Talk:Sarah Palin/Archive 18

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 15 Archive 16 Archive 17 Archive 18 Archive 19 Archive 20 → Archive 25

Palin's views on creationism

So, who and why censored out Palin's view on creationism?!! There was once here a short and seemingly objective report on this, apparently censored by Palin supporters afraid of truth?


Those that find vice/presidential candidates views on major issues as being outside of scope of Wikipedia seem to want to censor the most important information about them. Surly more important and relevant, than exact birth date, picture, etc...


Why not adapt this quote from [OnTheIssues.org] which seems to be well documented and unbiased: see: http://www.ontheissues.org/2008/Sarah_Palin_Education.htm  :

"Teach creationism alongside evolution in schools

Earlier this year, she told the Anchorage Daily News that schools should not fear teaching creationism alongside evolution. "Teach both. You know, don't be afraid of information.... Healthy debate is so important and it's so valuable in our schools. I am a proponent of teaching both. And you know, I say this too as a daughter of a science teacher." Source: Boston Globe, "A valentine to evangelical base", p. A12 Aug 30, 2008

76.247.105.217 (talk) 21:43, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Hey I agree! There is alot of censoring on this page , which in itself is POV, by limiting what can and cannot be posted.--207.232.97.13 (talk) 21:50, 8 September 2008 (UTC)Fred

You are aware that there is an article called Political positions of Sarah Palin and that article has a section on education and creationism? While you could argue that summary of her views on creationism being taught in school should be included on the main article, I wouldn't say her opinion on the matter is being hidden. --Bobblehead (rants) 21:53, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
50 times more people read this article than that one. There are numerous calls for an expansion of the political positions section. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 21:56, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
...which is why it says "Main article: Political positions of Sarah Palin" right in that section, so if someone does come here first (and 50 to 1, they do, probably more like 1000 to 1), and they are specifically interested in her political positions and not her personal biographical article, they know exactly where to click. Per Weight, the section looks fine. Keeper ǀ 76 21:59, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Request Edit for More Accurate Summary on Palin's Views On Creationism

I support you in an edit to this page of a more accurate summazation on her views on creationism. write you summary and submit for others. --207.232.97.13 (talk) 21:50, 8 September 2008 (UTC)Fred

  • Support, the latest AP profile mentions it, does not mention her support for other things, such as K-12 funding. Certain policies are more noteworthy than others, if the secondary sources are to be followed. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 21:59, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Comment Why is creationism being singled out? Many many other positions aren't included either. I see no "censorship", just a article that currently address no specifics and directs interested people to another page for those positions. --ThaddeusB (talk) 22:00, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm thinking creationism being taught in school alongside evolution is being pushed because it is one of those "hot button" views. Certainly not as up there as abortion, but certainly higher than where she stands on drilling ANWR. --Bobblehead (rants) 22:23, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Comment What is the proposed change? Everything depends on that.--Paul (talk) 22:13, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

How about something along the lines of the following. --Bobblehead (rants) 22:30, 8 September 2008 (UTC)


I suggest this:

Many of Palin's political views are very social conservative: she opposes abortion even in cases of rape and incest with the only exception being when the life of the mother is at risk ,[1] she is a member of Feminists for Life; she backs capital punishment,[2], opposes same-sex marriage,[3] and favors teaching creationism alongside evolution in schools.[4] She is also a member of the National Rifle Association and is a supporter of the right to keep and bear arms.

--207.232.97.13 (talk) 00:10, 9 September 2008 (UTC)Fred

Many of Palin's political views are of a strong social conservative nature: she opposes abortion except when the life of the mother would otherwise be imperilled,[1] and is a member of Feminists for Life; she backs capital punishment,[5], opposes same-sex marriage,[3] and favors teaching creationism alongside evolution in schools.[6] She is also a member of the National Rifle Association and is a strong supporter of the right to keep and bear arms.

Palin is known for her support of "individual freedom and independence",[7] and she is known in Alaska for her strong opposition to what she views as excessive government spending and corruption.[8] She has strongly supported development of oil and natural gas drilling in Alaska, including in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.[9]

Her views on abortion need to be more specific. She opposes abortion even for rape and incest victims. --207.232.97.13 (talk) 22:49, 8 September 2008 (UTC)fred

Isn't that already covered in "She opposes abortion except in cases where the mother's life is in danger"? --Bobblehead (rants) 22:53, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

No it doesn't : http://www.juneauempire.com/stories/101906/sta_20061019031.shtml --207.232.97.13 (talk) 23:06, 8 September 2008 (UTC)fred

I suggest this:

Many of Palin's political views are very social conservative: she opposes abortion even in cases of rape and incest with the only exception being when the life of the mother is at risk ,[1] she is a member of Feminists for Life; she backs capital punishment,[10], opposes same-sex marriage,[3] and favors teaching creationism alongside evolution in schools.[11] She is also a member of the National Rifle Association and is a supporter of the right to keep and bear arms.

--207.232.97.13 (talk) 00:09, 9 September 2008 (UTC)Fred

Object to the edit that was just recently done by Bobblehead. She clarified about the difference with the creationism issue in regards to allowing "debate" to happen versus curriculum material. "favors teaching creationism alongside evolution in schools" doesn't make the distinction and actually implies official curriculum material. Sliming Palin Theosis4u (talk) 00:45, 9 September 2008 (UTC)


The referenced article in the Anchorage Daily News states that "Palin was answering a question from the moderator near the conclusion of Wednesday night's televised debate on KAKM Channel 7 when she said, 'Teach both. You know, don't be afraid of information. Healthy debate is so important, and it's so valuable in our schools. I am a proponent of teaching both.'" Then later states "In an interview Thursday, Palin said she meant only to say that discussion of alternative views should be allowed to arise in Alaska classrooms:

'I don't think there should be a prohibition against debate if it comes up in class. It doesn't have to be part of the curriculum.'

She added that, if elected, she would not push the state Board of Education to add such creation-based alternatives to the state's required curriculum."

Given this, I'd suggest rather than "Palin supports allowing the teaching of both creationism and evolution in public schools, but not to the extent of requiring the teaching of creation-based alternatives" it should be "Palin supports discussion of creationism when evolution is taught in public schools." Nothing in the ADN article indicates she supports it being taught as part of the curriculum, and nothing indicates that she believe creationism should be brought up by teachers. DB1958 (talk) 20:46, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

VP Campaign

There is nothing here about her campaign besides the selection process and her speech. How about some more details. Here is some biased info I added that got RVed.

In sharp contrast to her Democratic opponent, Palin has avoided media interviews during her vice-presidential campaign.[12] Her campaigning has been confined to public appearances. Therefore, Palin has thus far avoided answering questions about her public sector experience.[13]

{{reflist}}

--Pgp688 (talk) 00:51, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I dunno, sounds kinda early to making this kind of blanket assertion, doesn't it? Also have problems with WP:POV & WP:UNDUE. Ronnotel (talk) 00:55, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Ronnotel on this. Let's give it a week or two. Wellspring (talk) 04:17, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Details and Fact Checking

The campaign speech with its details along with fact checking need added.

--207.232.97.13 (talk) 01:21, 9 September 2008 (UTC)fred


I find it very interesting how Wiki editors immediately clamped down on Edwards' wiki page when the only thing but truth was being added, yet they continue to allow this page to be subjected to partisan falsehoods. So much for that moral high ground (and political neutrality) you claimed to hold. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.35.172.231 (talk) 16:01, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Lengthy text copied from subarticle

Over 3000 bytes worth of text was copied into the article in this edit however this was only discussed at a different article talk page and not here [1] I oppose this addition as this article should summarize the life of Sarah Palin and not serve as a dumping ground for text from other articles. It should be the exact opposite, text should be moved FROM here to subarticles and then summarized briefly for providing proportional weight. As a result now we have a longer section on the "Bridge to nowhere" than the whole Vice Presidential campaign, or political positions or family life. I understand that intrest in this is high but how about linking to the article on "Bridge to nowhere" and not rehasing different subarticles here in extreme detail. Hobartimus (talk) 04:05, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I concur. The section is WAY too long. Resummarize as you see fit. --ThaddeusB (talk) 04:09, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
What's needed here is a new article, akin to Governorship_of_Mitt_Romney. I don't have time to start it myself, however.Ferrylodge (talk) 04:20, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
Good idea. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:32, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

See Governorship of Sarah Palin, now we need a good WP:SUMMARY here. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:37, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for starting new article.Ferrylodge (talk) 05:07, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
The summary needs a lot of work. I am retiring now (late here), so go ahead and tweak it if you would want to. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:13, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
The former text was grossly inaccurate, as I commented at the bottom of the #Bridge To Nowhere thread above, so I made major changes to correct the timeline. I didn't restore the paragraphs that had been deleted -- about the political impact of the bridge issue (some people hailing her as an anti-pork reformer, some denouncing her as a liar). We might try to craft a short, neutral summary to indicate that the bridge got her a lot of attention, pro and con. On the issue itself, though, the fiscal contortions stretching over a couple years have to be reflected in the summary. The earlier version was nice and short, a quality it achieved by omitting key background facts such as the Congressional deletion of the earmark before Palin was elected. That's why the information here can't be confined to just what happened during her governorship. JamesMLane t c 06:18, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
Addendum: Because there's now a governorship article, I've copied my corrected chronology there, and trimmed the section in this article. JamesMLane t c 06:34, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
Looks like it's fixed now here.GreekParadise (talk) 19:55, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Template?

