information, at this moment, constitutes "vague aspersions of prenatal endangerment" which we should not be indulging in. Delete the paragraph.


 * FYI, this discussion is centered around a paragraph version that two wikipedians have repeatedly reverted back to, and not the one that was deleted and that was the subject of discussion. Plus, as someone who does think the notes about the publicity about Trig's unusual birth are noteworthy, I wouldn't support any of the portrayals A-C. Catuskoti (talk) 09:35, 2 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I vote C. (any other categories?) Proofreader77 (talk) 04:46, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * We should get opinions from the many MD's writing on this blog, er, article as to whether this has anything to do with the baby having Down's Syndrome or being adversely affected in some other way. If not, then rub it out. We don't really need to hear about the VP nominee leaking fluids. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 04:53, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Read elsewhere that Down's Syndrome was diagnosed early in her pregnancy. This has zero to do with an extra chromosome! Fcreid (talk) 04:58, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * As I thought. So unless the story has relevance beyond the "personal interest" level, i.e. of possible interest to other moms out there, then lose it. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 05:06, 2 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I also vote C. It isn't even relevant, given that she didn't give birth on the plane. The entire paragraph is a thinly-veiled attempt to assail her judgment, when facts indicate she traveled with the consent of her consulting physician. If outside medical sources disagree, that belongs in her doctor's biography and not here. Fcreid (talk) 04:57, 2 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I refuse to vote because the question posed is immaterial for purposes of writing the article. The real question is whether a significant number of our readers would be interested to know that she engaged in a lengthy flight after leaking amniotic fluid.  The answer is yes.  As to "facts indicate she traveled with the consent of her consulting physician", that's neither completely true nor completely dispositive.  The story in the Anchorage Daily News reports: "Palin did not ask for a medical OK to fly, the doctor said."  It also reports that Palin's doctor nevertheless seemed OK with all that happened but that at least one expert said it was not good practice.  We can report these different facts.  By the way, the current version "she was about to deliver the keynote address" is clearly false, inasmuch as she said she was leaking fluid at 4:00 a.m., and I'll go out on a limb and say the speech was scheduled for a bit later in the day.  :)  Also, it's misleading for us to report the amount of time that elapsed from her arrival at the hospital until birth was induced, while omitting the much longer period that preceded her arrival at the hospital. JamesMLane t c 05:11, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I have a conflicting read from several places, but will try to track down a RS on whether she consulted with her physician before flying. That would be a significant fact, IMO. Fcreid (talk) 05:44, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Update: provides extensive background on this entire issue and confirms she not only consulted her OB/GYN (Dr. Cathy Baldwin-Johnson) prior to flying but she also maintained contact during the flight and the Seattle stopover.  So, again, I vote C above that this entire section be removed as irrelevant.  It's clear now that this is intended to impugn Palin's judgment, when such criticism should be leveled against her physician (if warranted whatsoever). Fcreid (talk) 06:11, 2 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree with C. The way it is now is both a vaguely negative innuendo and a magnet for OR to make it less vague. Celestra (talk) 05:28, 2 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Ugh! Why is this here under Trig's birth again? "...did not inform the airlines that she had begun labor before going on the eight-hour Dallas-Anchorage flight".  The source  clearly states American Airlines has no policy requiring notification of pregnancy or restricting late-term flights. This is an important point, because a mainstream commentator has critically challenged her judgment in flying, and we seem to be supporting his viewpoint.  It doesn't belong here, as it's not medically or logistically relevant. Fcreid (talk) 07:18, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Very slanted POV wording here
 * More than a month before the baby was due, she was about to deliver the keynote address at a conference in Texas when she began leaking amniotic fluid. She delivered the speech before flying 4000 miles back to Alaska (a little greater than the distance from Chicago to London), giving birth seven hours after her flight at the Mat-Su Valley Regional Medical Center. She did not inform the airlines that she had begun labor before going on the eight-hour Dallas-Anchorage flight.
 * A suggested rewrite
 * Trig's birth was more than a month premature, beginning while Palin was in Texas giving a keynote address. After completing her speech and consulting with her doctor, Palin opted to make the 4,000 mile flight home and gave birth to Trig in Alaska at the Mat-Su Valley Regional Medical Center. Fcreid (talk) 08:14, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Again, fyi, the slanted POV wording you're citing was what two wikipedians decided to keep reverting to; another edit was the subject of discussion, and was meant to address, however inadequately, the slanted/poor version that this thread is now evaluating.Catuskoti (talk) 09:45, 2 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Before noticing this proposal, I'd done my own rewrite. I agree with eliminating the point about nondisclosure to the airline.  The 4,000 miles is less important than the time it took, so I've substituted the eight hours as reported in the sources.  What's really unusual about the event, though, is that so much time elapsed from her leaking fluid to first being seen in person by a physician.  I've included the times from the sources that establish that point.  (The exact time lapse is unclear in the sources because they don't carefully distinguish which time zone they refer to, so I've just followed what they say, not presuming to insert my own interpretations.


 * For the moment, I've omitted the more substantive issues about Palin's conduct. We're not talking about "vague aspersions" but about an expert who's quoted as commenting on this specific incident.  I've omitted her statement for now, in deference to the editors who object to it, but passing over the subject in complete silence is also not going to be a permanent solution. JamesMLane t c 08:26, 2 September 2008 (UTC)


 * How anyone can think they know more than she did about how to handle the birth of her own child, or link it to politics, is beyond me. Gwen Gale (talk) 08:34, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * The question wasn't about knowing "more than she did about how to handle the birth of her own child" or linking it to politics. It was about mentioning questions in the mainstream local press at the time about her choice. Catuskoti (talk) 09:38, 2 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the sane and succinct rewrite. It does lack a salient point about her coordination with her consulting physician, but it stands fine as long as no counter-balancing point is introduced. As you may be aware, this is an issue of contention with one of the mainstream commentators and, while there may be merit to debating the wisdom of her flight at that time, that debate should remain among those qualified to do so. Fcreid (talk) 08:47, 2 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your kind words about the rewrite. There's some chance that the debate about the wisdom of Palin's conduct will be carried out in public over the next several weeks, which may provide us with more WP:RS material for addressing it.  That's one reason I'm willing to acquiesce to omitting it for now.  As for the coordination with the doctor, one problem is that the sources aren't completely clear on that.  The ADN article, after all, does say that Palin did not ask the doctor if flying was OK, although there's other information that seems to contradict that.  Also, as I understand it, the doctor wasn't an ob/gyn specialist.  One POV that may be better articulated in the near future is that, under the circumstances, Palin shouldn't have driven to Wasilla after landing in Anchorage, but should've checked in to an Anchorage hospital that would be better equipped to handle a premature birth of a special-needs baby.  By the time this is over, Palin's ob/gyn may have her own article, in which that question will get a section! JamesMLane t c 09:25, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh, I've no doubt there will be further debate, but this article should limit itself to the statement of fact as it now does. This is not the place to bring in "expert witnesses" on either side of an argument, and it's certainly inappropriate to throw gas on the flames burning throughout the blogosphere and MSM. Fcreid (talk) 10:11, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * As far as I can tell, the single sentence that is enough to get you branded as a lunatic, Kool-Aid drinking vandal among this collection of is this: "Local Alaska media raised questions about whether Palin's decision to travel was medically prudent.[118][122]" But instead of insulting others, maybe we could work on improving the sentence? Catuskoti (talk) 10:23, 2 September 2008 (UTC)


