Talk:Sarah Palin/Archive 9

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5 ← Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10 Archive 11 → Archive 15

religion in infobox

Her religion is listed as non-demoninational Christian with two references. Looking at the references, this is incorrect.

Palin calls herself "Christian" in the Time interview so this is what we should list her as. We must defer to the living person what their religion is. Otherwise, people could argue that Obama is a "radical, anti-white christian" based on Jeremiah Wright. So using the term used by the person himself is the correct thing to do as long as it's a mainstream term, which Christian is. Fossett&Elvis (talk) 19:22, 3 September 2008 (UTC) And it must to be read: "She got converted to evangelicalism when her was 12 years old". No evangelical ever batize children without a personal conversion experience. This part from section is judgmental and from build from a catholic perspective on baptism, so violates neutral point of view.

Family section confusing to all but newsjunkies

Governor Palin announced on September 1, 2008, that her daughter Bristol was five months pregnant and intended to keep the baby and marry the father of her child, 17-year-old Levi Johnston.[135][136] The McCain-Palin campaign stated that John McCain was aware of her daughter's pregnancy, but that it did not affect his choice.[137] Democratic Presidential nominee Barack Obama and his campaign staff declared the subject "off limits" in the coming campaign.[138]

That's the paragraph but it provides little context. The truth is that Palin was accused of lying about her daughter who was accused of being the mother of Trig (who is 4 months old). To deflate the argument, Palin revealed that her daughter is FIVE months pregnant with the public figuring that you can't give birth while pregnant with another child on the way (short of having twins).

So this provides context but could be written smoother:

After internet rumors that her 4 month old son, Trig, was actually the son of Bristol, Governor Palin announced on September 1, 2008, that her daughter Bristol was five months pregnant and intended to keep the baby and marry the father of her child, 17-year-old Levi Johnston.[135][136] The McCain-Palin campaign stated that John McCain was aware of her daughter's pregnancy, but that it did not affect his choice.[137] Democratic Presidential nominee Barack Obama and his campaign staff declared the subject "off limits" in the coming campaign.[138]

Fossett&Elvis (talk) 19:31, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I like this version. Reads better and says the same thing. zredsox (talk) 20:11, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
It used to say something like that (and even attributed the Daily Kos as the source of the libel) but I'm not sure what happened to that. Kelly hi! 19:41, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
Most people seemed to comment that the pregnancy itself is notable but the rumors are not. T0mpr1c3 (talk) 19:42, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
This has been discussed many times (see above) and the current version is what the consensus seemed to think was valid for inclusion.--ThaddeusB (talk) 19:43, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I understand that some don't want to smear Palin so mentioning the internet rumors isn't wanted. OK. How about removing the whole daughter's pregnancy and include it in the daughter's biography, if it is an article? Another possibility would be to move it to the 2008 campaign article, which is more like a newspaper. Fossett&Elvis (talk) 19:48, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Bristol Palin does not have a separate biography. Her pregnancy is a fact of Sarah Palin's family life, not just her campaign. T0mpr1c3 (talk) 19:53, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
The rumor was short lived, I heard about it, after I heard about the pregnancy, I think it is fine if it is left out. Rds865 (talk) 19:55, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

The rumors about Bristol and Trig, however unfounded and unsupportable, are key to the narrative. They were spread not only by Kos posters, but by such weighty bloggers as Andrew Sullivan. It was apparently in response to these stories (around 29-30 August) that the announcement of Bristol's pregnancy hit the news.Sallieparker (talk) 22:05, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

There is no such thing as a "weighty blogger". Blogs are not verifiable and reputable sources for information, and no blogger is "weighty" enough to cite in WP jstupple7 (talk) 23:26, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
This is a biography, not a narrative of the incredible slime campaign waged against Ms. Palin over the past few days. As has been said many times before, you cannot insert false material in a biography of a living person by putting in a source denying the slander. This, unfortunately, works well in a news cycle for slandering and libeling people, but thankfully, it does not work here because 1) you need to have a reliable source for every claim, and 2) you cannot insert false information in a biography of a living person. Please folks, stop this nonsense, so the article can be improved, instead of remaining a battle ground.--Paul (talk) 22:19, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Political positions section

This section risks being campaign literature, either for one party or the other. This is not right for an encyclopedia.

A possible compromise is to limit positions to state issues while being governor.

The political positions of a Vice Presidential candidate mirrors that of the Presidential candidate so anything should go on McCain's article. There is also a danger of changing the focus of the article. With Biden, you could mention his positions during the primary and how they conflict with Obama's. That's just tricky so the best thing to do would be to leave out the recent political positions as all positions must be the same as the presidential candidate or the Obama/McCain will punch Biden/Palin in the nose for causing trouble. Fossett&Elvis (talk) 19:39, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

This section is fairly standard for politician pages. For highly notable ones, their positions are broken out into a separate page (as we have done here). If you have any concerns with the material on that page, you should probably take it to that page's chat.--ThaddeusB (talk) 19:46, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
I thought the short paragraph ThaddeusB wrote was a good start. I much prefer that to the revert by LarryMorseDCOhio which duplicates Political positions of Sarah Palin. Comments? T0mpr1c3 (talk) 19:49, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
The current (newer) version is based heavily on her own quotes, ignores some issues previously addressed (esp. in Energy & Env), and does not summarize the details in the linked article. I reinserted the narrative summary version of 03:39 2Sept (last before reformatting/bolding), and it was almost instantly reverted to the newer version, with a claim of “consensus.” Having done a lot of editing on the earlier version, which I liked, don’t count me as part of any consensus that the new version is preferable. LarryMorseDCOhio (talk) 20:28, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
The new version is a summary of her political philosophy, which is typical in these situations. Who would know her own philosophy better than herself? Specific positions are left off on purpose. --ThaddeusB (talk) 22:02, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
Someone recently added this phrase "While mayor of Wasilla, she acquired large amounts of earmarked federal funds for the community,[99][100][101][102][103], some of which made Senator McCain's 'Pork List'" to the section. It would appear to have a number of problems - the main one being that it isn't a political position, at least as phrased. (This material is rightfully included in the Wasilla section.) Thoughts?
Ahem, How about culling some of her political positions from the 2006 Gubernatorial Candidate Questionnaire by Eagle Forum Alaska, found here?--Happysomeone (talk) 20:08, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
Again this is an issue for the "Political positions of Sarah Palin" page, not the main article. Feel free to take the material there, although I'm not sure in qualifies as a reliable source since it appears to be a blog. --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:12, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
It is already in use as a source for Political positions of Sarah Palin. T0mpr1c3 (talk) 20:13, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Sarah eloped while pregnant

I think the family section line "Sarah Palin eloped with her high-school boyfriend, Todd Palin, on August 29, 1988, when she was 24 years old." should end with "and pregnant"

The other wiki information that follows, with Track's birthdate, shows only eight months between the wedding and her son. This is relevant to her bio, imo, as it speaks to her taking responsibility early in life, and/or her ability or inability to plan... depending on how you want to interpret it.

Remember, i am not asking to add an interpretation, just a material fact about her wedding.

No, you are suggesting to add an interpretation, as this is not documented fact. Please see discussion above. --ThaddeusB (talk) 19:47, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
You cannot say she was pregnant because of WP:BLP. Track could have been premature. All of this hate against Sarah is just unbelievable.RonCram (talk) 19:56, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
Appalling? Yes. Unbelievable? Sadly, no. —Travistalk 20:06, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
I don't think most of it is "hate", rather "desire to see Senator Obama win the election" combined with "general cluelessness about how other people think and feel." :-) Steve Dufour (talk) 21:49, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
Realistically, how soon after getting pregnant would a person know? A.J.A. (talk) 20:15, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

It depends on the individual, some people are smarter than others. But I think that the info about her eloping and a quick marriage, and giving birth birth 8 months later, while it's suspicious, we should refrain from adding it in until major news corporations have already reported it. Lakerking04 (talk) 20:19, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Most of what I've seen doesn't saying eight months, it says eight and a half months. Not being a woman, I don't know, but it's worth asking: would she have even missed a period half a month in? The reason this is being pushed is the implication that she got married to Todd because he'd gotten her pregnant. Is that even plausible? A.J.A. (talk) 20:25, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
I've seen "8 months" in mainstream news sources, but not "8 1/2 months. Could you please cite the sources which use "8 1/2 months?" Edison2 (talk) 21:08, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
The marriage date and Track's birth date presently in the article make it less than 8 months. Edison2 (talk) 21:15, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

If it should come out that she got married because she got pregnant, then it WOULD be a story because her daughter is about to do similar. It would show a family pattern of quick, pregnancy-forced marriages. But we shouldn't be doing original research. We have to wait for the major news corporations to report it before we even consider adding in such material. Lakerking04 (talk) 20:37, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry for being blunt, but what in the hell does this have to do with her being a VP nominee? If McCain/Palin pick up the vote of every woman who walked down the aisle in a 'condition', they'd win in a landslide. Ronnotel (talk) 20:41, 3 September 2008 (UTC)


The latest one only went 7 months, and early births can also be preemies, so there is no valid inference here. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 20:21, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
Even if there were a valid inference, we should wait until a reliable source infers it. I feel like I've written the letters B-L-P more times since Friday than in my entire Wiki history. Coemgenus 20:35, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
Tell me about it, ugh. Now I understand how the Barack Obama editors must feel.Kelly hi! 20:54, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
Barack Obama is a FA. I doubt if this article will ever be one.--Appraiser (talk) 21:26, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
In fairness to the Wikipedians who are working hard to keep this article as accurate and neutral as they can, the Obama BLP has had a chance to mature over a much longer period of time - really since Obama did his speech in 2004. Palin has been news for a week, so it is to be expected that this article would be highly volatile. Credit should be given to the "regular editors" of this BLP for keeping it on the straight and narrow in the face of a rapid and constant bombardment of pro/con edits. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:33, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Miss Wasilla Scholarship Pageant

The early life section says, "In 1984, Palin won the Miss Wasilla Scholarship Pageant..." However, I can't find any evidence of a contest with this exact name. Neither ref mentions it. Am I missing something? Zagalejo^^^ 20:33, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

That's not the name of the pageant. The Miss Wasilla pegeant, like most pegeants awards scholorship money to the winners. The author of that specific sentence clearly violated NPOV.

It might be inaccurate, but how is adding the word "scholarship" POV in any way? --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:50, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Because it draws too much attention to the scholarship aspect of the pegeant when that in fact is only a minor aspect of the pegeant, not to mention, it's inaccurate. Lakerking04 (talk) 20:51, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Clearly, it is inaccurate. I'll take it out now if no one else has. Coemgenus 20:53, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Earmarks

Seems we must now have an "earmarks" meme out there - mention of earmarks while she was mayor of Wasilla were in three different sections. I removed two and left the detailed account of the earmarks in the "Wasilla" section. Kelly hi! 20:39, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I think that the "political positions" section should have a little more liberty to draw connections (as long as they are present in multiple sources) than the rest. I think that both the pro-life <-> trig connection and the not-a-taker <-> earmark connection are amply documented and in bounds for that section. Certainly, if one is out of bounds, then both are. Homunq (talk) 21:22, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
Both are. We don't synthesize. Kelly hi! 21:37, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
I haven't checked the issue but if it's reliably sourced in a way that meets weight concerns that she brought home the bacon to her hometown, that's reasonable to include. It shows her as an effective mayor. However, per weight it should be mentioned once, and per NPOV it should be as neutral as possible. A few days ago I took out some argumentative language that described how large it was on a per-capita basis, and that she hired a "well-connected" Washington lobbyist to help. Even if true, it is absolutely standard and reasonable that a small town would put its hand out and advocate for its share of federal dollars for project the town considers important. That should not be used to impugn Palin, and the fact that the city does this does not seem particularly notable. Wikidemon (talk) 22:41, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
Kelly, You just linked to a subsection of WP:OR. Note that I explicitly mentioned the fact that both of these connections are amply documented in our sources and thus not OR. Homunq (talk) 22:40, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
Kelly, by only presenting her words there, you are violating WP:NPOV. Either the whole para has to go, or both sides -- the latter being *highly sourced* (I could literally present hundreds of WP:V articles on the subject) and one of the main criticisms of her. So, your pick: does it stay and present both sides,or does it go? -- Rei (talk) 23:59, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Almost Recalled as Mayor

The article needs to add this citation to when she fired the Chief of police and city Librarian. Apparently the people didn't like the direction that the city was going and a group of citizens organized to have her recalled. http://nl.newsbank.com/nl-search/we/Archives?p_product=AS&p_theme=as&p_action=search&p_maxdocs=200&p_topdoc=1&p_text_direct-0=0F79408854D0C20B&p_field_direct-0=document_id&p_perpage=10&p_sort=YMD_date:D&s_trackval=GooglePM

http://hatthief.blogspot.com/2008/08/vetting-sarah-palin-irl-stambaugh-walt.html

http://news.yahoo.com/s/huffpost/20080901/cm_huffpost/122769 —Preceding unsigned comment added by MPA (talk • contribs) 21:16, 3 September 2008 (UTC) MPA 21:08, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, been a day or two since I looked over Wasilla sources and I seem to recall there was no recall - the organizers gave it up. Or am I incorrect? Kelly hi! 21:10, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
Oops, it's already mentioned in the article, under "Wasilla". Kelly hi! 21:10, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Firing the librarian?

