Talk:Sarah Palin/Archive 6

RS for AIP section
Is a report on blogs.abcnews.com considered a reliable source? (Trying Bold, discuss, revert this time instead of WP:Bold, revert, discuss.) Celestra (talk) 00:47, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Depends on if it's an editorial or straight news, and who wrote it. Link? Kelly  hi! 00:53, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Presumably the one that's in the article. —KCinDC (talk) 01:00, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Whoops, I must be getting senile. Yes, that source seems reliable to me. Whatever text ends up in the article should probably make it clear exactly who is making the claims about her membership, though. Kelly  hi! 01:04, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * [ec] News source blogs are generally accepted - the signed main posts by reporters, that is, not the comments of course - as per this footnote to the Verifiability policy:
 * Some newspapers host interactive columns that they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professionals and the blog is subject to the newspaper's full editorial control. Where a news organization publishes the opinions of a professional but claims no responsibility for the opinions, the writer of the cited piece should be attributed (e.g., "Jane Smith has suggested ..."). Posts left by readers may never be used as sources. So it would depend on which reference you're talking about and you might need to qualify it as an opinion, but it likely can be used as a source. Tvoz / talk 01:17, 2 September 2008 (UTC)


 * The news story saysLynette Clark, the chairman of the AIP, tells ABC News that Palin and her husband Todd were members in 1994. The article should say who is making the claim.  In addition, the article says nothing about her registration.--Work permit (talk) 04:47, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Biased Article
"She has challenged the state Republican establishment. For example, she endorsed Parnell's bid to unseat the state's longtime at-large U.S. Congressman, Don Young.[36] Palin also publicly challenged Senator Ted Stevens to come clean about the federal investigation into his financial dealings."

"She has challeneged the state republican establishment"????? Is this wikipedia or her campaign site?Lakerking04 (talk) 00:58, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Hmm - the referenced source says she "took on" the Republican establishment. What alternate wording would you suggest? Kelly  hi! 01:01, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Interesting point. It is a bit too strong, I suppose. It adhere to McCain public spin a little too much. Perhaps removing the "challenge" tone and just state that she unseated an at-large congressmen? JCP  01:07, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Just because the McCain campaign has made a talking point about it, doesn't mean it isn't true. They also say she is a woman and that seems to be true.--Paul (talk) 02:13, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Don't politicans un-seat each other all the time? Why is she notable? Lakerking04 (talk) 01:10, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Probably could use toning down, not sure exactly how to word it, though. It wasn't just the sitting governor she unseated, she had also taken down the Republicans on the board of which she was a member, including the state party leader. Kelly  hi! 01:11, 2 September 2008 (UTC)


 * To throw in a neutral spin, other politicians closely related to this article ousted members of their own party. The description in their article doesn't adhere to campaign spin tactics. No need to feed the McCain spin in this one. It should have a NPOV. Simply state that she succeeded x y and z. JCP  01:19, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree with JCP. That seems like the wikipedian thing to do! Lakerking04 (talk) 01:21, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Ok so how many centuries is it going to take for someone to change the paragraph? Lakerking04 (talk) 01:27, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

A large portion of her (per-VP) notability was directly related to the fact that she took on fellow Republicans with ethical issues. Maybe this sentence isn't the place for it, but the general idea of the comment is valid. --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:32, 2 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Not necessarily. The McCain campaign has made that a talking point. Many politicians took on the status quo but we don't praise them for it in wikipedia article. We shouldn't do that here. JCP  01:35, 2 September 2008 (UTC)


 * It is spin and unnecessary.Zredsox (talk) 01:37, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree it can be reworded, but the cited sources make it pretty clear that was part of her notability, so I wouldn't necessarily dismiss it as campaign talk or "spin". Kelly  hi! 01:40, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * OK, I changed "has challenged" to "sometimes broke with". Better? Kelly  hi! 01:45, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Hm, addressing her by her last name, such as "Palin also has been known to take on..." might be better than just saying "she"; however, I am still not sure this will meet others' criteria for objectivity. I guess the question remains, is it objective to say something that is speculative? Going with my own discussion I had with you in regards to the passport listing, I suppose this is required to "set up" the factual data that follows. If we find a new way to phrase "Republican establishment" I think it would be much better. Establishment is a misleading and all-encompassing word. Perhaps we could use "Republicans in her party"? JCP  01:54, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * "Republicans in her party"? You mean the Republican Party? Is there anything besides Republicans in the Republican Party? Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 12:51, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * The problem there is that no where in that article does it say she went against her party concerning Stevens. Who is to say the Republican establishment did not want Stevens to come clean? There is nothing from that source that collaborates what is being written.Zredsox (talk) 01:56, 2 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree with Zredsox about the use of "establishment", but on the other hand her relationships with top officeholders in her party have been less harmonious than is customary (but on the other other hand, not completely adversarial). What about "She has had a sometimes contentious relationship with other leading Republican officeholders in Alaska"? JamesMLane t c 01:59, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I think that works. It is as objective as I think we'll get. It gets the point across that Palin has gone against the grain but doesn't portray her in an exaggerated point of view. Zredsox also makes a good point. I just re-read the source and it doesn't try portray her as a party shaker in any way. Actually, this should really be removed. It completely distorts the article and authors words. JCP  02:09, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Necessity for Official Portrait (or something similar)
The current photo is not professional, and it is being used all over Wikipedia (such as here and here). The photo used currently detracts from the professionalism of the articles it is used in. There is a high quality official portrait here but there must be official okay for its use. Is there something else that may be in the public domain that will not be juxtaposed next to John McCain's official Senate portrait? Something needs to be done, though, if she is the presumptive Republican nominee for VP.Wadester16 (talk) 15:30, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately the official portraits from Alaska are copyrighted and not public domain, unlike works of the federal government. I think the current photo is probably about the best we have of her for the purpose of the infobox, and seems to be of acceptable quality (at least in my opinion). Kelly  hi! 01:12, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Given the frequent Instamatic-snapshot quality of public figures' pictures in wikipedia, this one is extraordinarily good. It actually flatters her, I think, which is more than you can say for most of the amateur portraits on this site. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 01:20, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I think it's a great photo; what on earth is wrong with it? BB is right:  this is extremely high quality for most of our free politician photos.  Antandrus  (talk) 02:01, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Definitely. The official photos for a lot of politicians don't even look like them, especially since many are far out of date. —KCinDC (talk) 02:11, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

For comparison, check out this frumpy-looking photo from the 2006 version of the Amy Klobuchar article, and count your blessings. This was the best wikipedia had until they got the official U.S. Senate portrait in 2007. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 02:12, 2 September 2008 (UTC)


 * LOL - ouch! Yes, there are some horrific free photos out there. This one is pretty flattering by comparison. Kelly  hi! 02:23, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * In all fairness this lady above doesn't look like she can run a marathon like Palin. Hobartimus (talk) 02:30, 2 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Clearly all political candidates should learn to donate good photos to prevent Wikipedians from making them look awkward and frumpy. Dragons flight (talk) 02:39, 2 September 2008 (UTC)


 * You all should make sure to click on the Palin photo, note which excellent Wikipedian uploaded it, and then go to the Flickr source to see the full amazing uncropped photo with amusing comments. :-)Ferrylodge (talk) 02:53, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Indeed. I would say you have only one fault: Too much humility. Try to work on that in your copious free time. :) Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 04:11, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Why would we want to change the photo? This one is great. --98.243.129.181 (talk) 03:43, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Clearly every commenter has missed the point that I have made. Your responses critique the quality of the photo itself, which I have no objections to. I agree that it is a flattering photo of the woman, taken at a good angle, and is a quality shot. My point is that when you have this photo next to John McCain in US Presidential Election, 2008, it makes things look tacky to say the least. Then you look at the photo of Obama and Biden and see a professionally dressed, professional photo of each, which is what you would expect. This is not a professional photo, she's in casual clothes, and it takes away from the EV of an article b/c you are distracted by the photo (can't wait to hear responses to that last comment!). The official photo I referenced before requires permission for use. Do you think they would turn that down? And who would have to contact them about it? I still stand by my original statements if you would like to read them again and interpret them the way I intended. Wadester16 (talk) 15:39, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * And please don't try to argue that Biden's photo is not professional. He is posing for a camera, looking at said camera, and at least has a jacket on. Though personally I would prefer something with a tie and single colored background. But that's not my point here. Wadester16 (talk) 15:44, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Todd Palin's employment history with BP
This article notes that:

"In March 2007, Palin presented the Alaska Gasline Inducement Act (AGIA) as the new legal vehicle for building a natural gas pipeline from the state's North Slope.[55] This negated a deal by the previous governor to grant the contract to a coalition including BP (her husband's former employer)."

At the end of the article, however, it indicates that Todd Palin is still employed by BP:

"Todd works for the oil company BP as an oil-field production operator.[116]"

These two statements appear to contradict each other, however, looking at Todd Palin's Wikipedia entry it appears that in 2007 he was on leave from BP to avoid potential conflicts of interest due to Sarah's involvement in negotiations for the North Slope Pipeline. He did subsequently return to his job though.

The current entry should be amended so that it is clear that Todd was merely on leave and did subsequently return to work at BP.

Chronos23 (talk) 01:36, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, the article used to make it clear that he did return to work to help support the family, but in a non-management position, supposedly to avoid potential conflicts of interest. That fact has disappeared somewhere along the line. Kelly  hi! 01:39, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Jet Auction
The sale of the state jet is mentioned twice, under the Governor summary and then again under budget. These should probably be combined. Joshdboz (talk) 02:19, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Good catch. I think "Budget" is probably the right section? Kelly  hi! 02:22, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Agreed. The NYT ref has everything so there's no need to save the one from Politico. Joshdboz (talk) 02:28, 2 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I just put it back in the "Governor of Alaska" section there since it was removed by reason of redundance (which I disagree with). Not sure if it is now twice in the article. It's going way to fast here to catch everything. I agree that it would fit better in the "budget" section. --Floridianed (talk) 03:13, 2 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Solved. --Floridianed (talk) 03:47, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Footnote FAIL
From footnote 46 onwards, the encoding has gone horribly horribly wrong. Could someone with a better understanding of the "ref" feature have a look at this please. Cheers, Witty Lama 03:06, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Already fixed by user:Wdfarmer. Thanks for that mate! :-) Witty Lama 03:08, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Early Life section
Someone recently added a few sentances of seculation that just seem unfounded and slanderous. Someone who's looged it will you delete them please? The roommate comment and preceding sentance. --98.243.129.181 (talk) 03:40, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Expiring Footnote
Soon, the google cache version of the "Palin Pleased with Obama's Energy Plan" press release will soon expire, and so far I have been unable to get webcite or archive.org to store it. Any ideas? Maybe just print a .pdf file or take a screenshot? --TheZachMorrisExperience (talk) 03:45, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm sure it'll be mentioned soon either by the Obama campaign or the media anyway. --Floridianed (talk) 03:52, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * This works for me. Dragons flight (talk) 03:56, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Got it.--TheZachMorrisExperience (talk) 14:43, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Just the Facts about the Wolves
(I think this deserves it's own heading)

State Incentive Program : Governor Sarah Palin directed the Alaska Department of Fish and Game to issue an incentive "To motivate permittees to redouble their efforts and help offset the high cost of aviation fuel, ADF&G will offer cash payments to those who return biological specimens to the department. Permittees will be paid $150 when they bring in the left forelegs of wolves taken from any of several designated control areas."(1)

"The Department's objective for this winter [winter,2007] is a take of between 382 and 664 wolves." (1)

"A state judge Friday [3/28/07] ordered the state to stop paying pilots and aerial gunners $150 per animal to kill wolves. State Superior Court Judge Bill [William] Morse, in issuing the order, said the cash payments are bounties, and the state Department of Fish and Game didn't have legal authority on it's own to offer them.  Morse said, however, that the Board of Game can create bounties." (2)

"The state is now considering options still available to boost wolf kill numbers, including state biologists shooting them from chartered helicopters, said Matt Robus, state director of wildlife conservation". (2)

(1) ADF&G Press Release No. 07-10, March 21,2007. full text at : www.adfg.state.ak.us/news/2007/3-21-07_nr.php

(2)Anchorage Daily News original publish date 3/31/07. full text at : www.adn.com/news/alaska/wildlife/wolves/story/204937.htmlQuantumRedWolf (talk) 04:20, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * The wolf thing is mentioned in the political positions article, along with the fact that the people of Alaska voted to support the action. Kelly  hi! 04:16, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * There is no way it deserves its own heading in the main article, it just isn't every important (historically speaking). The current 2 sentence version is more than sufficient.--ThaddeusB (talk) 15:39, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Is "However" an allowable transition?
Kelly removed the word "However" from the last sentence of the "Bridge to Nowhere" paragraph (in the Budget section) &mdash; calling it a "weasal word". I reverted the change. FWIW, I'm not attached to the word "However", but I think there needs to be some sort of transition or the last sentence hangs off the paragraph like a lead balloon.