 * It sounds like there is not enough detailed info to present the full picture. For one thing, we need to know more about those leaks. Nixon fixed his leaks by hiring Plumbers. How did Palin fix her leaks? With Maxi-Pads? Depends? Inquiring wikipedians want to know! Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 09:54, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I think the answer to that depends on how much koolaid has been drunk. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 09:57, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * This much I know: One time my car was leaking transmission fluid, and Maxi-Pads worked great. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 10:02, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Anyone who has given birth knows that having your water break and waiting 24 hours to go to a hospital is a VERY, VERY unusual decision. Catuskoti (talk) 10:14, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Maybe there's a doctor or two out there in cyberspace willing to comment on it. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 10:23, 2 September 2008 (UTC)


 * In fact, yes. Take a look at the Anchorage Daily News article that the deleted material cites, I mean before it was altered by whitewashers. Dr. Laurie Gregg, "obstetrician who is active in the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, said when a pregnant woman's water breaks, she should go right to the hospital because of the risk of infection. That's true even if the amniotic fluid simply leaks out, said Dr. Laurie Gregg. "To us, leaking and broken, we are talking the same thing. We are talking doctor-speak," Gregg said." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Catuskoti (talk • contribs) 10:36, 2 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm sure you'll find some on both sides. Also, believe the article says spotting and not water breaking. My wife started spotting about 36 hours before delivery (and 24 before the doctor had her come into the hospital). And, believe me, she would not have allowed me to drive one second longer than necessary once labor began! :) Fcreid (talk) 10:27, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * What we have here now is somewhat contradictory original research, which is why the details are problematic for the article. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 10:33, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree, Bugs, but any other conclusion is speculative and not supported by the known facts. Did she

a) simply want to be at her home hospital and doctor for delivery of a special needs child and felt the discomfort was worth that? b) driven purely be ambition or schedule or whatever and forsake family? c) actually harbor some intention that delaying arrival might curtail an unwanted pregnancy? We will never know and, frankly, it's none of our business. Fcreid (talk) 10:37, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Right, that's none of our business. But deleting non-original material properly referenced in the Anchorage Daily News isn't any of our business either.Catuskoti (talk) 10:41, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * A quick Google search shows countless differing opinions to that expressed by Dr. Greg and, particularly given that Palin was still a month before her due date, I suspect you'd find ample non-original opinion to the opposite. Why are we choosing that one particular article from a doctor who never treated her (and may have another agenda?) Fcreid (talk) 10:47, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * First, the statement was made in April, before Palin became a national political figure; second, the statement was cited in an article in a reliable source specifically regarding Palin's travel choice and third, the doctor was said to be notable because of her activity in an established professional association and her knowledge of its treatment guidelines. Incidentally, it's not relevant here (wp:synth, apparently), but find me ONE statement by a reliable source that says that it's alright to travel after preterm prelabor rupture of membranes (PPROM). Google that. Catuskoti (talk) 11:14, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * It's not our job to weigh medical opinion here but rather to present the facts and let others draw their own conclusions. As it turned out, the delivery went without complication, so obviously what Palin and her doctor discussed proved accurate. However, for a general discussion on the causes and recommended actions for bleeding during pregnancy, this list seems pretty extensive: Fcreid (talk) 11:18, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * That's an excellent point. The issue becomes, did she follow her doctor's advice; did she defy his advice; or did she simply decide without asking (based possibly on several prior childbirth experiences) that it would be OK? And if we can't determine the answer to that question, then this info's presence in the article amounts to POV-pushing. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 11:22, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree with this part of Fcreid's comment: "It's not our job to weigh medical opinion here but rather to present the facts and let others draw their own conclusions." Per WP:NPOV, however, the facts we present include facts about opinions.  If there's reputable gynecological opinion on each side of the question, we report each side as fairly as possible.  We don't censor one because we've concluded it's wrong, and we don't omit both because we consider ourselves unqualified to adjudicate.  Some people will agree with Fcreid that if all went well then Palin was right in concluding that there was no risk.  Others will disagree.  ("Russian roulette" has been mentioned on at least one blog post I've seen.)  Similarly, we don't need to be able to determine the answer to Bugs's question about whether she followed her doctor's advice.  Different things will be important to different readers.  It's NPOV to report something like "Palin's doctor said X, prominent expert So-and-so has said Y."  Some of these comments seem to imply that we shouldn't report a dispute unless we can adjudicate it, which is not Wikipedia policy. JamesMLane t c 12:36, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * BTW, as a completely irrelevant anecdote, but having lived in Alaska for two years with my own family about twenty years ago, I can tell you they are a much more hardy bunch than us lower-48 types. You won't find the emergency rooms crowded with cases of sniffles. Perhaps this whole issue is nothing more than that? Fcreid (talk) 11:24, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Not exactly. It's political POV-pushing, which has plagued the articles of all the major candidates - looking for anything resembling a scandal. Hence my comment earlier about overdue library books, which I shamelessly stole from an old Doonesbury strip. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 11:32, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Again with the personal insults to "settle" disputes.... So much for Wikipedia.Catuskoti (talk) 11:39, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I made no personal insults, so I assume you're talking to someone else. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 11:51, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Huh? Stating that people who are interested in edits you oppose are political hacks, trying to make controversies, etc. is a pretty personal insult. Catuskoti (talk) 18:27, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * You're oversimplifying things, I worry. There's a massive debate in health care and law about the authority of local standards (did she follow her doctors' advice) versus the authority of federal, national, professional, etc. guidelines (what does the AMA say a competent doctor should do). By dismissing the whole issue by appealing to one of these sides (what her doctor said), you end up taking sides in the issue you're trying to referee, and deleting material that 1) is of interest to readers, and 2) meets BLP guidelines. Catuskoti (talk) 11:36, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm sure there is. But unless you can cite a qualified medical professional who talks about Palin specifically and isn't trying to push a political agenda, it's still POV-pushing or conclusion-drawing or inference, i.e. wikipedians trying to pass judgment on her personal judgment. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 11:51, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Again, see Dr. Greggs and the multiply Anchorage News Report. Also, read WP:NPOV and let me know what specific text supports your declaration of the POV conditions that have to be met before verified, significant information can be included in this apparently Bugs-copyrighted Wiki. Catuskoti (talk) 18:27, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * The paragraph with details of Trig's birth now hangs there without any context, leading the reader to question why it's there in the first place. "Does it tell me she's a diligent worker or a reckless mother?" The issue has not even generated smoke in the MSM, lending credence to my original assertion that the sole source article was poorly researched to begin with. The fact that a MSM commentator inserted foot in mouth based on that article does not warrant its continued inclusion. Moreover, many comments here in discussion (including some of my own) might be perceived as invasive, insensitive and hurtful. I suggest that if no further MSM fact emerges on this issue soon, that the paragraph be removed and associated discussion archived. Fcreid (talk) 16:06, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Who are you talking about?? What MSM commentator? And since when has it been the job of Wikipedia to tell you whether anyone is "diligent worker" or a "reckless mother?" David Gregory was obviously impressed with Palin's plane adventure on Meet the Press last Sunday. Others have pointed out that infants are at risk after PPROM. We are not supposed to be taking sides in any such debate. But that doesn't mean that the material that has attracted reliably sourced attention since April, should simply be deleted! Catuskoti (talk) 18:27, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Alan Colmes apparently implied that the infant's Down's Syndrome was somehow related to this flight on his blog. While he later retracted it and further recanted that he didn't suggest that, the damage was done. You'll notice I've not contributed one iota to any other aspect of this story. If you want to frame disparate pieces of nonsense that purport Palin colluded with Nazis or caused the Crimean War, feel free to do so. But enough is enough on this invasion of the family's privacy. Politics does have bounds. Fcreid (talk) 20:12, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Alaskan Independence Party--Alaska First?--Or America First?
When we get time (...next week), we'll research this. Her loyalty to this country is probably more important than who was born when--though that does go to her practice vs advocacy. Sturunner (talk) 22:06, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
 * While Palin herself is social conservative, the Alaskan Independence Party perhaps is more stridently libertarian: a combination making for sort of a Ron Paul type niche. (Which association between the AIP and Palin, if any, and how this association, should it exist, would play into attempting to mend the rift between libertarians and other conservatives in the Republican Party, it seems pundits haven't noticed yet. Then again, the AIP is also cooperates with the national Constitution party -- which is paleoconservative.) $\sim$ Justmeherenow     22:29, 1 September 2008 (UTC)