The article referenced for the fact that she "fired the police chief and the librarian" in fact asserts that the librarian was not fired. I'm reluctant to edit the article without some discussion. The situation appears to be that she told the librarian and the chief of police that they were both terminated, but later rescinded the termination of the librarian. The New York Times article also adds that the librarian continued to serve for "a couple of years". If there's no further information here, I'll correct the article. Lauciusa (talk) 21:11, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Please do. You are correct. 216.106.170.103 (talk) 21:18, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
 Done As a note, we should also clarify the book-banning comment, which appears as a bit of a non-sequitur in this context. Unfortunately, we only have a tertiary source on this; [1], page 18, refers to a news article in which Palin has apparently acknowledged that she made comments about book banning sometime before December 1996. She claims a rhetorical intent. So we don't have to rely on the hearsay that is currently quoted in the article currently. I have a feeling that this edit would be even more controversial, however. (oops -- forgot to sign) Lauciusa (talk) 22:47, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

TYPO in this article

Resolved
 – --JayJasper (talk) 22:16, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

The following line in the article needs to be edited:

"Palin ran for re-election against Stein in 1999[6][28] and was returned to office by a with 74% or votes cast compared to 21% for the runner-up."

I suggest the following:

"Palin ran for re-election against Stein in 1999[6][28] and was returned to office with 74% of votes cast compared to 21% for the runner-up."

 Done--JayJasper (talk) 22:16, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Why I can't edit the one of the most important article?!

This article is rated by high importance, but only a very small range of editors can edit this. I wouldn't call this a democratic issue, whatever you think. It is good say in east Africa, in China or in Balkans, but not in a democratic world.

The article is currently semi-protected so that only established accounts can edit (a common situation). As a very high visibility page, vandalism is a major issue. See the protection policy at WP:PROT and feel free to make suggestions for improvement here on the talk page. --Leivick (talk) 22:31, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
There are probably over 100K accounts that can edit the article. There are no shortage of other important articles that you can edit.Geni 22:31, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
Not to mention that to edit the article, all you have to do is register an account. --Minderbinder (talk) 22:36, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

If you want to write something, write it here and it will be copied to the article if someone agrees with the text. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fossett&Elvis (talk • contribs) 22:34, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Percentages versus vote totals

The lead says she got 48.3% of the vote (presumably in the general election). Should we change this to a vote total (114,697) or leave it as a percentage? Whatever we decide, the article ought to be uniform in this regard. Also, maybe we should give the percentage (or vote total) of the runner-up.Ferrylodge (talk) 22:38, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Do both. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 22:40, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

SENATOR John McCain

In the introduction section of the article, should it not read 'Senator John McCain', not the abbreviated 'Sen. John McCain'? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.244.97.200 (talk) 22:43, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

 DoneFerrylodge (talk) 22:52, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Affair?

Why are mentions of National Enquirer affair allegations being included? Kelly hi! 22:50, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I was about to ask this: So, is that Enquirer report going to stay in the article on the basis of it allegedly being a reliable source, or is it justified because it was also countered by a legal threat by the McCain group, or is it just a sneaky way of getting yet another gossipy item in there? Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 22:51, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
The latter. Kelly hi! 22:54, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
If the McCain campaign hadn't started talking about the Enquirer story, then it surely wouldn't have gone anywhere. But now that they have, it'll be mentioned all over the place in reliable sources. All I can figure is that the campaign thinks that bringing more attention on the rumors helps Palin by getting people to sympathize with her as a victim. Seems more like something for the campaign article, not here, if it has to go somewhere. —KCinDC (talk) 22:58, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
(ec)Um, no, it doesn't have to go somewhere, per WP:BLP. Kelly hi! 23:04, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
I didn't say it did have to go somewhere. —KCinDC (talk) 23:10, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
There is no justification to include the Enquirer story in our article. --ThaddeusB (talk) 23:03, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
And just like that, Poof!, it's gone. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 23:06, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
The Enquirer story is not a valid source. Newspapers reporting that the McCain campaign is threatening them with lawsuits over it *are* a reliable source. And really, how much more notable do you get than this? -- Rei (talk) 23:07, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
If I accused Britney Spears of chopping up puppies with chainsaws, and she threatened to sue and the threat was reported on, would the allegation have to go in her biography? Kelly hi! 23:26, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
If both of you were presidential candidates, and there were newspaper articles about it all over the place, absolutely that would have to go into her biography. Celarnor Talk to me 23:30, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
My bad. I didn't realize that you had a circulation of 1 million people and that Britney Spears was running for POTUS. -- 70.57.222.103 (talk) 23:36, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
Inserting this to a biography of a living person is a straight up BLP violation. The person who inserted it should be warned at a minimum. Hobartimus (talk) 23:09, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
McCain's group threatened to sue, and that's pretty unusual. If the Enquirer doesn't back off, it will get real interesting. Of course, if it turns out to be true, then she's done. But if the Enquirer got it wrong, the spark of cred they have following the Edwards story is likewise extinguished. This is not like writing about some Hollywood actor's latest fling, this is serious stuff. This is a touchy one, and probably best to leave out until or if something comes of it. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 23:11, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
Sounds fine by me. Let's see if this story takes off or not. Win or lose, it looks like it has the potential to be huge, but I think your "wait and see" approach is prudent. -- Rei (talk) 23:55, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
"Why are mentions of National Enquirer affair allegations being included?"
Well, to answer your question, it might be helpful to refer to comments made by a particular Wikipedia editor, Kelly hi!, not too long ago for another, similar issue/article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:John_Edwards/Archive_4#National_Enqurier_reliability):
=== National Enqurier reliability ===
Hmmm - one thing I've never seen explained is exactly why the Enquirer is considered unreliable. I understand that it is tabloidy in nature, but that's not necessary a disqualification - for example, I saw a discussion on another article regarding the use of TMZ.com. TMZ is tabloidy as hell, probably even worse than the Enquirer, but it was determined, based on a review of the evidence, that they were reliable because they upheld journalistic standards of fact-checking, etc. Now I am old enough to remember when the Enquirer consisted primarily of stories about UFO visitations and claims by women that they had been impregnated by Bigfoot, but that seems to have changed at some point and they now break serious stories - though the tone of the paper still seems lowbrow to some. I guess it would be helpful to the discussion to have an explanation of exactly why they can't be trusted in this case. Kelly hi! 04:07, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
Once again, using TMZ.com as an example, there were sources that indicated the site's reliability.[2] [3] [4] A scan of various stories shows that the Enquirer has also reliably broken other big news stories in the past. I guess I'm just politely asking if it's just your opinion that the Enquirer is unreliable based on a gut instinct, or do have some kind of evidence to back it up. With respect - Kelly hi! 04:21, 29 July 2008 (UTC)J.R. Hercules (talk) 23:36, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
The sources you posted were blogs. I just went to USAToday.com and CNN.com. The other issues, such as the pregnancy and the hubby's DUI are mentioned, but nothing about this. It's currently a non-story. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 23:42, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
Just because the National Enquirer is occasionally correct does not make it a reliable source. Nor does the subject a publication covers make it an unreliable source. When judging the reliability of a source, the question should be "What percentage of their news articles are incorrect?" The Enquirer has a long history of publishing claims that are false. That is why they are unreliable. (I am not familiar with TMZ, so I can't make a comparison.) --JHP (talk) 23:58, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
I despise Sarah Palin, but including the affair allegation in this article is definitely a WP:BLP violation if you don't have a reliable source saying that it actually occurred. --JHP (talk) 23:45, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

In the case John Edwards extramarital affair, the NE was never put forth on its own as a reliable source. However, after subsequent confirmation by multiple reliable sources, the NE allegations were included (and eventually turned out to be almost entirely accurate). In this case, there is zero confirmation from reliable sources so we can quite safely, and without a hint of hypocrisy, ignore this story until it can be (if ever) confirmed. Ronnotel (talk) 23:50, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I think the issue is that some of the same folks who pushed Enquirer-based rumors as suitable Wikipedia material when they involved John Edwards are now shocked, shocked that Enquirer-based rumors are being proposed when the subject is Palin. Perhaps the credibility of the messenger is the issue. If that's the case, I'm happy, as someone who opposed the Enquirer rumors in the Edwards article, to join the chorus here. Allegations which only the National Enquirer is willing to stand behind are not suitable for a WP:BLP, even if the existence of the rumors happens to be mentioned in more mainstream venues. If the Enquirer's record of "breaking serious stories" continues, then this will either be confirmed, or not, by more reputable sources. MastCell Talk 23:56, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
The CNN Political Ticker has noted that the Mccain camp has denied the affair and is threatening a lawsuit. The potential lawsuit is a news story, which should be mentioned. http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/09/03/mccain-camp-denies-palin-affair-threatens-lawsuit/

Bristol is pregnant

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Resolved
 – Story is now confirmed.--mboverload@ 01:17, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

[[5]]

I am having trouble including this.

1) At this point it is an unsubstantiated rumor, and 2) It's not relevant to a biography of Sarah Palin. Wikipedia is not the National Enquirer.--Paul (talk) 16:55, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
The Associated Press [6] is pretty good substantiation. As to whether it is relevant, that's more ambiguous, though I'm sure it will be trumpetted by some people during this campaign. Dragons flight (talk) 17:00, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
The AP is as good as it gets for reliable sources and being the girl is a minor and under the guardianship of Governor Palin, it is wholly relevant. Zredsox (talk) 17:04, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
I think that Paul was thinking that the initial post was referring to the Internet rumor posted on Daily Kos - and not the announcement today by the Palins about their daughter's pregnancy--Jdrushton (talk) 17:02, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
AP is highly reliable as a source for something straightforward like this, put it in the article. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:02, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
Yes put it in the article about Bristol, not this article. It's the same type of newspaper chatter like George Hussein Onyango Obama who lives in a hut in Africa on 12 dollars and is the half brother of Obama it's sourced and all but it's not in the main Obama article, the BLP about Obama. Similarly any rumors or such about family members should go into side articles not the main article. Hobartimus (talk) 17:11, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
The pregnancy of Bristol holds weight in this circumstance, specifically because she is a minor and affects Palin politically from a family values standpoint, which is why it is relevant in the context of her biography.Zredsox (talk) 17:21, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
Palin's disclosure of the pregnancy of her underage child is notable and relevent to the article topic. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:24, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
Another user below stated that she is not underage, the age of consent in Alaska being 16 and Bristol being 17, however I have no way to verify this info. Hobartimus (talk) 17:57, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
"Minor" = under the age of 18. She is in her parents guardianship. That is what is being referred to, not the age of consent. Zredsox (talk) 18:01, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
Several news sources have states that Bristol Palin is in fact 17; however, this is irrelevant, as KCinDC points out below. Since the age of consent in Alaska is 16, Bristol is technically able to conceive a child. The concern, which is unreported and thus far speculation, is the age of Levi. If he is 18+ then he is in a position of authority and this becomes a legal matter.
Huh? How would being over 18 put him in a position of authority over her? A 16-year-old can have sex with whomever she likes, even a 76-year-old. -- Zsero (talk) 18:39, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
Exactly, it's pretty wild to say that being over 18 is a "position of authority". Hobartimus (talk) 18:42, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
According to AS 11.41.436 a(3), this is an offense only if the "offender is the victim's natural parent, stepparent, adopted parent, or legal guardian." See: http://touchngo.com/lglcntr/akstats/Statutes/Title11/Chapter41/Section436.htm JCP (talk) 18:49, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
Here is a solid source on the father, 18-year-old Levi Johnston, Bristol Palin's pregnancy was an open secret back home, with great pictures and tons of details. Digitalmandolin (talk) 04:11, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
Here is another one, Father of Bristol Palin’s Baby Identified. Digitalmandolin (talk) 04:16, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
I feel it should be included because she supports abstinence only education...24.92.220.10 (talk) 09:36, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
Having children at 44 and 17 suggests the only thing they know how to "just say no" to in that family is contraception. Notice in the family photo, how the 17 year old is not smiling so much as the others. Being 17 and pregnant will do that to you. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 10:26, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
This is not a blog. Please keep remarks relevant to article improvement. Thanks. Edison2 (talk) 15:38, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Big sections of this talk page itself have been deleted today -- is this appropriate?