This article is part of a series
about
Sarah Palin

Now that there are subarticles linked in the main article, should we make a template for them like {{JohnMcCainSegmentsUnderInfoBox}}? Coemgenus 12:52, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Why not? Hobartimus (talk) 13:08, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
Unless someone beats me to it, I'll hash something out this afternoon. I'm going to use Category:Sarah Palin for my article list; are there any article not listed there that should be included? UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 14:33, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

The only articles I included are the articles on her Policies, her governorship, her terms as mayor, and the McCain Campaign article (since Gov. Palin lacks a Palin Vice Presidential Campaign, 2008 article. (Don't get ideas!) So, with fewer links (and lacking a "Family of" and "Early Life" article), I used the format for the similar template at Barack Obama - which turns out like this. Thoughts? UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 19:17, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Relative size of sections

Right now, the sections are are about the same size except the Mayor of Wasilla one, which is quite long. Now that there is a subarticle, can this section be trimmed? I wouldn't know where to begin. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 14:18, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Why trim this section? Why not add to the other sections? The subarticle was created without discussion or consensus. The current mayor section is partly composed of material which was created by a number of editors over a period of days through consensus in the sections above. While it's fine to tweak it, it should not be radically edited or removed without discussion or consensus. I'm not against subarticles but I'm not certain this section is long enough to have one yet. I think it is fine the way it is. -Classicfilms (talk) 14:33, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
Now the other sections have grown, the issue seems less pressing. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 20:16, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Bridge to Nowhere: Focus on Young and Stephens or Palin?

The Bridge to Nowhere section has been modified, with a lot of additions about the role of Ted Stephens and Don Young in it. I wouldn't mind that so much but then most of Palin's positions on the bridge were cut, including her direct quotations. It seems very strange to me that anyone would want to cut the direct quotations of the subject of the article on the subject of the section and replace them with a long discussion of what other people had to say about it. I insist we include Palin's positions. If we cut anything for space, we can cut Stephens and Young. I will restore Palin's positions on the bridge and delete Stephens and Young. If you feel Stephens and Young should be there, fine, but please do not cut Palin's positions, including her quotations. Feel free to go at length about Stephens' and Young's roles in their entries or in the Gravina Island entry. Make sense? (Working on it now)GreekParadise (talk) 14:58, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

The section is now a summary of the full article of Governorship of Sarah Palin and as such lengthy direct quotes are not appropriate just like too much detail. Instead the section should briefly summarize the information from the subarticle and the readers can click through if they need more detail. Duplicating material from subarticles wont "make sense" and also contrary to SUMMARY style. Hobartimus (talk) 15:06, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
Gotcha. Didn't notice there was a whole new "governorship" page. (No mention here on talk page.) OK. I'll get out my scissors and start cutting stuff from the main article that is too much detail for the main article. I'll start with a road to a mine.GreekParadise (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 16:32, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Family & religion headings have reappeared

I thought consensus was that these subheadings were unnecessary? --ThaddeusB (talk) 16:59, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Contoversy's, Scandals, Charges of Malfeasance in Office, Corruption and Mismanagement section

It would be nice to have a section somewhere near the top with a bulleted list of the proven, documented, well researched and attributed Contoversy's, Scandals, Charges of Malfeasance in Office, Corruption and Mismanagement that are at least as much a part of the history of Sarah Palin as her acheivements in high school. Even the neutral observers are finding that as with the Bush administration its getting hard to keep track of the lies and the cover ups.

Getting rid of the chef charging for meals

Gov. Sarah Palin knows how to cook.

And her children are capable of making sandwiches.

That said, Palin has told chef Stefani Marnon that the Governor's Mansion in Juneau won't be needing a professional cook until the legislative session this coming winter.

"Bottom line is, the governor does not need a gourmet chef at the mansion," said Meghan Stapleton, the governor's spokeswoman. "From the start, she's been very uncomfortable with a gourmet chef. It's a luxury she doesn't think Alaskans should be paying for."

Folksy! And yes, she was right. There was no reason for Alaskans to be paying for a gourmet chef for the governor. That was $45,000 she saved the state.

Except she then charged Alaska $16,951 to eat at her own place.

Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin has billed taxpayers for 312 nights spent in her own home during her first 19 months in office, charging a "per diem" allowance intended to cover meals and incidental expenses while traveling on state business.

Rktect (talk) 17:32, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia doesn't do "controversy" sections - instead the material is integraated into the article in a logical fashion (as is currently done) --ThaddeusB (talk) 18:28, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Wiki Doesn't do CONTROVERSY??? Really?? What is this? Oh, it looks like about 69,000 article search results...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Search?search=*+controversy&go=Go —Preceding unsigned comment added by T1n0 (talk • contribs) 08:40, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

The chef thing is not notable. The per diem has been covered by reliable sources - see the thread below - so please don't cite Daily Kos. MastCell Talk 18:40, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
The chef and the per diem thing is no big deal; $17 grand a year she embezzels, so what? She lies or intentionally misleads about what she is doing and why; so what? Well it speaks a little bit about the greed that supports the bridge to nowhere, gets the pork from my tax dollars, then doesn't build the bridge and keeps the money. I see it as in the catagory of lying to Congress and getting money under false pretenses. The Daily Kos is breaking a lot of this news, is a perfectly reputable source, is being covered by the MSM, MSNBC covers many or most of its front paged articles. I'm not sure what the proper NPOV is on lying. I WP:AGF until proven otherwise and then when the lie is outed I think it should be noted for the record. When you take the sum of everything covered here and compike it its a different picture than WP:BLP requires; underreporting I believe its called. Rktect (talk) 00:59, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

It's hopeless, my friend. Personal attack deleted - Wikidemon (talk) will edit and delete you stuff while you are at work. I have tried several times to bring to light the stuff about the dairy that she used to funnel funds to her friends and family, and it is deemed unimportant or crap It wasn't in the best form because I spent the little time I had collecting information and then just posted a timeline WITH references. Personal attack deleted - Wikidemon (talk) If they really wanted to state things clearly they would have helped me clean up the article, but no, it was deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by T1n0 (talk • contribs) 07:16, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Deleted Material $750 million dollar request for earmarks request undo

Why delete of the this page and govener's wiki fork??

Alaska's Federal congressional representatives cut back on pork-barrel project requests during Palin's time as governor, however Alaska is still the largest per-capita recipient of federal earmarks, requesting nearly $750 million in special federal spending over two years and obtaining $295 per citizen from the federal government. --MisterAlbert (talk) 20:53, 9 September 2008 (UTC)


http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26611103/ The Associated Press, Woodward Calvin, http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5ici5RhMkh6-9V07yckpLBEEjzf6QD932MU100


Still request the undo...The delete appears to want to hide the information from the reader --MisterAlbert (talk) 20:55, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

It wasn't deleted it was moved to the sub-article because the federal budget is beyond Palin's direct control and therefore is not relevant enough to be mentioned in the main article. Surely you aren't saying that Palin requested those earmarks herself? --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:01, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Edit Warring

Hey, do you want this article protected again? Stop the revert warring. Discuss. Attempt to reach consensus, or at least compromise. KillerChihuahua?!? 18:01, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Mayoralty of Sarah Palin

Just thought I would inform you of the above page which was created (not by me) a few minutes ago. Dont know if you think it is notable to have a page of its own? I have no opinion. Perhaps if people think the page shouldnt exist there would at least be some info on it that could be added to the main Sarah Palin page? Willy turner (talk) 06:08, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

There are now separate articles Mayoralty of Sarah Palin and Governorship of Sarah Palin. They are both summarized here in this article, per WP:Summary style. This seems to me like a very good idea.Ferrylodge (talk) 06:31, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, didn't see this section before. See my note below. Subarticles should be created only after discussion and consensus on the talk page. Much of this material went through a lengthy discussion above. I restored that material that went through discussion to the main page. I am not arguing against the creation of subarticles as a general policy, but in this case, consensus should be taken before making such a move. I would argue for including the restored material in the main article. -Classicfilms (talk) 11:37, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Objection to both subartilces, Mayoralty of Sarah Palin and Governorship of Sarah Palin. The creation of them didn't even get consensus and it's hard to believe edits on those pages will either. Theosis4u (talk) 22:03, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Mayoralty, no, miscongeniality, no....

The article tells us that In 1984, Palin won the Miss Wasilla Pageant,[9][10] then finished second in the Miss Alaska pageant. Plus a few links. One of these links is to Miss Congeniality. Wondering what this term meant, I clicked on the link. The "article" (disambig page) "Miss Congeniality" is completely uninformative. Perhaps somebody who knows what 'Miss Congeniality" means could revise that "article", or perhaps the link there could be removed from this article. Tama1988 (talk) 09:37, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

The second usage given at the dab page is "A special award given at beauty pageants". That would be the sense in which it's used here. -- Zsero (talk) 09:43, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
Yes. So Palin finished third ("second runner-up")[11] in the Miss Alaska pageant,[12] at which she won a college scholarship and the "Miss Congeniality" award.[13] And what might that mean? It's A special award given at beauty pageants -- something that the reader can infer from the very sentence from which it's linked. I suppose it means that she's "congenial", but the world of beauty pageants is such a bizarre one that I don't know what "congenial" means in this context. There are three links to examples; two have no explanation whatever, but this tells us that in that particular context it reflects the respect and admiration of the delegate's peers, who voted for her as the most congenial, charismatic and inspirational participant. This suggests that it has less to do with physical appearance than it does with, uh, what -- Christian devoutness or something? Until the article Miss Congeniality is informative, I think the link to it should go. (By contrast, a red link would be OK: the reader would know there's nothing to see.) Tama1988 (talk) 05:41, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Summarizing Mayoralty section

Yesterday, new articles were created for Governorship of Sarah Palin and Mayoralty of Sarah Palin. According to WP:Summary style, those articles are now supposed to be summarized here in this main article, and indeed the governorship article is summarized here. However, the summary of the mayoralty has been reverted.[2] I hope that people will weigh in about this, because the present mayoralty section is very bloated, and does not summarize the sub-topic article. Following is the present version of this section here in this article, followed by the removed summary version.Ferrylodge (talk) 17:25, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Present version of mayoralty section

"Sarah Palin served two terms as mayor of Wasilla, Alaska, which is a city of 7,025 located 47 kilometers (29 mi) north of the port of Anchorage.[19] She served as mayor from 1996 to 2002. Palin began her political career in 1992, when she won a three-year term on the Wasilla city council, supporting a controversial new sales tax and advocating "a safer, more progressive Wasilla." She was re-elected to a second three-year term on the city council in 1995.