 * There's now a citation available for this at ABCNews.Com "Political Punch," here. $\sim$ Justmeherenow     00:13, 2 September 2008 (UTC)


 * to me this is enough, when the Party Chairs says a person was a member; that is sufficient evidence. Alexnovo (talk) 24.44.126.129 (talk) 00:25, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Huh? How is that nearly enough?  I spend a fair bit of time editing Cole and Dylan Sprouse, removing various girls' claims that one of the Sprouses is their boyfriend; should I leave them in because they come from the horse's mouth?  -- Zsero (talk) 01:13, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * This is now something that even the mainstream press picked up. Membership of a party by a politician is not something trivial, certainly if she's later elected for an other party. This is notable enough to mention in the article. -- fdewaele, 2 September 2008, 8:58 CET
 * She left this party 14 years ago. Definitely undue weight to present her one time membership in this party as a current political position she holds. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 08:02, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * It can't be considered "undue weight" when fresh details have been made public of her recent affiliation with the Alaskan Independence Party- watch video> and claims by the party's leader that she remains sympathetic to their cause. She also prepared a recorded speech to be played at the recent AIP convention stating her goals are similar to that of the AIP. watch video This video is also available on the AIP website. 67.169.26.76 (talk) 08:55, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I was about to question the whole thing as less than perfectly sourced but NY Times seconds the Jake Tapper blog. I spot checked some other articles from politicians who are known to have switched parties and they do seem to list past affiliations. So listing it in the infobox is (probably) okay. I think it's undue / POV for us to make any assessment about what this says about her. It's a simple fact and should be reported briefly if notable. If a controversy or scandal arises that itself is notable then, subject to weight / POV / RS and similar concerns the scandal might be worth a mention. But it is premature to say that there is a scandal that rises to the level of being biographically important. People change parties all the time - and many states have pro-secession parties with wide grassroots appeal (very few of these are about to do anything radical). In most walks of life having been a member of one at one time is not considered extreme. So best not to jump the gun to decide this is a major issue until and unless the sources do so. Wikidemon (talk) 08:44, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Where did this section go? Looks like someone removed it for no reason? They simply added that she's a registered Republican, but that doesn't have anything to do with her still being a member of the AIP, as confirmed by the organization's leaders.

Article says "However, between then and 1996, she joined the Alaskan Independence Party, whose main goal as a party is to have Alaska secede from the United States [18]" '''This allegation is false and based solely on AIP members. Her video message to AIP was welcome message only'''

She has been a registered Republican since 1982. See [] "Gail Fenumiai, director of the Alaska Division of Elections, tells ABC News that regardless of the impression given to members of the Alaskan Independence Party, "Gov. Sarah Palin first registered to vote in the state in May 1982 as a Republican, and she has not changed her party affiliate with the Division of Elections since that time." About NYT report Mccain campaign says [] "Bumiller writes that Governor Palin "was a member for two years in the 1990s of the Alaska Independence Party." Not true, and unsourced. Governor Palin has been a registered Republican since 1982."  Remove the falsehood unless you have better proof

Marriage and elopement section deleted and restored
I just restored an entire paragraph from the "Family" section that discussed Sarah and Todd's elopement -- I had edited it, so I may be less than impartial, but numerous citations were attached. Perhaps some other editors can have a look and see what they think so I don't stat an edit war.

Thanks, BTR (talk) 21:44, 1 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Speculation from a blog. Please familiarize yourself with WP:BLP. A.J.A. (talk) 21:46, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I have never seen so many people so fascinated by a female politician's womb. Kelly  hi! 21:52, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
 * For a politician who believes in government control of said womb, I personally can see where the fascination might stem from.Zredsox (talk) 22:00, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Sarah Palin believes in government control of women's wombs? Really? That's amazing if true - could you provide a cite for that? Kelly  hi! 22:05, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Try reading the main article. It is filled with fascinating citations/references and all in all a great read.Zredsox (talk) 22:16, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Hmmm, couldn't find that claim anywhere in there. If true, it would be astonishing. I did see that she is personally opposed to abortion, but I don't quite see how you go from there to "government control of women's wombs". Kelly  hi! 22:20, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Anti-Abortion equates to government control over a woman's right to chose what to do with her own body. That being said, I am not going to debate this here as this is not a forum.Zredsox (talk) 22:24, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Good idea. Kelly  hi! 22:29, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Does she support legislation to restrict abortion rights? The answer to that question would answer the question raised in this section. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 09:51, 2 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks again for all the helpful feedback and links about not citing blogs. I have put in a reworked item that is in today's New York Times http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/02/us/politics/02palin.html?pagewanted=2&hp and restored the "collateral damage" -- the well-cited quote from Palin's mom that got removed with the section, even though it hadn't been questioned -- and which gives some balance.


 * Thanks again, BTR (talk) 12:35, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

relationship with ted stevens
Does anyone else feel this section is given way too much weight? I mean we don't have here relationship with any other politician getting even one sentence (McCain excluded). I would prefer this editted down to 1-2 sentences. --ThaddeusB (talk) 22:12, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Way too much weight, transparent guilt-by-association attempt. Why Stevens and no other Alaska politicians? Needs to be chopped down to a couple of sentences. Kelly  hi! 22:17, 1 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I think it is well written. Paring it down would strip away much needed context. I would actually advocate expanding the section because of its significance. Zredsox (talk) 22:20, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Exactly what is the significance? Kelly  hi! 22:22, 1 September 2008 (UTC)