Also, Kelly, please explain why the word "However" is not an accurate way to introduce Palin's quote at the end of the paragraph. Should "However" be allowed anywhere in the article? In any article?

IMHO, I think the word "However" is a perfectly appropriate transition when there's an apparent contradiction. &mdash; Tsunado (talk) 04:40, 2 September 2008 (UTC)


 * We can write without "howevers" and "despites". NPOV writing 101. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:54, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, it's a weasel word in that it implies the previous statement is a lie. Better to write neutrally and let the reader draw their own conclusions. Kelly  hi! 04:58, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * "However" is not a weasel word. It's a perfectly normal transitional word when a sentence contrasts with the previous one. If there's no actual contradiction, then it may be a problem, but in this case removing it just makes the paragraph less readable. —KCinDC (talk) 05:18, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Kelly claims that the word "however" is a "weasel word". However, the Wikipedia article on weasel words nowhere says that "however" is a weasel word. Instead, it defines a "weasel word" this way:
 * "Weasel words are usually expressed with deliberate imprecision with the intention to mislead the listeners or readers into believing statements for which sources are not readily available."
 * In the example of the "Bridge to Nowhere" paragraph, the source for Palin's recent quote is readily available. The word "however" is not being used to obscure a lack of citation or reference.
 * It's legitimate to argue whether the word "however" is accurate in this particular context. However, based on how weasel words are described in Wikipedia, the word "however" is not accurately defined as a "weasel word".
 * Also, as a side note, both the Wikipedia articles on weasel words and avoiding weasel words use "however" to juxtapose statements. — Tsunado (talk) 05:56, 2 September 2008 (UTC)


 * The word "however" occurs multiple times in the Wikipedia article on NPOV. — Tsunado (talk) 05:37, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * To be more precise, the word "however" is used multiple times in the official Wikipedia policy article on NPOV to transition between statements. — Tsunado (talk) 06:08, 2 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Logic is not a subjective discipline. Logical is a formal science. "However" is transition word used when two logically contradictory statements are juxtaposed.


 * A says X. However, B says not X.


 * A says X. However later, A says not X.


 * A says I support the bridge. However later, A says I didn't support the bridge.


 * Now, maybe there's no logical contradiction, maybe I'm misreading her statement, or maybe it's ambiguous, in which case "however" would not be appropriate. In this case, though, I think the contradiction is pretty apparent. — Tsunado (talk) 05:31, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

IMO, "However" is a perfectly acceptable transition word. I much prefer writing that flows than a much of factoid sentences connected together. --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:41, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

BLP REMINDER
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:BLP Hi everyone, just a reminder.. this is a biography of a living person, not a political blog. "Biographies of living persons (BLPs) must be written conservatively, with regard for the subject's privacy" "..poorly sourced contentious material about living persons — whether the material is negative, positive, or just questionable — should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion.." Don't complain about whitewashing. Use Al Gore as an example. It has "good article" status as a BLP and has nearly all controversial material and speculative opinion removed from it. It is our standard from which to work and will keep this discussion NPOV. Thanks! --Oi!oi!oi!010101 (talk) 04:46, 2 September 2008 (UTC)


 * What material is not compliant with NPOV and WP:BLP? Care to point it out? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:53, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, the quote from Palin's roommate for one. First it's not that notable and second it doesn't really do anything good to the BLP other than add mild controversy. --Oi!oi!oi!010101 (talk) 05:04, 2 September 2008 (UTC)


 * "BLP's must be written conservatively." OK, we need to get Rush in here, then. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 09:47, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Zing! :D --98.243.129.181 (talk) 12:47, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Motive to release info

 * Presumably this: . It's going back and forth.--chaser - t 04:55, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Your warning might hold a bit more weight if the sentence you're trying to remove wasn't heavily documented in multiple reliable sources as one of the reasons the campaign made the announcement at this time... --Bobblehead (rants) 04:57, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi Bobblehead, on the topic of why Mrs.Palin released information at which time, all I've got to say is that if an campaing insider has an opinion that they only released the info to take the focus off other stuff.. and if that opinion was echoed in the news by every reputable agent, it's still just an opinion of some insider and not fact. How can "why she did something" ever be a fact? So I'm seeing that the sentance like "She released this to diffuse controversy" is not apropriate for BLP so i've removed it twice and it's been readded and now it says it twice in the same paragraph. I won't touch it again but it still doesn't seem appropriate. --Oi!oi!oi!010101 (talk) 05:04, 2 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Again, to be clear, someone pointed to the article for me to read again and I'm not seeing anywhere where it states "Mccain officials claim that this is released to debuff rumors of something else." Or anything like that. Our article has two sentances that say that though. Am I missing anything? --Oi!oi!oi!010101 (talk) 05:16, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

As stated above under *Bristol is 5 months pregnant*: This is simply the circumstances of the announcement. Plenty of sources mention it promenantly, and it certainly is notable. --Evb-wiki (talk) 05:32, 2 September 2008 (UTC)


 * One more point of clarification, the offcial in the article didn't specify that the rumors to be countered were "that Trig Palin is actually Bristol's son". It appears in this article that the editor is making that distinction. --Oi!oi!oi!010101 (talk) 05:32, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * You mean other than in the third to last paragraph in this source: and in a paragraph about halfway down in this article: . You can argue that the sentence shouldn't be included for editorial reasons, but it does seem to be very well sourced in multiple reliable sources which seems to inoculate the sentence against BLP. --Bobblehead (rants) 05:39, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Ok, that Chicago tribune one was WAY more clear on the subject of who was commenting on what. This clears up the verifiabillity issue for me, thanks. So that one should be cited in the article and I see that the duplicitous sentance was allready removed double thanks.--Oi!oi!oi!010101 (talk) 05:44, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

This should be interesting. Now that Kelly has changed to wanting to insert the rumor into the article because it feeds into his hatred of Daily Kos, how long will it be until those formerly battling him also switch, to wanting to remove mentions of the rumor because adding it supports the McCain campaign's talking point that nasty Obama supporters forced them to violate Bristol's privacy? I'm not sure what took so long. I really expected this to happen right after McCain mentioned the rumors. —KCinDC (talk) 06:24, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I didn't insert the mention of the rumor, it was already there. The only thing I sourced in the article was the attribution of the rumor. Why do you assume there's some kind of agenda? Kelly  hi! 06:34, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * It is clear you have one.Zredsox (talk) 12:26, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Removal of all KOS stuff fits in nicely with cleaning this article up to BLP standards. Assuming in good faith that the goal of eveyone here is trying to make this a good article, it would be in all of our best interest not to allow blog rumors to show up here and to delete them without discussion as soon as they are seen per wiki guidelines. --98.243.129.181 (talk) 12:51, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * That statement has been in the article in some form for about 24 hours now. Accusing Kelly of being responsible for everything you don't like about the article is irresponsible and not productive. --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:45, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I didn't say Kelly inserted it, but since he's expanding that bit now he clearly no longer objects to having the rumors in the article. Granted, several things have changed about the situation. Don't take my comment too seriously. I'm mainly just amused at the way people's opinions are reversing, with the McCain campaign now publicizing the rumors in order to connect Obama to them. —KCinDC (talk) 16:00, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Go easy on the "Howevers"
This is an encyclopedic article, and not an apologetic piece, or a hatchet job. There is no need to use "however" or "despite". Thanks. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:58, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Kelly  hi! 05:06, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Father, again
Any use for this: http://levijohnston.com/ ?

Also, it seems that "Aug 27" is 2007, not 2008. bigware (talk) 05:41, 2 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Let's not advertise the guy's blog. He has more than enough to deal with.  Dragons flight (talk) 05:46, 2 September 2008 (UTC)


 * No, it is not a reliable source for information about Sarah Palin.--chaser - t 05:48, 2 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Ok. When do we open a page for all Palin's relitives? We have a nice family tree from Obama.bigware (talk) 05:51, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Fake. 1) A sixteen-year-old would have a myspace, not his own URL. 2) On a real blog there would be some pre-fame comments by people who knew him in real life. 3) The Bristol entry is a little too convenient, especially the part about her being the one. 4) If the blog were real he could edit the entries, and a Republican operative would have made sure the profanities were removed prior to his full named being made public. A.J.A. (talk) 06:15, 2 September 2008 (UTC)


 * You appear to be correct. That domain was registered in 2003, and the most recent mirror on the internet archive shows it belonging to a Arizona based computer programmer of the same name.  I guess he decided to take advantage of the name coincidence.  Dragons flight (talk) 06:29, 2 September 2008 (UTC)


 * The site is a parody and clearly states so  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fcreid (talk • contribs) 06:35, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Apologies for all the micro-edits
... but all the little typos and out-of-order footnote numbering was driving me a little batty! GiveItSomeThought (talk) 06:22, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Palin's sons future
The two articles cited concerning Track Palin do not mention his deployment orders. The only thing mentioned is "Palin said she has come to terms with the idea that Track could be deployed next year to Iraq, Kuwait or Afghanistan, where thousands of U.S. troops are based.". I will delete, once again, the section that states, "and Palin has said he will be deployed to Iraq on September 11, 2008." because of lack of sources. Lincoln F. Stern 07:14, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Article edits
I'm doing some significant, bold edits to some of the more clearly problematic parts of the article. I have reviewed the edit history and talk page history but they are far too long (with too many reversions, incivilities, editing abuse, etc) to be sure what has reached consensus or been rejected before. I'll do it piece by piece, just hit the main ones, and try to explain my reasoning. I'm only doing this once - I won't revert or participate in edit wars here, just trying to help bring some more sense to the article.Wikidemon (talk) 08:21, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) "Miss congeniality" - removing seeming contradiction over whether she won that award or not. I could only find a single source contradicting it - thus the weight of sources backs up Palin's account.  It violates WP:UNDUE to highlight a seeming difference of recollection as to whether she did or did not win a minor award in a minor beauty contest 20 years ago.  Also, removing attribution of high school career to autobiography - unless there is some concern over this it seems like uncontroverted neutral statement so it should not need attribution in the text.
 * 2) Alaskan Independence Party - scaling back per WP:UNDUE - see discussion elsewhere on this page. We should not anticipate that this is a huge issue until and unless the sources say it is.  A digression on AIP is unwarranted - people can read that article if they need to learn more.
 * 3) Scaled back and condensed material re. firing of city employees. "refused to detail..." is POV.  She wrote what she wrote.  Eliminated some redundancy here.
 * 4) Mayoral record - eliminated "fulfilled campaign promises by"...unnecessary and POV. Scaled back language about lobbying effort, well-connected, 6,700 residents - also POV.  Best to simply report the fact.  Also, condensed and tried to improve mayoral record language overall.
 * The only thing I would be slightly concerned with if the complete removal of "fulfilled campaign promises" (assuming it is well documented) since that seems be to a relevant qualifier. --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:57, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Taking a pause for now. Some of the remaining issues I see: - Wikidemon (talk) 09:31, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Public Safety Commissioner dismissal - section is too long by a factor of 3-4 and contains a lot of extraneous detail of little importance (especially considering there is a separate article about it)
 * 2) 2008 vice-presidential campaign - McCain's consideration of Lieberman is mostly irrelevant to Palin - that can go in some other article about the presidential election. Discussion of the timing of the announcement is trivial, as is her earlier statement of lack of interest in the position.  Attempts to show a contradiction between her and Obama are mostly WP:SYNTH, and citations to the google cache to show that something was removed are WP:OR.  None of this is significant.  Any of her positions belong in a section or article about them, not as an attempt to show a rift with McCain (which, if it exists, must be shown by reliable neutral sources).  Her acceptance speech should be summarized very briefly if it is significant at all, not quoted at length.
 * 3) Family - detail of her most recent pregnancy are utterly trivial if used for any legitimate purpose; their only reason for being here seems to be to imply that it was not her baby. Either way these details do not belong.  We can have a far more concise legitimate mention.  We should avoid conspiracy theories and poorly sourced info about the timing of her announcement of her daughter's pregnancy.  A single sentence announcing that she announced her daughter's pregnancy is sufficient.  Because they are both minors and the point has little or no context, we should be careful about announcing the father / possible fiancee's name.
 * Support all these edits. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 09:34, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I also Support all proposed edits. Lets turn this into a good article. --98.243.129.181 (talk) 12:54, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I support the first two edits, but I'd be very careful with the pregnancy bits, as discussion here has general decided that all the details given are relevant. A better summary might be in order, but I don't think you can justify removing the info completely. --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:57, 2 September 2008 (UTC)


 * The thread you've started touches on issues discussed elsewhere, as is of course inevitable with this kind of editstorm going on. (It would have been much more convenient for us if McCain had picked someone whose article had already received a lot of attention.)