Resolved
 – Evil robots did it.--mboverload@ 01:16, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I just went back to see if there were any additional comments on something I had posted here, and I couldn't find the section. I then noticed that a whole lot of stuff has been removed, but I can't even find when or by whom because there are so many edits -- and I can't see anyone noting it in their edit summaries. Here is a way to see some of what I mean: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sarah_Palin&offset=20080901235144&limit=1000&action=history

Is this appropriate? If not, what can be done?

Thanks, User:BTR (User talk:BTR) 14:54, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

No, not deleted but archived - and that's very appropriate. You'll find what you're searching for in the archive, but improvements of the article should be discussed here. --Hapsala (talk) 15:00, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
The archives are linked at the top of this page in the first box, for your convenience. Keeper ǀ 76 15:01, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
Thank you -- I didn't even think of that! Sorry to sound like Chicken Little! Thanks, User:BTR (User talk:BTR) 15:04, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
No problemo. And, of course, the sky is falling. Depending on your politics, it is perhaps caused by different reasons. But it is falling.  :-) Keeper ǀ 76 15:21, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Palin sought many earmarks

Despite the McCain campaign's claims, Sarah Palin is no opponent of earmarks. --JHP (talk) 22:07, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

More info on her earmark requests is here. --JHP (talk) 02:46, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Why is the cited Marijuana usage continually deleted?

Resolved
 – It's in the article about her more specific views--mboverload@ 01:09, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I have read about Sarah Palin's admitted marijuana usage several times on Wikipedia.

The author of the thread correctly cited the incidence.

The news paper where the information was contained actually quoted this info from her own lips. 

Sarah Palin admitted to using federally illegal drugs in Alaska.

So why is this information being blocked? This is supposed to be a free and honest encyclopedia.

The American people have a right to know if their prospective Vice Presidential candidate is a drug user.

If McCain dies from old age in office (which he is likely to do) Sarah Palin would be president and a drug user.

Federally, not state. Plus it was like 20 years ago? --mboverload@ 03:25, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
Has it been reported by a significant number of reliable sources?Geni
Someone moved that info to Political positions of Sarah Palin.Ferrylodge (talk) 03:48, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
The top of the other ticket used cocaine and you're hollering about marijuana? Political campaigns are apparently brains-free zones. A.J.A. (talk) 04:01, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
And for the record, I don't care that Obama used to snort coke. A.J.A. (talk) 04:02, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
Well put AJA. Cocaine >>> Marijuana. --mboverload@ 04:15, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
Obama's drug use in high school is mentioned in at least one WP article. Steve Dufour (talk) 05:06, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
There's a fundamental flaw in the comment "a right to know if so-and-so is a drug user". Is there any evidence that Palin is a current or recent user of illegal substances? Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 12:42, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
The question of whether to include this information in Sarah Palin's biography seems to be answered by the Associated Press noting the importance to her political campaign. Digitalmandolin (talk) 15:12, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
It certainly doesn't belong in the SUMMARY of her political positions, when it isn't even a political position to begin with. I removed all specific positions when I wrote the summary, as per Wikipedia policy. --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:18, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
Should it not at least appear in her "Personal" section where it was located prior? Is Wikipedia some kind of Republican Shill? Are these the true color of the "Free Encyclopedia"? How much were you paid by lobbyists and campaign managers to make sure this relevant information doesn't show up on her Wikipedia page? Also, here is yet ANOTHER source that can be cited
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/08/29/politics/politico/thecrypt/main4397109.shtml?weed —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sryuuza (talk • contribs) 16:27, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

VECO

Resolved
 – --mboverload@ 01:05, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

The article currently states:

In that campaign, Palin received $4500 in legal campaign contributions from VECO Corporation. Four years later, the company was investigated by the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Internal Revenue Service in the Alaska political corruption probe.[35]

Is there anything here more than guilt by association? A.J.A. (talk) 04:15, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Remove it. That is utter partisan nonsense. --mboverload@ 04:20, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
See WP:COATRACK. Coemgenus 11:10, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Article says, "In that campaign, Palin received $4500 in legal campaign contributions from VECO Corporation. Four years later, the company was investigated by the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Internal Revenue Service in the Alaska political corruption probe." But the wiki article for VECO_Corporation#Alaska_Legislature_corruption_scandal gives nothing to support that she's was accused within the investigation and that the $4500 donation was the legal campaign contribution. Seems like this reference should be removed until she is accused within the investigation. She was not in the search warrants either. Theosis4u (talk) 04:16, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Remove it. That is utter partisan nonsense. --mboverload@ 04:20, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
I've avoided doing any edits so far. Hopefully, others will do it - showing consent to the issue. Dealing with the Talk section alone tries my patience enough already. Theosis4u (talk) 04:26, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
Sigh it is irrelivant to wikipedia if something is "partisan" or even "nonsense". Is it widely reported upon in relibable sources?Geni 08:33, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
The material is currently gone & should stay that way. Only details ("good" or "bad") which are shown to have impacted her career should be included. That is how biographies work. --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:28, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Alaskan Independence Party Involvement Controversy

The article currenly says: "Palin registered as a member of the Republican Party in May of 1982, and has remained a Republican ever since.[16][17]"

However, it has been suggested that Sarah Palin attended the AIP's 1994 Another AIP Official Says Palin Was at 1994 Convention Members of 'Fringe' Alaskan Independence Party Say Palin Was a Member in 90s; McCain Camp and Alaska Division of Elections Deny Charge and 2000 conventions. The seperatist AIP has a plank that challenges the legality of the Alaskan statehood.

According to Lynette Clark, the chairman of the AIP, Palin and her husband Todd were members in 1994, even attending the 1994 statewide convention in Wasilla. John McCain's running mate Sarah Palin was in Alaskan independence party

She made this video in 2008: Sarah Palin and the Alaska Independence Party. Palin addresses AIP convention

I feel this controversy should be out in the open in the article since it gives additional political background on the presumptive vice presidential candidate.Kgrr (talk) 12:07, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

This sounds like McCarthyism. Do you honestly think McCain's people don't already know about this? Do you think he would pick a VP who would include fracturing the Union on her agenda? Has the AIP ever been accused of doing anything illegal? Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 12:24, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
It's not McCarthyism by any stretch--there is an NPOV way to state it. Especially the fact she taped a greeting to their convention. Blueboy96 12:31, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
I'm sure they know it. And, it's hard to escape the fact of her recorded video. However, the controversy is alive and should be brought up in the Wikipedia article. The AIP is involved with the separation of Alaska from the Union.Kgrr (talk) 12:34, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
It already does state it NPOV. It says she was a member. The question is, who considers this to be controversial? Not McCain's people, apparently. There's a lot of stuff in the Robert Byrd article about the Senator being in the KKK when he was relatively young, and justifiably so - the KKK is or at least was officially regarded as a subversive organization. Is the AIP so regarded? Are they accused of breaking any laws? Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 12:36, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
More to the point, is there any record of her saying, "I believe Alaska should secede from the Union"? Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 12:37, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
Has she been in the national public eye to have every minute of everything she's said in public or on the phone on the Internet? I don't think so. However, it's well known what the AIP is all about. In fact, the Wikipedia article on the AIP does mention her being a member. Here is a NY Times article about her disclosures: Palin Disclosures Raise Questions on Vetting "that she was a member for two years in the 1990s of the Alaska Independence Party, which has at times sought a vote on whether the state should secede" Kgrr (talk) 12:58, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
It's perfectly clear what its founder thought, and what at least some of its members think. Is there a law against advocating secession? I thought we had freedom of speech in this country. Have they been accused of threatening civil war? Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 13:03, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
I also fail to see the controversy here. As far as I know, the Republican party does not have an exclusivity clause, and members are free to simultaneously be members of other parties. Also, addressing a group does not demonstrate any endorsement, either explicit or implied, in either direction. AIP didn't endorse her by simply hearing her positions in a video message, nor did she endorse the AIP by accepting their invitation to address them. There is an awful lot trying to be implied here with no basis in any reliable sources, and such unsourced implications do not meet WP:NPOV. Jim Miller See me | Touch me 13:05, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
What's trying to be implied is that we could have a VP who would favor Alaskan secession. There is no evidence of that whatsoever, and unless McCain's an idiot, he wouldn't select someone who had such beliefs. So it amounts to McCarthyism. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 13:09, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
No one is implying that. What is being stated factually is that she has an association with a group that holds those views.zredsox (talk) 16:40, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
And her connection is mentioned in the article. The AIP article goes into depth about with the AIP is supposedly about. I don't recall seeing anything in there that sounded seditious. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 18:09, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
"Is there a law against advocating secession?" Yes. It's called sedition.Kgrr (talk) 13:12, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
No, sedition is the advocating of violent overthrow or revolution. Advocating secession, by itself, would not necessarily be sedition, but merely a political viewpoint, which could be pursued perfectly legally. For example, you could go to Congress and ask for repeal of statehood. Or you could go to court and challenge the statehood status. That's not sedition. If you advocate rebellion, a la the U.S. Confederacy, that could be sedition. Does the AIP officially advocate violent rebellion? If so, maybe you should clue McCain in on it directly rather than hoping he'll read about it here. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 14:08, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
Sedition is generally not violent. It's is more about encouraging the people to rebel, where Treason is actually betraying the country. Read AIP's website so you can learn what they're all about. [7] Kgrr (talk) 22:20, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
According to the NYT source, Palin was at the 1994 and 2006 conventions. According to McCain spokesperson Rogers, she also attended the 2000 convention. And she gave the address to the 2008 convention. So now we know Sarah Palin attended the 1994, 2000, 2006, and, via video address, the 2008 convention. I think there is enough here to warrant inclusion in the article (a clear political association with the Alaska Independence Party). Digitalmandolin (talk) 20:24, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
I think I have given plenty of references above. Kgrr (talk) 22:20, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

The party says that she was not part of the party: http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/09/02/alaska-party-official-says-palin-was-not-a-member/?scp=2&sq=alaska%20independence&st=cse . Argo117 (talk) 21:50, 3 September 2008 (UTC)Argo117

Very interesting. So Lynette Clark, the Chair of AIP, retracted her statement. Nevertheless, she participated at the conventions according to a second source (above). Then in all fairness the retraction should be included in this section as well. Kgrr (talk) 22:31, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
Please explain why we need to put something that is untrue into the article so we can also include the retraction of the untruth?--Paul (talk) 22:50, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
None of the sources are conclusive. She has not actively supported the party, ever said she advocated secession, or offered them any sort of financial or legal aid. The varying pieces of evidence have to be pulled together to imply that she is a secessionist, which is original research. Until a news article says that she is an unpatriotic American for supporting secession, this is not a controversy, only gossip. I read a few things that said that, but most seem to merely give some evidence that she's linked in some way, then speak on the evils of the party. Take this one.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/uselection2008/johnmccain/2667214/John-McCains-running-mate-Sarah-Palin-was-in-Alaskan-independence-party.html There's a summary of what the party is, mention of what Palin said, then a mention that the AIP wants to infiltrate the government and hates that Palin is with McCain now, and then they say Palin wasn't chosen properly, and move onto other issues. No direct talk of what this means. Or this. http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-aip3-2008sep03,0,6399468.story It repeats her praise for the group, and says that an official sidestepped a question, but again didn't answer whether she was a secessionist, merely said she cheered them on. We don't really have anything solid. A lot of blogs make the link- she has these links, so she must be unpatriotic, and will therefore not support America as a vice president, but favour Alaska. But news articles don't directly touch the issue. And rightly so, since at any time she could support or contradict what they say. Until there's some direct evidence that she likes or dislikes secession, it doesn't warrant a major section. Certainly not a spam of links that support various statements about vague links between her and the party that I saw before. --Ytaker (talk) 01:02, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

The article need not and should not attribute to her any sort of endorsement of secessionism, but the allegations of her past attendance at AIP meetings, her husband's membership, and her recorded greeting to them as governor clearly demonstrate some degree of association and warrant mention together on this page . --Saforrest (talk) 05:23, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

One sentence would suffice. The AIP website minimalizes the involvement of Palin and her husband, and there is nothing seditious in their views. This is a non-story. One sentence is enough. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 10:08, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I noticed some material was deleted[8] with the edit summary "rm addition with mutliple unreliable sources cited". Most of the sources were from ABC News, another was from Talking Points Memo (a recipient of the Polk Award), a couple more from the AIP itself, and a YouTube video of Palin addressing the AIP (which, while not a V RS itself, is OK as a convenience link. Since those sources looked pretty reliable to me, I restored the section, only to have it deleted less than 5 minutes later by another editor whose edit summary offered no basis on content-guiding policy whatsoever -- the old "need consensus" excuse, as if that possibly advances discussion at all. --Comesincolors2 (talk) 15:33, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

The controversy was born by bloggers who got it wrong and then continued in the MSM which did not fact check enough. The AIP itself came out and pretty much added this to the same compost heap that has being used by the other "lies are truth if repeated enough" crowd have been spawning. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 15:39, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
Might work to have a sentence in her history, saying she became a member for a couple of years. Doesn't seem too controversial now. --Ytaker (talk) 22:32, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, not true. She was never a member of AKIP. Look here: Talk:Sarah Palin#Dispute: Alaskan Independence Party. Hmmm, maybe there is a case to be made for a one-sentence denial in the article. I'll have to think about this.--Paul (talk) 22:38, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Typing Mistake Bristol's DOB is not 1980

Resolved
 – Error corrected.--mboverload@ 01:18, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Ref. 114 links to court document that shows her birthyear is 1990 where as the article here states 1980. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.249.47.11 (talk) 12:38, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Since corrected. T0mpr1c3 (talk) 13:01, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Marijuana use?