 * It is significant because (a) Palin supported Stevens and (b) she is involved in his dismissal. Now, it may be a bit drawn out. If you can cut it down without losing context, by all means. JCP (talk) 22:31, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
 * What "dismissal"? Kelly  hi! 22:36, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Was she a director of a 527 named after any other politician? The significance of the section is to provide a bit of balance to the campaign-brochure language about "running on a clean-government platform" and "challeng[ing] the state Republican establishment". If part of her claim to fame is opposing Ted Stevens, then her relationship with him is relevant. —KCinDC (talk) 22:33, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Where does the article say that part of her claim to fame was opposing Stevens? This all sounds like synthesis to me. I've cut down the section. Kelly  hi! 22:35, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I would think her claim to fame is running for VP. A.J.A. (talk) 22:36, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Undue weight on Ted Stevens
Based on what has been written, the "relationship" apparently was: Is that about it? Should we get busy writing similar "relationahip" sections for all politicians articles, linking them to every other politician? Kelly hi! 22:45, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) . She was involved in an organization that he was also involved with
 * 2) . He once endorsed her in an election.
 * 3) . She once endorsed him in an election.
 * 4) . She made a public statement about his indictment.
 * I think you are free to contribute to Wikipedia wherever you can and if that is a project you would like to undertake, I say go for it (as long as you can prove notability.) Zredsox (talk) 22:55, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I guess my real question is, what it is about the "relationship" between Palin and Stevens that makes it more noteworthy than any other relationships between members of the same party in the same state? Kelly  hi! 22:58, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Agree that it's undue weight, which is prohibited per policy. Hobartimus (talk) 23:04, 1 September 2008 (UTC)


 * So I assume your first question was just you making a WP:POINT? Correct me if I am wrong, but isn't it WP policy to not use other articles to argue inclusion of information in a 3rd party article such as this? So Rezko in Obama = Stevens in Palin would not be an acceptable equation. We need to look at each piece of information and conclude on its own merits why it should or should not be entered into the article and currently there does not seem to be a consensus to strip the current language about Stevens. Zredsox (talk) 23:05, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
 * No, my first question was rhetorical - I guess that wasn't as clear as I thought. And I'm afraid you haven't explained why the Stevens relationship doesn't violate WP:UNDUE. Why is it significant? Kelly  hi! 23:11, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Because of your obvious partisan position, I am sure even a mention of scandal would be considered undue by you (even though it is significant and it has been explained multiple times.) That is why we as a group need to come to a consensus rather then you deciding for the group.Zredsox (talk) 23:22, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Hmmm, it's not exactly helpful to attack me rather than answering my question about why this "relationship" is significant. Kelly  hi! 23:41, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
 * If you can not find the multiple posts that explain why it is significant, what am I supposed to do? Are you trying to get me to keep re-iterating the same thing over and over? Just take a moment, and read carefully and you should find the materials you seek. Zredsox (talk) 23:45, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I see a post explaining the significance of her involvement with the 527, and that fact is still in the article. I don't see any posts arguing why a couple of election endorsements equals a relationship with a person indicted for corruption. Kelly  hi! 23:51, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
 * (1) The organization was named after him, not just something he was vaguely associated with. (2) A significant part of her political appeal is that she's being portrayed as a reformer and anti-corruption fighter, as exemplified in the article by the sentence "Palin also publicly challenged Senator Ted Stevens to come clean about the federal investigation into his financial dealings." (3) Endorsement in general don't mean much, but endorsement of a primary challenger against an incumbent is more significant, as is endorsing someone after they've been connected to corruption (though I'm not sure of the state of things at the time she endorsed). There may have been too many sentences about it before, but it should stay in the article. —KCinDC (talk) 23:12, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
 * The fact that she worked for the organization is still in the article (or was as of a minute ago). That's fine. But it's undue weight to take the fact that members of the same party endorsed each other (before Stevens was indicted, by the way) as a "relationship" with its own section header. It's also a BLP violation to try to tie her to an indicted politician - it's guilt by association. Kelly  hi! 23:14, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Is her endorsement of Parnell's challenge to Young, which is in the article, also insignificant? I see that Stevens's endorsement of her challenge to Murkowski is in the article at the moment, which is fine with me. Established politicians endorsing primary challenges to their colleagues in the party is significant. —KCinDC (talk) 01:08, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh, it's not the fact of including the endorsements that was worrying, but the extension of those endorsements into a purported "relationship", complete with a section title that said "Murkowski relationship". If the endorsement is included, it should be a sentence or phrase in the section on the gubernatorial election, I think. Kelly  hi! 01:17, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * The endorsement by Ted Stevens of Sarah Palin for the governorship of the state of Alaska (her only significant office held with respect to preparation for being vice president) seems pretty important and indicative of a relationship:
 * {| border="0" cellpadding="10" cellspacing="0" align="center" width="90%" style="background-color: #EEEEEE;"


 * Palin welcomed a Stevens endorsement, even releasing a campaign commercial of the event, featuring Stevens offering support of Palin, with Palin smiling mightily in the background.
 * Palin welcomed a Stevens endorsement, even releasing a campaign commercial of the event, featuring Stevens offering support of Palin, with Palin smiling mightily in the background.

One other bit of telling video: in July of this year, Stevens and Palin held a joint news conference, denying that there was any political distance between them.
 * }
 * Indicted Hometown Senator Poses Problem for Sarah Palin Digitalmandolin (talk) 09:22, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Article needs to mention Stevens effect on gubernatorial election
I don't think there should be an entire subhead for Ted Stevens. But the article, as is, does not account for Stevens effect. Read this bit from Washington Post: "Stevens had been helpful to Palin during her run for governor, swooping in with a last moment endorsement. And the two filmed a campaign commercial together to highlight Stevens's endorsement of Palin during the 2006 race." Zredsox (talk) 00:25, 2 September 2008 (UTC) Poggio (talk) 23:44, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
 * See the conversation regarding Ted Stevens above. Kelly  hi! 23:48, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

No consensus was reached, and a certain pro-palin "editor" decided to go ahead and removed it anyway eventhough it was still being discuss. Lakerking04 (talk) 23:53, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree. Maybe the section should be returned to it original state and then we should decide what if anything should go?Zredsox (talk) 00:01, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Or perhaps someone could actually post the suggested wording here on the talk page before inclusion, which is the right way to handle controversial information here at Wikipedia. Kelly  hi! 00:05, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * The right way is to delete what you don't like and then say we should discuss all changes here? Interesting. Zredsox (talk) 00:08, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * It's not that I like it or don't like it, it's that it violated policy and was obviously controversial. What do you propose for moving forward? Kelly  hi! 00:11, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * It did not violate any policy. It stated facts. It was clear. It was concise.Zredsox (talk) 00:20, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * What exactly do you want to reinclude? The article already says that she worked for the Stevens 527 and that she had removed a commercial they made together from her website following his indictment. Kelly  hi! 00:29, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Why does the article need to include Stevens' "effect on the election"? And how do we know what "effect" Stevens had on the election? I'm not following? Please explain why this is significant in a biography? --Paul (talk) 01:12, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I think the current version is fine. For disclosure, I wrote it, but hey I still think it is fine.  Hehe.  Seriously though, her relationship with Stevens is not that important if he had not gotten himself in so much trouble, I doubt anyone would have tried to add it at all.--ThaddeusB (talk) 01:17, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * The article currently says "Ted Stevens made a last-moment endorsement as Stevens and Palin filmed a TV commercial together for Palin's gubernatorial campaign." So it is mentioned. That seems okay to me, though there are no doubt tweaks to it that would also be okay, if someone is unhappy and wants to suggest something. —KCinDC (talk) 01:21, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * No, that seems to resolve the undue weights just fine (speaking for myself). Kelly  hi! 01:34, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * This actual made the video be mentioned twice. Since this new reference seemed more relevant than her removing it from her website some time later, I removed the 2nd reference. (I'm sorry, but removing an old ad you no longer what associated with you if hardly controversial, and thus not worth a separate mention) --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:39, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Sounds fine. Kelly  hi! 01:42, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Robert Battle
I've removed the references to Robert Battle's independent research site, until someone can show that he is an expert, published by a third-party, in this field of expertise. Wjhonson (talk) 22:26, 1 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I added that, but I think you may be right to remove it. I thought, at first blush, that Mr. Battle was a professional, but I'm unable to substantiate that.  On the other hand (at the risk of indulging in WP:OR) his results duplicate my own investigations into Palin's ancestry from publicly available sources.  Still, probably best that it stay out, for now.  Coemgenus 23:05, 1 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I'd have no problem including your public sources, provided they can be easily validated with minimal effort, by an average editor.Wjhonson (talk) 23:07, 1 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, I think it's too close to original research for me to compile census records, published genealogies, and obituaries and post it here. If a professional genealogist does it, I'd be glad to cite to him, but I've never published in that field or been employed in it.  Hopefully, William Reitwiesner at wargs.com will pick up on it -- his work has been cited in several other wiki articles.  Coemgenus 23:12, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Itinerary?
I am trying to source Palin's itinerary on her trip to Kuwait. It seems that the reported visit to Ireland was just a stopover at Shannon Airport. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:34, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
 * If a spokesperson is the only person who is claiming she visited Ireland, it should be removed even if there are not more sources. That is a definite conflict of interest.Zredsox (talk) 22:42, 1 September 2008 (UTC)