 * In your first set of edits, re firings while mayor, I think you or someone removed a verbatim quotation of her own comment from a letter on the subject, which I would keep in. I'll try to look at that later.  As to your second set:
 * 1. Public Safety Commissioner: I'm too lazy to try to untangle what you did from what others did. There's been discussion of the Kopp thing -- see this discussion.  I can't see the slightest basis for removing it.  How can we summarize a governor's administration without reporting that one of her major appointees resigned two weeks later in an ethics scandal?
 * 2. VP campaign: I agree that most of the stuff you mention should be moved elsewhere. Lieberman is relevant to the extent that we should probably note that one factor in Palin's selection was widely believed to be McCain's concern that a pro-choice running mate would so enrage the conservative base as to be political suicide, a point that can be made in about that many words.
 * 3. Family - see discussion at, above, where there was some semblance of consensus to include a certain level of detail, with dispute remaining about whether to get into the issue of the advisability of Palin's conduct. The issue is obscured by the point you mention, namely the bloggers speculating that it was Bristol's baby.  Put that aside for the moment.  What's not disputed is that Palin went a long time, including a lengthy flight, after leaking amniotic fluid, before being seen by a doctor.  Some may find this shows admirable stamina.  (I think David Gregory made such a comment on Meet the Press.)  Some may find it shows poor judgment.  Put that dispute aside, too, for the moment.  The fact remains that it was an unusual set of circumstances and a significant event in her life.  The version in the thread referred to above recounts those facts in suitably NPOV and RS'd terms. JamesMLane t c 20:46, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Congeniality Gate
Someone has removed the information on a competitor in Miss Wasilla, Alaska, competition in 1984 winning the Miss Congeniality award instead of Sarah Palin. The source is here: Palin was a high school star, says schoolmate Digitalmandolin (talk) 08:32, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I hear she refused to clean her room as a nine-year-old, demonstrating bad judgment by creating a trip and fall hazard. This should be included somewhere, preferably in the article lead. A.J.A. (talk) 08:38, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * If your story were sourced and relevant, it might merit inclusion. Winning Miss Congeniality is part of Sarah Palin's resume. The information is significant enough to have been included in this article. However, new information throws the title into question. Another competitor in the 1984 competition has come forward to state she won Miss Congeniality. A biography should not include false information about its subject. Digitalmandolin (talk) 09:32, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I have over 9,000 sources. A.J.A. (talk) 09:34, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I am under the impression you do not have a single reliable published source. Digitalmandolin (talk) 09:50, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I have one from David Icke right here. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 09:51, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * "Who and what is really controlling the world?" does not seem particularly relevant here. Sarah Palin's resume line Miss Congeniality award and its authenticity being thrown into question is. Digitalmandolin (talk) 10:07, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * But what is her view on Sandra Bullock? Inquiring minds! Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 10:09, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * She also had several overdue library books when she was in high school. Better add that to the list of scandals. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 10:18, 2 September 2008 (UTC)


 * The point, which both Kyaa and AJA ought to be making in a more friendly way, is that a single news report of a single person challenging the high school resume of a sitting Governor and presumptive VP candidate does not have sufficient WP:WEIGHT to justify inclusion. The story is out there now, and if develops into something more than one person's recollections, then we will include it later, but we need more to go on than we have now.  Dragons flight (talk) 10:19, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I should not be feeding him. Sorry about that. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 11:43, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Please, no personal attacks. Digitalmandolin (talk) 11:58, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Pointing out that you have a history of making BLP infringing allegations on this talk page is not a personal attack. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 11:59, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

See this Politico post on the Congeniality controversy. Joshdboz (talk) 12:08, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Sounds like the source we're using got it wrong. She won the Miss C award at the state contest, not the city one (not sure if politico is a RS or I'd change it now). Regardless trying to make a mountain out of this molehill is silly. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 12:15, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Politico is a reliable source; they're a published newspaper as well as a website. And they tend to lean right, if anything, so the issue of bias isn't relevant here.  -- John Broughton  (♫♫) 12:41, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Politico is not a source per se - it is a publisher that presents a lot of different stuff of varying quality and objectivity by many different writers. Individual articles are used to source particular statements, and we have to evaluate each on its own terms.  Anyway, a single source that contradicts a multitude of others has to be taken with a grain of salt, and using that source to suggest there is a discrepancy is hasty.  Wikidemon (talk) 16:39, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Whitewashing of Palin's support for Buchanan and the Alaskan Independence Party
My well-sourced materials include direct quotations from no less than Pat Buchanan himself, Sarah Palin herself, and the directly quoted platform of the Alaskan Independence Party. I don't care whether editors agree with Palin's support for these causes or not. THEY ARE FACT. Repeated attempts to whitewash these indisputable facts by some (and you know who you are, I won't name names, yet) with unsourced material or material pretending that the Alaskan Independence Party does not seek the ultimate goal of independence are clear counterfactual POV. Before we escalate to a full out-and-out edit war -- and this entry's POV edits have already gotten the attention of the mainstream press -- ask yourself this: before editing my posts, check their sources. And if they are sourced, you may obviously edit to make it read better, but please do not remove sourced facts. The same is even more true for the detail page on political positions. I've been lenient about allowing the Palin supporters' completely unsourced material to remain. But no longer. You remove my sourced material and I remove your unsourced material. If you have a problem, please state why on this talk page rather than escalating into edit war. At least respect me by giving a wiki-justifiable reason for removing factually sourced material instead of just doing it because you don't want readers to know the truth about Sarah Palin.GreekParadise (talk) 09:00, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * The problem with the material is WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE. There is also no reliable sourcing to say that this is significant to Palin's biography.  I generally tune out after hearing someone complain about "whitewashing" and this is no exception.  Accusations of bad faith (being a "Palin supporter") and threats to edit war / retaliate are rather disruptive.  This seems to be a WP:SPA editing wikipedia solely on election-related articles.  If the brief description of the AIP is inaccurate please feel free to write a better, succinct identification of the party.  However, an extended description of the platform of a party this person left 12+ years ago is unwarranted - seems like an obvious coatrack.  Again (per my comments above), if the mainstream, reliable sources begin to say this is a serious scandal we can report it as such.  In the meanwhile a reliable source here or there does not mean it is a significant issue to her biography (particularly not considering that there is a separate article about the party, and yet another article about her political positions).  As of this moment there seem to be 36,000 current google news stories about her, and only 13 mention the AIP.  That's a very cursory analysis but it supports what seems to be the weight of the sources - it is simply not a big issue.  It may be soon, but not now.  Wikidemon (talk) 09:17, 2 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Wikidemon, read my post below, her involvement in third parties is more important than you think. But I'll get back to you when I can write some more tightly sourced edits Brianshapiro


 * Interestingly, I'm reading an article from 2007 which covers how Palin stepped up to be the chairwoman of the Statehood Celebration Commission, whose goal was to organize a celebration for Alaska's 50th anniversary of statehood. More on that later... Brianshapiro

Guilt By Association is Not Enough: Please Provide SOURCES That Prove That Palin Was Absolutely A Secessionist
Membership in that party does not mean that she was a secessionist. Many people join political parties without lock-step agreement with their entire platforms (for example, pro-choice Republicans or pro-life Democrats).

So what the section just above this one is calling 'FACT' needs to be thoroughly clarified.

Was she in that party? Yes. Did that party have broad and varied platform? ALSO YES. Did membership imply AUTOMATIC AGREEMENT WITH SECESSION? NO!

So the 'facts' really need to be clarified here.

By the way, I am not Palin Supporter OR Opponent. But lets do a real Wikipedia article here...

67.40.136.109 (talk) 16:07, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Governor Palin's support of third parties
Actually the Alaskan Independence Party's position on secession is probably not relevant. As some people here may know, but not many people outside the state of Alaska, they had a governor from the AIP in the early 90s, Walter Hickel, who himself rejected secessionism. He was offered the ticket when many people were disappointed by the Republican nominee. After Hickel's term, Palin ran as a Republican and was endorsed by Hickel. Recently the AIP has been the state affiliate for the Constitution Party. The fact is that third party and independent groups--who don't care a whit about the AIPs stance on secession--have co-opted the party in recent history because it has ballot access. Palin also has friends in the Alaskan Libertarian Party, has spoken at Libertarian meetings, and was endorsed by the Alaskan Libertarian Party when she ran for governor, although they had their own candidate in the race. She also addressed the AIP while she was Governor as a Republican. When she ran for governor she had a debate which included all the minor party candidates in the race (including Greens and Libertarians). Palin has been largely supportive of third parties and fair ballot and media access for third parties. I added some of this information to the article, but apparently the editors thought it was 'Undue weight' and removed it. I left a message for someone who would be able to source all of this and elaborate in the article and I hope he comes here to do some edits. The fact is, this is really relevant to a lot of people, and doesn't add up to a negative. To the contrary, her support for third parties bolsters her credentials as a reformer. I hope the idea that this is 'Undue weight' is reconsidered. Brianshapiro


 * Try putting it on Political positions of Sarah Palin. If there's enough info there a summary sentence can be added here. A.J.A. (talk) 09:20, 2 September 2008 (UTC)


 * A.J.A. has it exactly wrong. It doesn't belong in the political positions article at all, because membership in a party doesn't automatically entail agreement with all its stated positions.  (For example, she and McCain differ slightly on abortion, so they probably won't both agree with everything in the Republican platform.)  Her past affiliation and involvement, however, is an appropriate part of her bio. JamesMLane t c 10:06, 2 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, it's "guilt by association", or McCarthyism. The Republican platform had/has an anti-abortion plank, yet pro-choice guys like Giuliani remain Republicans. And get serious - would McCain choose someone for VP who believes in fracturing the Union? Not bloody likely. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 12:56, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * If the Republican Party were named the Pro-Life Party and were founded specifically to oppose abortion rights (and if it were founded by a kook), then that might be a better parallel. Nevertheless, her affiliation with AIP doesn't belong in political positions but is significant enough to be in the main article. —KCinDC (talk) 15:29, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually I think A.J.A. may be suggesting that if there's reliable information about Palin's support for third parties, that should go in political positions. I'd agree with that. —KCinDC (talk) 15:33, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's what I meant. Ballot access laws and other restrictions on third parties are a major part of why the United States only has two major parties. At the risk of treating this talk page like a forum, the two party system makes sense given the way we currently conduct elections, but there are better systems like the single transferable vote and we'd be better off switching to it and opening up the process to other parties. A.J.A. (talk) 19:01, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * @KCinDC - But it IS called the "Alaskan INDEPENDENCE Party", which very clearly indicates its mission right in its title just like "Pro-Life Party" would. What part of its motto, "Alaska First -- Alaska Always" does one not understand? They make their stance VERY clear. Secession from the U.S. is listed as a viable option under "ultimate goal" of the Alaskan Independence Party's own website. The term "ultimate goal" is used by the AIP themselves and is not up for dispute. During these conventions, which are recorded and available for your viewing pleasure on youtube, the leaders make it very clear their "ultimate goals". There is no question regarding their main purpose as a political group. Now, if you were to suggest as fact that Palin must support home schooling because because AIP largely supports this as well, this would be questionable as it does not appear to be a substantial part of its platform. @BaseballBugs - "would McCain choose someone for VP who believes in fracturing the Union? Not bloody likely" ... THAT is opinion. But what is fact is that Alaskan's have said none of them were contacted by the McCain camp inquiring into Palin's background leading some to believe that a proper investigation was never conducted. There are plenty of news articles regarding this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.169.26.76 (talk) 18:05, 2 September 2008 (UTC)  67.169.26.76 (talk) 18:31, 2 September 2008 (UTC)


 * In response to the foregoing anon's comment: Our readers aren't idiots. The inference you want them to draw is available if we provide the facts.  We can state that she was a member of this party, here's what she did in conjunction with it, here's its name, here's the key point of its platform.  If we stop it there, we've complied with all Wikipedia policies.  You want us to go beyond that and beat the reader over the head with it -- "Palin associated with secessionists!  She must favor secession!"  That adds nothing to the reader's understanding, though.  If we stick with what I summarized, we haven't deprived our readers of any information. JamesMLane t c 19:36, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Husband's DUI
It is important to note that Palin's husband's DUI was BEFORE they were married.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080902/ap_on_el_pr/cvn_palin

They were married in 1988. The DUI was in 1986.