Resolved
 – --mboverload@ 01:02, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

It was mentioned on the 9aug version, but no longer on the current one. Dont get me on whether or not it is relevant; i just noticed it. I started reading the old version to get some unbiased 'data' in the first place, and this is the first difference i noticed. --82.170.27.104 (talk) 17:42, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

It's now under Political positions of Sarah Palin. T0mpr1c3 (talk) 18:19, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Jews for Jesus stuff, terrorism, and “judgment of unbelief”

Heads up, something to keep an eye out for. People will likely start adding this and related information before/if it gets proper sourcing. rootology (C)(T) 13:25, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

There is an edit war going on with regard to the Jews for Jesus guest speaker. As there is no consensus on the relevancy of this, it needs to stay out. If this doesn't settle out by tomorrow, I will request a full administrative lock-down. Freedom Fan (talk) 21:47, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
"then it needs to stay out" -- Since when are the rules of notability, "If we can't agree, then we do whatever I want"? Wikipedia is about consensus building. Feel free to join in the conversation (below) and work towards that. -- Rei (talk) 22:04, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
Being present during a one-hour sermon is not the same as being present every Sunday for 20 years, as Obama was with Jeremiah Wright. The JfJ reference needs to be removed. --CliffC (talk) 01:17, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Here is the historical list of speakers for her church. You can see David Brickner spoke only one time. http://wasillabible.org/sermons.htm So please remove this obvious political attack. MAL

Hear hear, and we cant even get one freakin word in that article about it! CENSEI (talk) 01:25, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Content of a speech given by guest speaker when Palin was in attendance

I am not a Palin supporter, but it seems to me that trying to smear her by including some controversial content of a speech given by someone else while Palin was in attendance violates the spirit of BLP guidelines. If the speaker had a long-term relationship with Palin, it's possible a case could be made, but this was a guest speaker! The editor keeps re-adding the inappropriate sentence. -Exucmember (talk) 18:40, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Meh. I'd remove it, but it would just be edit-warred by someone else. This is a meme the left-wing press is pushing today, that's she's some kind of crazy Christianist. It'll fade. Trust me, the Obama campaign will not want to have a discussion about what preachers say. Kelly hi! 18:49, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
Not necessarily. It took months for the controversy surrounding remarks by Michael Pfleger to fade from the Obama BLP (even though Obama wasn't in attendance), and the Jeremiah Wright-related stuff is still around. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:56, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, but it will all flare up again if this issue is flogged, so I'm pretty sure the Obama campaign will put the kibosh on the press. That way the pressure will come off this article and we can decide what version of this, if any, remains here. Kelly hi! 19:01, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure I agree with that bit of crystal ball gazing. Better language than "more recently" should be found though. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:07, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
I would like to note some differences. Obama, described Wright as a mentor. The Wright controversy was all over the news. This "guest speaker" isn't even named. Second of all, the citation doesn't have any info. I think it might be considered original research.Rds865 (talk) 19:09, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

<- (to Scjessey) Agreed, just trying to be realistic. You remember what hell it was around here when everyone was claiming that she wasn't really the mother of her kids. Agree on the specificity. Also, need to rephrase the "God's will" quotes from the church speech and frame it in context. Looks like the reporter took a couple of words from a much longer prayer to fit whatever he/she was trying to say. Kelly hi! 19:11, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
<- I agree with Kelly. Need to fix "God's Will" quote. Does not accurately reflect what Palin was saying. Check the source. 75.11.191.123 (talk) 20:47, 3 September 2008 (UTC)John

I have no time for blog gossip. BLPs demand the highest standard of reliable sources - something "babygate" lacked. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:16, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
"In attendance"??? Talk about guilt by association. Hey, I was in attendance at a ball game when a fight broke out. I guess that makes me a hooligan. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 19:23, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, this is why I have a big problem with the Jeremiah Wright stuff, too. I happen to be a member of an established religious group, and the doctrine of the group contains a bunch of stuff I don't necessarily believe in. But I still consider myself a member of that religion and attend its meetings. Guilt by association is right. Kelly hi! 19:30, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
I certainly agree that just because someone listens too someone, doesn't mean they take every word they say as gospel truth, but that's not the point. the Wright controversy was all over the news, Obama made a famous speech in response to it. Therefore it belongs in wikipedia. Rds865 (talk) 19:39, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
I don't follow your logic. Are you saying that if a political candidate on one side gets unfairly tarred, we have to help tar someone from the opposing side? That's not the purpose of Wikipedia. Kelly hi! 19:42, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
This material is currently out and should stay that way. The event is completely non-notable and non-sourced at this time. --ThaddeusB (talk) 19:50, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
No, that's not what I am saying. I am arguing against that. I am saying that the Wright Controversy is not comparable to this Jews for Jesus thing. In that the Wright controversy deserves mention in Obama's article, but this Jews for Jesus statement doesn't. It looks like we are all in agreement Rds865 (talk) 19:53, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
It's back in. "On August 17, Palin was in attendence when David Brickner, the leader of Jews for Jesus, gave a sermon claiming that terrorism against Israel is due to the disbelief in Jesus by its Jewish population.[124][125]; according to a McCain campaign spokesman, Palin has rejected his views.[126]" The argument made by the person who added it is that it is notable because McCain released a PR on it. I strongly disagree with that logic though. Where is the evidence that it impacted Palin's LIFE and/or CAREER? If there is none, it is not notable. --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:03, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
It is really no different from the controversial words by Michael Pfleger that caused Obama to quit his church. As I said before, that was a big enough deal to remain in his BLP for months, so it is not unreasonable for us to include this. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:16, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
If the McCain campaign is commenting on it, *they* perceive it as a big deal. Campaigns don't comment on just everything. I can't imagine how you'd deign to substitute your judgement on what's a big deal over what what the campaign thinks. Furthermore, it's carried by a number of news outlets, including at least one in Israel. How can you possibly think that a story that even Israeli news sources are picking up isn't impacting her career (i.e., her attempt to become VP)? And lastly, it's an exact mirror of the Wright controversy -- only Palin was *actually there* for this speech. I can't see how one can remotely argue that it's not relevant. -- Rei (talk) 20:18, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
It seems to have become recently more relevant, as all the Jewish media, has covered it. The McCain campaign comments on any thing they are asked,(such as the number of houses the McCain's own). It is hard to edit a developing story. However, a better source that the Jewish media would be nice. Rds865 (talk) 20:45, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
I am not saying it is not relevant to today's news cycle. I am saying the event is not relevant to SP's life. This is biographical article, not a news source. --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:54, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
Indeed. Wikipedia is not a news paper. It is an encyclopedia, though looking through the section headers of this talk page, I wouldn't blame anyone who mistook it for the National Enquirer. This is a trivial attempt to slur Palin with guilt by being in the same room. It's absurd.--Paul (talk) 21:38, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
There's only one job that she could run for in her life that's higher than the Vice Presidency, what she's running for right now and this is a story with the potential to derail her candidacy. And you think it's not relevant, despite a similar story nearly derailing Obama's campaign, the McCain campaign's efforts to stamp out the fire, and the continuing growth of newspapers covering the story. I cannot understand how you arrive at this viewpoint. -- Rei (talk) 21:34, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
Hmmm, "story" "potential [to derail...]" what's wrong here? Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not the editorial room of the National Enquirer.--Paul (talk) 21:41, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
You know, you're right! We shouldn't be reporting pesky "facts" covered by "newspapers" of repute that are of "significance" to such trivial things as a "presidential election", like whether she belongs to a church with antisemitic leanings. Only the national inquirer would do something like that. We should be discussing important things, like whether she made a critical free throw back in high school while she had an ankle injury. -- Rei (talk) 21:45, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
This is a significant media story, reliably sourced, that has drawn a response from the McCain camp - thus warranting a mention. Presumably, this falls under the auspices of WP:WELLKNOWN (a policy referred to frequently by anti-Obama editors) -- Scjessey (talk) 21:47, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
Ah Scjessey, you're making the rounds I see. Lose this goofy story. It has NO. ZERO. consensus for relevancy. This is a lame political smear. The "warmly received by her pastor" BS is a transparent give away.
What a guest speaker might have said when she was sitting in the audience is totally irrelevant. I suspect an administrative lock-down and probation will become necessary. BTW I notice that the Barack Obama article does not even include a heading for "Religion". Care to share your position on that? Freedom Fan (talk) 22:02, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
So, you're saying that when a political figure's pastor supports something majorly controversial, something with the potential to derail their candidacy, something so significant that the campaign issues official statements and dozens of WP:V sources cover it, that it's "totally irrelevant"? Wow -- you better hurry up and strip Wikipedia of references to Wright. -- Rei (talk) 22:07, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
Wright relationship with Obama is different than Palin's with Jews for Jesus, which is not as controversial. Anyway, it shouldn't go in the religion section, but the 2008 campaign section, if in the article at all. After all it was McCain's people who responded. The story is that some Jews are concerned she might be anti-Semitic. I am sorry, but that doesn't sound noteworthy, not yet. Rds865 (talk) 22:17, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
Jews for Jesus, not as controversial? Are you kidding me? They're like the third rail of politics concerning Jewish-American votes. Have you even read the Jews for Jesus Wikipedia article? There's half a dozen *groups* formed explicitly to counter them, including the largest anti-missionary organization in existence (Jews for Judaism, which has six international offices). Here's an article from New York Magazine talking about how Palin's perceived hostility to Jewish interests may well cost the McCain ticket the election. -- Rei (talk) 22:24, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