"In 1996, Palin ran against and defeated three-term incumbent mayor John Stein, running on a platform of "fresh ideas and energy".[20] In the campaign, she vowed to replace "stale leadership"[20] and criticized Stein for wasteful spending and high taxes.[21] She also introduced campaign issues such as abortion, religion, gun rights, and term limits.[22] Although the mayoral election was non-partisan, the state Republican party ran advertisements on her behalf.[22]

"Shortly after taking office in October 1996, Palin began to make leadership changes. She eliminated the position of museum director and asked for updated resumes and resignation letters from Wasilla police chief Irl Stambaugh, public works director Jack Felton, finance director Duane Dvorak, and librarian Mary Ellen Emmons.[23] Palin stated this request was to find out who supported her.[23] She temporarily required department heads to get her approval before talking to reporters, stating they first needed to become better acquainted with her policies.[23] She hired a new city administrator and reduced her own salary from $68,000 to $64,000.[22]

"According to Emmons, she and Palin twice discussed the question of library censorship: first in early October, then in detail on October 28.[24] Emmons stated Palin asked her if she would object to censorship, and Emmons replied "it would not be just me ... the American Civil Liberties Union would get involved, too."[24] Palin raised the possibility of people circling the library in protest, to which Emmons replied "it would definitely be a problem the ACLU would take on then."[24] In early December, Palin spoke publicly about the issue, using it as an example of a discussion she'd had with her department heads,[24] and stated, "many issues were discussed, both rhetorical and realistic in nature."[24] She further added that censorship "was discussed in the context of a professional question being asked in regards to library policy" and that she did not have a specific list of books in mind.[24] No books were removed from the library.[25]

"Palin gave signed letters to Emmons and Stambaugh on January 30, 1997, that stated: "I do not feel I have your full support in my efforts to govern the city of Wasilla. Therefore I intend to terminate your employment..."[26] Palin rescinded the firing of Emmons the next day after meeting with her and after what the Anchorage Daily News called "a wave of public support for Emmons."[25] Palin stated that her concerns had been alleviated when Emmons agreed to support Palin's plan to merge the town's library and museum operations.[26] Palin also spoke with Stambaugh at least three times about the matter, but ultimately he was fired as planned. Stambaugh filed a lawsuit which was later dismissed by a court that found the mayor had the right to fire city employees for nearly any reason, including a political one.[27]

"Despite the rocky start, Palin gained favor with Wasilla. She kept a jar with the names of Wasilla residents on her desk, and once a week she pulled a name from it and picked up the phone. She would ask: "How's the city doing?"[28] She cut property taxes by 40%[29] while improving roads and sewers and strengthening the Police Department.[22] She also reduced spending on the town museum and opposed a bigger library.[29] Palin ran for re-election against Stein in 1999[30][31] and was returned to office by a margin of 909 to 292 votes.[32] Palin was also elected president of the Alaska Conference of Mayors.[33]

"During her second term as mayor, Palin introduced a ballot measure proposing the construction of a municipal sports center to be financed by a sales tax increase.[34] The Wasilla Multi-Use Sports Complex was built on time and under budget. The total cost escalated due to an eminent domain lawsuit growing out of early planning errors.[34] She also hired the Anchorage-based lobbying firm of Robertson, Monagle & Eastaugh to lobby for earmarks for Wasilla. The effort was led by Steven Silver, a former chief of staff for Senator Ted Stevens,[35] and it secured nearly $27 million in earmarked funds. The earmarks included $500,000 for a youth shelter, $1.9 million for a transportation hub, $900,000 for sewer repairs, and $15 million for a rail project linking Wasilla and the ski resort community of Girdwood.[36] Some of the earmarks were criticized by Senator McCain in 2001 and 2002.[37]

"In 2002, term limits prevented Palin from running for a third term as mayor.[38] Her stepmother-in-law, Faye Palin, ran for the office but lost the election to Dianne Keller[39] after Sarah Palin endorsed Keller.[22]"

Proposed summary version of mayoralty section

"Sarah Palin served two terms as mayor of Wasilla, Alaska, which is a city of 7,025 located 47 km (29 miles) north of the port of Anchorage.[19] She served as mayor from 1996 to 2002. Palin had begun her political career in 1992, when she won a three-year term on the Wasilla city council, supporting a controversial new sales tax and advocating "a safer, more progressive Wasilla." She was re-elected to a second three-year term on the city council in 1995.

"In 1996, Palin ran against and defeated incumbent mayor John Stein, whom she criticized for wasteful spending and high taxes.[20] The state Republican party ran advertisements on her behalf.[21]

"Shortly after taking office in October 1996, Palin began to make leadership changes, and she temporarily required department heads to get her approval before talking to reporters, until they had become acquainted with her policies.[22] She hired a new city administrator and reduced her own salary from $68,000 to $64,000.[21]

"She started a debate about censorship and library policy, though she did not have a specific list of books in mind.[23] No books were removed from the library.[24] Palin asked subordinates to support her plan to merge the town's library and museum operations.[25]

"As mayor of Wasilla, Palin was in charge of the city Police Department, consisting of 25 officers, and Public Works.[26] She was praised for cutting property taxes by 40%[27] while improving roads and sewers and strengthening the Police Department.[21] She also reduced spending on the town museum and opposed a bigger library.[27] During her first term, the state Republican Party began grooming her for higher office.[28]

"Palin ran for re-election against Stein in 1999[29][30] and was returned to office by a margin of 909 to 292 votes.[31] Palin was also elected president of the Alaska Conference of Mayors.[32]

"During her second term as mayor, Palin put a measure on the ballot to increase sales tax to finance the construction of a municipal sports center.[33] Though the center was built on time and under budget, the total cost escalated due to an eminent domain lawsuit growing out of early planning errors.[33] She also hired the Anchorage-based lobbying firm of Robertson, Monagle & Eastaugh to lobby for earmarks for Wasilla. The effort was led by Steven Silver, a former chief of staff for Senator Ted Stevens,[34] and it secured nearly $27 million in earmarked funds. The earmarks included $500,000 for a youth shelter, $1.9 million for a transportation hub, $900,000 for sewer repairs, and $15 million for a rail project linking Wasilla and the ski resort community of Girdwood.[35] Some of the earmarks were criticized by Senator McCain.[36]

"In 2002, term limits prevented Palin from running for a third term as mayor.[37] Her stepmother-in-law, Faye Palin, ran for the office but lost the election to Dianne Keller[38] after Sarah Palin endorsed Keller.[21]"

Do you support summary of mayoralty section?

This cuts the section down from 825 words to 473 words, and I think it's a good summary, perhaps in need of improvement, but adequate for now. Who agrees or disagrees?