Much a-do about something in his past from well before they were married. 80.255.40.167 (talk) 09:02, 2 September 2008 (UTC)


 * It's mentioned briefly in his article, but it isn't mentioned in this article at all, as far as I can see (and that seems about the right to me). Dragons flight (talk) 09:10, 2 September 2008 (UTC)


 * That shouldn't be on her page at all. --98.243.129.181 (talk) 12:57, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I removed it from his page since there is no context given and it happened over 20 years ago and is pretty common. --Tom 17:36, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I am somewhat ambivalent toward the inclusion of the material at Todd Palin, but I am unequivocally against its inclusion here. His DUI is absolutely immaterial to her biography. Shereth 18:47, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Is his snowmobiling also "absolutely immaterial" to her biography? Or is only negative stuff "absolutely immaterial?" Edison2 (talk) 20:45, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Typo re Public Safety Commissioner dismissal section
The second to last sentence of this section reads, "Palin's choice to replace Wooten, Charles M. Kopp, chief of the Kenai police department, took the position on July 11 2008." Of course, it was Monegan, not Wooten, that was replaced as the Public Safety Commissioner.


 * Thx, I've fixed that. JamesMLane t c 10:24, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Yesterday, we agreed that this replacement wasn't an important enough event to be in the summary, so I re-deleted it. --ThaddeusB (talk) 16:06, 2 September 2008 (UTC)


 * This subject has been discussed more than once. I may have missed something in the barrage of edits, but I'm fairly confident that there's been no discussion that established a consensus to omit this information.  Would you provide me with a link?  What I see is this discussion, in which two registered users thought the material should stay in, while you and one anon IP wanted it out.  That doesn't constitute an agreement to leave it out.  You might go back and respond to the substantive point I made in that discussion about why a cabinet member's resignation amidst scandal merits at least a brief mention in a summary of a governor's administration.  While I await that, I'm restoring the material. JamesMLane t c 19:27, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Bridge to Nowhere
I'm creating a new section for the Bridge to Nowhere. Stopping work on the bridge was instrumental in Palin's rise to national prominence. Now, her remark about opposing the bridge in her first speech as a VP nominee has become a focal point of criticism, and this criticism is receiving both national and international attention.

The AP, Reuters, and the International Herald Tribune (IHT) all credit the bridge for leading to Palin's national prominence. Both the AP and IHT credit it as part of what led her to be McCain's VP choice.

Associate Press:

Perhaps the Bridge to Nowhere led someplace after all&hellip; Palin made national news last year by closing the door on the bridge designed to connect Ketchikan, on one island in southeastern Alaska, to its airport on another nearby island. The decision came in the fall and is probably the first identifiable link connecting Palin and McCain. Not long after that, whispers of Palin being an ideal GOP running mate began to circulate outside the state.

Reuters:

"Last year, Palin announced she was stopping state work on the controversial project, earning her admirers from earmark critics and budget hawks from around the nation. The move also thrust her into the spotlight as a reform-minded newcomer."

International Herald Tribune:

"Governor Sarah Palin of Alaska owes her selection as Senator John McCain's running mate in part to an irresistible slogan: the Bridge to Nowhere."

The Star Tribune calls stopping the bridge Palin's "most notable accomplishment as governor."

Additionally, Palin's "Bridge to Nowhere" remark in now major national news. It's the subject of articles in:


 * USA Today
 * Reuters
 * AP
 * The New York Times
 * The Washington Post
 * New York Daily News
 * LA Times

Not surprisingly, it's news in Alaska:


 * Anchorage Daily News &mdash; picked up by McClatchy Newspapers
 * Fairbanks Daily News-Miner
 * Juneau Empire

It's also international news:


 * The Daily Telegraph
 * The Age.
 * International Herald Tribune

— Tsunado (talk) 09:10, 2 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Also from the Reuters article:


 * When she was running for governor in 2006, Palin said she was insulted by the term "bridge to nowhere," according to Ketchikan Mayor Bob Weinstein, a Democrat, and Mike Elerding, a Republican who was Palin's campaign coordinator in the southeast Alaska city.


 * "People are learning that she pandered to us by saying, I'm for this' ... and then when she found it was politically advantageous for her nationally, abruptly she starts using the very term that she said was insulting," Weinstein said.


 * -- NonZionist (talk) 17:20, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Buchanan
Before someone tries to add Buchanan info again.... I have a source where "McCain camp rebukes Buchanan claims..."

http://www.jta.org/cgi-bin/iowa/breaking/110161.html

Quote: "Buchanan said he recalls meeting Palin at a 1996 fund-raiser in Alaska, but no record of her donating or supporting Buchanan at that time has surfaced."

and "Palin support of Buchanan is 'propaganda by Democrats,' says Fla. Republican"   http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1017220.html

Just wanted to add information for future references. --CanadianLinuxUser (talk) 10:38, 2 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I have a contemporary newspaper source for her participating in a 1999 Pat Buchanan rally. That seems to be a lot more limited than what is being claimed at the moment though.  Dragons flight (talk) 10:51, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't the Buchanan info as remotely relevant. The ONLY reason it is being included is because some think it makes here look bad.  Until someone proves a reliable source asserts that this effected her career in some way, I am deleting the material. --ThaddeusB (talk) 16:23, 2 September 2008 (UTC)


 * The source itself states, "She doesn't appear ever to have contributed to Buchanan, however." according to donor lookup here: http://www.opensecrets.org/indivs/index.php?capcode=gywvt&name=palin&state=AK&zip=&employ=&cand= --CanadianLinuxUser (talk) 16:27, 2 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Continued whitewashing of her support for Buchanan is improper POV. ThaddeusB even admits on my userpage he doesn't like it because it makes Sarah Palin "look bad."  That's irrelevant POV. For supporters of Buchanan, it doesn't make her "look bad" at all.

Her support of Buchanan over Dole in 1996 relevant to her political life and philosophy. It's as relevant to her early political philosophy as her membership in the Alaskan Indepedence Party, or the fact that she used to support Senator Stevens before the falling out. Please stop trying to hide the truth. Wikipedians, please logically explain to me on what basis is the political philosophy of a vice-presidential nominee NOT relevant to her wikipedia article. Would any wikipedian not mention that Reagan was a Democrat in his early years on the ground that it's "irrelevant"?

If this continues to be deleted in an edit war, I will have no choice but to put a "non-neutral" tag over the site and we can have a large wikipedia vote on whether the political philosophy of a political candidate is "relevant" or not. I'm confident it is. Please don't do this. I've even included the extremely unlikely McCain denial (as if McCain knows what's going on in the Buchanan 1996 Presidential campaign) for balance.GreekParadise (talk) 20:29, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Potential defamation issue
The sentence about the McCain campaign announcing the pregnancy of Bristol yesterday to counter rumors by a particular website is unsupported by the cites. Both the McCain campaign and the website are being defamed by the sentence if it is untrue. If it is true, it needs solid sourcing to support that the McCain campaign specifically called out the website. Digitalmandolin (talk) 11:41, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Canadian television network is pretty solid. --WoohookittyWoohoo! 11:52, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't see what you mean. Digitalmandolin (talk) 11:59, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * The Canadian TV citation does not attribute the announcement to exposure by Kos, contrary to what the wikipedia article says. It mentions Kos at one point in the article, but does not state specifically that that site is the reason for the announcement. "Defamation" is a bit strong, though. "Misattribution" is more like it. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 12:00, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Source states: "McCain adviser Mark Salter told The Associated Press the campaign announced the daughter's pregnancy to rebut the rumours." Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 12:02, 2 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Actually CTV really does say Kos was the worst of the rumor sites. That said, I'm not sure that we should be calling them out since there is a lot of blame to go round and we don't discuss any of the other sites (as CTV does). I'm going to remove the specific mention of Kos. Dragons flight (talk) 12:02, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * The worst, but not the only. There's nothing that says Kos was specifically the reason. That's an inference in the article, and should be reworded to agree with the citation. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 12:04, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Kos was mentioned as a "highlight" in the language yesterday of the rumor stuff. That is fine. rootology ( C )( T ) 14:50, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

add wiki link pls
language ::  Wuu article title:: 莎拉 白林  12:12, 2 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Done as requested. -- John Broughton  (♫♫) 12:35, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Sports complex
There's only one line in the current article about the construction of a sports complex during Palin's time as mayor, but given the troubled history of the complex's construction and the debt it seems to have left the city in, it seems like this should be expanded: http://dwb.adn.com/news/alaska/matsu/story/9055227p-8971221c.html Fumoses (talk) 12:39, 2 September 2008 (UTC)


 * If the controversy is notable, it would probably be better to put that facility in its own article. This article should very specifically focus on Gov. Palin herself, not on projects that she was involved with. I think the current mention is appropriate in that context. UltraExactZZ Claims~ Evidence 12:59, 2 September 2008 (UTC)


 * On DailyKos, there were allegations that the land for the sports complex was offered to the city and declined, that the later purchase by the city was at several times the original offered price, and that that is the source of the debt. If reliable sources can be found on this matter (Fumoses, you could chase this down), I'd say that information is notable. Since it would fit into about 2 sentences here, it would not really merit a separate article. Homunq (talk) 13:11, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

2 links to add to external links
Can an established editor please add these helpful external links to the article. Thank you. "Sarah Palin: The Making of a Candidate" LA Times, Aug 31 2008 --- LA Times Photo Gallery of Sarah Palin with 28 images of her. 72.91.214.42 (talk) 13:20, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't see any value in the first link as it is much like the 10,000 other articles out there (except already dated in this fast moving digital realm) although I appreciated the photo gallery link and think it would be a good addition.Zredsox (talk) 13:34, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Can you please add the photo gallery then. Thanks. 72.91.214.42 (talk) 16:31, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Family section
I realise this section has been highly disputed already, but looking at it right now, here are a couple of points that come to mind:
 * Do we really need to include the name 'Levi Johnston' is this section? I don't see what value it adds, and it raises privacy issues: generally, we should be reluctant to mention the names of people notable for one event, especially when they're minors, unless there's good reason to do so. Simply saying 'Bristol... intends to keep the baby and marry the father of her child.' should be sufficient. The fact that other news sources have given the father's name does not mean we should do so.
 * Why do we have a line about the 'internet rumours' that 'Trig Palin is actually Bristol's son.'? The 'nly reliable source that covers those rumours in detail states that they are 'utterly unfounded'; the news of Bristol's pregnancy makes it clear they can't be true. So, given that the pregnancy rumour is an obviously false fringe theory that isn't backed by any reliable sources, why do we mention it at all? I can't see what it adds to the article, and the overall effect is just to cast negative aspersions on Palin. Per WP:BLP, this line should be removed. Terraxos (talk) 14:53, 2 September 2008 (UTC)


 * As for issue #1, I don't have a problem with the "name being mentioned" if its given in other sources first. I would however have a problem with an article on Johnston, per the reasons you cited.  If the name is "named" in reliable sources, there is no problem here regurgitating that info.  As for issue #2, I agree, completely WP:UNDUE information for an encyclopedia.   Keeper    76  14:58, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I concur with Keeper on #1. As of this morning 500+ news sources have published his name and this soon-to-be-adult is certainly going to be part of the Palin family political history from here on out.  While I understand the spirit of trying to protect his identity, I think we are past the point where that is even possible.  The information is encyclopedic, and since I can't see how we can do any more harm than has already been accomplished by hordes of news media I am in favor including his name.  Dragons flight (talk) 17:47, 2 September 2008 (UTC)


 * CBC News, a reliable source, covers the ArcXIX allegation in detail without characterizing it, so the claim, above, is untrue. That the allegation is "obviously false" is itself obviously false: the McCain camp has provided no evidence, medical or otherwise, refuting the photos, statements and deductions presented by ArcXIX.  All we have been given is the word of a politician, and that does not constitute a WP:RS.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by NonZionist (talk • contribs)
 * I cannot find any "ArcXIX," whatever it is supposed to be, mentioned in the CBC story cited. Edison2 (talk) 18:22, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * ArcXIX is the online psuedonym of the person who wrote the Daily Kos allegations. Dragons flight (talk) 18:33, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

What is this new nonsense listing how many months during the term of pregnancy with Track? It is inflammatory and misleading slime. Grow up people! We don't list that kind of bullcrap on a bio page! Fcreid (talk) 20:58, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Argumentative edits
An editor recently made this edit, so that the article would say: "neither the McCain campaign nor Palin has never denied the specific Buchanan assertions that Palin suported Buchanan for President and attended a Buchanan fundraiser."

