Talk:Political positions of Sarah Palin/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

A model NPOV paragraph

In January 2008, Palin wrote an opinion column for The New York
Times in which she opposed the listing of polar bears as an endangered
species, claiming that she had based her position on a comprehensive
review of expert scientific opinion. While asserting that "polar bears
are magnificent animals...worthy of our utmost efforts to protect them
and their Arctic habitat," Palin defended her opposition to listing the
animal as endangered by stating, "The possible listing of a healthy
species like the polar bear would be based on uncertain modeling of
possible effects. This is simply not justified." [45] For Steven A.
Cohen, Executive Director, Columbia University’s Earth Institute, this
is "the most distressing part" of Palin's opinion column because of
"its attempt to contrast 'science' to 'modeling'." Cohen points out
that, obviously, "models are just as 'scientific' as the other methods
used to understand our world," and concludes about Palin that "if
elected leaders are going to make policy based on scientific
information, they need to develop at least a modest level of scientific
literacy themselves."[46] State biologists disagree with Palin's
position.[47]

Note several things:

1. It places Palin's position in strong light and affirms positive things about it.
2. It then places significant criticisms about her position.
3. Both are in rough balance, and note even that about the word count (color-coded).

Somehow, it seems that some here are not interested in this sort of thing, but in truncating to the most minimal any criticisms. That's called POV-pushing.

Booksnmore4you (talk) 15:53, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

The above is a good example of NPOV writing. Well done. Now, I am interested to hear the rationale on why that is not a neutral presentation of the subject. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:56, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

An obvious objection is of course that Cohen's material is too long. I would strongly suggest making it more concise: drop the mention of "models are just" content from Cohen (why are we allowing a critic the opportunity to nuance their criticism? Just summarize, as is done it the prev sentence) as well as the "literacy" statement. The latter is somewhat contradicted by the caveat about models, is arguably inplied by the last sentence, and smells like a subtle hatchet job. I would move then the final "State biologists" sentence before the Cohen content; this would thus present a summary "biologists disagree" statement followed by a slightly more indepth detail about one particular take(not necessarily from the same source I understand, but that is not the point).

BTW, good pun on the section title on this page :) Baccyak4H (Yak!) 16:08, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

In addition, I would trim Palin's "magnificant animals" quote. Too apologetic. Both this suggestion and my above one are intended to remove connotations that the section endorse any position. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 16:12, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

WTF, what happened to that whole section? What a mess. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 16:42, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Agree, yikes. The quotes from the environmentalist advocacy groups definitely need to go per UNDUE. A brief description of the opinions of environmental groups should be OK, though. Kelly ^hi! 16:59, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Not at all. Balance it with a quote that disagrees with the quote! Remember eventualism, and that is not served by removing material. Booksnmore4you (talk) 17:02, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

A better solution would be to consolidate the nature (and source) of objections. Use more quotes from secondary sources about them, rather than their quoting of the primary source to avoid soapboxing, and make sure the rebuttal(s) is no longer than the nominal topic. That start should be a big improvement. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 17:23, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

You placed a NPOV tag. There is nothing obvious about it. Explain yourself. Booksnmore4you (talk) 16:59, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Books, you are being warned here as well as on your talk page to cease your uncivil tone as well as your reverting. Furthermore, the NPOV tag is used when editors disagree whether or not something is neutral, and is not subject to in the judgment of you, or any other editor, of the actual neutrality of the article.--Tznkai (talk) 17:02, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

You must have aimed that at another user because there's nothing wrong with my tone, I'm just stating things.

Based on what you said about the NPOV tag--which I respectfully submit is about one of the most inane things I've ever heard an admin say--I can just run around adding the tag to tons of articles, "just because I think it so", it does not matter whether it is warranted in policy.

But the tag must be backed up by specific arguments based in NPOV policy or its groundless and is just being used for political reasons, sort of like how about 100% of all Digg articles critical of McCain/Palin have been dugg down as "factually inaccurate". Yea, right, and I have something to sell you.

Booksnmore4you (talk) 17:12, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Since this is the only place you seem to respond, we will discuss your behavior here. If you wish to discuss it somewhere else, use my or your talk page.

Your tone is inappropriate. You're using policy as a bludgeon, being curt, accusing other editors of being POV pushers, your comments and edit summaries are often inflammatory such as: "you can't just remove critical information as it violated the fundamental policy of NPOV, do it again and I will take it higher up)".--Tznkai (talk) 17:24, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

You're not insisting on NPOV. I don't consider you legitimate for this reason. How about letting Jossi take over, since he clearly has a very solid handle on NPOV? Booksnmore4you (talk) 18:11, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

(EC; @Books) Please just follow the advice; our procedures exist for a reason. We are all here to write a good encyclopedia. Making yourself a magnet for editing sanctions risks compromising your ability to do exactly that. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 17:23, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Prepare for Bombshell over Trig

The Drudge Report, well known among conservatives and liberals like, has a developing story on his page stating that the New York Times is preparing to front a detailed story about Palin's baby.

I just wish to warn those of you who are editing this page - if this turns out to be for real, there will be some people here adding it to the discussing page asking for it to be added to the article. --165.123.227.57 (talk) 00:54, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

<sigh> Probably dKos has been claiming that he gave birth to himself, and the Times picked it up as straight news. They've been pwned on fake Palin claims already. Kelly ^hi! 01:03, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Drudge isn't even close to a reliable source. Ignore it until and unless it does show on the Times, and then discuss it. Ok, I'm out of here for the night - good luck all, try to stay civil. KillerChihuahua^?!? 01:06, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Matt Drudge is well known for finding stories well before they come out on other news outlets, and it was a newsroom source in the NYT that leaked it to him. Also, then New York Times would not touch this issue without tangible proof. The tremendous push back by the right has been enormous on the issue of her son and pregnant daughter. I highly doubt this will be factually incorrect. Either the Times plans to completely dispel these rumors by telling the exact story of Trig's birth or prove these rumors with some evidence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.123.227.57 (talk) 01:27, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

LOL - it's just a little puff piece. Kelly ^hi! 03:24, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Abortion section

Her personal choice if her daughter was raped does not equal the position she takes as a politian. Is this page meant to demonstrate what her feelings are in a pop quiz setting or is his article meant to demonstrate what her position as a candidate is? If the former then I say we delete this article as her personal feelings do not deserve undue wieght. If the latter.. well then we should be putting this on her mainpage. Eitherway, the popquiz question doesn't help expllain her official position on the matter. --98.243.129.181 (talk) 01:51, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose, is reported as a position in the news. We are supposed to report what reliahble secondary sources say, not what the "truth" is. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 20:28, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Attempted edit - abortion

I was attempting to add Palin's theoretical action if Roe v. Wade was overturned as the page got protected. Here is the whole paragraph for clarity.

Palin is pro-life and is opposed to abortion in all cases, including rape and incest, except when necessary to save the life of the mother. In 2006, while running for governor, Palin was asked what she would do if her own daughter were raped and became pregnant; she responded that she would "choose life". When asked what she would do as governor if Roe v. Wade was overturned, she responded "it would not be up [me] to unilaterally ban anything. It would be up to the people of Alaska to discuss and decide how we would like our society to reflect our values." She and her husband have stated that they have "faith that every baby is created for a good purpose." Palin has been a member of Feminists for Life since 2006.

If an admin could make this change, I'd appreciate it. (I believe this can be done since it is unrelated to the edit war that caused the block.) --ThaddeusB (talk) 04:35, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Resolved

- article is unprotected again, so I did it myself. --ThaddeusB (talk) 17:04, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Can you figure out a way to input this "item" on the main page while maintaining a "summary" and not giving it undue-weight? Theosis4u (talk) 17:26, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

It seems it was added already.

I reverted the grammar of the first sentence only to make unambiguous the various conditionals or her position. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 17:53, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I also switched two sentences' order so that the logical flow among the content was better. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 18:00, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I was referring to the Sarah_Palin#Political_positions page rather than Political_positions_of_Sarah_Palin#Abortion_and_sex_education - should of been more specific about "main" page. Theosis4u (talk) 18:03, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Ah, my bad. You can bring it up on the talk page there and get consensus for the change. Then if obtained, an admin will make the change. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 18:12, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Archive.

Someone familiar with what is active and what is not on this talk page, archive it. Please--Tznkai (talk) 04:11, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I setup auto-archiving for threads over 5 days old. I also added the {{Talk header}} template which will link to the archives once one is made. --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:24, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Endangered species section problems

Let's hunker down and write this section right. Right now it reads like a few descriptive sentences nominally about the topic and then a soapbox for various environmental causes, that fisheries organization esp. with apparently undue weight. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 16:57, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Those complaints are a bit too vague. On an article as prominent as this it won't do to simply slap a neutrality tag on a section and say you don't like it. Either you must clearly state what should be altered, or the tag must be removed. Lampman (talk) 19:38, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

After closer scrutiny I'm not sure what the problem is. Maybe the last paragraph is a bit gratuitous, but apart from that; if a political leader decides to base his or her decision on scientific arguments, then surely it must be of interest to hear what actual scientists say about those statements? I do think, however, that the fact that Sarah Palin consideres polar bears "magnificent animals" doesn't belong here. Is that to be considered a political position? I'll make changes based on this, and remove the tag, then we'll see what people think about that. Lampman (talk) 19:46, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

No keep the tag for now. There is a section above about the problems here. It is not so much what is written but how. But thanks for the efforts. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 19:48, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Whops, already did. I wasn't aware that it had been such an extensive subject of debate already. For one thing, that debate wasn't under its own heading, but simply a subheading under "Request for protection". Secondly, that debate didn't stay on topic, but veered off into a fight over who should be blocked and whose father could beat up whose (I think, didn't bother to read all of it). I ask again: what exactly is objectionable about this section? Lampman (talk) 19:56, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Who removed the tag? I want to see consensus on what's there before getting rids of the tag. Especially with lots of edits going in a short space of time. T0mpr1c3 (talk) 20:00, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

(EC; @Lamp) Here, not that much discussion, but agreement among all editors who were not being disruptive. But anyway, I consolidated a bit, and while the section still could use some work, I think removing the tag is OK.

(@TomPrice) Lampman did, but at this time it seems OK. My two cents. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 20:04, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

OK, it does look better now. I had a go at the belugas again to get it back on a factual footing. T0mpr1c3 (talk) 20:08, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) hmm, something happened, it's back to a mess. Gotta love the wiki. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 20:22, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, its Books again. I am going to wait until he has left before fixing it up. T0mpr1c3 (talk) 20:49, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Article has serious issues - for example lobbyists

Goodness, this article is horrid. This is supposed to be a political positions section, not a place to make edits you want in the main article, but can't make because it is locked. Asserting that things she has done are political positions is poor writing, at best. At very least things need rephrased to actually constitute positions. Historical actions can be used as examples, but shouldn't be used as position statements.

The "lobbyists" section is perfect example. It reads, in part, "According to Newsweek Palin has given jobs to friends and appointed lobbyists to oversee industries they used to represent." How is this a political position? Exactly what issue does it relate to? I am quite confident this section ever woudl have appeared if the main article wasn't locked. This whole section needs to go unless someone can explain how hiring lobbyists is a political position.

I'll take a stab at fixing this article up later when I have more time, but in the interim I'd like to hear what others think. Thank you. --ThaddeusB (talk) 18:14, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree. The article is reading more and more like a laundry list of activities she has done, followed by (sometimes inordinate) criticism of such. The result (no intent meant here, only result) is becoming a subtle hatchet job.