 * That is a definite conflict of interest -- what, like the spokesman owns Aer Lingus stock? What does "conflict of interest" even mean when a source is a spokesman? -- Noroton (talk) 23:48, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
 * They want to make it sound like she is more worldly and thus a plane hitting a runway in Ireland to fuel equates to "She was in Ireland." That is the conflict of interest and why we need a secondary source. If she didn't get off the plane then it probably should not be included in the article. Zredsox (talk) 00:14, 2 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Agreed. The article citing this isn't very clear on any of her visits. We know she visited Kuwait as there are images; however, I am unsure of any itinerary. I believe CNN did a piece that briefly mentioned conversations she had there but that was on the television. The reference to her trip(s) are also mentioned twice, which is redundant. They should be removed from "personal life" since they were for political reasons. JCP  22:48, 1 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Certainly more info should be looked for on this subject - but relying on a spokesperson for certain information (like relying on a primary source) is appropriate if the notability of the subject is already established, which it obviously is. Unless there is strong reason to doubt the spokesperson, I don't see the reason for removal.  141.161.71.241 (talk) 23:03, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

The fact that Palin's first passport was issued in 2007, with the implication that she did not leave the USA till that time, is notable enough to be featured in the lead. Per WP:LEAD ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:52, 2 September 2008 (UTC)


 * She may have been in Canada (or certain other nations) without needing a passport -- Did the family drive the Alaska Highway when they moved north from Idaho? LarryMorseDCOhio (talk) 06:17, 2 September 2008 (UTC)


 * That her first passport was issued in 2007 is worth mentioning in the body of the article. I'm very surprised at the suggestion that it should be in the lead, though.  Travel abroad isn't that huge an aspect of a person's life, unless the bio subject is a travel writer or some such. JamesMLane t c 07:19, 2 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree with putting it in the lede because the office she is running for is tasked with representing the United States in international relations. Lack of passport until last year shows a stunning deficit in the resume of a person who would take on this task. Digitalmandolin (talk) 08:19, 2 September 2008 (UTC)


 * It is source and should be mentioned, but in the lead? In biographies, leads tend to be a brief synopsis of the person's life.  What documents the state department issued to her is a minor part of this, since her political career up to now has been domestic -- all in Alaska.  I understand that's the point some editors want to make, this factoid is not so important that it should be the first thing people read about her.  And, it is worth noting that possession of a passport was, until very recently, an imperfect proxy for foreign travel.  Coemgenus 10:56, 2 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure the current President could even have found Europe on a world globe when he took office. Meanwhile, if Palin had known before 2007 that she would be nominated for VP, maybe she would have gotten a passport before 2007. To make too big a thing of this seems like POV-pushing. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 11:09, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Why no mention that Palin's family is interacial or that her husband is a Yup'ik Native?
It seems strange that the fact that Sarah Palin's husband and children are Yup’ik Eskimo has escaped mention in this wikipedia article. The Atlanta Journal Constitution is just one of the major newspapers that has reported that the family's Alaskan Native heritage has played a significant role in family life. The fact that Ms. Palin's husband is a member of an Alaskan Native community is significant because it is particularly relevant to understand, Sarah Palin, her family and her husband.

Palin Bio on ajc.com

Mrs. Palin's choice as a white woman marrying into a Alaskan Native family is significant because it shows her personal strenghth and unwillingness to opt for the easy road. In Alaska as in the rest of the Unite States, it is still not the norm to engage in a multiracial relationship. Native Alaskans suffer significantly from white racism and Sarah Palin took a clear stand against that endemic racism.

The implication of this article is that Mrs. Palin's work at a commercial fishery shows opposition to environmental conservationism. This implication would not be made and situation more accurately portrayed if it was noted that this fishery is Yup'ik Native Alaskan owned.

In Alaska, Palin known for battling against long odds

Why no mention of the fact that Mrs. Palin's campaign for governor was partially the result of heavy campaigning in Alaskan Native communities by herself and Mr. Palin's grandmother (a traditional Yup’ik from a Eskimo house in Bristol Bay).

Tsali2 (talk) 22:37, 1 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Part Yup'ik, and I think the article does mention it.


 * It's basically trivia. Some degree of America Indian heritage is very common for American whites. A.J.A. (talk) 22:36, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
 * That is unsubstantiated personal opinion. Alaskan Native Population is 15.39% of the Alaskan Population. You cannot assume that 4.86% of those of two or more races in Alaska are all whites and Alaskan Natives, but even if you can, 5 in 100 is hardly "very common". Tsali2 (talk) 23:17, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
 * The article does not mention that Todd Palin and the children are ethnically and culturally identified as Native Alaskan. Tsali2 (talk) 23:33, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I didn't saying that Inuit heritage was common in Alaskan whites, but that American Indian heritage, of whatever tribe, is very common among American whites, meaning that many Americans who identify as white have some native ancestry. According to family tradition I'm part Cherokee, but I'm not a tribal member and have only ever identified as white. It's actually pretty standard. A.J.A. (talk) 23:57, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
 * In that case, multiracial people (people identifying as being of 2 or more races) in the US make up 1.64% of the population as of the 2000 Census with 0.74% of the country identifying themselves as being Indian or Alaskan Native. I highly doubt that the majority of those who are of mixed race in the US are whites and Indians or Alaskan Natives. That said, you are not Cherokee as you have no cultural affiliation and it sounds like only a vague notion that you may have a Cherokee princess great great great grandmother somewhere out there who may or may not have existed. Such was not the case of the Palin's who identify as Yup'ik on the Governor's website and mention the fact that this identity is significant in their family life. Tsali2 (talk) 00:07, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * You seem to have a hard time following my point. I'm not talking about people who identify as multiracial, I'm talking about the fact that most people who identify as white have some American Indian ancestry, which isn't just confirmed by the oral histories of many families but by actual DNA tests. A.J.A. (talk) 04:00, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * That's funny, I feel like I am talking right past you. We are not talking about a situation where there is no cultural affiliation for 100+ years. Todd's mother is the former chairman of the Alaskan Federation of Natives and he identifies as Yup'ik or part Yup'ik in articles about him. In the case of the Palin's we're also not talking about people who have a rumor there maybe an Indian hanging in their family tree somewhere way back. You are not Indian in the U.S. unless you can prove it and have cultural contacts. Fact of the matter is that even if race mixing was at the level you imply that it is, based purely on conventional wisdom, these whites you're referring to have no cultural contact and have no idea what it means to be Indian. That said, Indian and Eskimo are two different things. I and many other American Indians do not see a familial relationship with Eskimos other than shared struggle. Even beyond that, DNA Testing for race is highly inaccurate and suspect for a number of reason, and entirely irrelevant because even if it worked it could only be necessary to show distant relationship and not family contacts. Tsali2 (talk) 13:19, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Marrying someone that is one-quarter one-eighth minority is hardly remarkable in itself. You'd need to show that is has had an appreciable impact on her life or views.  Dragons flight (talk) 22:53, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Indian and Alaskan Native communities determine who is and who is not of their community. It is racist to say that because someone is 1/4 or less that they are no longer of the race or culture that they self-identify. That is one of the hallmarks of colonial domination of indigenous people. Breed them out, or refuse to acknowledge their ethnicity. Tsali2 (talk) 23:30, 1 September 2008 (UTC)