Please try to keep the article neutral, rather than trying to make uncited and unsourced arguments. The argument may be 100% correct, but it is not our job to make the argument. See WP:NPOV and WP:RS. This edit will undoubtedly be reverted by someone soon, because it's not at all encylcopedic. It just takes up people's time, and that time could be better spent improving this and other Wikipedia articles. Thanks.Ferrylodge (talk) 15:35, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Hickel is relevant and AIP is 3rd largest political party in Alaska
During his second term from 1990-1994, Governor Walter Hickel of Alaska was also an AIP member, and he later endorsed Palin in her run for the same office. See "Knowles, Palin in November", Anchorage Daily News (2006-09-01).

Hickel is clearly relevant, so why do people keep deleting him from the article? Because it makes Palin look normal instead of looking like a wacko? And why do people keep deleting that the AIP is the third largest political party in Alaska? To make Palin sound like a fringe nutcase? Evidently so. "Walter Hickel, a former Republican governor, was elected to the governorship in 1990 as an AIP member -- the third-largest party in Alaska....he endorsed Palin in her gubernatorial run in 2006."Ferrylodge (talk) 15:50, 2 September 2008 (UTC)


 * These details clearly belong in the AIP article, not the Sarah Palin Biography. If people want to know more about AIP such as its size and prominent members, that can be found by clicking the hyperlink to the appropriate location. Zredsox (talk) 15:58, 2 September 2008 (UTC)


 * That Hickel endorsed Palin does not belong in this article? Come on.  Why do you think the cited sources describe this in their articles about Palin?  Because it's irrelevant?  Give me a break.  Would you care to explain why the Hickel info does not belong here, whereas this article should continue to say that the AIP, "challenges the legality of the Alaskan statehood vote as illegal and in violation of United Nations charter and international law and has a platform calling for a referendum on whether Alaska should secede from the United States to become an independent nation, remain a state, or become a U.S. territory or commonwealth"????


 * This article is trying to paint the AIP as a subversive organization, and Palin as a nutcase.Ferrylodge (talk) 16:00, 2 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Isn't that a valid yet brief summarization of the AIP charter? If it is being misrepresented or mischaracterized then I agree it should be updated. Otherwise, it should be left alone. Zredsox (talk) 16:15, 2 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Any brief description of the AIP would mention that it is the third largest party in Alaska, and included a Governor who endorsed Palin. You're giving vastly WP:Undue weight to a clause in their charter.Ferrylodge (talk) 16:18, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * If you would like to add that just over 2% of Alaskan's belong to AIP, I would not be wholly against it. To say it is the 3rd largest party actually makes it sound like it is a "major" party and is an obvious case of WP:Undue weight  Zredsox (talk) 16:24, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * That's reasonable. And what of the AIP Governor who endorsed Palin?Ferrylodge (talk) 16:27, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * To be honest, I feel that including the endorsement paints her into a corner by going beyond the earlier association and openly stating that AIP and Sarah Palin are lockstep in ideology, very recently. I am not sure it is achieving the effect that you desire.Zredsox (talk) 16:35, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Isn't Hickel's association with the AIP a result of pure opportunism? He couldn't get on the ballot as a Republican, so he switched. That seems like less of an indication of his political positions than Palin's joining the party (though I still agree that trying to imply she's a secessionist goes to far). —KCinDC (talk) 16:42, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

(undent)No, Hickel's association with the AIP was not a result of pure opportunism. He had common ground with the Alaska Independence Party in fighting restrictions on land use imposed by federal environmental laws. The "effect I desire" is a fair portrayal of Palin's involvement with the AIP, whether it reflects well on her or not. She was a member of the AIP at the same time her own Governor was in the AIP, and he later endorsed her. This is so obviously notable that I'm not sure I can say anything more about it. I do not want Wikipedia to turn into a propaganda battle.Ferrylodge (talk) 16:59, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * We could leave in "third largest party" and could also mention that it has 14,000 members according to the latest date provided on the aip website. http://www.akip.org/membership.html. or.. we could just delete all facts about it altogether because it has its own wikipage.

Troopergate
Alaska Governor and presumptive Republican vice presidential nominee for the 2008 United States presidential election Sarah Palin is currently, as of August 2008, being investigated by an independent investigator hired by the Alaska Legislature[1][2] to determine whether she abused her power when she fired Public Safety Commissioner Walter Monegan in July 2008.[3][4] Palin denies wrongdoing, and the investigator's report is expected before the November 4, 2008 presidential election.[5] Palin says that she dismissed Monegan because of performance-related issues. However, Monegan says that his dismissal may have been tied to his reluctance to fire Mike Wooten, an Alaska State Trooper who is also Palin's ex-brother-in-law. Wooten was disciplined in 2006 for making a death threat against Palin's father, though he denied the accusation; Wooten is also involved in an ongoing custody dispute with Palin's sister. Several news sources have referred to this controversy as Troopergate.[6]

can this please be included on Sarah Palin's page? Thank you!

71.225.13.152 (talk) 15:55, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * There's already a subsection on this investigation. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 16:11, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * The section here also has a complete article about the case.--ThaddeusB (talk) 16:18, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Time for a Page on Bristol
I think it is time to put up a page on Bristol, one on the boyfriend, and one on the son who is shipping out to Iraq soon. The notion of privacy for the children of political figures is a good one, but who are we kidding? these three are not individuals of legitimate public attention and interest. People will be lloking them up. Let's make sure the information they get is solid.Elan26 (talk) 16:37, 2 September 2008 (UTC)Elan26


 * This section addresses your question. Coemgenus 16:41, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Why is this being deleted again and again?
Why is this being deleted from the lead?

Please see WP:LEAD which states that: ''The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview of the article. It should establish context, explain why the subject is interesting or notable, and summarize the most important points—including any notable controversies that may exist.''

I would argue that the biography of this person has to include this fact in the lead. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:42, 2 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I would imagine partisans don't want this tidbit focused on ... that's why. 72.91.214.42 (talk) 16:45, 2 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Firstly, I think most folks would say (as I did the last time you brought this up) that the lead should be the basic essential facts about the person. No other candidate's travel itinerary is in his article's lead paragraph.
 * Secondly, the first sentence is uncited. Remember that until very recently, travel to Canada and some Caribbean islands did not require a passport.  Coemgenus 16:47, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * This absolutely does not belong in the lead. --ThaddeusB (talk) 16:49, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Why not? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:51, 2 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Lets me candid about this. This is a bio article on this person, not n article about her candidacy. Important biographical information directtly related to her notability is missing from the lead:
 * Travel issue (notable given the context)
 * Beauty Pageant (notable given the context)
 * Previous mayorship of Wasilla.
 * ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:51, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

 No other candidate's travel itinerary is in his article's lead paragraph - If there is a need to add such material in other biographies, go ahead and add it. Here we are discussing this person. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:03, 2 September 2008 (UTC)


 * And I have discussed her -- this "tidbit", as the anon editor above calls it, is not so important that it should be included in the lead. Included in the article, certainly, but not the lead.  And the first sentence is still unsourced. Coemgenus 17:07, 2 September 2008 (UTC)


 * About "the first sentence is uncited": Correct (or my suggestion)would be to write "Palin has travelled to very few countries outside of the United States." as the first sentence. The second sentence cites this fact becaus without a passport until 2007 she could not possibly have travelled any other countries then those "few" (Canada, Caribbean islands ...). Also I think that this does not belong into the lead section, but I think it is important to mention in another part of the article.
 * User987654321 (talk) 17:09, 2 September 2008 (UTC)


 * (EC) When and where an individual travelled doesn't seem to be notable as a fact for the lead, unless their notability is tied specifically to their world travels - not the case here. I can easily see this mentioned in the appropriate chronological section of the article, perhaps as part of the discussion of her administration as Governor, since the visit to Kuwait is mentioned there already. UltraExactZZ Claims~ Evidence 17:10, 2 September 2008 (UTC)


 * The second paragraph of the lead discusses her term as a city council member for Wasilla, and then her term as Mayor - I think it's a good mention, to be honest. I'm not sure the beauty pageant victory is notable enough for the lead, as the other posts and facts listed are comparably more notable - and I'm not sure where we'd put it. UltraExactZZ Claims~ Evidence 17:13, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

The point is, the observation that she "traveled very little outside of the United States" is a mere factoid. But the conclusion that this circumstances raises severe misgivings as to her fitness to be "one heartbeat away" from US presidency is highly relevant, seeing hat Palin's main notability now stems from her nomination. In this sense, UltraExactZZ's comment strikes me as rather disingenious. Of course, this conclusion cannot be made in Wikipedia's voice (WP:SYN) but should be attributed. It should be easy enough to find dozens of notable sources wrinkling their brows over this, so the lead should refer to those instead of trying to make the point by innuendo. --dab (𒁳) 17:42, 2 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I have to say again that this tidbit or factoid or whatever it is is seriously of unsufficient weight to be featured in the lead. Honestly, would a weekend in Majorca have made her a better candidate?  James Buchanan was well-travelled; Abraham Lincoln never left the states.  Who cares?   This is seriously less relevant than every other fact in the lead paragrpahs as they currently exist.  Coemgenus 17:55, 2 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Information regarding beauty pageant and travel absolutely do not belong in the first paragraph...any more than Obama's years as a drug addict and his inability to quit smoking belong in his. Lets try to be objective, all you politicos. Highlytech (talk) 18:07, 2 September 2008 (UTC)


 * well, yes, but debate on Palin's experience belongs noted prominently just like debate on Obama's experience belongs noted prominently. Because it is being debated prominently (google news). The funny thing, of course, is how Republicans after months of harping on Obama's lack of experience are now suddenly extremely lenient in attesting experience to Palin for ... "being a mother" or living "close to Russia" (Vladivostok is a mere 3,500 miles form her doorstep!) -- iht. This is rather as if Obama after attacking McCain for being too old (which he didn't, afaik) had gone ahead to select an octogenarian as running mate :)   --dab (𒁳) 18:47, 2 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I can't disagree - but the mention in the lead should be in the broadest possible terms. I can see a mention along the lines of "The selection of Governor Palin as the Republican Vice Presidential candidate has been met with both praise and criticism.", which would then tie in to the section of the article that refers specifically to that praise and criticism. That's where the discussion of her experience goes, and the travel is indeed an element of that experience - but not the most critical element, and not critical enough to merit a mention in the lead by itself. UltraExactZZ Claims~ Evidence 18:59, 2 September 2008 (UTC)


 * There are accusations of bias in this thread. I will admit that my personal bias is against Palin, and even I don't think the factoids about the passport/travel and the beauty pageant belong in the introductory section.  They should certainly remain in the article but they aren't of central importance to most readers. JamesMLane t c 19:55, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Claims of AIP membership seem premature
Tapper is now hedging, noting that voter registration documents seem to show that Palin is a life-long Republican. I this section should be pulled until we have more definitive evidence. Recollections from one (or two) AIP officials about events that occurred 14 years ago seems a stretch. Ronnotel (talk) 16:51, 2 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Agree Arzel (talk) 17:10, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Not yet. The McCain camp is denying it, but it's all over the media and something like this is definitely notable.. The reports should stay in, and once there is more evidence either way it can be just updated further. rootology ( C )( T ) 17:22, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * (my last comment got lost in an edit conflict) Agree we should remove or trim it until reliable sourcing is found, without prejudice to re-inserting it in some form once sources become clearer. When dealing with disputed poorly sourced (or in this case contradictory sources) derogatory information it should stay out until it's solid.  The NYT source seems to corroborate the original Politico source but it is not clear where that comes from.  As I mentioned above the detailed description of the scandal and the activities of the AIP may be unwarranted on weight other grounds whatever the sourcing.  Wikidemon (talk) 17:29, 2 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree it needs to be cut. But if any AIP material stays in this article, then it ought to be converted to NPOV.  That means including Tapper's hedging, and also mentioning that Alaska had an AIP Governor in the early 1990s, Walter Hickel, who later endorsed Palin for the same job.This was discussed above.Ferrylodge (talk) 17:31, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Er... what is derogatory about a political party saying she was affiliated, in and of itself? That is not derogatory. There's even a video linked of her involved. I'm just curious how this is a BLP angle. rootology ( C )( T ) 17:32, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * The video of her addressing the party as Governor, and the first sentence she says "your party". Saying "Palin has been close to the Alaska Independence Party whose platform advocates secession, since the 1990s" is way out of bounds given what we know and the reliability of the sources. I think this should be pulled.--Paul (talk) 19:18, 2 September 2008 (UTC)