<- This is a blatant guilt-by-association attempt. However, if the article makes clear that Palin rejects the speaker's views, it's not as bad as it could be. Kelly hi! 23:13, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Rei wrote (4 entries above): "So, you're saying that when a political figure's pastor supports something majorly controversial..."
Obviously there's an immense difference between the contents of Rev. Wright's sermons and those of a one-time guest speaker. The idea was that Rev. Wright being Obama's pastor for a couple decades was somehow a window into Obama's religious beliefs (Liberation Theology) or secret radical political beliefs. If it had not become a major media event there is no way anyone could justify putting anything about it in an encyclopedia.
Now it seems Rei is making a new argument: that Palin's pastor knew the Jews for Jesus speaker would say something anti-semitic (or at least that he knew the guest speaker was anti-semitic), and had him speak anyway, which shows that Palin's pastor is anti-semitic. Sorry, but there are several steps of WP:OR and WP:SYNTH here. The giant unreferenced assumption among these is this: How do we know Palin's pastor is anti-semitic?
This has no place in an encyclopedia biography at present. If it becomes a big media circus like the Wright church controversy, then it could go in a campaign section or article. For now, it should be removed immediately as a BLP violation. -Exucmember (talk) 23:53, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
You have already used this argument above, and ignored responses. The fact remains that this is a notable, well-covered matter that is receiving national media attention. It is similar to the Michael Pfleger issue that eventually caused Obama to leave his church, and in this case the subject was actually present for the remarks by the guest speaker. There's a hint of a double standard here. -- Scjessey (talk) 23:57, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
The argument in my new comments has not been addressed at all, and, no, I did not ignore responses above; I simply didn't comment on those which were irrelevant. Michael Pfleger was the straw that broke the camel's back. A single guest speaker would not have gotten much (if any) media attention if Wright hadn't already been a major issue. Some people perceived it as showing a pattern characterizing that church. Michael Pfleger was part of the Wright controversy. Where is the Wright controversy here? The unnamed guest speaker at Palin's church is also not a major media issue yet. Until it is, it should not be in Wikipedia. Even then, it does not belong in a "Religion" section in a person's biography. -Exucmember (talk) 00:08, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
I will repeat what I have said before: this is a notable, well-covered matter that is receiving national media attention. You have not managed to answer for this fact satisfactorily. There are multiple reliable sources available that discuss this, and it is most certainly having an effect on the important Jewish voting bloc (in the swing state of Florida, for example). I agree that this shouldn't be a big deal, but the media coverage has made it so. WP:WELLKNOWN indicates that this should be mentioned, although I still feel this will fade into the background in time (as I said previously). -- Scjessey (talk) 00:17, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
I would argue against the unfortunate editor's desire to include this. We can look to any of his talk page comments on any Obama related article over the last month to counter any proposal he might make for the inclusion of almost anything that he might propose.--Die4Dixie (talk) 07:26, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

"warm welcome"

I've removed a statement a couple of times that the Jews for Jesus guy was "warmly welcomed by her pastor". Not sure why that would be relevant to her biography, unless it's a guilt-by-secondhand-association attempt. Kelly hi! 22:55, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

And I removed it again. Please discuss. Kelly hi! 23:02, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
It isn't relevant. The pastor's welcoming of the highly is hardly noteworthy (why would he be there is not welcomed) and has zero to do with Palin. --ThaddeusB (talk) 23:04, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
We are discussing it. Above ("Content of a speech given by guest speaker when Palin was in attendance"). Please post in the proper section. -- Rei (talk) 23:07, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm placing a neutrality tag on the article as a first step. If we have certain editors who seriously believe that it is relevant that Palin once listened to someone whom she probably doesn't even know and that somehow reflects on her deeply-held religious beliefs, then we have an egregious neutrality problem.

This is an example what some of these same editors call a wp:coatrack when it happens to their candidate. This is a transparent attempt to scare Jews from voting; whether she once listened to someone is obviously irrelevant to her religious beliefs. Also irrelevant is whether people in her campaign once responded to some bogus concern. These same editors would recoil at using the same standard for relevancy when it comes to say, Barack Obama's bio, from which the entire religion section was erased.

Simply put: This text tells us absolutely nothing about Sarah Palin's religious beliefs.

This text violates WP:Relevant and fails to meet the high bar of neutrality necessary for inclusion of material about living persons in a Wikipedia article [WP:BLP]]. Accordingly, I believe it qualifies for speedy deletion as required under Wikipedia policy. Freedom Fan (talk) 23:26, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

{{editprotected}}

I am requesting deletion of the irrelevant, POV inclusion of the statement about Palin's having listened to someone and then implying that it has something to do with her religious beliefs. This text has no consensus for relevancy and appears to be a textbook candidate for speedy deletion as required by WP:BLP.

Specifically, under the religion section this part needs to go:

On August 17, Palin was in attendence when David Brickner, the leader of Jews for Jesus, gave a guest sermon claiming that terrorism against Israel is due to the disbelief in Jesus by its Jewish population;[113][114][115][116] according to a McCain campaign spokesman, Palin rejected his views.[117]

Thank you. Freedom Fan (talk) 23:57, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

 Not done. The article is no longer fully protected; if there is consensus, feel free to make the changes you propose. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 13:13, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Jews for Jesus

This sentence seems fairly inflammatory. Can someone provide a good reason why sitting in a pew and listening to someone rattle on is worth mentioning on a bio page? Seems like WP:UNDUE to me.

On August 17, Palin was in attendence when David Brickner, the leader of Jews for Jesus, gave a guest sermon claiming that terrorism against Israel is due to the disbelief in Jesus by its Jewish population;[113][114][115][116] according to a McCain campaign spokesman, Palin rejected his views.
Palin's pastor greeted Brickner warmly, so she must agree with Brickner's idiotic views. More guilt by association. Except this is guilt by association with association. Oy! Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 23:48, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
In this case, we had a rare opportunity to have the American people decide whether this is notable -- in this case, the preacher's name was Wright, what he said wasn't nearly as inflammatory, and the candidate in question wasn't even in attendance that day. New York Magazine is reporting that this one thing could determine the fate of the election[9]. And you think this isn't notable why?
Also, people, please read the above sections before you start a new one. -- Rei (talk) 23:47, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
Rei, notability is a term of art in the Wikipedia. It means that the subject is meets some objective criteria or satisfies subjective criteria which can be agreed to by a consensus of editors, so the subject is included in the Wikipedia. patsw (talk) 00:13, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
“what he said wasn't nearly as inflammatory” - That’s certainly debatable. “God damn America,” if I remember correctly.
“the candidate in question wasn't even in attendance that day” - True, but Wright was the pastor of the candidate’s church. Brickner was merely a guest speaker.
I completely agree with your last point, though. :)
—Travistalk 23:59, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
Jews for Jesus is, as mentioned earlier on this page, practically a third rail of politics for Jewish-American voters. There are half a dozen groups founded *explicitly* to counter them, including Jews for Judaism, the largest anti-missionary group in the world. Palin's pastor has repeatedly spoken fondly of him (not just on that one day), took out a donation for Jews for Jesus, and so on.
All of that said, that's irrelevant. The fact is that the mainstream press, Jewish-issues press, and even some Israeli press have been running with this story in a big way, and it could cost her the election. That makes it notable in a big way. -- Rei (talk) 00:08, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
When it comes to including the David Brickner relationship in the article, it has to pass through several tests. If Brickner's relationship with Palin were as longstanding and as deep as Wrights's relationship with Obama and verifiable by reliable secondary sources, the the relationship might be included in the article. Brickner was not Palin's pastor, but an incidental guest of the pastor so the connection is weak. patsw (talk) 00:13, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
As it stands, the sentence seems like a non sequitur. There is no context that would make it even remotely notable. If there is more to the story, like Palin has secret ties to Jew-hating Aryan organizations, then maybe. But just sitting in a pew while a guest speaker rattles on fails per WP:UNDUE, WP:SYNTH, WP:BLP and a bunch of others. Ronnotel (talk) 00:17, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
I agree it should be removed. Does anyone even imply that Sarah spoke to the Jews for Jesus pastor? Or sought him out? Or heard him more than one time as a Guest speaker? This seems to be unnecessary partisan drivel. Skits2 (talk) 06:20, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Minor typo

Resolved

{{editsemiprotected}} "in teh theory of evolution" needs to be fixed in the first paragraph of the Personal Life:Religion section.

Not sure when, but it looks like this was already fixed. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 14:26, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Images are busted

Resolved
 – --mboverload@ 00:59, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Anyone have any idea why all the images seem to be busted? None of them are loading for me.Ferrylodge (talk) 22:12, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh never mind, they seem to be working again now.Ferrylodge (talk) 22:15, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

FAQ

I just added a FAQ section (see the top of this talk page), based on the section in the Barack Obama article. It's meant to guide editors new to the page, and also be a stable place to note perennial proposals that have firmly been rejected and that are no longer under active discussion. That way, instead of re-starting a finished discussion every time someone new comes to the page and doesn't find it (because it's been archived or the talk page is too long) you can just point them to the FAQ. It's best to only include completely uncontroversial things there. For now I just populated it with a few process points, not any actual issues. Hope this helps. Wikidemon (talk) 22:46, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Not sure it'll help, but it's worth a try. I'm not sure it should be encouraging BRD at the moment, though. There's more than enough editing and reverting happening as it is, and starting off with discussion seems like a good idea until things calm down. Then perhaps be bold if your discussion gets ignored. —KCinDC (talk) 23:06, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
Feel free to edit the FAQ to downplay the "B" part of "BRD". For the moment there is article protection. When editing resumes at least people should be following the D part of BRD instead of revert warring.Wikidemon (talk) 01:00, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

'Governor' Palin

Resolved
 – Error corrected.--mboverload@ 01:21, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Throughout the article it refers to SP as either Sarah or Palin (except in the opening section) Why then, when we get to the section 'Family' and the potentially damaging revelations about her daughter's pregnancy is she suddenly refered to as "Governor Palin announced on September 1, 2008, that her daughter Bristol was five months pregnant and intended to keep the baby and marry the father of her child, 17-year-old Levi Johnston."? Surely, Palin OR Sarah (if you wanted to distinguish her from her daughter) would suffice. It seems to me that the introduction of "Governor" in this sentence is contrived.

Or more likely a result of the many hands in this article. It be gone. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 23:20, 3 September 2008 (UTC)


Page protected

An admin has protected the article page. Probably a good idea. We have other things we could be doing! Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 23:46, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, any updates can be handled through edit requests for the next few days. Hopefully the feeding frenzy will have died down by then. Kelly hi! 23:48, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
For five days? Yeah, that's a good way to deal with an article on a politician whose politics and background we know nothing about. Hey, if there's any interest left about her after five days you can just extend it for another five. I think you've captured exactly what the spirit of Wikipedia is all about! Congrats, pat each other on the backs, you deserve it. Lampman (talk) 00:09, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
The article can still be easily updated with consensus material developed here at the talk page. Hobartimus (talk) 00:14, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
I guess I'll have to go back to doing my job when I'm at work ;) Good call on protection, though, regretable as it is. I'll be glad to give up my editing privileges here until the feeding frenzy dies down. Coemgenus 00:18, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
See below for that. Lampman (talk) 00:18, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
This is a sad event. Unfortunately, Wikipedia probably had little choice since many "established users" kept trying to insert libelous material. Also, it was getting too edit-war-ish. --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:43, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Did anyone else notice the page was protected in a state were all the McCain campaign talking points were included and anything controversial yet well documented and sourced (such as AIP which was being discussed above with a consensus to include) was completely wiped? How convenient since she is speaking tonight and this page will see heavy traffic. It is quite apparent what is going on here. zredsox (talk) 00:42, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

If there is any consensus about the AIP matter it is to exclude, as anyone can see by reviewing the numerous and voluminous talk sections on the subject.--Paul (talk) 01:04, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
I have read them all and it is quite obvious that the consensus is that at least something should be included. Don't let partisanship blind you.zredsox (talk) 01:28, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia editors generally lean left, somebody even started a conservative version because of it. There is no cabal. BJTalk 00:46, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
Actually, BJ, Wikipedia editors generally lean right (some from conviction and some from an interpretation of "reliable sources" that in practice makes them subject to the biases of the corporate media). That's why somebody even started a progressive version. JamesMLane t c 08:40, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I agree with Zredsox that something highly nefarious is going on here. I was just about to insert a new section documenting Palin's close ties to the Democratic Party, but now the page has been frozen. Her extensive family and professional ties to Democrats, plus her well-publicized efforts at bipartisanship and "crossing the aisle" will now have to wait until September 8. But, mark my words, they will be extensively documented in this article, if there is a ridiculous section in the article doing the same thing regarding the AIP.Ferrylodge (talk) 00:48, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
I am not saying Wikipedia as an organization is a cabal. What I am saying is that if you view the statistics for edits on the Palin article and associate the primary editors with the talk page discussions that they partake in, it becomes clear there is a biased minority that has taken ownership of the article and moved it into questionable "neutrality." We have reached this point, with the page now locked in the middle of the Republican National Convention and the subject of the page is about to make the biggest speech of her life, and we have a front facing offering that does not adhere at all to the pages upon pages of discussions that have been had over the last few days. So no, I am not going to invest in a tin foil hat and polarized shades to protect from the further infiltration of mind control emanating from wikipedia.com via the manipulation of screen refresh rates and high frequency audio cues, but I wanted to take a moment to offer my disappointment in the process thus far and the product put forth. 01:09, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
The crypto-fascist right-wing cabal even deleted John Edwards's mistress' article four times before allowing it to stay when sourced by a real news outlet. Is there no end to their perfidy? O tempora! O mores! Coemgenus 00:51, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Protection squad on extramarital affair

I find it admirable that Wikipedia editors try to uphold their own concepts of journalistic decency. However, that is not how Wikipedia works; if reliable (WP:RS) sources exist, then it doesn't matter what exulted admins think.