 * It is racist to assume that because someone is part minority then that defines them. You have provided no evidence that Todd Palin or their children even self-identify as natives.  As I said, to include such a discussion in Sarah Palin's article you have to provide evidence that having a husband who is part minority has made a difference in her life or views.  Dragons flight (talk) 23:37, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Let's try to avoid accusations of racism (on both sides) and concentrate on what belongs in the article and what has reliable sources. —KCinDC (talk) 23:44, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree why does this article not mention that Todd and the Children are Yup'ik Eskimos. The Palin's identify themselves as Yup'ik and state that this ancestry is relevant to family identity http://gov.state.ak.us/bio.htmlTsali2 (talk) 23:56, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Some of my ancestors' are Irish, but I don't identify myself as Irish. That bio says his gradmother is Yup'ik, but it doesn't identify him or his children as Yup'ik.  Dragons flight (talk) 00:09, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * The bio says that Todd's gradmother is Yup'ik an that "Alaska’s Native heritage plays an important role in their family"Tsali2 (talk) 00:50, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * That says "Through Todd’s Yup'ik grandmother, Alaska’s Native heritage plays an important role in their family." It doesn't say they identify themselves as Yup'ik. Propose wording (with reliable sourcing) that you would prefer for the article so people can see what you're suggesting. Otherwise this discussion doesn't seem useful in improving the article. —KCinDC (talk) 00:11, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I propose the addition of the following statement. "As Todd is Yup'ik Alaskan Native through his grandmother's family, Alaska’s Native heritage plays an important role in their family" (or even any note that Todd is Yup'ik Alaskan Native) and also think a note that Todd’s grandmother Yup’ik native of Bristol Bay accompanied Sarah in her race for governor as she sought support from Alaska Native voters. http://www.ajc.com/news/content/news/stories/2008/08/29/CAMPAIGN_PALIN_odds.html and http://gov.state.ak.us/bio.html.


 * As a American Indian I was shocked, and proud to learn of the native connection of Palin. I was excited to see Obama's connection to the Crow Nation as well. I should note I'm annoyed Obama's connection to the Crow has not been mentioned in wikipedia although it is also of significance in Native America. I don't care for either McCain or Obama and intend to vote solely in tribal elections(as is my practice as I oppose recognizing colonial governance), but am pissed both Obama's and Palin's Indian/Alaskan Native connections are being hidden. Tsali2 (talk) 00:45, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * You haven't presented any source that says Todd is a Yup'ik Alaskan Native, just that his grandmother is and that the family recognize their Native heritage. —KCinDC (talk) 04:16, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't understand how you can be this biased that you are unwilling to post a statement that Todd Palin is Yup'ik Alaskan Native when it is repeatedly stated publicly by the family. Maybe you don't understand genetics. If your grandmother is Indian - then like magic so are you. It is incredibly unlikely that a Native grandmother would not pass on any culture to her child. It is even less likely that a politically active Native mother would not pass on culture and Native/Tribal politics to her son. See the following seven articles (obviously there are more) stating that Mr. Palin is Native Alaskan/Yup'ik:

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/08/30/MN8J12KR7Q.DTL http://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales-news/2008/08/30/feisty-basketball-captain-ran-away-to-marry-91466-21636689/ http://www.theage.com.au/world/palin-investigated-for-role-in-sacking-20080831-46d9.html http://news.muckety.com/2008/08/29/alaska-gov-sarah-palin-is-mccains-surprise-vp-pick/4771 http://www.radikal.com.tr/Default.aspx?aType=Detay&ArticleID=896352&CategoryID=81 http://news.chinatimes.com/2007Cti/2007Cti-News/2007Cti-News-Content/0,4521,110504+112008083000267,00.html http://www.lastampa.it/_web/cmstp/tmplRubriche/giornalisti/grubrica.asp?ID_blog=43&ID_articolo=988&ID_sezione=58&sezione= Tsali2 (talk) 12:45, 2 September 2008 (UTC)


 * It is original research to drone on about how someone marrying a person with some Native American ancestry shows "personal strenghth and unwillingness to opt for the easy road." Sounds like pure spin doctoring. Edison2 (talk) 22:56, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
 * That is my personal opinion after having read numerous articles this afternoon verifying that she married an Alaskan Native. I did not say that personal strength and unwillingness to opt for the easy road were statements that should be added to the article only that living in a multiracial family is significant. Tsali2 (talk) 23:26, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Obama comes from a multi-racial family. Whoever wins this election, it will break the mold. As far as the "personal strength and unwillingness to opt for the easy road" stuff about marrying an Alaskan Native, that sounds like a rather businesslike/political reason to get married. Don't rule out that she might simply have thought he was a hottie. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 10:14, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Hopefully she did marry him because he is a hottie. I suspect that in her early 20s she wasn't thinking hey, I should marry a college drop out to be successful in the future because I can ride this Yup'ik thing into the Whitehouse although having grown up in Alaska she had probably seen racism against Eskimos and pure or not and had to have considered that in her decision to marry.Tsali2 (talk) 13:22, 2 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree. Todd Palin's article talks enough about his heritage.  Coemgenus 23:01, 1 September 2008 (UTC)


 * A Yup'ik and a Yuppie? Should be a good match. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 23:23, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Section on dismissal
This section is currently very misleading. It says:

"Initially, Palin denied that there had been any pressure on Monegan to fire Wooten from her or anyone in her administration.[81] She later disclosed that her staff had contacted Monegan or his staff about two dozen times regarding Wooten, including many from her chief of staff, stating most calls were made without her knowledge."