I have never liked the wording of Forking:Articles whose subject is a POV as pertaining to the notable opinions of a notable person. Of course they are their opinions, and of course people can disagree with opinions. I ends up reading like something quite different than an encyclopedia. But I acknowldge that is how it is currently expected of us to do. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 18:49, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes. The lobbyist section should begin with her assertions about how she is opposed to earmarks, cronyism, and lobbyist, which are actually her stated positions. I'll see what I can find in that regard.--Appraiser (talk) 19:36, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Bold Alert OK. In the meantime, I have removed the section. We can prudently parse back parts if necessary if we come up with good content about her positions here; it's all in the history. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 19:46, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

That is not the way to edit: If there is a need to expand, do so. But deleting content that is well sourced can be construed as vandalism. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:06, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Show good faith and restore that material, and discuss here ways to improve the content below:

Palin has given jobs to friends and appointed lobbyists to oversee industries they used to represent. For example, Palin appointed a fund-raiser of hers, Deborah Richter, as director of the Alaska Permanent Fund Dividend Division, and she hired Cora Crome as her fisheries-policy adviser. An industry lobbyist, Crome had worked for the United Fishermen of Alaska, and had been married to a wealthy commercial fisherman. As mayor of Wasilla, she hired the town's first Washington lobbyist to direct federal earmarks to the city. The lobbyist was paid $140,000 and brought $27 million worth of projects to the small town.

≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:08, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

How long before appointed advisor did Crome work for the UFA? Is the UFA a labor union? Just curious, I honestly don't know. And if you need advice on fisheries policy, where else are you going to get one except for the fishing industry? Are you supposed to hire a lawyer to be a fishing advisor? Kelly ^hi! 20:13, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

To tell yu the truth, Kelly, I do not know and I do not care. We are just reporting what reliable sources say about the subject. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:16, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

• I see nothing there that has to do with her policies. T0mpr1c3 (talk) 20:10, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Really? Are you saying that Palin's actions as a governor have no implications on her political positions? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:14, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I misread your proposal. I thought you were proposing that text to go in the article. My bad.T0mpr1c3 (talk) 20:15, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

No, you have not misread it. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:17, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

<- (EC) I don't doubt the sourcing, and did not remove it per that, but rather object that this is simply off topic, say like info about her family. It is not about her position vis-a vis lobbying. I would imagine something like this would fit better in the main article. I brought the material there, and will let that crowd chew on it. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 20:20, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I see nothing wrong with stating her policies against earmarks, cronyism etc, then pointing out she did the opposite, because words and deeds are both "positions." Also, this line of criticism can be reliably sourced without any OR on our part; many news organizations explicitly point these out as discrepancies between word and deed. I would oppose any connection between words and deeds that the news media has not already drawn. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 20:23, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

With all due respect, it was perfectly legit to delete this material as off-topic. The way it was written stated NOTHING about her political positions. --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:26, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure it was written wrong, I was saying what such material would have to look like to be included. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 20:29, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

One-off actions such as these take into account a lot of things, like who is available, who just did you a favor (or deserved spite), what the position is, etc. While no doubt eventually this will all be sourced to her actual stated positions on the matter, this is WP:SYNTHy to include just the actions here. For the record, I did bring that whole section of content to the main talk page for discussion. However, certainly if there is a sourced connection, please bring it up here. I agree with how it should look, but that is not how the content I removed looked. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 20:33, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree, this stuff was off-topic for this article. Kelly ^hi! 22:22, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

How can this be off-topic? Seems very much to be interesting and relevant. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:34, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Because the next didn't even try to assert a political position of Sarah Palin's. If someone finds a quote about her saying lobbyists don't belong in politics or something like that, then the info about her hiring lobbyists would be relevant. Otherwise, it is just something she did - not a political position. --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:56, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Religion

I think that a section on religion (which this days has a direct relation to politics) is added to this article. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:11, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

• Does she have any political positions on religion besides creationism in public schools? Phlegm Rooster (talk) 20:15, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Her religion actually is dicussed in her biography. Kelly ^hi! 20:40, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
    • No, not her religion, but her views on religion that have a political component. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:08, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
      • Ah - what sort of thing did you have in mind? Kelly ^hi! 21:10, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I am researching this and hopefully bring up some sources soon. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:35, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Bridge to Nowhere

I asked thrice before on this talk page if anyone had a problem with my added well-sourced information on the Bridge to Nowhere. No one said boo. I'm more than happy to discuss any problems anyone has with the material. But please don't revert without discussion. Thanks!GreekParadise (talk) 20:19, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Discussion, including objection, is above at #"Lobbyists" and "Bridge to Nowhere". GRBerry 20:23, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I know it's there. I began it there. And that's where we reached conensus that my version was fine. No one to this day has expressed any qualms about it (except Kyaa who wanted a small portion of it (Newsweek) shortened which I did). As there is a consensus that no one has problems with my version, PLEASE DO NOT REVERT WITHOUT PUTTING A REASON WHY ON THE TALK PAGE! Sorry to yell, but AJ did it again. I don't want an edit war. I want a reason. Since no one has given me one, I'll unfortunately have to revert back. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Revert_only_when_necessaryGreekParadise (talk) 20:33, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

GreekParadise, you are the one edit-warring here. The reasons are given in the section above - just because you don't like them, please don't revert war. We've finally got that settled down here, and you're stirring it up again. What happened to our admin? Kelly ^hi! 20:42, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to ominously swoop in like Batman, or at least remind that I am still watching, and that the proper response to reversions is almost never reverting back. Now, is a cool off protect needed?--Tznkai (talk) 20:46, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I apologize. I did not realize that the discussion had continued on this on the talk page above here. All I saw was no comment here and reversions. That's why I added this section on the talk page. As it happens, I have no problem if longer version is moved to main protected article. So we're agreed.  :-)GreekParadise (talk) 20:52, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

This page moves entirely too fast, so I'm a little behind. If there is still a problem or 3RR vios, feel free to notify me via my talk page.--Tznkai (talk) 21:24, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Teen mothers

I removed a section on "support for teen mothers", which simply identified that she had vetoed a particular line of funding for a particular facility. Nothing there on a "political position", it was apparently a budget decision. Kelly ^hi! 16:21, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

It has been readded in a different incarnation. I neutralized it somewhat, although the title and wording still could use tweaking. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 17:33, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I need to so some more research on this. Found a primary source that the funding for the facility actually increased via some other budget classification. Looking for a good reliable source that shows that info. Kelly ^hi! 17:52, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

See below. Probably best do keep out until a better 2ndary source found. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 18:53, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I'd go along with that. 79.74.252.173 (talk) 20:38, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

How about backing any of the slander you posted above with any reliable sources ? 65.214.187.221 (talk) 19:26, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Why is domestic drilling in foreign policy section?

Sounds like someone is trying to beef up her foreign policy cred by posting it in there. ANWR, while foreign-sounding, is actually in Alaska. Alaska is a U.S. State. Also, the visit with the U.S. soldier looks all too much like a photo-op and has no relevance to foreign policy positions.

I vote for removal of these two sections. 66.160.120.185 (talk) 00:25, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I've moved the ANWR stuff. I think the soldier shot is probably legitimate though. -- Scjessey (talk) 00:38, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

It's a legitimate photo of her with a soldier, no word on where it was taken and it certainly doesn't say anything about policy. Any politician would love to be in that photo. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 157.178.2.1 (talk) 18:17, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

It looks like the ANWR stuff is still in the foreign policy section though... 69.255.249.205 (talk) 07:59, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Expand Content Areas

A general comment. There seems to be lots of work on new content, which is great to see, but overall the page content does seem to be very concentrated in one or two areas of policy. Just comparing with 'Sarah Palin: on the issues' suggests a different balance, at least in terms of her policy statements. For example I know absolutely nothing about economics so I just don't feel qualified to attempt a summary of her fiscal or tax positions. But it looks a bit light in that area. My 2 cents. T0mpr1c3 (talk) 20:30, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Basically, Tom, not much is known about many aspects of her politics. We only have reports on her 20 months as a governor to go with. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:09, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree - just look at the big blank patches in policy summaries in the MSM like this one in the NYT. I might put something in on Health Care though, that seems like a significant gap. T0mpr1c3 (talk) 11:11, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Israel/Pat Buchanan

The article currently states in the "Israel" section:

Democratic Congressman Robert Wexler of Florida accused Palin of endorsing Pat Buchanan in the 2000 Presidential election. Wexler stated that Palin had “aligned herself with a leading anti-Israel voice” and that her selection for the vice-presidential running mate "is a direct affront to all Jewish Americans."[76]However, Palin denies that she ever endorsed Buchanan for President and stated that her alleged "support" of Buchanan consisted of her sporting a campaign button for him in 1999 when he visited the town of Wasilla when she was the mayor. Palin explained at the time she wore the button as a courtesy and that she was an official of the campaign of Republican presidential contender Steve Forbes.[77][78]

I removed something similar once before - why is this is the Israel policy section? Wexler thought she was a Buchanan supporter, she wasn't, end of story. Hardly a political position on Israel, or anything else. Kelly ^hi! 23:44, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I've reinserted a summary of Wexler's comments but I have also included a strong rebuttal by Palin.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 23:48, 8 September 2008 (UTC))

Yes, I understand that, but how is it a political position on Israel? It sounds more like a biographical detail more suitable for Sarah Palin. Kelly ^hi! 23:49, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Keep in mind that Wexler was essentially accusing Palin of associating with anti-Israel elements. That's why this should be placed in the Israel section.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 23:50, 8 September 2008 (UTC))

My concern is that if we don't include a mention of this and a rebuttal, it will keep being reinserted as more and more people edit this page who are not aware of both sides of the story. By having a mention of it and Palin's rebuttal, it reduces the likelyhood that this will keep coming up.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 23:53, 8 September 2008 (UTC))

Yes, I see your point, but something like that would be more appropriate for Sarah Palin. Kelly ^hi! 23:59, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that I think people are more likely to insert it here than on her main page. Should we mention it on both?(Hyperionsteel (talk) 00:04, 9 September 2008 (UTC))

Arguing that people will continue to errantly insert comments is hardly a good argument for their inclusion. --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:52, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I have left the content for now, but if no one can explain a false accusation of support for someone constitutes a political position I will kill it soon. --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:18, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

You could always just make one of those invisible comments. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 02:47, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

In this case, her opponents were attempting to give the impression that Palin is anti-Israel due to her alleged support for Pat Buchanan, who holds extremely anti-Israel views. Palin has explained that she never supported Buchanan and that she is pro-Israel. I would call that a political position. (Hyperionsteel (talk) 03:00, 9 September 2008 (UTC))

I agree, but we are quoting a reliable source quoting a notable person, and not asserting that as a fact. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:56, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Questions pertaining to her scientific literacy

Search as I may, I cannot find answers to the following: As best I understand his position: Senator McCain belives that: 1)global warming is for real, and, 2) Global warming is caused by alteration of the atmosphere due to human activity and causation What is Govenor Palin's stated position? All I can find is escape, evasion, and equivocation (i.e. lies & ambiguous obfuscation). Secondly, which does she believe in, creationism, or the Darwinian theory of evolution? See above ...escape, evasion...etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tonygumbrell (talk • contribs) 01:47, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Hello. Let me remind you that this talk page "is not a forum for general discussion." Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. If we knew the answer to your question it would already be in the article. --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:57, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Remember WP:BITE and remember when you were a newbie.... ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:55, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

It says what is known in the article. We use Google just like everybody else. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 02:39, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

New Section Request: Censorship

There is no mention of Sarah Palin's stance on the Freedom of Speech and Censorship in this article despite the fact that she attempted to fire the Wasilla town librarian after the librarian made clear that she would refuse to remove books from the town library.Palin asked Wasilla librarian about censoring books. This story has been extensively reported on and I was surprised not to find it here already. I request the creation of a new section under legal issues entitled Censorship or Freedom of Speech (preferably at the top of the list since the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. I also request that this article's protection level be downgraded to semi-protected immediately before wikipedia becomes synonymous with the term prior restraint. Thanks.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 17:42, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