As it is, The Washington Post deal with the issue, so there is no reason why we shouldn't. Here's a suggested text that is NPOV and sourced:

Rumours that Governor Palin had an extramarital affair with a business associate of her husband were forcefully denied by the McCain campaign.<ref name="Kurtz">{{cite news|url=http://voices.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/09/03/mccain_aide_rips_tabloid_repor.html|title=McCain Aide Rips Tabloid Report|last=Kurtz|first=Howard|date=2008-09-03|publisher=[[Washington Post]]|accessdate=2008-09-03}}</ref>

I can understand the concern to protect privacy, but once reliable sources are established (the Washington Post for God's sake!) it's hard to see what other than partisan politics that's keeping the admins from editing the article. Lampman (talk) 00:03, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
You are correct in that this meets WP:V. The reliability of the Enquirer is irrelevant; nobody is sourcing the enquirer or reporting what it said as fact. However, that's not the only standard in play here. There's also the issue of "notability". While I think this has the *potential* to be huge, I agree with some critics that I don't think there's been a big, election-affecting explosion from it yet. If it gets to the point where there's, say, more than 10 WP:V sources weighing in, then I'll back you up on it. -- Rei (talk) 00:13, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
I'm inclined to agree, let's see how this plays out in the national press. Lampman (talk) 00:30, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
Sweet mother of pearl.. Aren't Angelina and Brad getting a divorce or something like that according to the NE. While they do get one right from time to time, tabloids have a horrific batting average and are simply not reliable sources. Seriously, the number 4 story on their home page right now is that Nicholas Cage refuses to sleep in his house because it is haunted... Just because the McCain campaign has taken it upon themselves to lay into a tabloid reporter does not give the report itself credence and certainly does not vault over WP:BLP. All it means that in a political season when every little thing that pops up about a candidate must be responded to immediately or have the gullible American public believe that it is accurate. The only time the affair, or the rumor of an affair, can be mentioned on this article is when a reliable source is actually willing to stand by a source and say that Palin had an affair. Until then it is just another layer of excrement piled upon the already heaping pile that is American politics. Seriously.. Barack Obama has an entire website dedicated to refuting internet and tabloid rumors, should we post on Obama's page that Michelle was heard ranting on about "whitey" just because the Obama campaign put it up on the anti-smear website? --Bobblehead (rants) 00:20, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
This specific example is cited in WP:WELLKNOWN, and may provide useful guidance. -- Scjessey (talk) 00:21, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

The admins are right and you are wrong. This is just a back door attempt to get the allegations into the article. Trying to sneak unfounded allegations into the article by the means you are suggesting is inappropriate. I hope the allegations turn out to be true and Palin is given a one way ticket back to Alaska, but it does not belong in the article unless the allegations are actually true. --JHP (talk) 00:24, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Please read the FAQ, quite a few policies are at play here. For example the controversial relationship between Obama and Bill Ayers gets a few hundred thousand google hits to above a million easily with a "little" more sources that you bring here, the Obama campaign reacted to it in statements, ads countless times and yet it doesn't necesserily mean that you can build consensus to inculde it into the biography of Obama. Hobartimus (talk) 00:26, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
We've had a drive-by admin action on the article page: protecting it by User:Keeper76. What's the admin's rationale for the page protection? patsw (talk) 00:32, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
Actually the opposite of your accusation is true, the protection enjoys a broad support of editors and is not the work of "drive-by" editing as you allege. Hobartimus (talk) 00:37, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
Actions taken by administrators are not done because of "broad support of editors" but because, as the template states "disputes" need to be resolved. The first step is for the admin who applied protection to enumerate those disputes. patsw (talk) 00:44, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
Actually this was discussed beforehand a few times already and quite extensively too. Hobartimus (talk) 01:40, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Without proof of this rumor being true, inclusion would be in direct violation of WP:BLP:

    Biographies of living persons (BLPs) must be written conservatively, with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid paper; it is not our job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives. The possibility of harm to living subjects is one of the important factors to be considered when exercising editorial judgment.

    This part of the policy exists specifically to keep unsubstantiated and potentially slanderous rumors from appearing in biographies of living persons. This prohibition exists expressly to override the lower bars of WP:V and WP:RS. Without this prohibition anyone could make a false and defaming charge and if the charge was reported in mainstream media somewhere it would have to appear in the biography. Thankfully WP:BLP exists to keep this from happening.--Paul (talk) 11:54, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Children's birthdates

There is a lot of public interest in the birthdates of at least some of the children, and it would be helpful to have them in the article just so we could see when their ages change. There is no immediate need to draw inferences from those ages (e.g., as to how long the Palins were married before the birth of their first child), but the birthdates themselves should, I think, be included, as should the full names of the children, to the extent available. Could a moderator please add the following information?

>> BLP violation deleted for the protection of the children <<

I realize that the speeding tickets are not of public interest, but they are public records that show Track's and Bristol's birthdates. John M Baker (talk) 00:24, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I see no reason these couldn't be in an {{Age}} template but I don't normally edit BLP articles. This would be a good time to read WP:BLP... BJTalk 00:27, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
While it is true that the birthdates of the children have some public interest, WP:BLP is quite specific about excluding personal details of this nature - particularly when the details are not of the actual subject of the article. Even quoting the dates on this talk page is a WP:BLP violation. -- Scjessey (talk) 00:29, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
WP:WELLKNOWN says "Do not use, for example, public records that include personal details — such as date of birth, home value, traffic citations, vehicle registrations, and home or business addresses — or trial transcripts and other court records or public documents, unless a reliable secondary source has already cited them." I wasn't aware of that until today, but this article has given lots of us reason to peruse the BLP guidelines. Coemgenus 00:31, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I didn't realize that the guidelines were so restrictive. I disagree on principle (as to birthdates, not the rest of them), but this probably isn't a good test case. I note that the birthdates of the two youngest children are readily available online in reliable sources. I also think it would be useful to provide the fuller versions of the children's names. John M Baker (talk) 04:31, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Dispute #1: Alaskan Independence Party

1. The article currently says nothing about Palin's tangential association with the Alaskan Independence Party, but the mainstream news media has analysed the issue. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 00:34, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

We have had lengthy discussions about this material, and while no strong consensus was reached we did seem to be leaning toward not including the (minimal) factual information as not being proven to have any relevance to Palin's career/life.
We don't get to decide; the frenzy of mainstream coverage says it's notable. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 01:00, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
Actually we do get to decide to an extent. We aren't a news source, so what is relevant for their purposes is not necessarily relevant to ours. This page is supposed to be a biography, so things should be relevant to the subject's life for inclusion. --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:18, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
We shouldn't be looking to evaluate topics, but edits. For example, we ought to talk about the weight of someone's treatment of Palin's AIS associations, the edit's verifiability, etc.. If we start trying to evaluate topics, it descends quickly (super fast) into mob rule, utter disregard of argumentation. The Wiki-edit guidelines exist for a reason; we should use them, and allow ourselves to be constrained by them. Catuskoti (talk) 10:15, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
There was no lean toward excluding the info. In fact, it appeared to be 3 to 2 in favor of including it. The only objection to a section on Palin links to the AIP is that they are allegedly not relevant. See discussion above. But the fact that they have gotten so much media and public attention shows they are relevant to many people. Since the items are all factual and well sourced, they should be included. -Pulsifer (author of the AIP links section that was deleted).
There was previously a single sentence in the article about her connection to the AIP. That was sufficient. It's now gone. It could be put back. Anything beyond that is merely an attempt to paint her as a secessionist, which is an absurd idea at this point. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 01:22, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
I support a single sentence, preferably in the 2008 campaign section, saying that she has not been a member of the AIP, citing to Mother Jones and whatever other sources people think are important. As Bugs said, anything beyond that is merely an attempt to paint her as a secessionist, which is an absurd idea at this point.Ferrylodge (talk) 01:34, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
I wouldn't object to such a sentence. (Nor would I object to its exclusion.) That she was never a member is the one fact that seems well established and possibly relevant. All other points are either debated or irrelevant. --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:41, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
I think there should be a single sentence that mentions her attending the convention in 2000, Todd previously being a member and her video tape address for the AIP 2008 convention. zredsox (talk) 01:44, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
There should also at minimum be a mention that her husband Todd, at member of the AIP, was the treasurer of her 1999 mayoral campaign. -Pulsifer —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pulsifer (talk • contribs) 01:49, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
One sentence about the AIP convention sounds about right. Coemgenus 01:54, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
This is highly irrelevant to the life of Palin as a whole and her BLP and also previous consensus seemed to be to not include it.Hobartimus (talk) 01:59, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
Link to previous consensus? I have been watching this page for days and must have missed it... zredsox (talk) 02:08, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
IMO, the 2008 convention video is the LEAST relevant of all the facts and "facts" --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:07, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
The AIM thing has been widely reported by RS. The problem is decideing what exactly to write.Geni 02:29, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
I added proposed text to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Sarah_Palin#Palin_links_to_AIP

There is no controversy that Palin had links to AIP, including her husband's membership. This is different than claiming she was a member. The links are well documented and certainly relevant. This section should remain available to readers as a well-documented source of information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pulsifer (talk • contribs) 23:28, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

This has already been extensively discussed above. Kelly hi! 23:32, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
Obviously not enough as it was removed when it seemed quite clear that the consensus was to have at least a mention of this in the biography. zredsox (talk) 01:32, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Kelly, I have read the complete discussion above. It focuses primarily on her husband Todd's membership in AIP, which was in the end deemed relevant. Similarly, the section I added documents other links to the AIP. None of them were discussed above, and certainly they are all relevant. Your stated reason for deleting the section was that it had been "debunked". This is not the case. All of the items are both true and well sourced. It appears you are trying to hide behind the above discussion to prevent relevant information from being added to the entry. If you have any issue with the truth or relevance of any of the statements, please identify the specific statements. -Pulsifer

Kelly, you keep saying that, but what is being posted is simply *not* contradicted anywhere above. These are WP:V-referenced statements. -- Rei (talk) 23:39, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
(ec)Exactly what is the purpose of including all this information on the AIP, as opposed to other organizations, like the Better Business Bureau or the Girl Scouts of America? Kelly hi! 23:40, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
Does this straw man even need to be dignified with a response? No, we don't need lot of info about the AIP here. But pretending that the AIP thing isn't a huge scandal is just plain ridiculous. It's real, it's WP:V, it's WP:N, and thus, it can go into Wikipedia. By the book, if those constraints are correct, the only question is *where* it can go (there's no right for WP:N things to go into any particular article; it simply has the right to go into Wikipedia).
And seriously, cut it with the "debunked" stuff. We've all read the previous discussions. Nothing is debunked. If you think something is debunked, cite a source. -- Rei (talk) 23:54, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
Clearly many people think it is relevant because it is all over the news. When links to those other organizations also become news items, they can also be added, but that is not the issue. -Pulsifer
  • Some mention MUST be made of the AIP material, it is all over the news. Censoring it on Wikipedia is pointless now. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 23:42, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
    • ZOMG censorship...please see the extensive discussions we've already have. It's a guilt-by-association attempt that has already been debunked. Kelly hi! 23:45, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
      • Kelly: first you said "debunked", now you are saying "guilt by association". Regardless, there is no guilt by association. It is simply information. There's no claim that she is guilty of anything. -Pulsifer

(undent)It's true that Palin had well-documented links to the AIP. However, those well-documented links are so tenuous as to not be notable here in this article, except maybe a brief mention in the campaign section that her membership was debunked by Mother Jones. I feel like the tenuous links to AIP are being used not to give a neutral description of the subject, but rather to pulverize the subject.