 * It becomes problematic when the party is portrayed as a fringe group, by omitting any mention that it has more members in Alaska than even the Libertarian Party or the Green Party, and that it even boasted an AIP Governor who endorsed Palin. If you want the AIP to stay in the article, try making it NPOV.Ferrylodge (talk) 17:35, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, I think it's notable, and if it needs context, that needs to be added, yes. Done: As it's a state level party in our least populous state, that should be plenty of context. rootology  ( C )( T ) 17:40, 2 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Even if we make it NPOV here (i.e. don't portray the party as fringe), we can't escape it because it's being used against her off-wiki. Thus we should take extra care to make sure the sourcing is solid and that it's portrayed carefully.  I think it would be a BLP issue (contradictory and fairly light sourcing for a disparaging fact about a living person) other than the WP:WELLKNOWN section.  Even if not BLP, we do have to be careful about verifiability, weight, and bias.  I see nothing wrong with a simple neutral mention, as long as we can resolve the sourcing.  Wikidemon (talk) 17:40, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I think I got it set now. I linked additional sources above as well if people want more, and it's all over Google news. Should be easy to get more, if more are desired. If people hold it against her off-wiki for having affiliated with a third party at one point, that is not our concern. If Joe Lieberman went back to the Dems, or the Republicans, we aren't going to exclude the fact he basically invented his own party for one term to not get tossed from the Senate. ;) rootology ( C )( T ) 17:42, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I tweaked that AIP section a tiny bit more, to make it even more NPOV, and to let readers decide on the importance or impact of this.. I'm aware that there may or may not be negative connotations from any third party affiliations, but that's not really our concern, for impact it may have. <span style="color:#0D670D; font-family:Georgia, Helvetica;">rootology ( C )( T ) 17:49, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Also, I'm still curious how AIP affiliation being mentioned is "disparaging"? <span style="color:#0D670D; font-family:Georgia, Helvetica;">rootology ( C )( T ) 17:49, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Mentioning the AIP membership is cool, as long as it's not presented in a biased way. GoodDay (talk) 17:53, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * That's what I'd been thinking, since we mention truly negative stuff all the time with sourcing in BLPs, in a neutral way. Belonging to the AIP or NRA or whatever isn't a bad thing. <span style="color:#0D670D; font-family:Georgia, Helvetica;">rootology ( C )( T ) 17:56, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * (edit conflicts)The Tapper piece just balances statements of Alaska Independence Party officials that she was a member and attended the 1994 convention in Wasilla with denials from the Republican Party and the McCain campaign. That is how the issue should be stated in the article. See the New York Times which says "...she was a member for two years in the 1990s of the Alaska Independence Party, which has at times sought a vote on whether the state should secede..." See Telegraph.co.uk  which says "Sarah Palin, the Republican vice-presidential candidate, was once a member of the Alaskan Independence Party, its officials have said." That article says that the Alaskan Independence Party has sought since to 1970's to secede from the United States. It quotes party officials that Sarah and Todd Palin attended a Alaska Independence Party convention. Google News Archive returns 222 stories about "Sarah Palin" and "Alaska Independence Party" .  CBS News says "Palin's association with the Alaska Independence Party might be the most politically detrimental" of issues related to her candidacy . The article should include one or two of the most reliable sources asserting the membership and for balance the campaign's denial. Edison2 (talk) 17:57, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Makes sense, ok. So we just need to add a "The McCain/Palin campaign has denied she was a member of AIP.[source]" and we're set then barring some dramatic thing happening like AIP producing membership rolls or checks from her, or something. Right? <span style="color:#0D670D; font-family:Georgia, Helvetica;">rootology ( C )( T ) 18:00, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * You're probably looking at the AIP's motto of "Alaska first - Alaska always" being contradictory to the McCain campaign's theme of "Country first" and as a result it's being used as a political football questioning Palin's motivations. --Bobblehead (rants) 17:58, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * If sources discuss that, it could make for an interesting and relevant one sentence in there. <span style="color:#0D670D; font-family:Georgia, Helvetica;">rootology ( C )( T ) 18:00, 2 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I would suggest removing the specific # of members as excess information, "3rd largest" is sufficient. This is an article about Palin, not AIP. --ThaddeusB (talk) 18:01, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Up to you, I just wanted to maximize the context. <span style="color:#0D670D; font-family:Georgia, Helvetica;">rootology ( C )( T ) 18:03, 2 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I would suggest removing from here: At the national level, the party is affiliated with the conservative Constitution Party, and as of June 2006 the Alaskan Independence Party has 13,542 registered members (of a state population of 683,478, 2007 est.[22]) in their party, making it the state's third largest party. as it is superfluous (I thought we discussed this above?) If people want to know more about AIP (including size and affiliations) they can click on the provided link to the AIP page.Zredsox (talk) 18:04, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I trimmed it. <span style="color:#0D670D; font-family:Georgia, Helvetica;">rootology ( C )( T ) 18:08, 2 September 2008 (UTC)


 * "AIP member Walter Hinkel, who was Alaska's governor from 1990-1994, would later endorse Palin for governor." Omitting this is blatantly POV.  You are describing the most controversial plank of their platform at length, but ignoring Hinkel.  Compare the 17 words I've just quoted with these 46 words now in the article: "A portion of the party's platform 'challenges the legality of the Alaskan statehood vote ... [under] international law' and calls for a referendum on whether Alaska should secede from the United States to become an independent nation, remain a state, or become a U.S. territory or commonwealth."Ferrylodge (talk) 18:14, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

[moved from above] Sorry if I don't follow the format, as I am new to this... CNN is reporting that the McCain campaign has released documents showing Palin registered as a Republican in 1982, and refutes the claim she was a member of the AIP. http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/09/02/mccain-camp-battles-charges-palin-belonged-to-aip/ TruthWatch (talk) 18:29, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

...regardless of the evidence on her membership, I think we can agree that cherrypicking stances from the party platform into this article is POV. Homunq (talk) 18:42, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

They only have one primary stance listed directly on their homepage: The Alaskan Independence Party's goal is the vote we were entitled to in 1958, one choice from among the following four alternatives: Zredsox (talk) 18:54, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Remain a Territory.
 * 2) Become a separate and Independent Nation.
 * 3) Accept Commonwealth status.
 * 4) Become a State.


 * "Since the 1990s, Palin has been close to the Alaska Independence Party.[17][18][19]" The first reference is a blog entry which is not a reliable source and it only talks about her address to the party in 2008 as Governor. The second reference is members of the party claiming she was a member, which is hearsay, and it has been disputed; the third reference is another link to the video where she addresses the 2008 convention as Governor.  There NO RELIABLE SOURCE here that backs up the claim that Palin has been close to the AIP since the 1990s. This is very shoddy work. --Paul (talk) 20:05, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Pilot? Float Plane? Marathon?
The NPR article cited does not say that Sarah Palin is a pilot, that she has run a marathon, or that she owns a float plane. It mentions snowmobiles, and mooseburgers at 3:48 into the audio.

Many online sources say she owns a float plane but almost none say that she is a pilot. Her husband appears to be a pilot. I'm guessing that she is actually not a pilot. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Michaelsanderpittsford (talk • contribs)


 * Does this help on the marathon? (from talk page archive): Homunq (talk) 17:57, 2 September 2008 (UTC) Sarah Palin has competed in 10K and marathon running events. On July 30, 2005, she finished sixth among women in the Anchorage "Run/Walk for the Whisper" (benefiting the fight against Ovarian Cancer) with a time of 49:01[4]. On August 21, 2005, she finished "Humpy's Marathon" in Anchorage, Alaska with a time of 3:59:36[5]. --Mayamolly (talk) 22:36, 29 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Regarding whether she owns a floatplane, her husband Todd owns a Super Cub. Is Alaska a community property state?  If so, then Sarah also owns the plane.  If not, then I suppose it is possible Todd holds title to the plane in his own name only.  I'm not sure the distinction is notable enough to be encyclopedic. Also, I found this reference for Sarah running a marathon. RonCram (talk) 18:31, 2 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Alaska is a separate property state, but since 1998 couples have the option to opt in to community property. Coemgenus 18:33, 2 September 2008 (UTC)


 * According to the FAA, Sarah Palin does not hold a pilot's certificate, but her husband does. See my previous comment. - auburn pilot   talk  19:29, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Palin's Membership in Independent Party: Ronald Reagan Was A Socialist Party Member in His 20's-- Thank God We Didn't Vet Him
Even Ronald Reagan flirted with fringe socialist politics briefly-- so what?

Also membership in a party doesn't necessarily mean lock-step adherence to all of its platform.


 * Could Palin have been a "Maverick' within that independent party-- and not really a 'true believer'?

Is this a case of 'guilt by association' (McCartheyism used by Liberals to target a conservative)?

67.40.136.109 (talk) 15:45, 2 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Apples to Oranges. It is one thing to associate with a group looking to reform one's great country, and quite another to associate with a group that would rather have nothing to do with her at all; AIP's agenda is very clear. "I'm an Alaskan, not an American. I've got no use for America or her damned institutions." - Joe Vogler (founder AIP)
 * If her position was to become a self sufficient state and secede from the union, and would willingly surrender her U.S. citizenship, this is all very relevant because it calls her patriotism into question. 67.169.26.76 (talk) 16:58, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * The key word here is "if" we have no evidence that this is true, so it doesn't belong in the article. --ThaddeusB (talk) 18:58, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * It think it's more that wikipedia does not fundimentaly care about her patriotism. It might care if there were enough significant comments in reliable sources documenting expressing concern about her patriotism amoung whatever group cares about this kind of thing. But then it would only be careing about the reports not her patriotism per se.Geni 19:04, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Palin's home church
The current article claims, citing Eric Gorski's AP story, which cites Rev. Paul Riley of the Wasilla Assemblies of God church, that her current home church is the Church on the Rock in Wasilla. But both Time magazine and the Boston Herald, citing Palin herself, say that her current church is Wasilla Bible Church. She clearly attends multiple churches, including the Juneau Christian Center. But here are two sources that place her primary church as Wasilla Bible Church, headed by Pastor Larry Kroon:

http://www.bostonherald.com/news/national/politics/2008/view/2008_09_01_In_Sarah_Palin_s_hometown__a_sense_of_shock_and_awe/

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1837713,00.html?imw=Y Lippard (talk) 05:40, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Also, the Church of the Rock website has posted a statement which when read contradicts the claim that Church of the Rock is Palin's current "home church". The Church of the Rock website claims that the Wasilla Bible Church is Palin's actual congregation.

http://churchontherockak.org/Regarding-Sarah-Palin.html


 * Could be potentially troublesome, the Assemblies of God denomination believes you are not a true Christian if you do not "speak in tongues." 24.199.34.242 (talk) 16:32, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

And catholics believe you're not a true chrisitan if you don't attend mass. Who cares. --146.145.79.137 (talk) 18:44, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Snettisham avalanches, April 2008
I think this section needs edited down, and (probably) incorporated into the economics & the environment section. --ThaddeusB (talk) 19:31, 2 September 2008 (UTC)


 * This was added to fluff her resume and really shouldn't have its own section. At best, it should be cut down to a sentence and put somewhere else.Zredsox (talk) 19:59, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Belonged to secession party
ABC news reported on September 2, 2008 that Sarah Palin and husband have former ties to the Alaskan Independence Party. The Alaskan Independence Party favors a vote to allow Alaska to secede from the U.S. The ABC report stated both Sarah and husband were members of the secession party in 1995. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.208.69.64 (talk) 19:49, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you 69.208.69.64, but half this page is already discussing that. Dragons flight (talk) 19:52, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Here's the article in question: http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/09/members-of-frin.html. It's not a bad source. It mentions Clark from AIP claiming that Palin was a member in 94; the fact that Palin never registered as such; Clark's claim that she attended the 94 convention; and the McCain campagn's response that this is false "but she visited them when they had their convention in Wasilla in 2000 as a courtesy since she was mayor.". It also mentions the speech "at" the 2008 convention as a "video greeting". Homunq (talk) 20:13, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Youtube is not a reliable source
Reliable_source_examples Ferrylodge (talk) 19:55, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * If they can diagram the sentence, then it can stay. LOL

I love this sentence
"Wooten had been officially reprimanded and disciplined in 2006 for misconduct including making a death threat against Palin's father and being drunk while operating both private and official vehicles,[97][98] as well as using a Taser on his then 10-year old stepson 'in a training capacity' after the child had asked to be tased in order to show his cousin, Sarah Palin's daughter Bristol, that he 'wasn't a mama's boy'[99], which occured during a divorce and child custody battle with Palin’s sister, Molly McCann.[100]"

Is there any English teacher in the United States who would not go ballistic about this?Ferrylodge (talk) 20:00, 2 September 2008 (UTC)


 * So, change it? Gary <b style="color:#02b;">King</b> ( talk ) 20:04, 2 September 2008 (UTC)


 * WP:3RR.Ferrylodge (talk) 20:06, 2 September 2008 (UTC)


 * So when you copyedit it you get reverted? Gary <b style="color:#02b;">King</b> ( talk ) 20:09, 2 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Many people have cut this sentence back, repeatedly, ad nauseum, to refer to the death threat and "other" stuff. It keeps getting reverted back.  I'm not going to break it up into a whole bunch of manageable sentences, because it's crud.  Who cares if Bristol thought her cousin was a Mama's boy?  I'm not going to copy-edit that crap.Ferrylodge (talk) 20:12, 2 September 2008 (UTC)


 * So this thread is basically just an unhelpful complaint? Gary <b style="color:#02b;">King</b> ( talk ) 20:14, 2 September 2008 (UTC)


 * No, it's a suggestion that people should please try to be reasonable. Mindlessly advancing an agenda results in crappy sentences that make us all look ridiculous.  Any person or group of people that writes a sentence like the one I quoted can justly be described as foolish, and I don't want myself or Wikipedia described that way.  I would cut back the sentence again myself, but it would violate WP:3RR.Ferrylodge (talk) 20:18, 2 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Okay, glad we got that cleared up Gary <b style="color:#02b;">King</b> ( talk ) 20:19, 2 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Ferrylodge, I agree the sentence is {expletive deleted}. Let me see if I can make it better. RonCram (talk) 20:39, 2 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I must say though, it somehow fits the mood of the tale :) Gwen Gale (talk) 21:22, 2 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Hence the title of the section. :) Ferrylodge (talk) 21:29, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Palin's total net worth? Most recent financial disclosure or federal tax form
Gov Sarah Palin's TOTAL Financial networth and investments.