That is pretty heavily discussed at Talk:Sarah Palin. I'm afraid it's not as clear-cut as you make it out to be, the evidence shows she was asking on behalf of constituents and that no books were removed or "banned". Kelly ^hi! 17:49, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Cdogsimmons, the protection on the article is a one day long protection due to alleged edit warring and is not related to some indefinite protection from all editing. The protection "expires 20:57, 6 September 2008" according to the edit summary. RobHar (talk) 18:23, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I am not sure that a long ago non-action constitutes a "position." Hopefully the info in question will be added to the main article shortly and thus won't be needed here. --ThaddeusB (talk) 18:45, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

ThaddeusB, attempting to have someone fired for their defense of freedom of speech is not a "non-action". It shows intent and purpose. It delineates Sarah Palin's attitude on an issue, where little else is known. The issue appear to me to be relevant in both the main page and here. I therefore, again respectfully request an IMMEDIATE inclusion of this issue in this article. --Cdogsimmons (talk) 18:50, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Are we talking past each other? Did you check the discussion/sources at Talk:Sarah Palin or are you just looking at some blog meme? Kelly ^hi! 19:40, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

SHOUTING demands is not likely to help your cause around here. Oren0 (talk) 20:06, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, it didn't look like presenting evidence and "respectfully requesting" seem to be working. Kelly, I quoted my own source from the Boston Herald above. Oren0, as the first administrator to respond, I'll ask you, again, respectfully, please add the information concerning Sarah Palin's attempt to fire a librarian after she refused to censor library books. It is noteworthy and well sourced. --Cdogsimmons (talk) 20:36, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Please take a look at Sarah Palin#Wasilla, the incident is discussed there. I'm afraid it just doesn't stack up to a "political position". Also, the issue is being discussed at Talk:Sarah Palin#Proposed change to Wasilla section. Kelly ^hi! 20:38, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Kelly, actions speak louder than words. Just as one might include John McCain's vote in favor of invading Iraq on his page, Palin's discussions with a librarian about banning books, the librarian's subsequent refusal to ban those books, and Palin's subsequent attempt to fire the librarian for "not fully supporting her" are extremely telling. More information is obviously needed to fill in Palin's record concerning the First Amendment, but I've found this reported incident to be relevant. --Cdogsimmons (talk) 20:53, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, Cdog, but your opinion is synthesis and original research. Even the source you cite does not claim that the book thing was the reason the librarian was threatened with termination. Kelly ^hi! 21:12, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

The cause of the attempted firing is unproven and at this point irrelevant. What is relevant is asking a librarian whether she would be willing to censor books. I have added the information.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 21:21, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

And I have removed it per WP:NOR and WP:SYNTH. Please don't, Cdog. Kelly ^hi! 21:22, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

For everyone's reference this was the edit. It doesn't mention the firing, only the three times Sarah Palin asked a librarian "rhetorically" whether she would censor books. I am not one to edit war, so I will reach a consensus about this first.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 21:47, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I suggest you re-read my edit and WP:NOR and WP:SYNTH. I do not see the violation. My edit says 'In 1996, as mayor of Wasilla, Palin asked the city librarian, Mary Ellen Emmons, three times if she would be all right with censoring library books should she be asked to do so. Palin later called her inquiries rhetorical and simply part of a policy discussion with a department head "about understanding and following administration agendas." I believe I covered both the claim and the response and the incident clearly deals with the title heading Censorship.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 21:57, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

And how is that a "political position" on censorship? Kelly ^hi! 22:00, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Censorship is a political issue concerning the limits of freedom of speech (for example, certain areas of speech that have historically not been considered to come under the aegis of The First Amendment like obscenity, defamation or incitement). Governor Palin's actions in repeatedly questioning a librarian about banning some books indicate a willingness by the Governor to ban some library books. You might call that original research in determining relevance. I would call it common sense.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 22:35, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

There is no solid reason to believe that the firing was related to the books issue. For starters, Ms. Emmons and 3 others were asked to resign before the incident even occurs. Emmons was strong supporter of the previous mayor and Palin had run on a platform of change. If you want to assert wrongdoing, I find it highly more likely that Palin was acting in revenge for supporting the former mayor than in revenge for not banning some books. In any case Palin backed down when Emmons assured Palin of her support. Here is a link to the period article - note that it doesn't even mention the books thing: [1] --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:26, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I will also state that asking a question either as "how would one go about removing some books if the need arose?" or as "how would you feel about removing some books that some have objected to as having bad language?" (both paraphrases) does not constitute a political position, esp since SP herself called the question rhetorical way back when this happend. --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:31, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. If a new President asks the Secretary of Defense "How would I go about launching nukes at Russia?", that does not mean he/she is in favor of nuclear war. (Hyperbolic analogy, I know.) Kelly ^hi! 21:59, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Um, to make an even more gratuitous comparison, if a convicted pedophile goes up to a small child on three different occasions and says "How would you like to have sex with me?" it's only rhetorical? It appears to me that Sarah Palin had serious control over this woman's career and that she was brave enough not to flinch at Palin's repeated suggestions that censorship is ok. --Cdogsimmons (talk) 23:29, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

No. But asking on three seperate occasions indicates a willingness to launch under certain circumstances. Likewise, in this situation, Governor Palin may actually hate the thought of banning books, but the fact that she brought it up with one librarian on three seperate occasions indicates that she is willing to ban some library books.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 22:35, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Cdog, that's simply your opinion. Maybe you're right, maybe you're wrong. But your gut feeling about this doesn't belong in a high-profile article about a national political figure. Kelly ^hi! 22:43, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

The Wall Street Journal, hardly a bastion of white wine sipping liberals writes that Palin "floated the idea of pulling books she considered offensive from a local library."[2] I don't think it's mere speculation to go from that statement to thinking that Governor Palin has a willingness to have certain books in the library pulled because she considers them offensive.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 23:22, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

This has gained some traction in reliable sources. That said, I agree with Kelly: this is not a "political position", but a single incident from over 12 years ago which involves some degree of he-said-she-said. I lean toward thinking this may be notable somewhere on Wikipeda, given the widespread coverage it's gotten, but I don't see how it's a "political position" of Palin's or how it would fit in anywhere in this article. MastCell ^Talk 23:40, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

It involves her duty as an elected representative to uphold the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and her interpretation of that duty. Judging from her actions, I would say, her political position 12 years ago appeared to have been that certain books made available to the pubic by a public library were subject to being censored based on her own personal standard of offensiveness. If she came out tomorrow and said "I think that certain books in the library should be censored" or "I think there shouldn't be any censorship of library books at all" you wouldn't have a problem putting that on this page. Her actions should speak louder than words.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 00:02, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, if she came out tomorrow and said so, then it would be a political position of hers. Right now it's just a somewhat murky action from many years ago. If she's ever made available to actually answer questions from the media, then maybe it will be elucidated. 'Til then, I don't see a place for it here. That's my 2 cents. MastCell ^Talk 00:08, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Is your issue that this happened 12 years ago or that Palin didn't come out and say, "I support banning certain books in the library." Do you not see what I see from her actions? Because when Palin approaches a librarian on three separate occasions and asks her how she feels about banning books that Palin thinks are offensive, I see a willingness on Palin's part to ban books that she (or her constituents) think are offensive. The timing shouldn't matter. So maybe you think this is WP:NOR or WP:SYNTH (the reasons Kelly gave when he removed the info) but no one's spelled out why it fais those tests (I didn't make this information up and I got it all from one reputable source, the Boston Herald). So maybe you think the problem is relevance to her political positions. I would say that this incident has been covered extensively in the press and blogosphere because of the way it presents Palin's views. Just check out this group. This issue matters to people. It matters to me. If no valid reasons are given why this actually does fail WP:NOR, WP:SYNTH or relevance, I will restore the information. --Cdogsimmons (talk) 00:41, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

In case those other sources don't work for you, the New York Times wrote here that Anne Kilkenny said that Palin brought up the idea of banning some books at a city council meeting. “They were somehow morally or socially objectionable to her,” Ms. Kilkenny said.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 00:48, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

My issue is that this is not a "political position" that Palin is currently taking; it's extrapolating what her political position might be based on a hazy incident from many years ago. I know you're not "making it up"; I've read the sources, and formed my own opinion of them, as have you - but I don't see this story as relevant to this particular Wikipedia article. I'll let other people comment from here on. MastCell ^Talk 00:54, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the info belongs on Wikipedia and suggested adding it to the main article. However, it is not appropriate for this page - to claim a political position from a single ambiguous event is unfounded speculation. (It will receive far more views in the main article anyway.) --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:28, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it's speculation. See the above NYT article.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 13:49, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Another possibility is to insert the information, not in the legal issues section, but in the social views section. Although I still think that the First Amendment is implicated, the social issue of Censorship may be more predominate.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 14:22, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

First, the mayor she beat in the election is quoted as saying, "it was because some voters thought they had inappropriate language in them." A newly elected mayor following up on issues her constituents asked her about - the horrors! And to think, she asked the town librarian, of all people, about the issue. Second, there is censorship in public libraries. When was the last time you cheked out a Penthouse from the front counter stand? See here for more information about the policies the librarian was dealing with. The confusing part is why didn't the librarian simple tell the mayor that there was a policy in place that dealt with residents objections about materials? Theosis4u (talk) 01:18, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Update to this situation can also be found at Sarah_Palin#6th_draft . —Preceding unsigned comment added by Theosis4u (talk • contribs) 02:48, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Follow up

Although Wikipedia may not have provide information regarding Palin's stance on censorship, the rest of the internet will. The following can be found at http://www.politico.com/static/PPM106_palin_doc.html under the heading Censorship:

Palin Supported Bill Letting Parents Know what Library Material Their Children Have. Palin wrote, “As a mother of four and a former mayor, I support SB 269’s allowance for public and school libraries’ consistent policies and giving municipalities liberty to address the issue. Perplexing SB 269 opposition, attributed to a public librarian, was based on fear that parents may wield an “iron glove” if given freedom to know their kids’ business.” [Anchorage Daily News (Alaska), 3/5/04]

Palin Asked City Librarian About Censoring Books, Insisted It Was “Rhetorical.” In 1996, according to the Frontiersman, Wasilla’s library director Mary Ellen “Emmons said Palin asked her outright if she could live with censorship of library books.” Emmons said, “This is different than a normal book-selection procedure or a book-challenge policy…She was asking me how I would deal with her saying a book can’t be in the library.” Palin said in response, “Many issues were discussed, both rhetorical and realistic in nature.” [Frontiersman, 12/18/96]

Why is the above allowed allowed to stay? It seems like an advert to goto an outside site for a POV article for the EXPRESSED purpose to share information that wasn't included for whatever reason on wikipedia article? Theosis4u (talk) 04:19, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I would say it is part of the above arguement. It is POV, but it also contains factual information that this page lacks. The discussion page is an appropriate place to try to separate the POV from the facts. Of course, if you have a POV about the facts, that's your problem. The reason the information was not included is also relevant. It was not that it was not factual, it was that it was not proven to be a "political stance", merely that it could be interpreted as an indication of a political stance. I still think if Palin does take a position on book banning, this evidence could be used to rebut or backup her position. Removal of the above information would stifle debate on the topic.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 18:54, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

"God" quotes in Iraq and Oil & Gas sections

I'm not seeing how a brief out-of-context quote from a prayer is considered part of an Iraq policy. Kelly ^hi! 21:03, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

And now we have a mention of a prayer in Oil & Gas policy. I will WP:BOLDLY remove these as irrelevant/undue weight. Kelly ^hi! 21:07, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Rather than doing that, consider discussing these issues here, given the incidents of yesterday. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:11, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

What is wrong with this?

In June 2008, speaking at Wasilla Assembly of God, Palin stated that she'd work to implement God's will from the governor's office, including creating jobs by building a pipeline to bring North Slope natural gas to North American markets.