By the way, Pulsifer, are you any relation to this guy? Ferrylodge (talk) 23:53, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

If you believe the links are tenuous, that is all the more reason they should be included in the article. This allows readers to judge for themselves whether the AIP association is substantial or not, and if they decide they are tenuous, it would prove the point that there should be no controversy. -Pulsifer
There is *no* tenousness here. Her husband *was* a member for seven years. She *did* go to at least one convention, possibly two. She *did* record a message telling them to "keep up the good work" this year. The McCain campaign spokesman *did* sidestep a question as to whether she wants a vote on secession. These aren't up for debate; they're confirmed. And they are huge issues, as made clear by the explosion of controversy. -- Rei (talk) 00:04, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
And her husband, a member of AIP, was the treasurer of her mayoral campaign. -Pulsifer
Palin also has tenuous links to the Democratic Party. Shall we create a section about that too? Her mother-in-law is a Democrat, so obviously Sarah Palin's Republican schtick is a complete charade, right?[10]Ferrylodge (talk) 00:23, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
Again, the is a straw man. When Palin's links to these other organizations become so important to people that they are mentioned in the news, then we can add them. -Pulsifer
This comes up quite often, someone could add something to the FAQ about it. Hobartimus (talk) 00:29, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
No, it's not a straw man at all. Much ink has been spilled about Palin's willingness to cross the aisle and work with Democrats, and to encourage bipartisanship in her administartion. Smells like a Democrat to me, and I think we need a new section about her ties to the Democratic Party.Ferrylodge (talk) 00:36, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

So let's get the facts. One, a party official said she was a once a member, but had to recant when proven wrong. Two, she may have attended one or two party conventions. Three, she sent a welcome video to their convention. Four, her husband appears to have been a member in the past, later re-registered as Independent. So form these 4 facts, you think a 4000 character section, attempting to tie every possible thing she has said in the last 10 years into AIP somehow is justified. Apparently, this isn't original research in any way and is based on the length is the single most important part of her entire career, regardless that it had never even come up before 2-3 days ago? Is that an accurate summary of your position? --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:29, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

It is irrelevant to your conclusions, but for the record the various assertions have included her being present at up to three conventions: 1994, 2000, and 2006. Dragons flight (talk) 00:47, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

The only argument that has been made is that these items are allegedly not relevant. But if half of the population feels they are relevant, and half of the population feels they are not, then the material should be included so that readers can decide for themselves. Unless someone can come up with an argument other than relevance, I am going to add the material back in. -Pulsifer

Good luck with that. Coemgenus 00:34, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

There is no evidence that Palin has "links" to the Alaska Independent Party. The only relevancy in trying to include this is to suggest through guilt by association that Palin is an extremist who favors succession of Alaska from the Union. This argument started when officials of the AIP claimed Governor Palin had once been a member of the party. These claims have since been withdrawn, and Sarah Palin's voter registration records showing that she has been registered as a Republican since 1982 have appeared. So editors wanting to include this material have fallen back on circumstantial facts. 1) In her capacity as Governor she sent a video to the 2008 convention where she refers to "your party" in the first sentence, 2) in her capacity as Mayor she attended the 2000 convention, and 3) her husband declared AIP preference for several years in his voter registration. Using WP:SYNTH editors claim that these three facts prove that Governor Palin has ties to the AIP. They do no such thing. This is not material that is relevant to the biography of Sarah Palin. It is an attempt to imply guilt by association when there is no association. Inclusion of this material violates WP:BLP, WP:NPOV and WP:SYNTH.--Paul (talk) 12:26, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

{{editprotected}}

This is what I propose adding. It accurately describes the controversy which has received much attention in the press; it correctly describes that Palin has never been a member of AKIP, but does accurately describe her association with AKIP and is properly sourced and written from a neutral point of view. It violates none of the rules that Paul has cited. Its seems some people at intent on censoring facts, but that is a violation of wikipedia rules. -Pulsifer

The Alaskan Independence Party (AKIP) is an Alaskan political party that calls for a vote on the secession of Alaska from the United States. The motto of the AKIP is "Alaska First - Alaska Always".[1]

On September 1, ABC News reported that Sarah Palin had been a member of AKIP.[2] The sources for this story later retracted these claims, and the Alaskan Division of Elections confirmed that Palin has always been registered Republican.[3]

Palin's husband Todd however was a registered member of AKIP from 1995 to 2002,[4] and served as the Treasurer of Palin's 1999 mayoral campaign.[5] The McCain campaign admits Palin attended the 2000 AKIP convention,[6] and as governor, Palin sent a video address to the 2008 AKIP convention.[7] In addition, two AKIP members recall seeing Palin at the 1994 AKIP convention, although Palin denies attending.[8]

  • I disagree with this proposed edit as 1st) Wikipedia is not a newspaper, and 2nd) it is a classic case of "when did you stop beating your wife?" Let's start with Wikipedia is not a newspaper.

    On September 1, ABC News reported that Sarah Palin had been a member of AKIP. The sources for this story later retracted these claims, and the Alaskan Division of Elections confirmed that Palin has always been registered Republican.

    This paragraph contains anti-matter (the incorrect news report) and matter (finally finding the truth which is that the report was false). When you add them together they create a big bang but leave nothing behind. In the discussion of the National Enquirer rumor (below) the consensus is to wait to see if the rumor is true or not. If true, it will be added, if not it will be ignored. That is what should have happened here, but the ABC claim was inserted as soon as it came out, and the truth only came out a day or two later. It should never have been in the article when it was little more than a politically-charged hit, and now that we know it is false, it is not appropriate to add it.
Second there's "when did you stop beating your wife?"

Palin's husband Todd however was a registered member of AKIP from 1995 to 2002, and served as the Treasurer of Palin's 1999 mayoral campaign. and as governor, Palin sent a video address to the 2008 AKIP convention. In addition, two AKIP members recall seeing Palin at the 1994 AKIP convention, although Palin denies attending.

Palin's husband is not Palin, and what is the purpose of sneaking in the fact that he was her campaign finance manager in 1999 other than to insinuate that because a family member with AKIP ties was active in her campaign, she must "have ties to AKIP"? This is clearly POV-pushing and it is also clear WP:SYNTH. Next is mentioning that two AKIP members recall seeing her at the convention 18 years ago. She denies it. I don't know, maybe she was there to get some grocery money from Todd, or to go out to dinner with him. It certainly doesn't prove any "ties to AKIP" and is either trival or POV-pushing. As I said "when did you stop beating your wife?"
And because of the reasons above, the following isn't needed at all.

The Alaskan Independence Party (AKIP) is an Alaskan political party that calls for a vote on the secession of Alaska from the United States. The motto of the AKIP is "Alaska First - Alaska Always".

I strongly object to this proposed edit for all the reasons above and because it gives undue weight by virtue of its length. --ThaddeusB (talk) 18:19, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
Object as well. Serious undue weight for this "incident". Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 18:21, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
That's fine. Then I propose deleted the 2nd para and the sentence about 1994, leaving the following. This simply states the facts and let's the reader decide the importance. -Pulsifer

Proposal: The Alaskan Independence Party (AKIP) is an Alaskan political party that calls for a vote on the secession of Alaska from the United States. Its motto is "Alaska First - Alaska Always".[9] Palin's husband Todd was a registered member of AKIP from 1995 to 2002,[10] and served as the Treasurer of Palin's 1999 mayoral campaign.[11] Sarah Palin herself has always been registered Republican.[12] She attended the 2000 AKIP convention,[13] and as governor, sent a video address to the 2008 AKIP convention.[14]

I disagree with this insertion. First off, it cites an abcnews blog, and youtube. It is also compiling a lot of stuff together that if it were true, should be available as being convered in a single very reliable source. Based on the fact that you need so many sources of questionale reliablility to make the point appears to be a case of WP:SYNTH. Chrislk02 Chris Kreider 18:32, 4 September 2008 (UTC)SYNTH
The multiple sources were included because otherwise you would be arguing that the information was not sufficiently sourced. Most of the sources contain the entire story. This is the first time I have heard an attempt to exclude information because it had too many references. The facts stated are NOT IN DISPUTE, by anyone, and therefore the alleged "questionable reliability" of the sources is a red-herring. The material also does not state any conclusion, it simply lists facts, and therefore WP:SYNTH does not apply. The YouTube video is the actual video Palin sent to the 2008 AKIP convention. It is also mentioned in the other sources. There is no way it can possibly be deemed to be unreliable, and therefore the caution about self-published sources that generally applies to YouTube links does not apply to this video. The reference to the YouTube video of Palin's address is also appropriate as link the reader can follow if they are interested in the content of the video. -Pulsifer
I think this is probably a bit too much weight, not to mention that it is clearly trying to POV push the AIP views onto Palin. I think the more relevant fact is her husband's participation, which if you can imagine hypothetical analogies (if Michelle Obama was Green party), is more than just trivial. I propose the following insertion in the family section right after "...commercial fishing business."
Proposal:

He was also a registered member of Alaskan Independence Party (AKIP) from 1995 to 2002; while Palin has always been a registered Republican, she attended the 2000 AKIP convention, and as governor, sent a video address to the 2008 AKIP convention.

I don't have all the refs from above so they'd have to be chosen. This retains the essential facts, which are more than notable through all the media coverage, but doesn't impose or imply any viewpoints of Palin's. (Update: I suggest using this NYT article as the source of the sentence, as all relevant info is included) Joshdboz (talk) 19:13, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
While it is better being wittled down into a smaller (single sentence), it also shows how little subtance is involved with such assertions. The article is about her, not her husband (or daughters). Overall, I do not see the significance of it? As a governor I am sure she did lots of stuff with the state of alaska, should we include a blurb for every speech or video she sent to any organization (outside of her party)? I think this is a sever stretch to be included for inclusion. Chrislk02 Chris Kreider 19:28, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

It is clear that at the present time there is no consensus supporting any version of the edit proposed here. If such a consensus forms in the future, and is clearly stable, then it will be time to use the {{edit protected}} template. GRBerry 20:17, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

If you read this entire section you will find many editors who have stated that some mention should/could be included, though nothing was resolved. I have thus removed your "declined" tag until further discussion. As for your comments Chris, it may be a minor detail in her political life, but the amount of media coverage it has received is anything but minor. Now, one could rightly say that we shouldn't allow the media to run our agenda here; on the other hand, we rely on them to determine notability, and these facts, which have been the soul subjects of articles in many top newspapers, are much more notable than other details of her life. Joshdboz (talk) 21:07, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

The fact that there is so much controversy both for an against the exclusion or inclusion of this information then it is obviously important. I believe if there is documented evidence of Sarah Palin attending multiple events for the AIP this should be noted as this I believe is simply a documented biography of noteworthy facts. {99.228.151.16 (talk) 22:49, 4 September 2008 (UTC)}

Dispute #2: Alleged affair

2. The article currently says nothing about Palin having an extramarital affair with a business associate of her husband even though the story has been covered by such media sources as CNN [11], The Huffington Post [12], France 24 [13], The Washington Post [14], & [15], The Sydney Morning Herald [16], CBS [17], North Queensland Register [18], The Age [19], Gawker.com [20], The Standard [21]. Lampman (talk) 00:37, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

And it shouldn't. This is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid or place for baseless speculation. Nor is it the place to report others' baseless speculation. --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:51, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
The old "this is an encyclopaedia"-argument, without any further explanation is a bit old. I think it was quite a while ago since we all realised that Wikipedia was something quite different from anything we'd ever seen before. So let's just relate to our most basic principles: WP:V and WP:RS, ok? Lampman (talk) 00:59, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
A big Hurrah and enthusiastic second, Lampman.Catuskoti (talk) 10:21, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
Not enough coverage, a blip for now. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 01:00, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
Oh come on, this is getting ridiculous, how much coverage do you want? Look above. Lampman (talk) 01:08, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
It's a well-covered blip, so it's premature to include. See WP:Recentism.Ferrylodge (talk) 01:37, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
'well-covered blip' -- does that mean the same as 'round-square'? Catuskoti (talk) 10:25, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
or 'persistent moment', 'recalcitrant falsity', etc. Catuskoti (talk) 10:28, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
The mere fact that a rumor has been reported as a rumor in RS doesn't make it worthy of inclusion here. --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:18, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
Until or if there is confirmation of any alleged affair, by a real news source (which the Enquirer ain't) then it's a non-story. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 01:20, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
Well that's not partisan at all: we need 100% proof before we can include any information whatsoever! In case you've been asleep the last few years: Wikipedia doesn't operate with concepts of absolute truth, what matters is verifiability. As long as assertions can be backed up with verifiable, reliable sources (see above, there’s plenty of them), that's all that matters. Lampman (talk) 01:40, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
Hurrah again, Lampman. Catuskoti (talk) 10:30, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
Precisely, and the Enquirer does not qualify. And the story, at the moment, is a non-story. As with Edwards, if the mainstream media confirm the truth of the story, not merely confirm that "it's a rumor", then it's fair game for here. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 01:47, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
As it is, neither I nor Socrates know what "truth" is (no further comparison). Fortunately we don't deal in "truth" here on Wikipedia, simply in verifiability, as has been demonstrated above. Whether or not the affair took place, media coverage of it is now indisputable, and as such it belongs here. Lampman (talk) 04:30, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
The only thing "verifiable" is that it was an actual rumor. It disappeared quickly, so there's obviously nothing to it. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 11:24, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