This is misleading because the 24 contacts about Wooten were not necessarily "pressure." Palin's spokesperson has said that her actions were merely to alert Monegan of potential threats to her family. After all, Wooten had made a death threat against her father. Palin has only ackowledged that one of the 24 contacts was pressure to fire Wooten.Ferrylodge (talk) 23:06, 1 September 2008 (UTC)


 * "She later disclosed that her staff had contacted Monegan or his staff about two dozen times regarding Wooten, including many from her chief of staff, stating most calls were made without her knowledge". How is that misleading? Her staff DID make 24 calls to Monegan and some of them if not all were concerning Wooten. Lakerking04 (talk) 23:15, 1 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Were there 24 separate threats to her family that she was informing him of? It doesn't seem unreasonable to characterize 24 contacts from the governor's office about an issue as pressure. Do you have a suggested rewording? —KCinDC (talk) 23:18, 1 September 2008 (UTC)


 * It's probably best to keep this summary brief. See WP:SS.Ferrylodge (talk) 23:41, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

The fact remains that initially she lied about the entire affair, and only admitted that her staff made calls when the legislature hired a private investigator. Then she proceeded to claim ignorance about the entire affair despite the fact that she herself admits to sending emails to Monegan about Wooten. Something sounds fishy here, but thats not my call to make, I'll wait for the investigator to release his report in October.. Lakerking04 (talk) 23:19, 1 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Why do you think she lied? She didn't say initially that no one ever spoke to Monegan about Wooten.  She said initially that they didn't pressure Monegan to fire Wooten.  It's possible to speak with a cabinet officer without pressuring him, isn't it?  And, when it turned out that Bailey had indeed exerted such pressure, she held a press conference to say so.Ferrylodge (talk) 23:36, 1 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Grr. Ferrylodge, I have to say, I am having a really hard time assuming good faith about your last edit here, where you removed all mention of inappropriate contact between Palin's and Monegan's offices. You have participated enough in the talk page here to know better. There are two sides to this story. Monegan says she was 1 pressuring him and then 2 fired him; Palin says 3 Wooten is a bad guy and 4 she wasn't aware of any pressure from her office. (This is not a forum, so no discussion of which of those stories is more coherent.) We have to touch all four bases. In my opinion, any editor who's read this talk page and then misses one of those bases, is giving the appearance of acting in bad faith, and should consider leaving this article alone permanently. Homunq (talk) 23:52, 1 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Homunq, first of all, your comment would be much more persuasive if it did not completely ignore my initial comment above that the material was very misleading. Additionally, if you want to criticize a particular edit of mine, the propr thing to do is provide a diff so that people (e.g. you and I) can examine it.  The diff is here.  Notice that the edit summary refers to WP:SS, but you ignore that too.


 * I won't ignore your points, though. You say that this Wikipedia article should mention that Monegan felt his firing may have been retaliation, and that Palin had been at odds with Wooten.  All of that remained in this Wikipedia article after my edit.  You also say that this Wikipedia artice should mention that Palin says she wasn't aware of any pressure from her office, but the fact is that she eventually became aware of that, so the chronology is complex.  I certainly left in this article that she denied firing Monegan because he defied pressure to fire Wooten, which is the main issue ("Monegan was not released due to any actions or inaction related to personnel issues in his department").Ferrylodge (talk) 00:05, 2 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Sorry to not include a diff, thanks. In my mind, your mention of WP:SS in the edit comment was actually more damning, as your edit was clearly clipping the section as it stood rather than summarizing it. I was trying to be charitable by not attacking you on that point too.


 * I mentioned (and numbered) four basic points that the article should include, and was angry that you'd removed one. You return that it still had three of them. I fail to see how that responds to my point. The article as you left it had no mention of the substance of the allegations of pressure. I maintain that that is unacceptable, and would maintain the same about any of the other 3 points (including the ones that are Palin's side of the story).


 * You say your previous comment, above, argues that this information was misleading. Yet nothing in your comment refers to the status of the article; rather, it starts out with a direct reference to an allegation (lies) made only here on the talk page, and continues by citing details which your own edit removed.


 * The section could stand to be shorter. But the bottom line is that it must indicate the basic substance for both sides of the argument. Homunq (talk) 00:44, 2 September 2008 (UTC)


 * No, I think the version after my edit had all four basic points. You seem to be referring to what you numbered as your point 1: pressuring Monegan.  But Monegan's complaint about retaliation obviously implies that he felt pressured, and I left that in.  I took out the misleading back-and-forth about which exact people may have applied pressure on what exact number of occasions.


 * And please look at my initial comment above again. The blockquote was a direct quote from the article, not from the talk page. Why do you not think it's from the article?  Not only is it from the article, but it's also very misleading, for the reasons I explained.  As Lakerking04 described above, it's phrased to make it sound like Palin was lying.  Ferrylodge (talk) 00:59, 2 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Um, the discussion is above. Kelly  hi! 01:05, 2 September 2008 (UTC)


 * What are you referring to, Kelly?Ferrylodge (talk) 01:49, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * That's weird, the comment I was replying to is gone. (It was the Ted Stevens thing). Never mind... Kelly hi! 01:52, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

[out] Thanks for pointing me to this discussion, Ferrylodge. I think it's moot now that the further comment was added that she could see how 24 calls and contact from her husband and herself "might be viewed" as pressure - but I'll respond. I don't necessarily think the summary section needs as much detail as it now has (see my earlier edit here, for example - although more info and sources may have surfaced since then, so I can't say at the moment if I think what was there then is now enough) - but (and this is why I reinstated text)  without some clear inclusion about the extreme number of contacts made by her staff, husband and herself, the story loses its point- all that was left before my edit was a version with no reference to the fact that there were so many contacts including those she surely knew about. And saying only that  "Monegan alleged that his dismissal may have been partly in retaliation..." was not right - there are numerous sources that make it clear that Monegan more than thought it "may have been" partly in retaliation. I later removed the word "retaliation" in an effort to keep it closer to the source cited at that spot - it said "connected to". But I can't go along with removing the reason that Monegan "went public" as the Grimaldi article put it, and that's the 24 contacts by staff, the Governor, the Governor's husband, and the Atty General. Tvoz / talk 07:01, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Modest proposal
I think it would be worth pushing this section to a transcluded subpage. It would look identical on the page here, but it would free this section up from the tangled edit history of the rest of the page, and allow us to attain some kind of stability here. There will always be a tension over the length and balance of this section, but it is 10 times harder to resolve if 3 out of 4 careful edits run into edit conflicts, and it is impossible to find the previous version with the reference you want in the flurry of unrelated edits. I'm not being bold on this because I want to get some agreement first. Homunq (talk) 14:45, 2 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I would not support that at present. I've never heard of such a thing being done at Wikipedia, but maybe someone can provide an example.Ferrylodge (talk) 14:51, 2 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I suspect that the level of sustained and varied controversy over this article is record-setting or close to it, so new solutions may be in order. But if there's dissent from this suggestion, for whatever reason, I guess we shouldn't. Homunq (talk) 16:50, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Here's a current snapshot of the section. I think this is a good floor for what should go in, and the ceiling should be no more than double this size.

On July 11, 2008 Palin dismissed Public Safety Commissioner Walter Monegan, citing performance-related issues. She instead offered him a position as executive director of the state Alcoholic Beverage Control Board, which he turned down. Monegan alleged that his dismissal was retaliation for his failure to fire Palin’s former brother-in-law, an Alaska State Trooper who had made a death threat against Palin's father, among other alleged misconduct and family disagreements. A dispute arose over whether contacts made by Palin's staff and family constituted inappropriate pressure on Monegan to fire Wooten.