Are you suggesting that this is not factually accurate? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:14, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Well for starters, it is someone's interpretation of what she said. --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:19, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Is it? I think that it is pretty accurate from what I could see in a YouTube video of that speech. Just do a search on YouTube for "Wasilla assembly of god" ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:24, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

(ec) As this is a factually accurate statement, published on a reliable source, I will restore this in a few hours, unless someone can present a substantive argument for not including it. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:48, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

So let's quote much more of the context, it OBVIOUSLY is relevant to her views on Iraq. It is part of her view on Iraq, she said so. Booksnmore4you (talk) 21:45, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I can accept the above statement as it is a reasonable interpretation of what she said. It is also vaguely a political position. The other quote on Iraq was way off though and should stay out. --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:51, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

This was pretty heavily discussed at Talk:Sarah Palin. I really don't see one out-of-context quote as an Iraq political position. Politicians invoke God all the time - I remember Bill Clinton doing it frequently, especially when announcing military operations. This did not mean he thought that he was directed by God to attack Serbia or Iraq. Kelly ^hi! 22:14, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

If there is no problem on a politician invoking God, then what is the problem? It is substantial enough to have been published on reliable sources, and more than one to boot.≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:29, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

But it's not a political position. Kelly ^hi! 23:26, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

The Iraq "quote" is a gross misrepresentation of what she actually said I have deleted it on those grounds. I'll let the one oon economic activity stay. --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:19, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Your reason for deleting it makes no sense because if you think it is a misrepresentation you could of rewrote it to match the source better. QuackGuru 01:23, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Why is this still here? Are we going to track every politicians framing of issues when they talk in church as the sole reason of the issue? Theosis4u (talk) 01:32, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I have restored the Iraq quote, which is completely accurate, and provided two cast-iron reliable sources for it (The Guardian and The New York Times). I am unclear how it can be a "misrepresentation" of what she said when it is a direct quote. -- Scjessey (talk) 01:39, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I see the point here. The content is sourced and describes her claimed position on a topic. The issue, and a real one at that, is that the inclusion of the "God's will" part looks really coatracky, risking the statement reading more like a propagandish sound bite painting her as a theocrat rather than one describing her political position on pipeline construction. In that sense, the quote does misrepresent. The obvious solution is to drop the "God's will" thing but keep the rest, or to find a better source (i.e., one that's main focus is on the position, as opposed to the position being an afterthought to an inspirational speech). It is really quite simple... Baccyak4H (Yak!) 03:43, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. This statement has been widely reported and needs to be included. Those with evangelical beliefs will appreciated to know this, and those that are secular need to know about this as well. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:52, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Um, I am for inclusion, only also for good concise declarative writing with well chosen words, ones which make a point clearly with minimal room for extra connotation or slant, when taken as a part of a whole article. Keeping the will part falls short of the last point. Considerably. This whole quote actually would make a reasonable addition to your suggested "religious influence" (say) section. But here it's coatracky. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 04:02, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

So, give it a go and place it in a more appropriate section. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:05, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, there is no obvious place to put it. I'll pass for now, but what might work is an "Influences" section, perhaps right after the ToC. There we could write about what informs her positions, including faith/moral compass/whatever, as well as developing her relationship with her political mentor Hichtel(sp?), whose mention has been contested elsewhere on this talkpage. I admit maintaining that section might be hard, but organizationally it makes sense. I'll check back later. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 04:34, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Against - The god and prayer quotes should not be in "Politics" until she makes these statements in the context of her authority and position of a political office. Put them under "religion", "personal quotes", or whatever...but there's a pov/bias being pushed by having them in the "politics" page. If we allow all the quotes that politicians might make in front of religious organizations (call it pandering if you want) to represent their "political" views the edit wars would be never ending. Theosis4u (talk) 05:59, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Against. As Baccyah4H says, this is not to do with her position on the gas pipeline, it's a coatrack for her religious beliefs. T0mpr1c3 (talk) 10:47, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I have restored the necessary, reliably-sourced Iraq quote. This is a good example of how Palin's faith plays a role in her political positions, and there is no reason to remove it. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:37, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

You haven't been reading the discussion closely enough. There have been good reasons given. They probably are not definitive, but they certainly are plausible. Buit as I mentioned earlier, there may be another way to deal with this... Baccyak4H (Yak!) 14:16, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I read your suggestion about an "influences" section and dismissed it as a bad idea. It will become a magnet for any weird stuff, and could end up being akin to a "criticism section" that is frowned upon in WP:BLP. It is always better to weave things like this into the flow of the text. Clearly, Palin's faith influences many of her political positions (and decisions) because this has been written about extensively in multiple reliable sources, so it is reasonable to note this as it comes up, rather than stick it all in one place and potentially misrepresent her. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:35, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Against Again - Scjessey wrote, "Clearly, Palin's faith influences many of her political positions (and decisions)" is a POV on your part. It's a POV because you can't demonstrate that "faith" is a cause of correlated to her political positions. Your giving her faith undue weight for other reasons behinds political opinions she might have or secular justifications besides just her faith. And if this stays in as the "policy", you can bet I'll be adding in kind to other bio's political opinions that are colluded with their "faith" or absence of "faith".Theosis4u (talk) 16:11, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

(EC; @Scjessey)Yeah, in a perfect world coatracking would not be an issue and we wouldn't have to deal with things like this. However, the world is not perfect, subtle POV-tinged edits occur, and we hve a choice of lesser evils as to the response. Pick our poison.

Your summary statement "Clearly, Palin's faith influences many of her political positions" recognizes that my suggestion makes logical sense from at least an organizational perspective. I admit (again) it could become a POV magnet, but the possibility that this type of POV issue would be in principle confined to one section, rather than the whole article (as it is now!), is attractive. Note however that this resectioning is purely a topical distinction, not a POV one, so while the issues with maintenance might be akin to a "Criticism" section, the relevant objection no longer applies. It becomes a mere editorial issue, so both organizational formats are "reasonable", i.e., within policy. The question I have is which is best for this article. Let's continue in the section below. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 16:11, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

These "god" references are still here? Theosis4u (talk) 06:28, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

They really have no place in the Iraq section.T0mpr1c3 (talk) 13:10, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Is it "POV Pushy" to include population statistics?

ThaddeusB argues that including the population of Gravina Island (50 people) in the article on the "Bridge to Nowhere" is POV. I disagree. A population is not opinion. It is fact. And the reason it was called the "Bridge to Nowhere" is because it was a bridge to sparsely populated Gravina Island (population 50). Do people agree that I can include population figures without it being considered POV? Please vote. And if you think population is POV, I hope you won't mind me removing population figures from all the city and state websites on wikipedia. Wouldn't want POV there! :-)

Population is a fact. Not POV. It explains the controversy.

Support.GreekParadise (talk) 21:10, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Population is POV. It is unfair POV to disclose the population of Gravina Island

How can a fact be POV? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:15, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

aren't most POV statements technically facts? I.E. "Some people say Alaska sucks" --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:18, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

It is a fact that Alaska "sucks," Thaddeus?--Cdogsimmons (talk) 19:31, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

It is POV pushy because it is basically saying the bridge was a complete waste while ignoring the several other reasons sighted for the bridge. (Airport, etc.) --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:16, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Then present that information as well, and let the reader decide if it was a waste or not. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:23, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Based on this discussion, I'd like to return the deleted population figures. The entire article as I originally had it will be moved to the main page per the consensus above once the protection lifts. I think we should leave it alone here until it moves and then we'll replace it with a shorter article. Jossi, could you revert please? I don't want to be accused of 3RR.GreekParadise (talk) 21:31, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I think ThaddeusB could do that himself, as a show of good faith. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:42, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

The thing is I don't think any of the arguments for or against the bridge are relevant here. The section is already way to long. Really it should state her position(s), her reasoning, and a line or two of criticism about the her self-contradictions. Nothing more. --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:48, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate that you don't think that it is relevant but other editors think differently. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:20, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I really don't think it's relevant as a political position either, though possibly relevant at Sarah Palin#Bridge to Nowhere or in Gravina Island Bridge. Kelly ^hi! 22:57, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) For the record, Thaddeus just rewrote the relevant part in a way that maintained the pop reference but incorporated it in a way that was much improved, not dropped in in an awkward way risking a adversarial reaction of "50? eh, WTF?" To all those claiming whitewashes or something similar, this is what we should be striving for. Not these subtle connotational jabs (or lauds for that matter). Thank you Thad. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 04:21, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Well done. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:26, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I'll be updating tonight the other relevant information on this issue. That she didn't support the ear-marked $ number this source only includes - it grew over time. Breaking down the "costs" of each bridge rather than just the lump sum $ that is mention. That she never gave explicit support to the ear-mark bridge as is, she qualified her statements as wanting a "link" between the island - and that she would need to evaluate the project and costs when appropriate. Theosis4u (talk) 16:32, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Would like to see this [requested change on main page as well]:

"In Palin's 2006 gubernatorial campaign, she supported the building of a bridge from Ketchikan to Gravina Island which was later nicknamed the "Bridge to Nowhere" due to the island's population of 50.[36] Palin ran on a "build-the-bridge" platform, arguing that it was essential for local prosperity,[37] saying in August 2006: “We need to come to the defense of Southeast Alaska when proposals are on the table like the bridge, and not allow the spinmeisters to turn this project or any other into something that’s so negative.”[38]"

become:

In Palin's 2006 gubernatorial campaign she supported building the bridge from Ketchikan to Gravina Island. Which was later nicknamed the "Bridge to Nowhere" due to the island's population of 50.[36] She was non-specific about the details of her support, "She told local officials that money appropriated for the bridge "should remain available for a link, an access process as we continue to evaluate the scope and just how best to just get this done." Fact Check: Palin and the Bridge to Nowhere She did argue that it was essential for local prosperity,[37] saying in August 2006: “We need to come to the defense of Southeast Alaska when proposals are on the table like the bridge, and not allow the spinmeisters to turn this project or any other into something that’s so negative.”[38]"

Any objections to that? Theosis4u (talk) 06:52, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Your proposed new version doesn't add anything especially notable. The original is preferable. Arjuna (talk) 08:02, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

In the quote, it shows that Palin didn't support the bridge as an "as-is" blanket statement of approval. She supported a "link" for the residents of the islands. And that she would "evaluate" the details when it was appropriate. Think that is notable considering the current description implies is did, when we know she didn't. Theosis4u (talk) 17:02, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Population numbers are only relevant and in context with the reasoning behind the bridge - or link as Palin puts it. For the bridge in Ketchikan you'll see we have a town of 8k that is landlocked. It's only accessible from sea and air. The airport is across the water from the city, on the Gravina Island. You'll notice this in the map. The [3]] map is useful for conjecture. You'll also see way the island was also desired for more development. Remember, or investigate yourself the details, that the city is landlocked for a reason. Here's a hint. Found this as well while researching, Gravina Access Project Website. Theosis4u (talk) 01:34, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Why was this deleted without *any* discussion?

Palin has been described as more conservative than Republican presidential nominee John McCain. Newsweek has stated that, "To the extent Palin has a governing philosophy, it was shaped by her political mentor, former governor Wally Hickel. The 89-year-old Hickel is a member of the Alaska Independence Party."

≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:18, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

THIS IS OUT-FREAKIN-RAGEOUS!!! An Army of Palin supporters have shown up here and are removing nearly every trace of material that is even slightly critical of her! What a freakin' joke Wikipedia is, with no mechanism to prevent that sort of shite.

No what is outrageous is that POV pushers (mostly anti-Palin) have used this page to dump whatever info they want into the main article. This is a place for political POSITIONS not historical facts that you can't add to the main article because it is locked. --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:45, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Hey, welcome to the last 8 years of WP articles about liberals. 67.135.49.198 (talk) 05:36, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Jossi, to answer your question, it is obvious. It was removed because it mentions the Alaskan Independent Party, and the POV-pushers consider that something for bowdlerization. Booksnmore4you (talk) 21:41, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Cool it, Booksnmore4you. A POV pusher to one is the defender of the wiki to others... I have partially restored that text, omitting the Nesweeek that may need some tweaking≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:44, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

• I'd have to oppose the inclusion of the text. The allegations of ties to the AIP have been thoroughly debunked, even the New York Times had to issue a correction. [4] Kelly ^hi! 22:12, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

That part has been kept deleted. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:19, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

The retraction concerned Palin being in the AIP, not Hickel. As the Palin question may arise again, tho, I copy the retraction here for those without access, or undesirous of registering for it:

Correction: September 5, 2008 - An article on Tuesday about concerns over Senator John McCain’s background check of Gov. Sarah Palin of Alaska, his choice of running mate, misstated the history of her political party affiliation. As The Times has since reported, she has been a registered Republican since 1982; she was not for a couple of years in the 1990s a member of the Alaskan Independence Party, which advocates a vote on whether her state should secede.