The narrative to the nation is that unlike Sen. McCain she is not wealthy and has a modest income. Since it is obvious that Sen. Mccain knows less about Gov. Palin than the general pubic, could someone find out her TOTAL networth (husband's included). The only financial information on Gov. Palin is that she reduced her current salary. There has been no release of financial documents to verify McCain's assertion of Gov. Palin's "modest" fin. backgroud.

Did she and her husband file a 2007 tax return form? How many houses does she own? Has she moved her investments around for to deceive the American Public (placing funds into her children's, sister's or Parent's account).

Thanks so much Komplete (talk) 20:52, 2 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Info like this will be included when it becomes available. Dragons flight (talk) 20:56, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Time to split out a Reaction article?
If not now, very soon the "Reaction" subsection will become unwieldy. Any takers? Phlegm Rooster (talk) 21:14, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Do we have similar sub-articles for the other candidates? Kelly  hi! 21:15, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Is it really necessary to include the reactions of every Tom, Dick, and Harry that makes a comment on her selection? Supporters of McCain were generally positive, supporters of Obama were generally negative, everyone else shocked. --Bobblehead (rants) 21:20, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The "reaction" section is currently unwieldy at best, heavily weighted and teetering on straying from a NPOV.Zredsox (talk) 21:22, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
 * (ec)I don't know. It just seems to me that piling on every comment by every politician, pundit and poll will overwhelm the article. A summary could be made; her selection was a surprise, some Repubs and Dems have said she lacks experience, other Repubs and Dems have praised the pick as bold, some have said it is an attempt to get Hillary voters. The split out article could have all the quotes and detailed analysis. The reaction to her pick is not really her, right? I figure users want facts, and if they want more on the reaction they can click. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 21:23, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
 * (ecx2) No reason to split anything. This won't continue to grow and so a "reaction" article will be more or less static and quickly outdated. Oren0 (talk) 21:23, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree. The section should go. It is getting more and more whitewashed by the minute.Zredsox (talk) 21:31, 31 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia is not news, and most of these reactions are of passing, minimal importance. Let's face it -- if she gets elected as Vice President, reactions to her initial selection will merit at most a passing mention in the context of a much bigger career as VP. If she doesn't get elected, the entire vice presidential selection will be a paragraph on top of her career as governor. Rather than letting every sourceable media reaction get included, I favor slimming the section down to a summarizing sentence or two, and kindly but sternly redirecting people looking to add every tidbit of recent political news to Wikinews. RayAYang (talk) 21:25, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
 * There is no reason for a split. What would be the title anyway? Any precedent for anything like this? Hobartimus (talk) 21:33, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
 * What value would a separate article would be? Yes, it's about as long as it ever needs to be. -- Noroton (talk) 21:34, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

I realize this is heresy, but it's perfectly okay to weigh the article toward the things that are most notable about her right now, and reweigh later as her biography changes. I would bet that even by the end of the campaign the initial reaction will merit perhaps a paragraph, and afterward a single sentence. But right now it's a big deal. A.J.A. (talk) 21:35, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The problem is people are removing the counter points from the article so that it is now weighted heavily in favor of positive reaction to her selection when in truth that is not the general consensus. For instance, the negative assessment from the National Review was inexplicably removed while in turn 3 more reactions praising her pick have been added in the last hour.Zredsox (talk) 21:45, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, I'm the one who did it and I explained it pretty clearly in the edit summary: the quote in question called her a "small-town mayor", present tense, which is factually wrong. Go find someone saying "governor for only two years", then at least we'll be citing critics who aren't lying. A.J.A. (talk) 21:56, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The phrase "small town mayor" was used as a slight to clearly define where the majority of her experience was based, by a conservative pundit from the National Review. It was not meant to be a factual declaration, but rather an opinion (as are all the reactions.) -- Zredsox (talk) 22:12, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
 * So if you're insulting someone based on opinion it's okay to say things that aren't true. A.J.A. (talk) 22:30, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Someone's "reaction" by definition has nothing to do with fact.Zredsox (talk) 23:01, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Almost every story and commentary that gets published is a reaction to something. Are you telling me the entire media is a fact-free zone? A.J.A. (talk) 04:48, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
 * There is a media bias where she is referred in the present tense as "a small town mayor". In order for wikipedia to 1).  Not insert a POV and 2).  Remain factually correct, nothing referring to her in the present tense as a mayor should be posted.  It is dishonest.--66.25.156.198 (talk) 01:57, 3 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I think current efforts should focus on improving the "Reaction" section of the main article and worry about a possible split later. The current version is an utter travesty, consisting almost entirely of Republican reaction (both favorable and unfavorable). It is OK to include those (with citation), but the current version violates WP:WEIGHT policies and more critical perspectives must be included as well. Arjuna (talk) 21:44, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Please explain why you think it's necessary to include quotations which make untrue characterizations. A.J.A. (talk) 22:33, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
 * A.J.A. makes a classic straw man argument, and s/he needs to come up with something far better than that. That the section as currently written is a violation of WP:POV and WP:UNDUE seems unassailable. Arjuna (talk) 00:32, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
 * If you're going to call it a straw man, demonstrate how it doesn't make an untrue characterization. A.J.A. (talk) 04:48, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
 * It's unclear what you are referring to. What "untrue characterizations"? If something is demonstrably untrue, no responsible editor is going to support its inclusion. You're spouting gibberish as far as I can tell, but please enlighten me if I have missed something. Arjuna (talk) 05:15, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, the section is long removed by now, but I'll type this slowly: Frum characterized her as a small town mayor. She is in fact a governor. If you still find that gibberish, try taking some ESL courses. A.J.A. (talk) 22:14, 1 September 2008 (UTC)


 * If some people want to split out a daughter article so that they can amuse themselves by quoting every published reaction to this pick, I suppose it will keep them from doing harm elsewhere, but such an article isn't needed. Whether or not there's a separate article, the real issue is to keep the summary in this one balanced and concise.  We do not need to quote every politician who's expressed an opinion, and we should not quote more Republicans than Democrats.  Furthermore, I suggested above (in ) that non-politician reactions should be included, such as evangelicals and environmentalists. JamesMLane t c 00:53, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

You may write a reactions article for Wikinews. Indeed wikinews articles may not be modified after publication, so that seems like a better venue for information that will eventually be trimmed from wikipedia anyway. JeffBurdges (talk) 15:38, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Traffic offenses?
Why on earth do we have traffic offenses for the Palins in this article, with primary sources? Kelly hi! 06:28, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I have removed it. Good eye. --mboverload @  06:38, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I was about to do the same, so far as I could tell, the cited sources didn't have anything about traffic infractions by Sarah Palin, only Todd. Gwen Gale (talk) 06:39, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, definitely delete. Some politically motivated people online behave so stupidly that I sometimes wonder if they're actually working for the other side to make "their" side look bad. —KCinDC (talk) 07:06, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
 * For future reference, I think there should be a clarification on what policy this user is violating. I've seen a claim of WP:BLP and the use of primary sources.  I'm not sure how WP:BLP is being violated.  I can see the problem with using a primary source, though policy seems to indicate that if it doesn't take an expert to interpret the findings from the primary source (here it would be reading a docket), then it's okay to include it.  Discussion on this page seems to indicate the problem would be with WP:NPOV -- undue weight maybe? Switzpaw (talk) 07:13, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I have also removed a reference about Todd getting a 200 dollar fine for using an ATV offroad. --mboverload @ 07:18, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I removed it too per BLP. It's not even about her, and it's a primary source. It shouldn't be in his article, let alone hers. Cool Hand Luke 07:21, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Although primary sources are ok if little or no interpretation is needed to cite them, I would agree that her husband being fined for minor traffic infractions is not notable. Gwen Gale (talk) 07:24, 1 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I wouldn't lay down an absolute rule that traffic offenses are nonnotable. In a particular case they could be worth reporting (e.g. if there were an allegation that Palin had tried to use her office to "fix" her husband's tickets).  In this instance, however, I see no reason for their inclusion, either here or in the Todd Palin artice. JamesMLane t c 07:35, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
 * In themselves, minor traffic infractions are non-notable. If reliable sources say a politician has tried to "fix" such things, that's another thing altogether, a notable crime, likewise with a long history of say, many speeding tickets or a major traffic crime like drunk driving. Not a hint of that here so far. Gwen Gale (talk) 08:41, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, and such allegations would be in secondary sources. There are none here, so it doesn't belong. Cool Hand Luke 08:36, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Things like "so far" and these hypothetical issues suggesting "fixing tickets" or crimes are innuendo that add nothing to the discussion, but rather interject ideas that can only be harmful. "So far" allows readers to infer that this is something that is likely or just hasn't been discovered. Please choose your wording carefully to avoid this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.212.27.134 (talk) 14:19, 1 September 2008 (UTC) Die4Dixie (talk) 14:25, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
 * The off roading was a CRIMINAL CHARGE, not a traffic ticket. The case number ends in "CR", a moving violation ends in "MO". It is relevant for her family section that her husband has a criminal record, however "minor" people think it may be. Michaelh2001 (talk) 15:19, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) This article is about Sarah Palin, not her husband, therefore irrelevant. — Travis talk  15:24, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

That's absurd! The woman's husband has a criminal record, it should definately be in the section about her personal life, maybe not in the beginning paragraphs but it should definately be mentioned.Lakerking04 (talk) 17:22, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

'''I second Lakerking04's point. Has anybody found out if 5yr old Piper has been cited for spitting on the sidewalk, or stepping on a puppy's paw by "accident"? I'm sure Barack Obama's page includes salacious details on how he bought his house with the help of a convicted felon whom he steered millions toward, (reported in the RS Chicago Tribune), or how he didn't slip his half brother a $20 spot when he met him in 2006, because those are equally relevant to understanding the career/positions/(non)accomplishments of a national stage politician.'''--98.221.28.244 (talk) 06:34, 2 September 2008 (UTC)


 * A large number of people have a criminal record, especially when they were young. --mboverload @ 21:32, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
 * If Todd's drunk driving arrest and other driving offenses don't desereve mention in this article, then why should the article include the claim that he won some race? It seems just as lacking in relevance to Sarah Palin's biography. Is this a piece of campaign literature, or a puff piece like a Christmas Letter, where only the good stuff is to be mentioned, for bragging rights, without ever mentioning any embarrassing stuff? That approach is a clear violation of WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE WEIGHT. Edison2 (talk) 02:05, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Bristol is pregnant: Solution?