That's a lot of wonderful, profound thoughts by both ThaddeusB, patsw, What's up, Doc?, Kelly, Baseball Bugs etc. You should all start your own little blogs. As for Wikipedia, that's a completely different matter. I still haven't seen anyone explain what policy prevents us from relating verifiable material from reliable sources. Still waiting for that...? Lampman (talk) 02:25, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Again, hurrah! Catuskoti (talk) 10:36, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
Technicaly none however given that there at the moment isn't really anything solid here and we should avoid recentism it's probably worth waiting 24 hours so that we are in a reasonable position to describe things if it is still of significance.Geni 02:32, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
'Solid' is a relative term, open to interpretation by the individual. Coverage in reliable sources is not. Lampman (talk) 02:39, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
Similarly, recentism is a notion, but not a principle. Let it to guide you personally. Wiki-principles alone should be followed by everyone.Catuskoti (talk) 10:44, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
So basically your position is that everything that is covered in reliable sources should automatically be included in Wikipedia as well? --ThaddeusB (talk) 03:07, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
Personally, no, my position is that nothing should be deleted despite disagreement unless the deletion is backed up wholly, unequivocally, and specifically by Wiki-principles. Catuskoti (talk) 10:44, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
Yes very intresting position that if you have coverage of a rumor you can include it. Fortunately that is not wikipedia policy. The Obama page would be several thousand pages long going by that standard. Hobartimus (talk) 03:28, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
Well, since you mention the Obama page, that one says: "some Americans believe incorrectly that he is Muslim or was raised Muslim". Once a rumor gets significant coverage in reliable sources - whether it's true or not - it should be included. Lampman (talk) 03:50, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
This hasn't gotten significant coverage though. The Enquirer reported it and the only coverage is that the campaign has denied it. Calling a non-notable and untrue rumor an untrue rumor does not make it notable. Oren0 (talk) 06:40, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
It has gotten coverage. See the first lines of the thread initiated by Lampman above. (You're talking a lot, but you don't seem to point at anything....) Catuskoti (talk) 10:48, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
Obama's name itself will continue to raise this issue. It's surprising how many Americans already have been duped into thinking Obama is Muslim. Unless he changes his name to Willie Jones or something, that belief will persist and should be addressed. Meanwhile, reporting something originated by the Enquirer and with no legs in the media, but trying to keep it here, is a sneaky way of implying it's true. There are and will be plenty of legitimate things to criticize her for. We don't need to rely on rags like the Enquirer for info. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 10:32, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
Honestly, I still can't get my head around this sentence "The old 'this is an encyclopaedia'-argument, without any further explanation is a bit old." It is an encyclopedia. It says it on every page "Wikipedia: the free encyclopedia." It is not a blog, it is not a newspaper, it is not a democracy. It's an encyclopedia, and the consensus has developed that when editing biographies of living persons, special attention must be paid to preserving the encyclopedic quality of those articles. If you don't believe that, what are you doing here? Coemgenus 13:31, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
Are we suddenly talking about policy now? I've been talking policy all along while others have been dealing with abstract concepts of "truth". The story has now reached England, where the serious and highly reliable newspaper The Daily Telegraph gives it substantial coverage.[22] The McCain campaign is now threatening legal action against the Enquirer; a presidential campaign threatening to sue a magazine - that's plenty notable in my book. It seems people here have a problem seeing the difference between reporting an unsubstantiated rumour from an unreliable magazine, and reporting the major controversy around that rumour as it is covered in numerous reliable sources. Lampman (talk) 14:02, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
The Daily Telegraph is hardly anyone's definition of 'serious and highly reliable'. It was once, but it's been sold a few times since then. What's the big rush to get this rumor included anyway? Take a breath, take a break, and wait and see where it goes, if anywhere. We're an encyclopedia, not an RSS news feed. I don't think it'll take long for the story to develop enough for us to determine if it's true or not, has legs or not, or whatever else. We can wait a day or so. I'd rather have some facts before slandering a bunch of people for no reason than to be 'early in the game'. That's the redtop tabloid's job, not ours. Flatterworld (talk) 19:28, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Waiting for confirmation of the rumor

Are reliable sources confirming the rumor by interviewing the people who claim to have personal knowledge or documentary evidence of it? Or are they acting as a echo chamber for the NE and the little blogs out there? From a Palin-smearing POV, is this a story that's too good to fact check? The Wikipedia can wait like it did for the John Edwards extramarital affair to include it. patsw (talk) 17:57, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Here, here. It should also be noted that one of the prime reasons The Enquirer (or Hustler) is not considered a reliable source is because they pay their sources.--Happysomeone (talk) 19:53, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Dispute #3: Replaced Board of Agriculture and Conservation

3. Can't edit point about "appointed long-time Mat-Su Borough associates to run the board" which has been eliminated, to somehow obfuscate any indication of cronyism. As we all know, the articles from news organisation that are available on the Internet may 'disappear' over the course of this week. I was looking at a forum two days ago, and the next day it disappeared. Now, we all know forums are not news sources, I'm just saying that we should prepare for some of the citations in this article to become dead ends in the next few days, as the sources are taken down. I would consider that 'replacing' and entire board of people that don't agree with you, and 'replacing' them with people you are associated with so you can reverse a decision is pretty f'ed up. Doesn't that sound similar to what the Attorney General's office was pulling last year? Replace dissenting people with people who agree with you in order to reverse decisions. The section paints her actions in a favorable light by stating that she 'had concerns for dairy farmers' [sic].Since we can't edit the page, and I hadn't touched it yet, this little fact is locked in to its current 'unimportant' stance as a minor blurb. It may seem unimportant, but to me it is far more important than her kid's pregnancy. (Her kid is doing exactly the same as her mom did...that's not news.) However, multiple instances of using her position and office for gains, is news. Troopergate, and I guess this is "Dairy-gate". The current administration has abused its power by replacing people who dissent, and selecting attorneys based on political affiliation, and here we have someone in BFE that is cut from the same cloth that they pick as a 'maverick'. I hope someone can find some more news on this before it is all swept under the carpet and off of her hometown newstation's website. t1n0 00:48, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

The current version is fine & has been stable for at least 24 hours. Also, the rest of your rant makes it clear you are not thinking unbiasedly. --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:56, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
Your hilarious...how can you say I am unbiased, yet in the same sentence you call my comments a 'rant'. Do you think 'rant' is a neutral point of view there, ThaddeusB? I did not post any changes to the actual article, in case you didn't notice;I have been only mentioning it here, to see if anyone else found out info on it...I like to look before I leap. My point is that info on that event is disappearing, curiously so. ...end of 'rant'. t1n0
I'm not sure I understand the point here. The article presently says: "Palin subsequently replaced the entire membership of the Board of Agriculture and Conservation.[74] The new board reversed the decision to close the dairy." What the heck is wrong with that? I oppose any change unless a good reason is provided and the proposed change is detailed.Ferrylodge (talk) 02:00, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
Further oppose change

I have some time now and will look up everything i can on this...thanks for giving me some time, I have a day job y'know :) t1n0

Dispute #4: Independent verification by reliable sources

Resolved
 – Not really a dispute and done. --Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 18:31, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

4. The general dispute that this article should become a clearinghouse for every Internet rumor that is reported on without independent verification by sources such as the Washington Post, New York Times, CNN, etc. They cannot be relied upon to show discretion in reporting rumors they have not independently verified when it comes to Sarah Palin. These sources are becoming mere echo chambers for anonymous rumors. We do not have to be in that food chain. patsw (talk) 00:56, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

In principle I agree, but the AIP story is more than that. They're airing video of her at the AIP meeting. It's notable. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 01:02, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
Only for the purpose of trying to paint her as a secessionist. If she were a secessionist, she would not be running for VP of the USA. It's McCarthyism, guilt by association. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 01:08, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
Agreed. Kelly hi! 01:15, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
It would be McCarthyism had Palin never been a member of that secessionist party, but there is pretty clear evidence that she was at one point. We aren't talking about a youthful indescrion here, did she inhale? This person is seeking the 2nd highest office in the land from a land she once didn't want to be a part of. She still refuses to answer the question of whether secession should be put up for a state wide vote. That's notable especially when so many reliable sources are available. While this isn't worth focusing to much on, it is worthy of limited mention in the article.--Rtphokie (talk) 02:20, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
As an aside (totally irrelevant to the discussion of what should be in the article based on current sources), I for one can't help wondering why she hasn't stood up and said: "I do not support secession nor I have I ever done so in the past". Obviously the rumors revolve around secession (and not really about membership or participation), so I am hoping that we will soon get a direct denial on point. It would make this issue easier to deflate, in my opinion. (Unless of course she has directly supported secession, but as far as I know no reputable source has claimed that.) Dragons flight (talk) 01:20, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
The question of secession has been asked by journalist recently, and Palin (or her people) simply wont answer it. You are correct that if she would simply answer the question, this could all be put to bed and this section of the article possibly deleted depending on that answer.--Rtphokie (talk) 02:20, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
Or "I am not a crook"? Those who would demand an overt denial (not you, specifically) amounts to another McCarthyist tactic. It reminds me of Bill O'Reilly complaining that Muslim leaders won't condem terrorists to his satisfaction, therefore they must agree with the terrorists. It also reminds me of a story from the HUAC days, where a Hollywood director was asked whether he had ever made a pro-Communist movie. He said No. Nixon then jumped in and asked, "Have you ever made an anti-communist movie?" At some point, Palin will get interviewed and might get asked that question. I say again, if she were a secessionist, there's no way McCain would have her on the ticket. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 01:27, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
The problem with your argument is that wikipedia would see no problem with being sucessionist. Indeed given alaska's oil wealth someone has probably made a case for it in a reliable source somewhere.Geni 02:38, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
Nor would I. It's a point of view, and we have free speech here. There is no law against believing or stating that Alaska or any other state should have the right to seek secession. The problem is that there's no evidence that she's a secessionist. The AIP itself downplays her and her husband's participation. So anything more than a sentence in passing amounts to wikipedians trying to draw inferences that aren't there. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 11:16, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
Equaly we need to avoid going to far the other way. Since Mrs Palin has not previously had much national exposure it is to be expected that new stuff will come up. So just because something is new and negative doesn't mean it can be written off as "Internet rumor"Geni 02:38, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
  • This is not a specific dispute and should be removed or marked "DONE".--Paul (talk) 18:29, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
  1. ^ "Alaskan Independence Party web site". Retrieved 2008-09-03.
  2. ^ "Members of 'Fringe' Alaskan Independence Party Incorrectly Say". ABC News. 2008-09-01. Retrieved 2008-09-03.
  3. ^ "Another AIP Official Says Palin Was at 1994 Convention". ABC News. 2008-09-02. Retrieved 2008-09-03.
  4. ^ "Todd Palin Was Registered Member of Alaska Independence Party Until 2002". Talking Points Memo. 2008-09-02. Retrieved 2008-09-03.
  5. ^ "Campaign finance Registration statement". Retrieved 2008-09-03.
  6. ^ "Members of 'Fringe' Alaskan Independence Party Incorrectly Say". ABC News. 2008-09-01. Retrieved 2008-09-03.
  7. ^ "YouTube video of Palin's address to 2008 AKIP convention". Retrieved 2008-09-03.
  8. ^ "Todd Palin, Longtime Former AIP Member". ABC News. 2008-09-02. Retrieved 2008-09-03.
  9. ^ "Alaskan Independence Party web site". Retrieved 2008-09-03.
  10. ^ "Todd Palin Was Registered Member of Alaska Independence Party Until 2002". Talking Points Memo. 2008-09-02. Retrieved 2008-09-03.
  11. ^ "Campaign finance Registration statement". Retrieved 2008-09-03.
  12. ^ "Another AIP Official Says Palin Was at 1994 Convention". ABC News. 2008-09-02. Retrieved 2008-09-03.
  13. ^ "Members of 'Fringe' Alaskan Independence Party Incorrectly Say". ABC News. 2008-09-01. Retrieved 2008-09-03.
  14. ^ "YouTube video of Palin's address to 2008 AKIP convention". Retrieved 2008-09-03.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sarah_Palin/Archive_9&oldid=1142777128"