KillerChihuahua^?!? 22:22, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I would have to say mentions of Hickel and the AIP would be off-topic for political positions, though possibly relevant at Sarah Palin. Kelly ^hi! 22:29, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that can be added later to that article. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:32, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Um, if Newsweek says that Palin's governing philosophy ("to the extent that she has one") was shaped by Hickel, then that would be relevant to an article on her governing philosophy, no? I guess what I'm saying is that I think this is a reasonable inclusion. Here. MastCell ^Talk 22:53, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I understand where you're coming from, but what aspect of governing philosophy? Kelly ^hi! 22:55, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, the article cites the energy refund as an example. More generally, it describes Hickel as her "mentor" and indicates that he shaped her "governing philosophy". That's a general term, obviously; as the article alludes to the thinness of her record, there may not be many additional specifics. In any case, is your opinion that this reference to a political mentor shaping her governing philosophy is irrelevant here? MastCell ^Talk 23:11, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Pretty much, since it's so vague. I'm not sure what section this would go into. Kelly ^hi! 23:26, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

As a general lead-in statement about her political philosophy, I would suggest either the lead or in an introductory overview to her positions on specific issues. MastCell ^Talk 23:47, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm - I definitely don't think it would be appropriate per WP:LEAD, as it doesn't summarize any material in the text. Kelly ^hi! 23:49, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

WP:LEAD says that the lead should be both an introduction and an overview. That seems to me to be an introductory phrase. That said, I'm not stuck on it being in the lead, but I do think that a reliable source explicitly identifying Palin's policy mentor is extremely relevant to an article entitled "Political positions of Sarah Palin". MastCell ^Talk 03:04, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't see much problem here, except the explicit mentioning of Hickel's AIP membership in the lede, but no exposition of their relationship. This sounds like a guilt-by association type of attempt (his name is linked, after all) to put this in the lead. Elsewhere down in the article, where (if?) their mentor/mentee relationship is expounded upon, it would be more appropriate. Otherwise, I see nothing objectionable. Is any of this controversial, that is, contested? Or worded sleazily? I have a pretty good sleazemeter, and it's not registering. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 03:52, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree; I don't think it's necessary to mention the AIP in the lead, certainly. That would be undue weight. If this material is included further down, then the AIP detail is probably relevant enough to include, as the source (Newsweek) definitely thought so. MastCell ^Talk 04:00, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Since the overwhelming preponderance of authors here appear to be Palin supporters, I've sent out a few email requests for people to come here and collaborate, if they are so inclined to deal with Wikipedia, to hopefully produce a more neutral outcome. Booksnmore4you (talk) 00:40, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Booksnmore4you's offsite activity related to this article

The editor using the account Booksnmore4you, active on this article today violating WP:CIVIL is very likely the same person as the owner of Stephen Ewen, a Citizendium advocate (and Wikipedia antagonist) who also today solicited Obama supporters on the social network sponsored by the campaign (My BarackObama) to "tussle" with this page -- which I interpret to mean "vandalize". After intercepting this semi-public message and conducting a few Google searches, I posted the evidence at my personal blog.[5]

Booksnmore4you has already been noted by others on this talk page as an editor who has repeatedly added tendentious information to this article (and earlier this month, to Sarah Palin) so I figured I should mention it here. I don't think the activity necessarily rises to the level of bannable sock puppet (I personally maintain a disclosed sock puppet account), but the editor's intentions do appear less than constructive, so I recommend that his edits be watched carefully for POV. I also invite the editor to defend/explain his actions here, if he so chooses. WWB (talk) 03:01, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

The above is an outrageous and slanderous statement. Since the overwhelming preponderance of authors here appeared to be Palin supporters, I've sent out a few email requests for people to come here and collaborate, if they are so inclined to deal with Wikipedia, to hopefully produce a more neutral outcome. This is routinely done at Wikipedia, and in fact, there would be few quality science article here without users doing such. Wikipedia's fundamental philosophy is that balancing viewpoints produce better and more neutral articles. That's the point. I am requesting you kindly take down your blog post in this light. Booksnmore4you (talk) 00:48, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I see you've left this post in my comment section as well, and while I certainly will not be deleting the post, I have copied your comment in to the main text for others to see. And I have responded as well -- to wit, your edit summaries are highly uncivil and your invitation for others unfamiliar with Wikipedia to come and "tussle" on this page is not a suggestion that is compatible with making Wikipedia better. It clearly suggests interference, which would be unhelpful to this or any other article. And that's all I've got to say about it. WWB (talk) 01:13, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Like I said, this is outrageous and slanderous. Wikipedia requires often quite long hours of emotional tussle at talk debates and working out wording and compromises about wording. I suggest you ask people what they mean by ambiguous wording before leaping to your own conclusion about it and plastering it all over the internet, as it is otherwise slanderous. Booksnmore4you (talk) 01:37, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

It sounds like you're confirming that the off site activity was in fact you. and we strongly discourage recruiting outsiders just to win a dispute. We of course appreciate newcomers for pretty much any other reason.--Tznkai (talk) 01:42, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Agreed Tznkai, I certainly do not mean to discourage new editors from joining Wikipedia, only that this is no way to go about it. Thanks. WWB (talk) 01:46, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

First, please do not throw around legal terms like slander. Using terms with overloaded legal meanings is a bad idea. Secondly, going to an external message board to get help pushing your POV here is called meatpuppetry, and it is seriously frowned upon: "It is considered highly inappropriate to advertise Wikipedia articles to your friends, family members, or communities of people who agree with you, so that they come to Wikipedia and support your side of a debate"(emphasis in original). There's no reason to get personal here, just stick to the facts and events presented. Oren0 (talk) 17:35, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Agree with Tznkai. This appears to be clear instance of WP:MEAT.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 18:57, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Jury Rights reverted

The editor who removed this, thinking it is a non-issue, was mistaken. It is a very large issue among many, including many of the same people who are concerned about gun rights. It is a litmus test for libertarians and constitutionalists, which includes many social conservatives.

This is not the place for an extended discussion of the issue of jury nullification since there is a Wikipedia article on the subject. But it is a hot issue in the legal arena, and by signing the proclamation, Palin came down on the side of the fully informed jury activists, and against the judicial establishment. If you don't think it is an issue, because the mainstream media are ignorant of it, take a tour of the Internet. Bracton (talk) 05:03, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

It is a major issue in the platforms of the:

* Libertarian Party

* Constitution Party

Bracton (talk) 05:09, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't pretend to understand what that is about, it sounds like some vague constitutional thing, but in principle it seems at least somewhat on topic. I concur with reverting it back in. I'll point out your description makes it sound like a very polarizing issue to those concerned about it, so good neutral language is very important; as currently worded I detect no problems (with the caveat I don't know much about the topic). Baccyak4H (Yak!) 14:59, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I note that at the moment this is sourced only to a primary source, and actually only says that she signed the proclamation. I'd be more comfortable if a reliable secondary source had mentioned it, otherwise I have a feeling that there is an undue weight here. Legislatures pass and governors sign lots of proclamations and resolutions that have no legal effect - including congratulating the winners of sports contests, county fairs, et cetera or selecting a state doohickey. Absent some evidence that this had an actual effect or was noticed by somebody, I think it would be better off removed. GRBerry 16:12, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I removed this at one point, and GRBerry has summed up why. It's not really a position. Tombomp (talk/contribs) 16:20, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I'll defer anything then to others. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 16:27, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Here are some sources that indicate the significance. These first two are articles in the Volokh Conspiracy, hosted by UCLA Law Professor Eugene Volokh, mainly consisting of law professors with a libertarian bent:

• Eugene Volokh: Gov. Palin's Proclamation on Jury Rights Day
• Eugene Volokh: Jury Power To Decide "Law and Fact" in All Criminal Cases

One can find more by just doing a web search on [Palin "Jury Rights Day"]. Here are a few:

• FIJA
• Firearms Coalition
• Jury Experiences
• Brits at their Best
• Frank Turney for State House 2008

Bracton (talk) 03:50, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Obvious foreign policy stuff that's missing

Alaska's nearest neighbors, Canada and Russia don't seem to have any mention in this article. Japan (a traditionally huge foreign influence) is also missing. I would expect that all three countries are likely to have come up during Palin's governorship. There's a good opportunity here (off to Google!). TMLutas (talk) 14:31, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I'll save you some time. See the Boston Globe:

According to business leaders and academics familiar with foreign-policy issues and Palin's administration, she has demonstrated little interest in expanding the state's trade ties with Canada or Russia compared with some of her predecessors. "So far as I know, Sarah has not been involved in international affairs whatsoever," said Victor Fischer, professor emeritus at the Institute for Social and Economic Research at the University of Alaska Anchorage.

In other words, there's hardly any mention for a reason. MastCell ^Talk 19:51, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

That's the opinion of one individual who may not be unbiased. On the other hand we have a gas pipeline across Canada that could hardly be built without talking to Canada, and it seems unlikely that such talking could have reached a conclusion without the involvement of the governor of Alaska. One can doubt the involvement of the governor in talks with Russia over fishing boats, or with Japan about the oil they get from Alaska, but there are too many issues with a pipeline that could hardly be resolved without the Alaskan governor. Should keep digging for something on this.Bracton (talk) 15:37, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Feel free to keep digging - I'd certainly encourage that. But for now, let's go with what reliable sources say, rather than what seems likely or unlikely to us as individual, anonymous editors of Wikipedia. MastCell ^Talk 16:28, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Snarky comment

This was deleted from the capital punishment section with the Edit Summary that it is "snarky":

In a televised debate in 2006, Palin responded to a question about the death penalty by saying that for crimes such as the murder of a child, "My goodness, hang 'em up, yeah."

Yes—it was snarky–but she said it in a televised debate! To delete cited, factual, and pertinent material in a heated political atmosphere is whitewashing. Please explain to me why readers shouldn't know what kind of person she is.--Appraiser (talk) 16:03, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Remove "pertinent" from your list, and add "subtle POV" to it, and rather it is called "cleanup". This sentence contributes nothing useful to the article that cannot be gleaned from the remaining content. Your desired explanation: this is an article on her political positions, not on what kind of person she is. As an encyclopedia, we do not desire an article on the latter. Don't get me wrong: there are plenty of internet venues where that type of material is welcome or even encouraged, although you probably know that already. My point is that Wikipedia is not one of them. (BTW, snarky referred to its inclusion here, not to Palin's comment itself. Sorry for the confusion.) Baccyak4H (Yak!) 16:25, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

As a general comment, let's accept that there are legitimate reasons for disagreeing about content. Attributing every edit one dislikes to "whitewashing" right off the bat ensures that things get off on the wrong foot. Baccyak4H isn't here to "whitewash" anything, just as I would assume that Appraiser isn't here with the primary goal of making anyone look bad. MastCell ^Talk 19:45, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure if this comment actually betrays a POV besides that of Palin. It's in her own words and appears to have a factual intro.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 19:00, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Removal of reference

Twice now this reference has been deleted from the Iraq section. Granted another reference exists there and may be adequate, but since when is a secondary reference objectionable? I hadn't read this whole article until now, looking for what editors might find objectionable. I can't say I learned much I hadn't read elsewhere (except for the issue related to state Senator Green), but it is a pretty scathing article about Palin. I guess I know now why some people don't want the link showing in the reference section. Please read it if you have any doubts.--Appraiser (talk) 16:29, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Your second to last sentence sounds sarcastic, so you may wish to refactor it. In fact, your whole post makes it sound like the sky is falling, but it's not. There is a simple explanation.