Support. For reasons described above.Ferrylodge (talk) 17:25, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't support what you are proposing but maybe we could shorten things up with a bulleted list as proposed in the following sectionRktect (talk) 17:32, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Your proposals have nothing to do with the mayoralty section, and therefore are not relevant to the mayoralty section.Ferrylodge (talk) 17:36, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
Comment: For the past few days, a number of editors collaborated on material for this section. The discussion began here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Sarah_Palin/Archive_15#Book_Banning
was moved to here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Sarah_Palin/Archive_15#Proposed_change_to_Wasilla_section
and found consensus with this draft:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Sarah_Palin/Archive_15#8th_draft
The version approved by consensus was added yesterday. My argument has been that this version created via consensus was moved to a new article without discussion or consensus on the talk page first. As I indicated here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Sarah_Palin#Mayoralty_of_Sarah_Palin
I reverted back to the consensus version because there had been no discussion on the talk page about turning the section into a summary and moving to a new article. I believe the move was a Wikipedia:Assume good faith attempt to improve the main article and I appreciate the fact that we are starting a discussion here about the possibility of turning it into a summary.
I am not opposed to the idea of creating a subarticle for this section, but I do believe that just as we went through consensus for the existing material, we need to achieve consensus for a summary.
The current summary is a good start but I cannot yet support it because the section on the library does not discuss both Emmons and Palin's points of view as the consensus version does.
I will be open to a rewrite and to further input from other editors as to an acceptable summary for this section. -Classicfilms (talk) 18:06, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
The suggested summary says that Palin, "started a debate about censorship and library policy, though she did not have a specific list of books in mind. No books were removed from the library." I think this is preferable to going into all the details about Emmons (the librarian) right here in this main article. It's all in the sub-article.
The material that you're suggesting to include here is the following, which obviously includes a large amount of unnecessary detail for a main article like this one. "According to Emmons, she and Palin twice discussed the question of library censorship: first in early October, then in detail on October 28.[24] Emmons stated Palin asked her if she would object to censorship, and Emmons replied 'it would not be just me ... the American Civil Liberties Union would get involved, too.'[24] Palin raised the possibility of people circling the library in protest, to which Emmons replied 'it would definitely be a problem the ACLU would take on then.'[24] In early December, Palin spoke publicly about the issue, using it as an example of a discussion she'd had with her department heads,[24] and stated, 'many issues were discussed, both rhetorical and realistic in nature.'24] She further added that censorship 'was discussed in the context of a professional question being asked in regards to library policy' and that she did not have a specific list of books in mind.[24] No books were removed from the library.[25] Palin gave signed letters to Emmons and Stambaugh on January 30, 1997, that stated: 'I do not feel I have your full support in my efforts to govern the city of Wasilla. Therefore I intend to terminate your employment...'[26] Palin rescinded the firing of Emmons the next day after meeting with her and after what the Anchorage Daily News called 'a wave of public support for Emmons.'[25] Palin stated that her concerns had been alleviated when Emmons agreed to support Palin's plan to merge the town's library and museum operations.[26] Palin also spoke with Stambaugh at least three times about the matter, but ultimately he was fired as planned. Stambaugh filed a lawsuit which was later dismissed by a court that found the mayor had the right to fire city employees for nearly any reason, including a political one.[27]"Ferrylodge (talk) 18:41, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
This is a Wikipedia:Neutral point of view issue which applies to the main article just at it applies to the subarticle. It is important that all perspectives of all issues appear in articles including this one. The quote you gave above was agreed to via consensus of a number of editors here as I indicated through the links above. At the same time, if you can offer a way to further condense the information, perhaps removing quotes but remaining with NPOV, I will be open to it. I also think that other editors who contributed to the creation of this material need to give their opinions as well in line with Wikipedia:Consensus. This is why I suggested keeping the section as is - as the links above indicate, it took a number of days for everyone to agree to what is currently in the article. That doesn't mean it can't change - this is a wiki after all. However, there needs to be consensus on changes. Can you give me a shorter version that captures the essence of the above? -Classicfilms (talk) 18:51, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
I would appreciate if you would briefly explain why the following is POV. Palin "started a debate about censorship and library policy, though she did not have a specific list of books in mind. No books were removed from the library." Please don't say it's POV merely because it is different from the longer version. Thanks.Ferrylodge (talk) 19:44, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
It's not a matter of it being a different version. The version currently on the main page was agreed upon by a number of editors through Wikipedia:Consensus. It offers both Emmons' and Palin's versions of what happened - that is what makes it NPOV. To offer only one version of the events would be POV - which is why I would make the same comment if only Emmons was mentioned and not Palin. The WP is an encyclopedia and thus gives all points of view so we need to mention both. It took a number of days for us to reach consensus on how to convey both Emmons and Palin as you can see by going through all of the threads. So the comment that I am making here isn't my opinion, it is a reflection of all of the discussions which have been happening over the past few days. -Classicfilms (talk) 21:02, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose - There isn't enough content to justify a sub-article for her time as Mayor yet... I'd be in favor of changing the Mayor article into a redirect here. Seriously.. 825 words does not warrant a sub-article. --Bobblehead (rants) 18:52, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
The question was not whether to delete the sub-article. If you want to start a thread about that, then please go ahead. Seriously, have you taken a look at the sub-article? It's larger than most articles.Ferrylodge (talk) 19:26, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
You're right, this thread is not about whether to delete the sub-article or not, nor am I saying the page should be deleted. It's about whether or not I accept the summary you've made and I oppose that summary for the reason given. The sub-article has 4.5kb of readable text and is just a mirror image of what was in the mayor section at the time the sub-article was created. That can easily fit in this article for now. This does not mean that a sub-article for her time as mayor in Wasilla can not be created in the future, it just means that it is not needed right now. --Bobblehead (rants) 20:19, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose - The earlier consensus seemed to include both points view on the library issue. The current summary does not. Manticore55 (talk) 18:57, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
And for the record, I agree the mine road, while personally amusing is not of the same magnitude as the library issue. Manticore55 (talk) 19:55, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose Palin's time as mayor is not significant enough to have a separate article. The current version is of appropriate length to be included in whole in the main article (and currently is an exact copy of the main article) and thus the sub-article should be deleted. --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:01, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose The section is inelastic; it cannot be expanded enough for a subpage, nor shortened enough for a summary. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 20:18, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose I would like to support this as I think the summary is accurate, shows a NPOV, and is concise as it should be in a biographical article. Being Governor is more important than Mayor, and should be given more weight, but it's almost the other way around now. However, 800 or so words is not that much, there is a lot of controversy about the librarian and we did come to consensus which I'd like to protect, and finally, spinning off this material into another article doubles the amount of effort to keep things accurate and non-biased. (This means I'm also in favor of deleting the daughter article) --Paul (talk) 21:38, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose all versions because it is original research to comment on the size of Wasilla. The part of the population and the location can be obtained by clicking a link to the town's article. In other political debates, when information was added by synthsizing information from many articles, this has been shot down. 903M (talk) 04:35, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Try again. I second Classicfilms comment. 194.83.141.23 (talk) 11:13, 10 September 2008 (UTC)



Chef & per-diem

While I doubt the notability of this topic in it's entirety, in the interest of compromise I have reverted this section to reduce the incendiary and POV tone of the original version that is being revert/restored. Can we please discuss why this section is even necessary? Let's get consensus on this before it goes into the article. In particular what's been shown is that Palin re-assigned her personal chef to another position in the state government and has elected to draw on a per-diem while working away from her primary work location. What's notable about this? Ronnotel (talk) 18:03, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Note to Bobblehead - I think there is an idiomatic distinction between fired and terminated. For instance, you can be "fired" from a job without being terminated from the organization (i.e. a transfer). I'd like to give Palin the benefit of the doubt and assume she was using the idiomatic use of the term (not too surprising since she was giving a political speech, full of colloquialism). Thoughts? Ronnotel (talk) 18:25, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
The idea is to just be able to list them and a link to to a more detailed source without long discussion. The problem is there are so many of them coming so fast its hard even just to list them.
The Alaska National Guard Commanding General changes his story about Sarah Palin and is promoted for it to a rank which isn't approved.
The notability of the per diem charged for working at home is that its an example of corruption, like cheating on your tax return. It amounts to an embezelment and is a felony. Its one of many examples of things that might be considered negatives about Sarah Palin. Above is another example. There are a lot of things about her worth some discussion. I don't see that the tone needs to be incendiary or reflect a POV. All that is being requested is a simple listing to compliment other possible overly positive impressions and give a fair and balanced assessment Rktect (talk) 18:29, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Please don't cite Daily Kos. Re: the per diem, the Washington Post reported here that Palin charged the state a travel allowance for 312 days spent at home in her first 19 months in office. She billed the state about $25,000 for her daughters' travel expenses, which the state finance director suggested was a bit iffy. She later went back and deleted some log entries indicating that she'd stayed home, but still claimed the per diem. The Post suggests that this is relevant because the campaign has positioned her as a "crusader for fiscal rectitude". The story has been picked up by a handful of other outlets, including the AP.

Whether this is notable enough for a biographical entry, or just the campaign-news-tidbit-of-the-day, is unclear to me. I think that if this is included, it should be very briefly mentioned. One could also make an argument against including right away on the basis of WP:NOT#NEWS, and wait to see if this particular issue gains traction and a -gate suffix, or simply fades away. MastCell Talk 18:37, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

More or less agree with Mast's assessment. Ronnotel (talk) 18:44, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Well, it may be too soon to include it in the main article, but I'd argue in favor of retaining the detail of the travel expenses in the sub-article regardless of whether or not it catches on. As far as the distinction between "fired" and "terminated".. Umm.. That's a bit far fetched, IMHO. One is not "fired" from your position when remaining within the same company, you are "transfered" or "demoted". Regardless of the definition Palin uses, it is clear the intent of the statement was that she reduced expenses for the state by getting rid of the chef. --Bobblehead (rants) 18:48, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
(ec) Well, presumably the chef filled a vacancy when transfered. Unless we have more information, do we really have enough information to determine that she didn't reduce expenditures? Seems like WP:SYNTH Ronnotel (talk) 18:57, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
We don't have any evidence that she did cut expenditures either. Notice that I didn't mention an impact to the budget in the article. Just on the talk page.;) Also, speaking of WP:SYNTH, I disagree with this edit. The private jet was obviously not a customary perk for an Alaskan governor considering how much flak Murkowski received for purchasing the jet. We're still at one right now, that being the executive chef... --Bobblehead (rants) 19:57, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
Nor do we have any evidence that she said she "fired" the chef. The quote from her acceptance speech is "And I thought we could muddle through without the governor's personal chef." Until she gives some of the per deim back or is convicted of embezzlement or corruption this is completely non-notable and doesn't belong in this article. Wikipedia is not a newspaper.--Paul (talk) 20:56, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

← Somewhat separately, I have made this edit removing a contention that "all of Palin's charges were allowed under state policy." The source (the Washington Post) doesn't say this; in fact, it specifically quotes Alaksa's comptroller as saying she "can't imagine" how Palin's children could be conducting official (reimbursable) state business. MastCell Talk 20:29, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I am all for removing the whole paragraph as not noteworthy. --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:32, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I am going to be bold and claim consensus here and put in this NPOV version:

Palin continues to live in Wasilla eschewing many of the perks of her office. She does not use the the Governor's private chef, who was transferred to the lounge of the State Legislature.[14] though she has charged her travel expense account for the nights she spends at home with her family.[15]

If someone wants to remove the whole thing while we wait to see if this is just the campaign-sniping-of-the-day, or something more substantial, that's fine with me.--Paul (talk) 22:31, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Go crazy. ;) Too soon to see if it is important enough to make the main article. I've already moved it over to the governor article, so if it does blow-up, a summary of it can be put back here. --Bobblehead (rants) 22:37, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
So "rumors" get dropped in wiki as edits even before a 24 hrs cycle is allowed by the valid media to run the story 6 times to get it right - I get that. My growing concern though is that when the "rumor" gets turned on it's head the response here becomes to remove the whole thing. This is a good example of that. She was required to do the per diem, it did show fiscal conservative judgements- especially in comparison - and so forth. [I'm saying that it means it's always warranted...but to remove the context outright when wiki allowed the rumor to exist seems a double standard]
"Gov. Palin has spent far less on her personal travel than her predecessor: $93,000 on airfare in 2007, compared with $463,000 spent the year before by her predecessor, Frank Murkowski." WP - Palin Billed State for Nights Spent at Home Scrutinized
So, in this case I think a proper "correction" should go on the page and should reference past administration expenses. Theosis4u (talk) 05:44, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
Disagree. This is not a page contrasting her to her predecessor, it's a bio page. It can talk about her political life and political choices in that reference frame. Realistically, the bio page should not have many of these items in favour of something akin to "Political Criticisms of Sarah Palin". Maybe then the focus could change away from this page trying to be all things for all people and maintain a biographical intent, as opposed to Wikipedia:Coatrack. --198.162.133.115 (talk) 19:49, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
Agree To Move Topic Exclusively To Political_positions_of_Sarah_Palin ? This way it can be fully accounted for. Not sure if a "summary" will do justice to all three sides - left,middle,right. Theosis4u (talk) 01:47, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Three Palin-related content forks need watching

Here are three Palin-related content forks that have been edited by only a few editors:

--A. B. (talk • contribs) 18:12, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

It's worth periodically checking the list of 500+ articles that link to Sarah Palin for new forks, some of which may be non-neutral (such as the Matanuska Maid Dairy controversy "COATRACK".) --A. B. (talk • contribs) 18:29, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
Governorship of Sarah Palin and Mayoralty of Sarah Palin are sub-topic articles. See WP:Summary style. Sub-topic articles are perfectly fine. Only a small fraction of sub-topic articles are content forks.Ferrylodge (talk) 18:32, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Hey I am all for Forks , Forks are an excellent way to expand on a topic. --MisterAlbert (talk) 18:42, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

That's not what is meant by a Wikipedia:Content fork. DJ Clayworth (talk) 18:46, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
Yes, forks can be a good way to expand a topic without getting an unwieldy main article. My main point above was to get lots of eyeballs on these articles to prevent POV-pushing.
FYI, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mayoralty of Sarah Palin
--A. B. (talk • contribs) 20:11, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
These type of articles are not very common, though. For comparison, [3] and [4]. Cenarium Talk 00:06, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Sarah Palins Church Controversy, her Pastor, Her Relilgous Beliefs now Aired on CNN

Request Edit: Larry Kroon delete that took place after a 40 minutes consensus {very quick} be added back to the article. I find it quite pointless to omit his name now, it is all over the airwaves.