The Alaska Legislature subsequently hired an independent investigator to review "the circumstances and events surrounding the termination of former Public Safety Commissioner Monegan, and potential abuses of power and/or improper actions by members of the executive branch." The investigation is scheduled to be completed in October, 2008.


 * First, as to transclusion, I don't understand enough about how that would work. Would you explain it at a very nontechnical level?  The edit conflicts are annoying but we can hope that the article will become less active as it settles into a stable form.


 * Second, as to length, an arbitrary floor or ceiling would be inappropriate. In a developing story, even a consensus version might have to be changed.


 * Third, as to the specifics of the content, your suggested version has a very pro-Palin POV. It makes it sound as if Wooten committed certain infractions, Monegan refused to discipline him in any way, and Palin was upset at that.  We can't omit the key fact that the whole thing was investigated, and Wooten punished, before Palin took office.  That fact is why, when Palin pressured Monegan, he said that he couldn't do anything more about it; the matter had been closed.  Furthermore, your summary omits the Kopp incident, which must be in the article somewhere, and this is the obvious place.  We have a bio of a governor and one of her appointed cabinet members resigned in scandal after two weeks.  That merits a mention in the accounting of her administration. JamesMLane t c 19:19, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Fishy Business
Im starting to suspect they're McCain staffers amongst us posing as wikipedia editors. It's clearly apparent that some "editors" on here are very baised in favour of palin, whether the facts support their views or not, they don't care. Lakerking04 (talk) 23:24, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
 * And I'm starting to suspect there are wacky Daily Kos conspiracy theorists among us posing as wikipedia editors. It's clearly apparent that some "editors" on here are very baised against Palin, whether the facts support their views or not, they don't care. (tongue-in-cheek comment) But somehow it all works out and we end up with a neutral article. Wikipedia is cool that way. Kelly  hi! 23:28, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Kelly, have you made an edit that didn't make Palin look better? I think you are a big part of the white washing that is being referred to as I have watched you cut story after story that was "negative" (see: Stevens above) while fluffing the positive. As for the Daily Kos, I find it insulting that you are attacking its readers in this venue and don't think this is the place for that kind of conduct. Zredsox (talk) 23:30, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't call it "whitewashing" to remove libel and slander sourced to Daily Kos, which is mostly what I've done. I have removed or reworded other information that violated various WIkipedia policies. Can you point to a place where I "fluffed the positive"? On the Stevens thing, I notice you still haven't answered the question above about significance. Oh, and my Daily Kos comment was directed at their conspiracy theorists, not their readers. Kelly  hi! 23:44, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
 * KCinDC and JCP have given great reasons (that you seem to miss each time you go to that section.) I am not going to go over and over the obvious points that have already been stated eloquently. As for your bias, yes it is a concern because when we are working toward consensus as a group and in the middle of that discussion you make a snap judgment call (that something is unduly weighted) even though that is the topic of heated discussion (and doesn't require immediate deletion.) It becomes a serious violation of the spirit of Wikipedia. I am not talking about the libel and slander, I am talking about all the little things you have done to make this read like JohnMcCain.com South. You are making "judgment calls" that always favor the home team...Zredsox (talk) 23:50, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Please feel free to take me to WP:RFC or some form of dispute resolution if you disagree, but I haven't done anything but mainly remove BLP violations (which includes a fabricated "relationship" with an indicted Senator). What are "all the little things" that you are talking about? Kelly  hi! 23:54, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Zredsox himself made very "intresting" edits, for example here he deletes a source a Rasmussen survey TITLED "Palin Makes Good First Impression: Is Viewed More Favorably than Biden" and here  he inserts text saying Palin's favourability numbers are "the lowest statistic vote of confidence in a running mate since...1988" after he carefully deleted that Palin was viewed more favourably than Biden. Can you say misrepresenting sources much? Hobartimus (talk) 23:54, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
 * The first poll was removed because the numbers for Palin were from one poll and the numbers for Biden from another. I just used the poll numbers (USA TODAY/GALLUP) for both so it would be consistent. As for the information concerning Quayle, that was a direct quote from the article and I updated the article to reflect it rather than have an editors opinion of what was said. Zredsox (talk) 00:06, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Hobartimus, we don't need to go there - one poll is pretty much the same as another and will be replaced soon enough. Kelly  hi! 23:58, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes polls are interchangeable, true however the above was just a reaction to Zredsox saying "You are making "judgment calls" that always favor the home team..." and however defensible or otherwise good the edit was the source and text that stated "Palin is viewed more favorably than Biden" disappeared into nothingness and another stating "worst reaction since Quayle" appeared. Let's just all calm down and don't be so quick of accusing each other with bias, let's archive this whole thread I say. Hobartimus (talk) 00:15, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Daily Kos was where the Trig business got started, so yes, I think a few negative references here and there are warranted.
 * More seriously, much of the editing, especially from newer editors, is driven by precisely those issues which Daily Kos and other left-bloggers are using to attack her. Which isn't to say they shouldn't be covered at all, but don't be surprised when everyone else thinks contributions which reflect the preferred discourse of one side of a contested election need a little work to conform to WP:BLP, which doesn't just cover sourcing and factual accuracy but judgment calls like undue weight. A.J.A. (talk) 23:42, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
 * And similarly, when much of the editing is driven by issues that the McCain campaign and right-wing bloggers and commentators are using to promote and defend her, don't be surprised when people think contributions that reflect the preferred discourse of the other side require similar work. —KCinDC (talk) 23:50, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Of course you're right - everything potentially controversial needs to be impeccably sourced. Kelly  hi! 23:59, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Assume good faith. —KCinDC (talk) 23:27, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
 * This discussion is completely non-productive, as it does not go toward improving the article in any way. --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:26, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Kos: One further unproductive comment, in the context of many references in this editorial discussion space to "Kos" as "left-wing" (or liberal). That is an insult to left-wing-nuts :) "Kos" is middle-wing-mush-brain: e.g., they wet themselves with excitement over "War Hero" Kerry as their champion. Left-wing nuts were for Howard Dean. Who good-ol Al supported. :) Yes, this is a totally inappropriate comment -- meant to squelch the repeating of the "Kos is left wing" meme in an environment where "Kos" is often mentioned, e.g. "you can't quote Kos." THE END Proofreader77 (talk) 05:04, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * The story certainly did not originate on Daily Kos, though it may have gotten attention drawn to it there. It has apparently circulated in Alaska for months before anyone in the lower 48 heard of Sarah Palin. 75.62.4.102 (talk) 07:39, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Palin's link to Joel's Army
Is there any WP:RS for Palin's link to Joel's Army? It's all over the blogs. We66er (talk) 00:36, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * You should have seen what was all over the blogs yesterday. Afraid we can't use anything about it without a reliable source. Kelly  hi! 00:42, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * No, there isn't. All it amounts to is that the church she attends when she's in Juneau is Pentecostal, and someone decided that the entire Pentecostal church is "dominionist".  It's pure bigotry, even if Palin were actually a Pentecostal, which she isn't.  -- Zsero (talk) 00:44, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, that article by Dogemperor on Daily Kos that seems to be the source doesn't make any actual connection at all. It seems to be pure smear. —KCinDC (talk) 00:50, 2 September 2008 (UTC)