When I checked them, the two sources did not actually have identical quotes. NYT had a fuller quote than G. In most cases I wouldn't care, as both are RS. But the small difference in the quotes made their interpretations quite different. So I decided to include the fuller quote, for accuracy's sake, but then couldn't use G since it didn't have the full quote. That's all. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 16:42, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

OK. Thanks.--Appraiser (talk) 16:58, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Funny how some items demand more than one reference (see talk passim), but others demand as few as possible. This is an example of "sanitization-by-stealth" as far as I can see. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:23, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

What are you talking about? Making the content consistent with the references isn't any kind of sanitization. Furthermore, using the G ref would be misleading, as the quote was actually taken out of context there in a way that would egregiously violate WP:SYNTH here. If painting an accurate picture is sanitization, I'll buy the next round of Tidy-Bowl. I was going to mention to Appraiser that the edit summary of the edit he(?) objected to had a informative note which may have avoided this thread, but I didn't as I didn't wish to appear condescending when mentioning he should perhaps pay better attention. But we're past that: please pay attention. When one doesn't, it doesn't reflect well on them. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 17:57, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

But also we are seeing examples of references being made consistent with the content (rather than the other way around). We shouldn't be writing content and then trawling the internet for references to justify it - the reverse should be the case. The Guardian piece is an example of quality investigative journalism and insightful analysis, yet because it does not include the full quote it has been dismissed as somehow "inaccurate". Please don't tell me to "pay attention", by the way - comment on the content, not the contributor. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:07, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

No, that is incorrect. I looked at both references. While their partial quotes were not inconsistent with each other (that is, both could have been a textually accurate snip of one single true full passage), both source's content were inconsistent with the other source's quote. So at least one of the sources was quoting out of context. In a case like this, when both sources are (supposedly) reliable, the only defensible options are to use neither (that is, look for even a fuller quote in an RS), or use the fuller quote of the two.

In the context of any common fuller passage that both sources quoted from, there is no way the G interpretation could be correct. Taking a quote out of context is not a sign of quality investigative journalism and insightful analysis. It is rather a sign of one or more of the following: yellow journalism; ignorance; wishful deception; journalistic incompetance. Note this speaks only of the content relating to the misquote, not the source in general. But for these purposes, that is enough. It shouldn't be used.

Finally I wish to make a strong statement. My argument is a no-brainer. Your discussion behavior alluding to the contrary is disruptive, and appears to have every sign of wikilawyering. Please cease that kind of discussing and, if you desire to contribute, start contributing constructively. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 19:08, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Baccyak4H's edit here. One source for the quote is enough, and the New York Times article is a more encyclopedic source than the Guardian article: it's "newsier" and less polemical, and it gives fuller context for the quote. We don't need double or triple references to verify the quote. MastCell ^Talk 19:29, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. As long as that standard is applied everywhere, and we don't get any more demands for multiple sources for things that aren't as popular with certain editors. Also, reasonable discourse about the use of reliable sources is not disruptive, Baccyak4H. Nor is it an example of wikilawyering. You will find that my contributions are neutral, numerous and of high quality, if you care to peruse my record. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:54, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Your contributions are much appreciated :) T0mpr1c3 (talk) 13:01, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Creationism vs. Intelligent Design

In one of Palin's positions she said that Creationism need not be part of the curriculum. In another, she says that Intelligent Design should be taught alongside Evolution. There are at least two ways to interpret these positions:

1. If Creationism is the same as Intelligent Design, then she has put out conflicting information or changed her mind.
2. If they are not the same, then the both positions should be shown.

Either way, I consider the deletion of either sourced position to be POV-pushing. Please explain which scenario applies. If she has changed her mind, which is more recent and what source do you have to support the notion that she thinks they are the same? Please explain why either should be deleted.--Appraiser (talk) 18:19, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I think it is accurate to say she has espoused a personal preference for teaching the controversy, but in her office as governor Palin has not pursued any legislation nor pushed the Board of Education to write creationism into the educational standards. You're setting up a false dichotomy - it's certainly possible to hold the opinion that ID and evolution should be co-taught, but not to pursue political intervention in that regard. The Alaska Republican Party platform includes a plank specifically pushing Creation Science and describing evolution as "only a theory"; however, Palin pledged during her 2006 gubernatorial campaign that she would not push the School Board to mandate creation-based alternatives, and it appears she has kept that pledge. These sources may help clear up the issue: [6], [7]. MastCell ^Talk 19:38, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

So if I'm understanding you correctly, you're saying that even though she has said, "both should be taught," since she did not push that position as governor of Alaska, her Political position is that schools ought to be allowed to discuss both, but schools shouldn't be required to teach both? I hope she is asked that question during a debate, so we can find out how her beliefs would manifest themselves at a national level.--Appraiser (talk) 20:41, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I think she also said that she did not think teaching creationism needed to be on the school curriculum, if I'm remembering the source correctly. T0mpr1c3 (talk) 20:47, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm saying, quite simply, that she apparently expressed a belief that evolution and creationism should be co-taught, but did not take action as governor to make this belief a reality in Alaska. I believe that is what the best sources say. It's not overly complex. MastCell ^Talk 20:53, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

If people want to hair split this for a POV push...here's a wrench for you. She clarified after the use of the "taught" quote and mentioned it not being apart of the curriculum. She also gave the context for students being able to debate the issue if it came up - which is allowed by law currently. The distinction is what the teach/school pushes a part of the curriculum, but that can't stop free speech of the student nor is against law for teachers to allow debate to occur in the class room if their are the initial ones that bring it up. Theosis4u (talk) 06:40, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Do you believe she makes a distinction between Creationism and Intelligent Design? I'm asking because the August 29, 2008 article about her in the New York Times says, "She has supported the teaching of intelligent design in public schools, alongside evolution." Perhaps they are wrong, or perhaps she splits hairs between the two topics. I don't know.--Appraiser (talk) 16:14, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I believe with what we have for sources, the distinction between Creationism and Intelligent Design is irrelevant at this time. Her position, IMO, is that she believes students should be able to discuss/debate the topic in school [student initiated]. I don't think she is excluding one over the other in this context. If later we hear she is advocating a change in curriculum or policy that currently allowed under the law, then that distinction would be relevant (assuming it was the science program and not a "religion/philosophy/humanities" class). Theosis4u (talk) 17:13, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Let's not forget the context of this. Critics of Palin have been trying to portray her as someone who believes in literal creation by God a few thousand years ago, ignoring the fossil record and scientific dating methods, as an ignorant and extremist person who would not be fit to ascend to the presidency. There appears to be no evidence she holds such beliefs, or that she is either ignorant of evolution or rejects it. More will come out in the debates and interviews, but it may be appropriate to say that the issue has been raised and that there is no evidence. Bracton (talk) 15:56, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Let's just stick to what reliable sources say. MastCell ^Talk 16:25, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, one source says, "She has supported the teaching of intelligent design in public schools, alongside evolution." Another source says, that she said, "Teach both. You know, don't be afraid of information. Healthy debate is so important, and it's so valuable in our schools. I am a proponent of teaching both." and "I don't think there should be a prohibition against debate if it comes up in class. It doesn't have to be part of the curriculum." So, since there seems to be some contradiction, we should quote all three statements. That was my original issue.--Appraiser (talk) 19:56, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

As far as I can see, our version is correct. The New York Times made an error and said ID when she said creationism. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 20:37, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

A Foolish Inconsistency?

The page now contains a section on Sarah Palin's previous drug use. This seems to me somewhat inconsistence with the conclusion of the above discussion regarding Sarah Palin's discussions with a librarian regarding book-banning. In both instances Sarah Palin's actions could be interpretted as having political significance. I advocate either the removal of the drug information or the inclusion of the book-banning issue. I actually think that the book-banning deserves to be on this page more because it was clearly an action taken by Palin in her political role as Mayor. The drug use was clearly not and probably belongs on the Sarah Palin article more than it belongs here (where it is notably absent).--Cdogsimmons (talk) 18:48, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I thought it wasn't there but it is.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 19:25, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I have removed the information about her drug use until the issue is resolved.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 19:43, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Her political position is that marijuana should not be decriminalized, which seems to be a valid entry in this article. But if it is there, I think it makes sense to also say that she did try pot herself.

As for the possible position of wanting to ban certain books from the library, I'm pretty sure she has said that dismissing the librarian was unrelated to possible book-banning. In other words, I don't think she has admitted to a position on that issue. Therefore, I think its inclusion here is less compelling. There is a paragraph about the topic in the Mayoralty of Sarah Palin however—I think where it should be.--Appraiser (talk) 19:48, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Although Palin said her inquiries regarding the books were rhetorical her actions might indicate otherwise (she approached the librarian on 3 seperate occasions about it and raised the issue at a community meeting). I agree that if her position is that marijuana should not be decriminalized that should be included. The inclusion of the information about her own personal use of drugs I find to be less compelling, along the line that it is not an actual "position", but I think it could arguably act as a rebuttal to her political stance. However, that's the original research arguement that was made by Kelly at the book banning discussion. Perhaps the answer should be to include information regarding Palin's past use of marjiuana as the rebuttal, but hold off on including the possible attempts to ban books until she presents her stance on the First Amendment.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 20:20, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Could we add, "Palin doesn't support returning to decriminalized marijuana, as it would send the wrong message to her children." If folks want to know that she used it herself, they can read the source.--Appraiser (talk) 16:10, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't have a problem with briefly mentioning early-life drug use in passing, probably as a phrase within parentheses to indicate that it's borderline-relevant to this article. It's a small bit of background that helps readers understand that a politician has some familiarity with this subject, and readers can decide for themselves whether a politician who tried something way back when is being hypocritical for wanting to ban it now. (I assume politicians who committed vandalism as children wouldn't be raked over the coals as hypocrites for opposing vandalism later in life.) I think an NPOV approach allows a little background when relevant in an article about this person's political positions. As to the book banning, her own statements are the most important thing, and mention of any contrary actions would depend on just how clear it is that they were contrary, and just how good the sourcing is. Both should be excellent if we are going to say anything more than "questions about whether she wanted to ban books have been raised regarding her actions as mayor of Wasilla." The questions themselves may be notable enough to mention if repeated widely by reliable sources, but if the answers are unclear, it isn't worth more space, just a brief statement like that with a footnote. -- Noroton (talk) 18:06, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Political positions of Barack Obama doesn't mention his admission of experimenting in college and high school, but Barack Obama does. Let's keep it the same. We can say she toked or inhaled or whatever in Sarah Palin, where it's applicable. rootology (C)(T) 19:47, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

That makes sense. I added the suggestion from above.--Appraiser (talk) 21:15, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

NATO

In this edit an anon added "and allies", which one might have thought she should have said. But the source cited shows that she omitted those words. We shouldn't add them for her.--Appraiser (talk) 18:20, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Good revert, that source is clear on it. The article shouldn't be a soapbox for an anon's thesis writing. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 19:45, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

$1200 dollars

I'd like to ask why the fact that Palin pushed for giving every Alaskan $1200 dollars for the purpose of offsetting energy costs isn't mentioned. The money was sent out with the PFDs. For those who don't know, all Alaskans receive money each year based on taxes on the oil companies. I don't have great sources, but here are a couple. http://www.ktuu.com/Global/story.asp?s=8534734 http://www.aksuperstation.com/explorepolitics/20610174.html

JedG (talk) 01:14, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

I think that would be better suited to Governorship of Sarah Palin since it is not really a political position.--Appraiser (talk) 05:35, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Position on Israel