More Information has surfaced, CNN Anderson Cooper aired last night on Palins Church and it Cotroversial Position on the Jews, and this Morning CNN headline News aired more info along with viewer phone ins discussing the subject.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/09/08/palin.pastor/index.html

"MCCain must Embrace Palin's Beliefs, evangelical leaders say Link below:

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/09/09/perkins.ga/?iref=hpmostpop --MisterAlbert (talk) 18:53, 9 September 2008

--MisterAlbert (talk) 19:57, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

The title: you can google the title below or go to you tube,


Palin church: Alaska 'refuge' for Armageddon

http://www/youtube.com

--MisterAlbert (talk) 20:07, 9 September 2008 (UTC) --MisterAlbert (talk) 20:07, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

The article Sarah Palin: Dominionist Stalking Horse discusses some issues relating Sarah Palin's religion, stance on abortion and other antifeminist FFL positions. Lets allow we are all familiar with the Dominionist movement and believe strongly in freedom of religion.

Joel's Army believers are hard-core Christian dominionists, meaning they believe that America, along with the rest of the world, should be governed by conservative Christians and a conservative Christian interpretation of biblical law. There is no room in their doctrine for democracy or pluralism.

Dominionism's original branch is Christian Reconstructionism, a grim, Calvinist call to theocracy that, as Reconstructionist writer Gary North describes, wants to "get busy in constructing a Bible-based social, political and religious order which finally denies the religious liberty of the enemies of God."

Notorious for endorsing the public execution by stoning of homosexuals and adulterers, the Christian Reconstructionist movement is far better known in secular America than Joel's Army. That's largely because Reconstructionists have made several serious forays into mainstream politics and received a fair amount of negative publicity as a result. Joel's Army followers eschew the political system, believing the path to world domination lies in taking over churches, not election to public office.

Isn't it reasonable to consider putting a warning lable on Sarah Palins page that this is what we are putting a heartbeat away from the most powerful position in the world? Rktect (talk) 22:07, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

No, it is not reasonable to put a "warning label" on a WP:BLP, nor is it appropriate to cite Daily Kos for such an article. So please don't. WP:BLP applies to talk pages as well, so I'm going to ask that you don't make any more poorly-sourced contentious claims here. MastCell Talk 22:53, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
The Daily KOS is one of the most timely and accurate sources on the web. I frequently see its stories covered half a day later in the press because it reports and breaks a lot of real news. Its far from the only source I use but when it comes to politics, global warming, the environment, economics, peak oil, the housing crisis, hurricane coverage, its got a lot better batting average than say AP. Obviously you have a different POV so perhaps the way we should settle this is to stick to just the facts. WP:BLP say's

The writing style should be neutral and factual, avoiding both understatement and overstatement

Rktect (talk) 00:45, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
"The Daily KOS is one of the most timely and accurate sources on the web" - with all due respect, that is the funniest thing I've read all day. --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:04, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
It appears you are not a regular reader of the Daily KOS and yet have a POV about it.Rktect (talk) 02:01, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
Kos is for the kool-aid drinkers, not thinkers. Weekly World News is more trustworthy.--King Bedford I Seek his grace 02:08, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
Easy, fellas. The point is simply that Daily Kos is not a reliable source for a BLP. If something they report subsequently gains traction to the point that a reliable source is willing to put their name and reputation behind it, then it becomes BLP-worthy. If you've read WP:BLP and come away thinking that Daily Kos is an acceptable source, then please read the policy again. MastCell Talk 04:23, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedians like consensus. Articles that get frontpaged on the Daily Kos often have thousands of recomendations and polls which give excellent indications of consensus.
Some people, the kind who think global warming is a myth, Al Gore is a joke, Creationism should be taught in public schools, healthcare sand education houldn't be available unless you are well enough off to afford them without the government getting involved, civil and human rights should be stripped from the constitution so America can be more like Russia, Polar Bears should be taken off the endangered species list because regulations protecting them slow the oil and gas development of Alaskas North Slope, the oil wars in the mideast should continue till the last drop of oil is extracted even if that takes 100 years, and the poor should be taxed to give tax cuts to the rich probably won't like what the Daily Kos has to say. That doesn't make it a bad or partisan source, it just means its not biased in favor of the Bush administration and its successors talking points like other examples of the MSM are. Instead of a lot of government propaganda what it provides is links to information. Any site that is informative and a good place to find links to consensus building discussions of current events should be a fine source for WP:BLP Rktect (talk) 21:57, 10 September 2008 (UTC)


Well biologists are on the verge of creating life from non matter! don't know where this leaves the creationists.

http://blog.wired.com/wiredscience/2008/09/biologists-on-t.html?npu=1&mbid=yhp

--207.232.97.13 (talk) 05:12, 10 September 2008 (UTC)fred

Edit request: Public Safety Commissioner Dismissal

Please edit the following sentence:

"Monegan alleged that his dismissal was retaliation for his failure to fire Palin’s former brother-in-law, Alaska State Trooper Mike Wooten, who was involved in a child custody battle with Palin’s sister and had been accused of threatening Palin's father."

To read:

"Monegan alleged that his dismissal was retaliation for his failure to fire Palin’s former brother-in-law, Alaska State Trooper Mike Wooten, who was involved in a child custody battle with Palin’s sister, Molly McCann."

The tertiary party, with no direct involvement in this investigation, had already been sufficiently identified. Thanks. Spiff1959 (talk) 21:05, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Done, but you can do these edits yourself now. The article is only semi-protected. --Bobblehead (rants) 22:04, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
I'd had a WP account a few years ago, and did a few edits of WWII pages. Since then I've moved, gotten a new ISP, and forgotton my old login. I'd attained no special privileges back then. This account I created only a few days ago, and there is no "edit" tab showing on this article for me. I do very much appreciate your assistance. Spiff1959 (talk) 22:43, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

(undent) I emphatically disagree with that edit. Thousands of current news reports indicate that Wooten was accused of threatening to kill Palin's father.[5] It is also mentioned in the lead of the sub-article. Why is it necessary to wash this fact out of the main article?Ferrylodge (talk) 23:47, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

And thousand of articles note that Wooten had already been suspended by the State Troopers for what he did... It's an unnecessarily biased addition to the sentence. It's also curious that the most egregious of the offenses committed by Wooten is the only one that is included. What would the reaction be if the sentence had ended with "and had been accused of illegally hunting moose." --Bobblehead (rants) 00:17, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
That's right, the sentence does not end with the type of shampoo that Wooten uses, or that he once jaywalked. Is that really a problem, Bobblehead? Aren't we supposed to focus on what is most notable? The fact that he may have been threatening Palin's family also indicates why Palin and her staff may have had a legitimate reason to be contacting Monegan about him. That's the main reason she has provided. She has not argued that she and her staff were contacting Monegan to complain about Wooten's moose-hunting.Ferrylodge (talk) 00:44, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
Palin herself hasn't even made the argument that she sacked Monegan because he was lax in dealing with Wooten's death threat. Her position is that Wooten's misconduct had absolutely nothing to do with her firing of Monegan. It would be extremely misleading to the reader for us to mention the death threat without more. It would readily create in the reader's mind that false impression that the dismissed Commissioner was lax about dealing with trooper misconduct. If we mention Wooten's 2005 misconduct, we must also report that he'd already been disciplined for it. JamesMLane t c 06:34, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Environmental issues

The version currently showing readily to the public has no references to ANY environmental problems with Palin: nothing about her suing the Department of the Interior over the listing of polar bears on the ESL; nothing about aerial hunting of wolves; nothing about beluga whales; nothing. Her environmental record's abysmal and that's something important to know about any state governor, particularly one charged with the stewardship of a state with the natural resources of Alaska, which still, even now, has an abundant wildlife population and relatively unspoiled scenery. Right now, Alaska is undergoing the obvious and very rapid signs of global warming because of its proximity to the melting polar ice caps. For a governor of Alaska, these issues are very important. Alaska's beaches are eroding and some traditional native villages, which've been inhabited before there was a US, are being flooded or are soon to be under water. She doesn't believe global warming is man made with an environmental catastrophe all around the state. This section needs to be put out there. It's too important to ignore this and just keep it out.Jolly momma (talk) 00:20, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Jolly, see Political positions of Sarah Palin, and Governorship of Sarah Palin ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:22, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Why is there no mention of Palin suing the Department of the Interior over listing polar bears as an endangered species? After all, it's not like she didn't write that op ed piece in the NY Times about it. Saying she believes they shouldn't be listed as endangered because of concerns over oil exploration isn't the entire truth, and the rest of it can be backed up. Again, this would be considered an important politcal position, and a rather important political move. Jolly momma (talk) 18:06, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Also, she's the governor of the largest state in the union, and one of the most environmentally watched. Her environmental record IS important. Simple sentences like those are not enough. In the originial article, there was a section which explained positions and had references. THAT STUFF SHOULD STILL BE THERE! This is an election year; to leave it out is to take sides, unless that is the point. Alaska is being affected by global warming in a way that no other state is. Oil companies work throughout the state. This stuff is important, and since that section could be verified it should be left in. Unless you are taking sides with the McCain campaign, you should print the facts and let the chips fall where they may, whether the facts be good or bad, unless the facts are erroneous. I submit that these are not. That's what encyclopaedias are supposed to do. Jolly momma (talk) 00:15, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Somebody should add a piece on Palin's earmark reduction