 * How about we just say "The announcement was made in part to counter unsubstantiated internet rumors"? That way, we are explaining the importance without giving the rumor itself the light of day? --ThaddeusB (talk) 19:23, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Per the sources (AP, Clevelad Plain Dealer, New York Times, etc) above, the rumor has been stated in the mainstream press numerous times and explicitly, and given by campaign spokesmen as a reason for the announcement, so vagueness is not necessary or appropriate. Edison2 (talk) 19:32, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree. This is a major mainstream story that all high level news gathering organizations are covering and is only secondary in this news cycle to the Gulf Hurricane. It is notable as notable comes.Zredsox (talk) 19:34, 1 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Thad, we can't say "The announcement was made in part to counter unsubstantiated internet rumors" because that would speculation and we cannot speculate someone's motive. --Oi!oi!oi!010101 (talk) 04:03, 2 September 2008 (UTC)


 * McCain representative said that's why they made the announcement now. Dragons flight (talk) 04:21, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Why not simply make a new page for Bristol Palin ??? Any search for Bristol Palin gets redirected to Sarah Palin. I think Bristol Palin warrants a page of her own. This is too much: If it weren't for 8 years of Bush/Rove, I would hardly be able to believe the kind of censorship and manipulation that is going on around here !!! Mijnlulinjouwkut (talk) 05:03, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry - actually it wasn't Karl Rove who issued the censorship order, it was Dick Cheney. ;) But seriously I can't imagine a page on her that wouldn't be libellous and problematic. Leave the poor girl alone. Kelly  hi! 05:12, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree completely with Kelly. If she goes on to have notable accomplishments on her own, then she might satisfy WP:BIO like Robert Todd Lincoln or Carolyn Kennedy Caroline Kennedy. Now, she gets press mention only as the daughter of a notable politician. Had her mother not been chosen as the nominee, there would be no press coverage of her pregnancy. An article about her would be a WP:COATRACK really dealing with the McCain-Palin campaign, or abstinence education, or other issues. Edison2 (talk) 15:43, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Bristol Palin IS notable of her own. I can't judge as to wether this is really her merit or his, but the fact remains: the girl is underage, pregnant and unwed, which means that she has certainly NOT observed her mother's abstinence-only sex (non-)education policy (or it must be that she IS still a virgin, but I guess in that case her name should have been Mary instead of Bristol). Believe what you will, but this girl certainly deserves a page / article of her own. 58.34.54.33 (talk) 16:21, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

the linkage of the (weekend) unfounded rumor, and the (Monday morning) fact
We are in an interesting realm (or, the same ol' same ol':). There will (with near certainly) be much analysis of this weekend's rumor and its connection with today's announcement. The statement by the McCain campaign asserting that part of the reason for the announcement was the squelching of the aforementioned rumor must be accepted at face falue (good faith assumption). Yes, the broadbrush labeling of "liberal bloggers" is ... politics. Politics, its seems, is legal in America. (Excuse the humor, it was a long weekend). Let's see how this plays out in the press. Proofreader77 (talk) 19:31, 1 September 2008 (UTC)


 * NOTE: confirmed-as-FALSE rumor -- Since the weekend rumor could no longer possibly be true and therefore (offically/publicly) confirmed false, it can be mentioned. While there exists the possibility of rumors so vile they cannot be named, this one is easily stated for purposes of confirmation that it is false. Proofreader77 (talk) 19:50, 1 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I didn't believe the weekend rumor, but it's invalid to say it can't possibly be true. For those who start from the premise that the Palin camp promoted a deception about Trig, the deception would now continue through the public misstatement of Bristol's expected due date.


 * I agree with those above who say that the widespread MSM reporting means that it's eligible for inclusion in Wikipedia.


 * Nevertheless, just because it hasn't been conclusively refuted and is eligible for inclusion doesn't mean that it's important enough to include. We wouldn't include everything that the McCain campaign says publicly about their reasons for doing this or that, or their reasons for doing it at a specific time.  That fact -- the timing of the announcement to counteract rumors -- is NPOV and based on RS but it's just not important enough to include in the article.  I don't see that the rumors about Trig had any significant impact on the campaign so there's just no reason to mention them. JamesMLane t c 20:12, 1 September 2008 (UTC)


 * How about this? confirmed-as-false ... beyond a reasonable doubt (i.e, yes, I know what country we live in :) With the hurricane and the convention to deal with, editors of major newspapers will probably find better things to analyze than, e.g., whether Kos was punked or seeking infamy and if anyone played into anyone's strategic plans, etc. If they don't, well, we can always create an article about this topic, can't we? lol Proofreader77 (talk) 21:30, 1 September 2008 (UTC)


 * As I said above, I don't think the rumor should be mentioned at all, but if it is mentioned, then we should absolutely not pronounce for the benefit of our readers that the High Court of Wikipedia has adjudged it to be confirmed as false beyond a reasonable doubt. If the rumor is covered, and if you believe that the campaign's statement concerning Bristol's due date irrefutably disproves the rumor, then we can just report the campaign statement, and leave it to the reader to draw the conclusion. JamesMLane t c 02:12, 2 September 2008 (UTC)


 * re "the High Court of Wikipedia has adjudged" -- no, society (as constituted by institutions which do this all the time) has (transiently, as usual, but with unshakable conviction) adjudged the rumour to be false. Is society ever wrong? Do juries convict innocent people? Is the price of oil where it should "actually" be? Moment to moment, day to day, society judges. And we live on assumptions that may be wrong, but which are considered reasonable to believe. For now. I.E., "society" has judged the rumor false. Wikipedia does not argue with "reality." ;) Proofreader77 (talk) 06:24, 2 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Oyez, Oyez ... Jury selection? :) ... I've already located my star witness: the newspaper photographer who's taken her picture regularly ...through thick and thin, um, thin and thick and thin ... For drama's sake, of course, we'll wait for the climatic revelation of the truth -- beyond a reasonable doubt. All rise ... (Dear Gods of Wikipedia forgive me, I'm tired, and will try to behave "better" soon. After the fourth hurricane, perhaps. Meanwhile I am working on chaos control in my own strange way, trust me.) Proofreader77 (talk) 03:57, 2 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Agreed, but I would go farther. WP:NPOV requires that we avoid JUDGING the news, but, more than that, it requires that we report the news ACCURATELY.  The term "unfounded rumor" here is NOT accurate.  Technically, the DailyKOS article makes an INFERENCE based on a substantial body of circumstantial evidence -- photographs of Sarah and Bristol, statements by co-workers, inexplicable behavior by Sarah.  The latest admission by Sarah Palin, far from refuting this inference, lends credence to it: It substantiates promiscuity, implies insufficient vetting, and illustrates disingenuousness.  Let us recall the accusations made against John Edwards and the fierce outraged denials.  Would it have been appropriate for Wikipedia to prejudge the Enquirer story or mischaracterize the story as an "unfounded rumor"?  -- NonZionist (talk) 04:50, 2 September 2008 (UTC)


 * [|"Sarah Palin hit by internet rumours over fifth child" times.online.uk NEWS QUOTE: "If Mrs Palin, a conservative mother of five, ever doubted that landing on a national presidential ticket would open her to the harshest of spotlights and smear tactics, she also awoke yesterday to utterly unfounded internet rumours that her fifth child, born in April with Down’s syndrome, was actually her 17-year-old daughter’s." I.E., I judge not the news; I quote it. Accurately... Next witness. [[User:Proofreader77|Proofreader77]] (talk) 05:30, 2 September 2008 (UTC)


 * One, the Times is owned by News Corp, a company headed by Rupert Murdoch. Two, the news article was not an investigation into the pregnancies, so we do not know the basis of the opinion the rumors are unfounded. Three, libel/defamation law is much stronger in the U.K. and so I would expect "utterly unfounded" to be used in that publication before printing about an internet rumor involving a person. Not because they know, but to cover their posteriors. Digitalmandolin (talk)


 * I don't consider this an "utterly unfounded rumor" because I agree with NonZionist that it's not a rumor at all. AFAIK, no one was asserting, "My cousin has a friend who's a nurse in Wasilla who said...."  It was an inference from circumstantial evidence, or, if you want to be uncharitable toward it, a speculation.  (This point is important to me because the absence of any such reports is what caused me to reject the inference.  If this had happened, someone would've blabbed about it, medical ethics or no.)  Nevertheless, my opinion of the correctness of the inference is immaterial.  I continue to maintain that our article should not state as a fact that it was an utterly unfounded rumor but we can certainly report that the Times so characterized it, and the reader will not be deprived of Proofreader77's witness's testimony.  That is, if we include the rumor at all, which I still see no reason to do. JamesMLane t c 07:07, 2 September 2008 (UTC)


 * re: "including the rumor." BUT THE NEWS STORY IS: Sarah Palin announced her daughters pregnancy in order to prove the internet rumor false. No news organization would leave out what the rumor was. And they didn't. To say that Wikipedia should not mention it, when the major institutions of media have ... Well, I'll leave that to the collective wisdom of Wikipedians, which I'll guess disagree with your position. UNLESS you wish to claim that concensus demands that ALL MUST AGREE, or NOTHING SHALL BE INCLUDED. Hmmmm... interesting thought. Thanks.


 * But as to declared false vs implied false... No major media institution would have mentioned the rumor regarding the minor, UNTIL the rumor was "verified" beyond reasonable doubt false. They would not mention the rumor if there was still a reasonable possibility the rumor might still be turn out to be true. By inclusion, the media labels it false. (in this instance/minor)


 * Oh, I see. Wikipedia must be purer than the media which it quotes religiously. The rumor must be perfectly proven false, or not mentioned. Sounds like an interesting story. Must have dragons and fairies. Cool. :) Proofreader77 (talk) 08:56, 2 September 2008 (UTC)


 * QUOTING the London Times pronouncement is fine; MAKING the pronouncement ourselves is not so fine, unless we are willing to lose credibility along with the Times and the rest of the corporate lapdog media when the "utterly unfounded rumor" turns out to be true. We dump the Establishment media in the "Reliable Sources", but that doesn't mean that these papers actually ARE reliable.  A newspaper or television station is a BUSINESS, not a dispassionate think-tank.


 * BTW, CBC TV in Canada is taking the DailyKOS allegations seriously! The TV report features the blog article and the print version (quoted below) is non-dismissive.  It looks like the "Reliable Sources" are taking a second look at these "utterly unfounded rumors".


 * The website Daily Kos alleged in a post on Sunday that Sarah Palin had faked her most recent pregnancy to cover up the fact that her youngest child, four-month-old Trig, was actually her daughter's illegitimate baby.


 * The site used photographs and video to suggest that Palin's surprise announcement of her pregnancy last February, while she was apparently in her seventh month, was an attempt to avoid the embarrassment of a media frenzy about teenage pregnancy in the Alaska governor's mansion.


 * -- NonZionist (talk) 07:49, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * (1) The rumor was a serious matter... The story is that Sarah Palin announced her daughter's pregnancy to stop the rumor.
 * THEREFORE (2) It makes sense for the media to take a close look at what caused such an uproar over the weekend.
 * (3) That does NOT mean they believe the rumor to possibly be true. It means they are looking at it to see what it was that caused all this.
 * (4) The rumor is false. That is not in doubt. Trust me. :) Proofreader77 (talk) 08:56, 2 September 2008 (UTC)


 * RE: the two references currently cited in the article re announcing the Bristol pregnancy ([telegraph.co.uk] and [washingtonpost.com]) -- both include the rumor.
 * NOTE: The Washington Post editors include the phrase "The statement Monday appeared designed to rebut that rumor by offering a timeline that, if accurate, ..." implying the editors leave open the possibility the rumor is true, at least with respect to whether the Monday announcement definitively puts the rumor to rest.
 * COMMENT: That is an interesting choice (to me), because it means that a major newspaper will transmit a "rumor" about a minor that they have not determined to be false by investigation, but simply is false if the information they have been given is true.
 * FURTHER COMMENT: That is really interesting (to me), since it leaves open the question as to when a newspaper shall treat statements by public figures at face value (good faith assumption), or, specifically imply that a statement they are reporting may or may not be true.
 * (MEANWHILE I see the mention of the rumor has been deleted from the article. The current "concensus" then is that the "rumor" shall not be mentioned.)
 * Enough for now. We'll see if the press/media feel it worthwhile to return to this issue. Proofreader77 (talk) 02:28, 3 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Regarding the idea that Trig is really Bristol's child -- Trig is known to be four months old. If Bristol is really five months pregnant it is not medically possible for her to have born a child four months ago. Geo Swan (talk) 07:02, 3 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, we know. :) (or, at least I do. lol) The issue of how the media dealt with the rumor is interesting. For example, the Washington Post's unusual wording ("if accurate") about the statement from Palin/staff. It is (to me) highly unusual for a newspaper of that stature to use that wording with respect to public figures -- implying they could be lying. NOTE: I know the statement is true. But some people at the newspaper seem to have been persuaded by the rumor enough to have the strange wording "if accurate" inserted -- just in case. ANYWAY, I think the media has bigger fish to fry now than to wade through this any more. We'll see. Proofreader77 (talk) 07:46, 3 September 2008 (UTC)