Can anybody look at that section. Towards the end, there is a sentence that both praises her and is critical. Can this be reworked to make some sense? The sentence is:Palin has received a strong endorsement from the Republican Jewish Coalition, and has been described as a "direct affront to all Jewish Americans" by Democratic Congressman Robert Wexler of Florida, and as being "totally out of step with Jewish public opinion" by the National Jewish Democratic Council. Thanks, --Tom 21:01, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Maybe, Palin has received a strong endorsement from the Republican Jewish Coalition. However, she has been described as a "direct affront to all Jewish Americans" by Democratic Congressman Robert Wexler of Florida, and as being "totally out of step with Jewish public opinion" by the National Jewish Democratic Council. --Tom 22:30, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Page protected

If supposedly experienced editors are tossing 3RR warnings at each other, you clearly have a dispute. Page protected for 24 hours. GRBerry 20:59, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Totally inappropriate, GRberry. If there are peopple edit-warring, warn them and if they persist, block them. I will post a complaint about this action at WP:AN. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:07, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Jossi, I looked at the history. If I'm going to block anyone, you will be one of the ones blocked for edit warring. I think protection is better. GRBerry 21:09, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

??? I have not edit warred. I have tried to implement proposed compromises, and there is an active discussion. Posted an AN. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:12, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Dr. Entropy (talk) 01:11, 10 September 2008 (UTC)Dr. EntropyDr. Entropy (talk) 01:11, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Respectfully request that the page be re-protected for an indefinate period of time. Reason: http://www.blogpi.net/who-is-encouraging-obama-supporters-to-vandalize-sarah-palins-wikipedia-article Dr. Entropy (talk) 01:11, 10 September 2008 (UTC)Dr. Entropy on 9-SEPT-2008 @21:11hrs Dr. Entropy (talk) 01:11, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I second that request to protect. Wikipedia is not a political venue, nor should it become one. This is a respectable informational venue, and should not be abused for any political means. Modification should be reviewed and approved in the talk page. --Kyanwan (talk) 08:37, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

 Declined Off-site activity like that falls on the user's head, it doesn't lead to article protection until there is an incident that cannot be handled, and I have not seen a report of such activity.--Tznkai (talk) 14:54, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Influences section

Here goes a stab at a section which I propose to go between the lead and the Social issues heading.

Palin's governing philosophy has been most influenced by former Alaska Governer Wally Hickel(Newsweek ref here). Her positions on some issues are informed by her faith, among them Middle East policy, economic development, and abortion.

Clearly this can be expanded per sources. Note I did not quote Hickel's party; this is because it changed (IIRC), so would be hard to discuss without bogging down the prose as currently written. But that is not to say it won't be possible later. I did not include the words "her political mentor", as I had dropped the explicit naming of the source in favor of a citation, but don't see a big objection to it if the source is clear.

It would seem this proposal would allow for both this discussion of religious influence, as well as avoiding the risk of coatracks throughout the rest of the article. Naturally, the same risk is present with this proposal, but certainly more detail can be written here without any subtle UNDUE issues. It will also be easier to integrate all material neutrally.

Finally, I copied all the relevant cites including the name tags; care should be taken when the coatracking content is removed, to make sure the tag still in somewhere, but only once.

Discuss. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 14:59, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I think this is a reasonable way of incorporating the identification of Hickel as her political mentor. MastCell ^Talk 19:48, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Where's the source for Hickel? And have you found others on it? I'm curious about this because I haven't came across it yet in my readings. Thanks. Theosis4u (talk) 06:33, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I actually do not have that ref, I wrote that simply based on the blockquote here. If no one comes up with that ref, then yes that would be grounds for omission. I assumed that at some point someone had a ref there. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 15:00, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

The source is the Newsweek cover story entitled An Apostle of Alaska. The direct quote is: "To the extent Palin has a governing philosophy, it was shaped by her political mentor, former governor Wally Hickel. The 89-year-old Hickel is a member of the Alaska Independence Party, which espouses, among other things, greater autonomy or even separation from the United States." The relationship has been mentioned elsewhere; see, for example, this New York Times article, which states: "Ms. Palin’s political philosophy is also often compared to that of Walter J. Hickel, the former Alaska governor and interior secretary in the Nixon administration who was re-elected governor on the Alaskan Independence Party ticket in 1990." There are a handful of others on Google News, but that should be sufficient. MastCell ^Talk 16:33, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I think it's one thing to say "is often compared" vs. "it was shaped by her political mentor". I see no proof of this mentorship being offered. Until there is proof within the source for the mentorship, I think we should stick with the comparison. Is that reasonable? Theosis4u (talk) 17:06, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I can understand the Hickel reference (though I'm really uncomfortable with relying on a single source for this), but the "faith" stuff is absolutely unacceptable. She asked people at a church to pray concerning a couple of public issues, there's zero evidence from those references that her faith informs her public policy on that. As a matter of fact, she directly addressed that in the Gibson interview,[8] and the USA Today profile[9] said that she governs from the center, with little regard for religious concerns. She obviously has personal beliefs on those issues, but there's not any evidence they inform her political positions - we have evidence to the contrary. Kelly ^hi! 23:15, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Image choices

We don't need multiple cute pictures of animals in a relatively small section of an article that is not about those animals specifically. Please follow Wikipedia:Photos#Pertinence_and_encyclopedicity, specifically the first sentence.

To other editors, please gimme a hand. I've done two reverts against the one anonymous user adding them, and I don't want to continue to do so. However, they still do need appropriate cleanup and that's going to require multiple people. --Kickstart70-T-C 15:32, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

the images are fine and relate to that particular section. This article is lacking images. Sennen goroshi (talk) 16:19, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, the random animal pictures should be removed again. I'll take care of it. Kelly ^hi! 17:13, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I am not sure that they are random and I don't care one way or the other, but consensus should be gained for their inclusion, and not the other way around. Thanks, --Tom 17:46, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Agree with Tom's consensus assertion, and with Kelly's removal. In the presence of a wikilink to the respective animals, these pictures serve mainly to amplify, albeit subtly, the significance of a conflict regarding animal issues; in other words they are UNDUE in a weaselly way. The attractiveness of having good images is not lost on me, but these attempts do not serve the article well. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 18:01, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Edit warring - Protection

I've protected the page (again) because of 3RR violations AKA edit warring (again). To clarify policy:

The three revert rule is a brightline policy. If you make more than 3 reversions on an article in 24 hours, you invite a block upon yourself. The only exceptions, taken directly from the policy page are as follows:

• Reverting your own actions ("self-reverting").
• Reverting obvious vandalism – edits which any well-intentioned user would immediately agree constitute vandalism, such as page blanking and adding bad language. Legitimate content changes, adding or removing tags, edits against consensus, and similar actions are not exempt. Administrators should block persistent vandals and protect pages subject to vandalism from many users, rather than repeatedly reverting. However, non-administrators may find reversion unavoidable before administrators can respond.
• Reverting actions performed by banned users.
• Reverting the addition of copyright violations or content that unquestionably violates the non-free content policy.
• Reverting the addition of libelous, biased, unsourced, or poorly sourced controversial material which violates the policy on biographies of living persons.
• Reverting edits to your own user space, provided that doing so does not restore copyright or non-free content criteria violations, libelous material or biased, unsourced, or poorly sourced controversial material about living persons.
• Reverting in order to conform with community consensus on geographic names which fall within the scope of the Gdansk Vote.

Such actions may be controversial or considered edit warring. When in doubt, do not revert; instead, engage in dispute resolution or ask for administrative assistance.

(Emphasis mine.) Furthermore, abuse of process by reporting someone on this notice board without at the very least first warning the user before their 4th reversion is unacceptable. This article will remain locked until another administrator overturns, or I get acknowledgment from the participants that they understand and will abide by policy. The alternative is blocking the lot of you for edit warring over polar bear pictures no less. --Tznkai (talk) 18:08, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I see that after you protected this page, the entire "Endangered Species section, with images was brought directly to Sarah Palin. [10] GRBerry 19:02, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I've received something vaguely resembling an acknowledgment, so I'm removing the protection, but be warned, any further edit warring will be responded to by blocking participants.--Tznkai (talk) 19:25, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

"Lobbyists" and "Bridge to Nowhere"

These sections definitely need rework to express more than the point of view of a single source. Sarah Palin#Wasilla describes her lobbyist involvement in a neutral way, and Sarah Palin#Gravina Island bridge describes the bridge story. Need some neutrality here. Kelly ^hi! 02:09, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

It looks like the main Sarah Palin article has a pretty good neutral text for the Bridge to Nowhere, so I copied that here. However, it raises the question of whether Sarah Palin should have a shortened version of the info that is on Political positions of Sarah Palin. Right now in this case they're identical. --Crunch (talk) 02:16, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Reworked; added sources and detail.GreekParadise (talk) 03:52, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Removed your edits due to them being lifted DIRECTLY from [11]. We do not copy and paste material previously published by other sources. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 04:04, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I made many edits and added many sources. You have only complained about one, yet you erased them all. So can we agree to put the others back, right? As for the Newsweek piece, it was proper fair use: "Under guidelines for non-free content, brief selections of copyrighted text may be used, but only with full attribution" is wiki-policy. Please tell me why you think the brief selection with full attribution is not brief enough. Do you have a proposed change for it?GreekParadise (talk) 04:20, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Copypasta works at 4chan, maybe you should contribute there. That would be my proposed change. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 04:22, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I have no idea what you're talking about. I don't know whether you're being snide or being serious (and speaking what to me is gobbledygook), but could you please just answer my questions?

1) What specifically do you find wrong with the Newsweek article? 2) How would you change it? 3) Do you agree on reverting the non-Newsweek stuff? If not, why not?GreekParadise (talk) 04:29, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

The problem with the Newsweek cite was that it was copy pasted directly from the article. Plagiarism and copyvio is not allowed. Do you understand? Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 04:53, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

OK, in the interest of civility, why don't we start on issues of agreement before disagreement.  :-) It will help if you answer my questions: 1) You agree to unrevert the rest of my changes other than Newsweek, right? 2) How would you change the Newsweek piece given that fair use allows brief attributed selections of copyright text? GreekParadise (talk) 05:07, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

This is already being discussed as part of her overall fiscal policy. It's a few sections up. Both the bridge to nowhere and her lobbyist ties are mentioned. --165.123.227.57 (talk) 05:02, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

What are you talking about? There is nothing about the Bridge to Nowhere in the article other than this section. --GreekParadise (talk) 05:07, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

You obviously didn't bother looking so here it is: "In her acceptance speech, Governor Palin also said, "I told the Congress 'thanks, but no thanks,' for that Bridge to Nowhere." While it is true that funding was never sent to build the bridge to nowhere, it was accepted by Alaska and allocated to different projects in the state. Additionally, Palin was for the Bridge to Nowhere before she was against it. The Alaska governor campaigned in 2006 on a build-the-bridge platform, telling Ketchikan residents she felt their pain when politicians called them "nowhere."[11][12]"

Look up under the discussion section "Fiscal Responsibility and Earmarks." --165.123.227.57 (talk) 05:39, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh, on the TALK PAGE. I thought you meant in the main article. In any case, most of your edit deals with earmarks outside the Bridge to Nowhere. I added a lot of content on the Bridge to Nowhere. I'm confident we can accommodate both sets of information.GreekParadise (talk) 05:50, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the Bridge to Nowhere, at least, the Associated Press has published this review, which lists the claims of both campaigns as well as the AP's "fact check". Perhaps this would be useful as a source. MastCell ^Talk 20:06, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I had removed some lengthy quotes that I thought made it bad stylistically - I think all we need here is a quick summary as an example of fiscal policy, not a whole blow-by-blow. The subject is covered in depth at Sarah Palin#Bridge to Nowhere. Kelly ^hi! 20:17, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

All right, what the hell is going on now? I thought we were NOT reverting without discussion? Kelly ^hi! 20:21, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

The "Government Spending" section has a notation for a citation needed, but I'm not touching this article with a ten foot pole. :) Anyway, the full text of Palin's speech at the convention can be found [12].FangedFaerie (talk) 03:32, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Nevermind, I got brave and added the citation myself. Regards. FangedFaerie (talk) 23:58, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Length of "Bridge to Nowhere"