The the title of the article I am linking to is misleading, I believe that its content would be a very important addition to the Palin page.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080903/ap_on_el_pr/cvn_palin_earmarks

Under Palin, the state of Alaska earmark requests have dropped from more than $800/resident in her first year as Governor (a continuation of the status quo before her governorship) to $295/resident in her second year. Yes, this is still significantly above the national average, but Alaska has ALWAYS been significantly above the national average due to unique circumstances and conditions (geography, weather, sparse population) that lend themselves towards a demand for funding. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jfeenswiki (talk • contribs) 01:01, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

It is mentioned in the sub article about her governorship. Since she doesn't deserve full credit for the reduction (AK's congressional delegation does) it is probably not notable enough for the main article. --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:14, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
Besides, that figure can be affected by one or two big-ticket items. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 01:30, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Article milestone

The article just went 30 minutes between edits. Stick a fork in it... Phlegm Rooster (talk) 01:11, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Proof that the system works when it is allowed to function unencumbered.Neutralis (talk) 01:44, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
Another might argue that it is proof the full protect allowed time for people to cool down and thus served its purpose. --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:46, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Neutralis. Full protection for this article was a complete mess and lost wikipedia serious credibility. --Cdogsimmons (talk) 01:52, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
Disagree. The thousands and thousands of edits since her candidacy was announced cast severe doubts about the authenticity of the article first, notably here.--Happysomeone (talk) 02:43, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
That source is about Young Trigg's edits, as if people wouldn't click on it. That article was not fully protected for days afterwards. Full protection is useful to allow time for people to cool down, but this article stayed full protected for far too long. Fee Fi Foe Fum (talk) 05:01, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
We'll never known if full protect was good or bad because of the side-show involving the admin's and their internal wars. I can show a thread that BECAUSE of full protection it worked to produce a better write up and avoided false data that was out there during the time of the talk article discussion. Full protection seems to work when people work the talk page appropriately. Full protection doesn't seem to work when people want to avoid talk page consensus in favor of fast edits. Encyclopedia's [in print] aren't weekly magazines for a reason. Theosis4u (talk) 06:06, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
This Talk page has more freedom and information than the Sarah Palin ever had or ever will have. I, myself, will refer here for information and open vibrant discussion. Can we send the reader/visitor here for a better view and let them make up their own minds as to what the facts are???--Buster7 (talk) 09:20, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
IMO - the talk page is good for your request. When people see the information on the "talk" page they know it's being debated, see it in context of the arguments, and know it's not definitive information "yet" - which they might imply if it was on the main page. Their still free to run around and reference all the rumors to their friends they want but it's clear their being disingenuous to themselves and others - there will always be people like that. Theosis4u (talk) 16:43, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

husband part Innuit or Eskimo

According to press reports, her husband in part Innuit or Eskimo. Might be worth inclusion as, if true, this makes Sarah Palin's children partly non-white, presumably relevant as the Democratic president candidate is of mixed race. Redhawk69 (talk) 02:03, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I think there's a pretty fine line between being half-African American and being "partly non-white", but even then - why would you assume that the race of the children of a Vice Presidential nominee is noteworthy because the race of a Presidential nominee is? --danielfolsom
By blood her children are a 1/16 native. Culturally they might be more engaged than that suggests, but you'd need sources for that discussion. Dragons flight (talk) 02:23, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
It is included in Todd Palin which is where it belongs. GtstrickyTalk or C 14:33, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Religion Section

Can be augmented with material from: "Sarah Palin, the pastor and the prophecy: judgment day is not far away - Times Online". Retrieved 2008-09-09. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:27, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Video Footage: Look I don't know how accurate this the comments claims this: " This is reportedly video footage from the Pentecostal church Sarah Palin belongs to, clearly showing dozens of members of the congregation speaking in tongues and wandering zombie-like through the aisles, also occasionally thrashing on the floor in front of the pulpit. I've seen barely anyone online mention this video so far, or even Palin's connection in general to this church (including a pastor who preaches that God put George W. Bush into office), so thought I'd bring it to your attention."

http://www.boingboing.net/2008/09/04/video-footage-of-sar.html

--207.232.97.13 (talk) 05:42, 10 September 2008 (UTC)Fred

That's a seriously boring but blessedly [yeah!] short video. People wobbling their arms to the sound of fourth-rate rock music. Move along, nothing fascinating to see. Tama1988 (talk) 05:47, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
This is better (forgive the cuts...) http://www.talk2action.org/story/2008/9/5/03830/11602 ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:57, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
Mm-hmm! Enrapturing! Tama1988 (talk) 06:38, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Macro Bias on Wikipedia: Obama lacks a Religion Section

There is macro bias. Having a whole section on religion for Palin while having nothing of the sort on Obama....mentioning the theology of Palin's churches while Obama's article never mentions once "black liberation theology" is macro bias. The excuse "well thats over THERE and this is HERE" is precisely the point, and does not justify or excuse that all wikipedians have a dual responsibility to fairness. This is a politician in an ACTIVE election. Not only are you to be fair in this article on a micro level, but you also have a duty to the image of NPOV for Wikipedia as a whole. Here you are so armed to stuff Palin's article full of religious controversy, creating a whole section just to thump on her religion (and it IS bigotry), while you completely protect Obama! And don't throw at me the excuse that these are two different articles that is PRECISELY THE POINT, and you are using that excuse as a loophoole to denigrate the entire image of wikipedia as being POV. If you are honorable wikipedians, you will choose one of two options: you will either include a section in Obama's article for religion and make mention of the fact that he attended a black liberation church (like you make mention of Palin attending a pentecostal church), or you will remove the religion section from Palin. Right now, all of you are complicit on pervasive macro-bias on wikipedia. You have a duty to fairness and NPOV and in an active election, that duty extends beyond this one single article, but must take into account the individuals Palin is competing against and their articles as well. The excuse of "thats THEIR article" is just a sham and an utter double-standard, and is a terrible discredit to the reputation of Wikipedia. I am posting a similar notice on Obama's article. Because what is happening on Wikipedia right now is POV, and no amount of fallacy and rationalization will change this objective fact. I am a fair person, I support including a religion section on Palin, if it is done on Obama. If it is not done on Obama, your duty to macro-fairness demands that you remove it from this article. Far more press coverage exists over Obama's religion than Palin, and you simply cannot justify including Palin's theology (pentecostal) while not including Obama's (black liberation). Do the right thing, and be fair! Though, considering the typical wikipedian is a white male aged 35 and under, a tekkie, and socialist-leaning, I don't expect fairness. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.46.2.202 (talk) 06:01, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

You are welcome to propose a Religion section on Obama's article, but most probably we will end up here with a spinoff article about Palin's religion controversy, along the lines of Jeremiah_Wright_controversy ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 06:04, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
Lame excuse. You know what wikipedia is doing, and you cannot logically justify stuffing Palin with a religion section (I see you even want to EXPAND it) while keeping it nearly COMPLETELY out of Obama's article. But this is the predictable way of the white male socialist-leaning wikipedian. Why is wikipedia so horribly and systemically biased? Are there any wikipedians who are not white males under 35 and not socialist-leaning? Seriously, I mean that in all honesty. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.46.2.202 (talk) 06:10, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
I posted a far more patient response on the Obama talk page, but please do not insult other editors around here. Either be civil, and try to work within the goals and rules of the project, or take your complaint somewhere other than this talk page. Wikipedia is not biased, it simply does not contain the content you wish it to contain. If you have a specific proposal for adding, removing, or changing content to a specific article feel free to make it. If it is neutral, well-sourced, and otherwise fits our content guidelines then people will take the proposal seriously and arrive at a consensus on whether or not to include it. Generalized gripes about Wikipedia or other editors will likely be shut down so that we can actually edit and improve articles. Wikidemon (talk) 06:52, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
Further, socialism is so rampant among Wikipedia editors that they, uh, insist on removing all negative information from this article. (See the section immediately below, about some dairy). -- Hoary (talk) 08:34, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
FYI, Palin has been a Pentecostal for 22 years, and just a few months ago delivered an interesting speech at her former Pentecostal church in Wasilla. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 06:07, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
There's some mention of Obama's religion beliefs and upbringing, using words like atheist and muslim, at the end of his personal life section. His infobox says that he is in the United Church of Christ. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 08:01, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of material that is not favorable to Sarah Palin.

I have tried to bring up the subject of the matanuska maid dairy BS that she was involved in on this age, or actually revert it back to the way it was before she was nominated and her followers decided to whitewash her whole article.

So I went and created a seperate page where I had several articles referenced and was working on it, and it seems to have been deleted yesterday as unencyclopedic crap by User:moreschi User:pharmboy and User:thaddeusB.

Some of us have day jobs and cannot spend endless hours on a page. I hade looked up and collected as much as i could, created a timeline from which to work from and cited about 13 newspaper articles, but insted of marking the page as 'need to be improved', these Gestapo (because that's what you are when you abuse you role here) just simple deleted the page.