The topic of the bridge is the subject of a section in the main biography - Sarah Palin#Bridge to Nowhere. What started out here as a brief summary, given as an example of a fiscal policy, keeps growing longer here than the actual discussion of the indident at Sarah Palin. I suspect this is probably because people want to contribute on the topic, but the main Sarah Palin is currently protected. I'm proposing that we either eliminate the section here, or drastically reduce its length (to a couple of sentences). Opinions below, please. Kelly ^hi! 20:31, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

If you want to move my longer and more detailed and more neutral and well-sourced article to the main page, I'm OK with that. (I was responding to your changes at the bottom of this page.)GreekParadise (talk) 20:49, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Bridge to Nowhere detailed account should be at Sarah Palin

• Support - we've basically got a POV fork on coverage of this incident, with one version at Sarah Palin and another here. Kelly ^hi! 20:31, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree longer version should be on main page.GreekParadise (talk)

Bridge to Nowhere detailed account should also be here

Palin has made it part of her stump speech. Her LIES are part of her political "maverick" image she is running for Vice President for. Include it. --165.123.226.77 (talk) 05:31, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Third option; switch the section from the main article with the section here

• Support, as it will solve the length problem and improve the main article, as well as fixing Kelly's concern that people are editing here because they can't edit there. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 20:39, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
• Support* Solves the problem. Exactly what I'd like. And I"m the author of the long version. I apologize for not seeing these comments here. I had put a new section at the bottom because I didn't understand why changes were made.GreekParadise (talk) 20:49, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I started to undo my revert myself, but I noticed that the long article still is not on main page. When it gets there, I'll replace a short version here. Could someone with administrative rights please put it there? If not, I'll put it there myself when the protection period ends and remove this version from this page at that time.GreekParadise (talk) 21:00, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Umm, I have a feeling your version would be a little controversial at Sarah Palin, as many editors there have spent a lot of time hashing out their version. Best to propose your changes at Talk:Sarah Palin. Kelly ^hi! 22:21, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

• Or we just link to this discussion, as is customary. Kelly, would you do the honors, as you began this thread? Phlegm Rooster (talk) 22:22, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

  Actually, I think it would be best to start a new discussion there, with proposed changes to that existing text. Kelly ^hi! 22:24, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Sourcing

I noticed someone had edited this page to source to the Huffington Post. To my knowledge, the Huffington Post does not meet the standard for WP:RS, and so I reverted the change. Biccat (talk) 20:50, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I see someone has replaced the citation you deleted with another one that says essentially the same thing. Could you please point me to a policy that mentions that the Huffington Post does not meet the standard for WP:RS? In this case, the cited sentence says, "critics pointed to it as an example of Palin's lack of knowledge..." If you believe that Huffington Post writers are critics of Palin, I don't see how the citation doesn't back that up.--Appraiser (talk) 22:05, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

The use of weasel words should be avoided in Wikipedia. "Critics say" is an example of weasel words. It is used to inject an opinion (Palin's lack of knowledge) rather than a fact (Palin said X). Additionally, the Huffington Post is a blog, which are generally not reliable sources, see Wikipedia:Reliable source examples. Hope that helps! Biccat (talk) 14:53, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

I can agree that "critics say" is bad form. How about if we replace "while critics pointed to it as an example of Palin's lack of knowledge in the area, noting that the mortgage entities technically operated until September 7, 2008 as quasi-private companies." with "In fact, the two companies operated from 1968 to September 7, 2008 as quasi-private companies with no federal financial support." This would provide a sourced fact that also contrasts with what the woman said, without relying on what "critics said."--Appraiser (talk) 16:10, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

I added sourcing for her supporters, but admittedly the support was all in the form of blogs. I can't find a decent op-ed piece that addresses Palin and the two companies in the same article. In the meantime, I figured some kind of citation was better than none. If there is disagreement, I won't be offended if my cites are replaced with something better. Regards. FangedFaerie (talk) 23:55, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

NPOV

A added a NPOV tag to the section on equal pay, as it's sourced to the McCain camp. I better source can probably be found to reinforce the idea with neutrality. Grsz^talk 22:14, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't quite get it - are you saying the McCain camp would release a statement contradictory to Palin's own beliefs, against her wishes? That's kind of a strange supposition. Kelly ^hi! 23:27, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I think we should remove the tag. The McCain-Palin campaign is the obvious source for her positions. Other sources may characterize those positions, but she or her campaign are obviously the sources for those positions. Sturunner (talk) 00:23, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I say keep the source, which is what she says her position is, and also keep a source or sources noting that she opposes the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act (and/or anything else notable about the subject) with a source about her reason(s) why if we can find one. FangedFaerie (talk) 22:05, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Gas pipeline crystal-balling

The para on "Oil and Gas development" currently says:

In June 2008, Palin stated that she would work to create jobs by building a pipeline to bring North Slope natural gas to North American markets.[89] In her acceptance speech at the GOP in Sept, 2008 Palin stated: "I fought to bring about the largest private-sector infrastructure project in North American history," "And when that deal was struck, we began a nearly $40 billion dollar natural gas pipeline to help lead America to energy independence."[90] To date the Pipeline exists only on paper. The first section has not been laid, federal approvals may take years, which means the pipeline will not be completed for at least a decade. Yet again, the pipleine may not be built, which would result in Alaska State losing up to $500 million it committed to defray regulatory and other costs.[91][92]

I think the last two sentences are a violation of WP:NOT#CRYSTAL, in that they're total speculation. Perhaps it will not be built, perhaps it will be built and fail, perhaps it will be built and succeed beyond expectations. We don't know and shouldn't be speculating here. Kelly ^hi! 23:12, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

The ending section should just be removed. It's meant to give a pessimistic undertone to the issue and minimize the natural of the deal.

Purpose that

"To date the Pipeline exists only on paper. The first section has not been laid, federal approvals may take years, which means the pipeline will not be completed for at least a decade. Yet again, the pipleine may not be built, which would result in Alaska State losing up to $500 million it committed to defray regulatory and other costs."

be replaced with

"TransCanada projects the pipeline to be operational by late 2018, given no unforeseen obstacles." Referenced from the NYTimes article, Page 3

Theosis4u (talk) 07:27, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

massive rewriting needed

Many pieces of this article have equivalent sections under the main Sarah Palin article where consensus changes have been made to remove POV problems, and additional information is given, which, in many cases, is diametrically opposed to the claims made in this article. Someone ought to sync the articles, as having one POV article and one NPOV article might confuse users. I would suggest the main article, where the material is sufficient to cover the issues involved, should be used as the basis, rather than try placing this article in the main page. Collect (talk) 13:36, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Please see WP:SS. I believe there's general consensus that, pursuant to our normal summary style, it's appropriate to have this article giving a detailed exposition of her political positions, with only a summary (the most important points) left behind in the main Sarah Palin article. Therefore, this article will always cover more issues than does the main article. If there's a particular passage in this article that you think is POV, you should raise the point here, identifying the language in question and explaining why you think it's POV. JamesMLane t c 17:17, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Summaries tend to not be "diametrically opposed" to the longer version, as Collect claims they are. Care to give us some specific examples? Or, if you prefer, you could always fix them yourself. Oren0 (talk) 17:20, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Abortion

I changed the second paragraph with quotes on the Sept. 12 Gibson interview, and added a citation. Regards. FangedFaerie (Talk | Edits) 22:34, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Religion in public life

Shouldn't the quoting of critical opinion pieces in this section be removed? Or should we retain them and add a lot of laudatory opinion pieces? Kelly ^hi! 22:16, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

We seek balance. That's measure in terms of importance - if we pick all the critical, or all the laudatory commentary, we end up unbalanced. What we do is aim to have just the most important things, positive or negative. We shouldn't leave out things that are more important than the things we put in, and vice versa. Regards, Ben Aveling 01:14, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Go ahead and insert one or two laudatory opinion pieces to offset the negative ones. So long as they are in reputable papers, both are significant. LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 17:17, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

We don't do that. If it's important, it's important. If it's not, it's not. We just let the facts speak for themselves and the reader will work out if someone is naughty or nice. Regards, Ben Aveling 23:08, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I read somewhere that she was a believer in young earth creationism. is that true? any sources? 84.129.136.232 (talk) 09:52, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Proclamations on religious issues

This section currently mentions a couple of proclamations that Palin signed regarding Bible Week and Christian heritage. Isn't this a bit of undue weight? This archive shows that she has signed hundreds of proclamations, honoring everything from Alaskan natives' spiritual beliefs to mulitculturalism to the NAACP. Kelly ^hi! 18:24, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

There's also the fact that all this material is repeated in the new article Cultural and political image of Sarah Palin. But for now, I would support keeping as much of this as possible. It should not, however, go into the main Sarah Palin article, which is merely supposed to summarize. Maybe there's some way to add in this article that she's signed hundreds of other proclamations too? Ferrylodge (talk) 18:36, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I was thinking about that, but there's so many that if we tried to make each one into a political position we'd end up with War and Peace here. Plus the fact that most gubernatorial proclamations (along with Congressional and Presidential proclamations) are just B.S. to throw a cheap sop to a particular constituency and get a free photo op, that few people take them seriously as a political statement. Kelly ^hi! 18:41, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Okay, then, whichever way you think is best. I agree there's a problem here.Ferrylodge (talk) 18:51, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, no urgency, though. Will wait a while for some other opinions. The "Jury Rights" thing is another example I should have mentioned above. Kelly ^hi! 19:09, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

No, go right ahead and add any other relevant proclamations that have drawn any local or national media attention. What we want is as much information as possible about her. What I mean by 'relevant' is any proclamation she signed which she played a main role in promoting. It is clear that in this case, she was quite passionate about the issue. LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 19:59, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

How so? Kelly ^hi! 20:01, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Because she did not just sign this significantly-worded proclamation, but followed it up with declaring a Bible Week. Waldman of BibleNet explains the wording of the proclamation, situating it in the 'separation of church and state' is artificial approach of right-wing fundamentalist politicians. Thus it is beyond relevant - it is indicative of where she fits on the political spectrum. If she signed a proclamation about Native American religion which is significant in this way, we need to know about it too. LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 20:07, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry if I missed any earlier discussion, but what makes Waldman's opinion notable? Kelly ^hi! 20:08, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

(undent)Just thought I'd mention that "National Bible Week" began in 1941, when the first Bible Week proclamation was made by President Franklin D. Roosevelt. As of 1996, governors in 29 states declared National Bible Week. Governor Tom Ridge of Pennsylvania was in charge of the Governors' Committee for NBW.[13]Ferrylodge (talk) 20:12, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I can't keep track - is Tom Ridge one of those wacky Apocalypse-believing Christianists now? :) Kelly ^hi! 20:14, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

He is indeed. And so were every president since FDR.[14]Ferrylodge (talk) 20:16, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Hey, we "agree" about something! :) Yeah, actually, most of them were. LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 00:06, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Good, now let's go expose all of those religious nuts by making them look like fools in their Wikipedia articles! And we can edit the atheists' Wikipedia articles to make them look great!!!  :-)Ferrylodge (talk) 00:32, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, actually, Palin's the worst I've seen, so, no, no reason to do that. Waldman says she goes beyond what Bush says. He used to be the worst I'd seen. (I was joking previously by the way) LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 00:43, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Worst you've seen how? She's made way fewer public statements mentioning God than just about any other politician I can think of, including Bill Clinton, who called down the wrath of God on the Oklahoma City bombers.[15] Kelly ^hi! 23:30, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Other Comments

There is not a mention of the controversy surrounding Palin and the Alaskan Independence Party here. That has been an issue in the press.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.179.74.116 (talk) 23:21, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

There's no reason it should be mentioned here, so it isn't. -- Zsero (talk) 23:53, 23 October 2008 (UTC)