It is utterly amazing to me the amount of effort and discourse you people have put into her daughter pregnancy, and you don't wake and look into what happened at the Matanuska Maid Dairy, and how it affects her political position. Why was the article so quickly deleted and marked as soap box? Because you didn't like the content? Well, let's rephrase it and help me work on it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by T1n0 (talk • contribs) 06:47, 10 September 2008 (UTC) As stated above: "just one editor. Needs substantial clean-up, wikification, etc". Instead of helping me, you simply delete an article that I worked on by myself for several hours to piece together the different sources. Your bias is showing, ThaddeusB. —Preceding unsigned comment added by T1n0 (talk • contribs) 06:56, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh, BTW, now it DOES NOT EVEN APPEAR IN HER ARTICLE ANYMORE. THERE IS NO LONGER any reference to Gov Palin 'replacing' the board that disagreed with her, replacing the board with associates, who had family members that would benefit from additional funding, and the closed sessions where friends where given favorable leasing on the equipment. The whole topic has now disappeared. WTF?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by T1n0 (talk • contribs) 07:29, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
Governors throughout time have made decisions that are unpopular with some people. I don't see how it is unfavorable to Palin. I haven't heard one mention of this dairy issue on TV, or read about it in my researches. Looking around now, it is still barely covered. This article mentions Wikipedia's take on the dairy, and essentially says it's a not notable executive decision. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 07:53, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
It is still in the Governorship of Sarah Palin sub-article, and in my opinion it does not belong here. If others feel differently, then it can be put back. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 07:53, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
That article you cited calls her leadership style 'fire and replace those who disagree with you'

I did not know it existed, but how is "The Governorship of Sarah Palin" the sub-article ?? If you take everything about who she is as a gov out of this article, the only thing left is her upbringing and her family?? I think it should be the other way around, but that a separate issue.


This was the sub-article, titled 'Matanuska Maid Controversy'. It may not be pretty, and it has not been laid out, but this happenned. After reading all of the articles I could find on this topic, this is the timeline I could piece together. If someone doesn't like it, then help me clean it up, but if someone states that it is not important, with all of the other crap that is on Wikipedia, they are censoring behind 'standards', and if someone states that it is not up to par with Wiki standards then help me clean it up.

1) The Alaska state-run dairy, Matanuska Maid, had been suffering financial losses for years.

2) In the spring of 2007, the 20 year CEO, Joe Van Treeck, citing strong competition from private dairies, and rising fuel cost that would directly impact distribution costs, recommends to the Alaska Creamery Board of Directors to either privatize to regain competitiveness, or close and liquidate to cover debts.

3) The director of the State Division of Agriculture, Larry DeVilbiss, resigned on May 31.

4) Governor Sarah Palin disagrees with the plan to close the Dairy, citing concerns for dairy farmers and employees.

5) Governor Palin fires the existing board over the weekend, and replaces them with associates, most of which had family and friends with a vested interest in the continued operation of the Dairy. Of special interest is the newly appointed Director of Agriculture, Franci Havermeier. Her father in law, Bob Havermeier, was one of the dairy farmers to benefit from the continued payouts by Mat Maid.

6) The new Creamery Board reverses the decision to close the dairy. There is a closed session during which CEO Joe Van Treeck is fired, and an additional $600,000 in aid is approved.

7) This aid is from a $25M grant that the US Federal Government had approved in 2002.

8) When asked why the Board of Agriculture did not act on Mat-Maid dairy president and CEO Joe Van Treeck's requests last year to privatize, Ronda Boyles, chair of the BAC, said that they had not acted due to the impeding change in administration.

9) The Dairy is eventually closed, three months later after more losses, in debt, and facing litigation for pension lawsuits.

10) It is put to auction at $3.5M, but there are no offers.

11) Eventually a Storage Company purchases the site and structure for $1.5M, to convert it to a heated public storage facility.

12) Competing private Dairy businesses that were also given approximately $600K in federal funding, are given no-bid leasing contracts for the dairy manufacturing equipment.

In Summary: The controversy stems from vested interest be the parties involved, and the disbursement of Federal funds. Governor Palin, under the auspices of protecting farmers, used executive powers to appoint a favorable board in order to keep a failing business open, to disburse federal funds to said business which then paid out to vendors that are family and associates, and her Agriculture Director appointee Franci Havermeier then leases leftover equipment to preferred farmers in a closed negotiation at very favorable prices in closed session, and under direct gag-order to staff. [edit]== Begin References: Approval for funds could lead to sale of Mat Maid dairy AK JoC, Sunday, April 29, 2007 [1] http://www.webcitation.org/5act9Rnjf

Mat Maid a step closer to becoming a private-sector dairy AK JoC, Sunday, May 13, 2007 [2] http://www.webcitation.org/5acsBLvMD

Mat Maid board rejects Palin plea to stay open Anchorage Daily News (Anchorage, AK), 13-JUN-07 [3] http://www.webcitation.org/5acsE8XHu

Palin looks to Mat-Su for board. Anchorage Daily News (Anchorage, AK), 19-JUN-07 [4] http://www.webcitation.org/5acsMwJJ7

Creamery board cuts loose longtime chief. Anchorage Daily News (Anchorage, AK), 03-JUL-07 [5] http://www.webcitation.org/5acsOzILn

State to put Mat Maid dairy up for sale. Anchorage Daily News (Anchorage, AK)29-AUG-07 [6] http://www.webcitation.org/5acsQa4gW

Equipment Auction: [7] http://www.webcitation.org/5ad7CqjM0 Andrew Halcro, of Alaska legislature, Harvard Graduate, and Local Businessman, questioning the new board: [9] http://www.webcitation.org/5acttlFqf

The $600K disbursement: [10] http://www.webcitation.org/5aiycCb3D

The state audit which shows Mat Maid kept paying farmers another $39K, and that he 600K check was put into a general checking fund, and consequently comingled with other funds: [11] http://www.webcitation.org/5aiyfmod9

Mat Maid private attorney and Ass't Attorney General both resign, no proper Request for proposal, and equipment is being auctioned off: [12] http://www.webcitation.org/5aiyi8uR2

Agriculture Director Franci Havermeier tells the staff to refrain from discussing Mat Maid Dairy: [13] http://www.webcitation.org/5aiyprqE6

Now since it wasn't allowed to be in the Sarah Palin article, I created an article named 'Matanuska Maid Dairy Controversy' which would have allowed this to be edited, and also other pertinent facts added. I am sorry that I am not at liberty to write much more, but I thought I would start with the facts of the controversy. Some of these accounts come from Andrew Halco, a local legislator up in Alaska that seems to be intimately familiar with the workings of this situation. I will be contacting him about this event, and I will be asking for him to provide as many sources as possible.

The question is: Why are the admins so quick to delete instead of allowing someone to edit and improve? —Preceding unsigned comment added by T1n0 (talk • contribs) 08:15, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh, that's an easy one. Because admins are just typical editors, and "the typical wikipedian is a white male aged 35 and under, a tekkie, and socialist-leaning" (as revealed by the IP who got so incensed in the section immediately above). -- Hoary (talk) 08:31, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
BTW, I'm white, educated, just over 40, and a capitalist pig. However, I do get very incensed when a) admin use their position to exercise their bias.

b) my tax dollars are scammed away to politician's friends. If you don't care, maybe it's because you don't pay taxes. t1n0 09:13, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Damn, I knew I was in the wrong place. Tvoz/talk 08:34, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
Look, the material was seen by millions of people, including reporters doing research, but it hasn't gained any traction. It failed to sell in the marketplace of ideas, and it was read by 1% of the population of the US. Nobody is reading this article anymore, so its not being here now is not such a big deal as it would have been the first week. Improve it in the Governorship of Sarah Palin first, and see if there is consensus for a mention of it to be put back here. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 08:36, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
OK, sounds like a reasonable plan. But not esta noche.t1n0 09:01, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
I note that [9], [10], [12], and [13] are not in any way acceptable as reliable sources. Nor is the material covered in those sources available - as best as I can tell - in any newspaper article or other reliable source. So while I've just finished expanding Governorship of Sarah Palin#Matanuska Maid Dairy, I've not been able to add any information on what happened to dairy operations after the Mat Maid Dairy closed in early December 2007. If you in fact can come up with anything, I encourage you to add the information at that section. And I suggest that further discussion be at Talk:Governorship of Sarah Palin rather than on this page. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 20:52, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Palin's proudest of it, and it's not in the article

Palin has said that her greatest accomplishment as governor is the natural gas pipeline through Canada, and there is no mention of it in the article. Truly, why am I the one noticing this, and not the Palin boosters? Anyway, in case I missed some (surely mistaken) consensus earlier to remove it, doesn't it deserve to be in the article? Phlegm Rooster (talk) 08:46, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

True, that was a great thing. It should definitely be included...how ironic. t1n0 09:18, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Probably an over-site. Maybe one of our fellow editors that could not get in would have included it. We'll never know.--Buster7 (talk) 09:29, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
It was there yesterday (or the day before). Phlegm Rooster (talk) 09:33, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
If you want to mention the $40 Billion Palin Pipeline feel free. The Palin Pipeline just goes to Boundary Lake, Alberta!!! Thats because it doesn't bring energy to heat peoples homes. it brings energy to an oil field. It was certainly very controversial during her 2006 run for Governor so one would hope you would touch on some of the reasons for contraversy.
it involves running a natural gas pipeline through one of the worlds most active fault zones.
It runs to Albertas tar sands not the US Its designed to spend $40 billion dollars of taxpayer money to build oil and gas company infrastructure so they can develop a resource for which they will then charge the taxpayers inflated prices which kick back to Alaskan families thousands of dollars every year.
The oil and gas companies would use the natural gas to heat the oil tar and combine this with a large amount of Albertas potable water that presently supplies drinking water to many western states to create a dirty fossil fuel by burning a cleaner and cheaper fossil fuel so as to increase their bottom line. It benefits Alaskans beciase its construction pork for Alaska. Its environmental costs are huge and it brings no energy to the US.

Now Canada has the world’s second largest reserves of oil. Estimates are that our neighbor to the North is sitting on over 179 billion barrels of oil. Unfortunately for Canada and our planet, 95% of those reserves are embedded in the tar sands of Alberta. To pull oil out of those tar sands requires up to 4 barrels of fresh water per each barrel of oil and up to 1000 cubic feet of natural gas to heat the water and separate the oil from the tar sands. As thing stand today, pulling oil from tar sands requires about 0.6 billion cubic feet of gas per day. By 2015 the natural gas needs are projected to need 1.6 billion cubic feet of gas per day. By the time the Palin Pipeline comes online in 2017 the gas per day requirements are projected to be higher—and energy needs to pull oil out of the tar sands will only keep growing if our only energy policy is to always feed our oil addiction until the system collapses.

The environmental costs from tar sands oil extraction are high. Tar sands open pit mining and drilling are Canada’s fastest growing source of global warming emissions. Looking just at the production process, to produce a barrel of tar sands oil costs the climate three times the emissions as a barrel of conventional oil. For mining, up to four barrels of water are drained from the Athabasca River to produce one barrel of tar sands oil, resulting in tailings ponds of toxics that can be seen from space by the naked eye. Aboriginal communities downstream from the tar sands are concerned about high cancer rates.

Its a deal put together by Jack Abramov and Stephen Silver with McCain’s advisor Randy Scheunermann out of which we first get mention of Sarah Palin as a possible VP choice and McCain gets $160,000 in campaign contributions from the Trans canada the pipeline builder and oil sands developer. Its a deal that couldn't be done by an administration that cared about the environment so its sort of a now or never proposition.
If its in the article those concerns should be mentionedRktect (talk) 10:21, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Controversial position on morality issues

Sarah Heath eloped with Todd Palin Aug 29, 1988. Her marriage was followed 7 months later by the birth of their first child, Track, in April 1989. Her daughter Bristol became pregnant at 17 and a baby is expected late 2008. Despite these family issues proving that abstinence-only is ineffective family planning and pregnancy prevention, Ms. Palin staunchly supports abstinence only sex education. [16] Katwiki229 (talk) 14:05, 10 September 2008 (UTC)katwiki229 sept 2008

Your point? Clearly some people do connect the dots in this way. But this article is supposed to chronicle her life, not be a judgment about it. Wikidemon (talk) 14:24, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Mayor Allows Wasilla Police to Bill Sexual Assault Victims for Their Own Rape Kits

thx --Moneybrother (talk) 14:42, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

The first link does not mention her name. The second link does not work. And the report is biased. "In the past we've charged the cost of exams to the victims insurance company when possible" and it is being spun into a "victim must pay" story. It has no place in her bio. GtstrickyTalk or C 14:49, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

the first link mention a date and a place. thats not enough? ok. --Moneybrother (talk) 14:52, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Readers may be interested in this from the Frontiersman. It does not mention Palin, but Police Chief Charlie Fannon was hired by her after she fired his predecessor. I also don't know whether Fannon was fired the day after this article was published or not, but that action certainly would have earned her points on my ledger.--Appraiser (talk) 15:48, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
Oops; sorry I didn't realize it was the same link.--Appraiser (talk) 15:50, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure how this applies to Palin... She doesn't exactly have control over policy at the PD.... On the downside, looks like Wasilla PD was investigating about 16 rapes a year back in 2000... --Bobblehead (rants) 16:38, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Time Cover

As presently constructed the inclusion of the Time Magazine seems to fail the non-free content criteria. Specifically, point #8. As far as I can see showing her face on the cover of Time doesn't appear to add anything to the article that isn't already accomplished by the text saying she was on the cover of Time. Fair use images are expected to contribute in ways that exceed what the text accomplishes, and I simply don't see that here. We already know what she looks like, and we already stated that she was on a cover, so I'm not sure what additional encyclopedic value comes from showing the cover. Dragons flight (talk) 15:11, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I agree it fails WP:FU ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:15, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
The image helps illustrate, specifically, Time magazine's fairly unique reaction to Sarah Palin. Take a look at the back and forth between Time magazine and the McCain campaign. On the one hand, Time has been one of the most vocal media outlets criticizing the campaign (correctly, in my opinion) for the lack of media access to Palin. On the other hand, they slap her face on their cover. A few other newsmagazines have included her as well, but Time's is somewhat unique in criticizing her on the one hand and putting her on their cover on the other. We're not going to have paragraphs about the Time piece, but I think the critical commentary there now on the cover satisfies wp:nfcc.   user:j    (aka justen)   15:21, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
Still disagree, nothing you've said depends on the look of the cover, merely the fact that it exists. The cover can't be included unless its appearance (and not merely its existence) is contributing to understanding the issue. Dragons flight (talk) 15:27, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
I'm not an expert in these matters but shouldn't alleging some sort of infringement or violation of criteria be debated at the image talk pages and not here? I mean if it really infringes on Time's copyright in some way then the image should be deleted right? I think there is no question that this image is appropriate for this or this type of article (infact it's unlikely that it'd ever be placed in any other article but ones related to Palin) so the only question is if the picture itself is allowed to stay on Wikipedia servers. Hobartimus (talk) 15:24, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
We can always ask the good folks at WP:FUR to give as a hand in determining fair use or not. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:24, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
I agree it fails WP:FU. I see no release on Time's website[8]. I think it is more fitting and a better image to use then the airshow image, however it fails WP:FU #8. GtstrickyTalk or C 15:26, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
We don't need a release to use a fair use image if there's critical commentary on the notability of the cover, which there is.   user:j    (aka justen)   15:31, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
You still need the cover to contribute to the article in a way the text doesn't. You haven't said what way you think it does that. Dragons flight (talk) 15:35, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
I think that's subjective; I think the Carney quote combined with the image of the cover itself do contribute in a way text cannot. In any event, I've added the appropriate rationale to Image:Sarah_Palin_Time_cover.jpg.   user:j    (aka justen)   15:49, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
In WP:FU#Unacceptable use it states: "A magazine cover, to illustrate the article on the person whose photograph is on the cover. However, if the cover itself is the subject of sourced discussion in the article, and if the cover does not have its own article, it may be appropriate." In what source is the cover discussed and therefor needed to to prove a point? If there was an article that said "Palin hair was a mess on the Time cover" I could see the need but the cover is not needed (or sourced) to prove a point. GtstrickyTalk or C 16:00, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
Yes, one hardly needs to show the time cover to prove the point that she was on the cover. Nearly every important person gets on the cover of some magazines and if we go down that road every bio article would have a magazine cover picture. Moreover, the underlying material does not seem terribly relevant to the article. Of course she gets a lot of coverage given the circumstances. Perhaps a discussion of how the media treats her vice presidential candidacy belongs in a campaign article, or perhaps not. Wikidemon (talk) 16:10, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Nominated for WP:FUR at Wikipedia:Non-free_content_review#Image:Sarah_Palin_Time_cover.jpg. Dragons flight (talk) 16:15, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

1999 Mayoral election

Resolved

isn't "and was returned to office by a margin of 909 to 292 votes" a misuse of the word margin? shouldn't it be "by a vote of 909 to 292"? Rds865 (talk) 16:29, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Aye. so fix it :) ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:35, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
I've taken care of it. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 17:42, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Time cover image, again...

It seems that the discussion of the fair use of the Time cover image is continuing here (at least for now): Wikipedia:Non-free content review#Image:Sarah Palin Time cover.jpg.   user:j    (aka justen)   17:23, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks wikipedia for removing the Religion Section

Its not in Obama's article, therefore it doesn't belong here either. You did the right thing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.46.2.202 (talk) 17:57, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

It didnt go anywhere. Grsztalk 02:39, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Note

I've nominated Talk:Sarah Palin/Draft article for a deletion discussion. Since this page is again semi-protected, the point of having a semi-protected draft article is rather limited, and no active discussions on this page are making use of it. GRBerry 21:23, 10 September 2008 (UTC)


Mayor of Wasilla allows Sexual Assault Victims to be Charged for own Examinations.

During the time Sarah Palin was mayor of Wasilla she supported charging sexual assault victims for their own forensic examinations. In 2000, Democratic Governor Tony Knowles signed House Bill 270, sponsored by Eric Croft, D-Anchorage, preventing victims from being charged for their own "rape kits"[9]. At the time, most municipalities were absorbing the cost, however, Mayor Palin appointed Police Chief Charlie Fannon, had complained that the new law would further burdon the city. The previous police chief, Irl Stambaugh was alleged fired for political differences with the Mayor.[10] Marisolgold (talk) 21:28, 10 September 2008 (UTC)MarisolGold

Already discussed above. DCEdwards1966 21:37, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Oil Companies say Palins Taxes put Pipelines in Jeopardy

I think that there are some very interesting points made here, that need paraphrasing , but would make good wiki to include in the article.

The source is Times Business so I believe it is fairly reliable and meets Wiki Standards: Reference:

http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/natural_resources/article4728307.ece

"However, energy experts say that in challenging BP, Conoco Philips and Exxon Mobil Mrs Palin may have gone too far, driving billions of dollars out of Alaska and jeopardising the goal of energy independence." The taxes introduced by Mrs Palin had led them to shelve two multimillion-dollar projects and cancel plans to explore new drilling areas. “Palin’s taxes were popular. But economically they didn’t make sense. She has behaved like the worst Democrats.”

Mrs Palin has raised taxes on oil profits and given $1,200 rebates to consumers – an idea John McCain has opposed at federal level. She has given $500 million to a Canadian company to build a gas pipeline that the main holders of the state’s gas reserves boycotted. And she has become embroiled in a legal battle over rights to one of the state’s richest gas deposits.

--207.232.97.13 (talk) 01:44, 11 September 2008 (UTC)fred

Sarah Palin#Reception

This section seems overly positive and fluffy and seems to violate WP:NPV. Any suggestions on how to make it more neutral? I am not sure the section is even needed. GtstrickyTalk or C 14:43, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

(ec)I would not be too fussed if it were sixed. Ronnotel (talk) 14:49, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
There's a notable reaction from Ed Koch. [11] --Evb-wiki (talk) 14:53, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
The section is very much needed. Please also restore the time article cover that was there but deleted somehow. If you have some proposals that could be added to the section, bring them up here. Hobartimus (talk) 14:55, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

66.156.63.234 (talk) 15:01, 10 September 2008 (UTC)At the least it should mention that she was the focus of major media attention for the first two weeks.

Apart from little known Ed Koch, Rudy Guiliani who is a much more known figure did infact made a notable reaction but others seemed to object to including individual people's reaction. [12] [13] Hobartimus (talk) 15:02, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
I've restored the Time cover, and am leaving a note on User:Fasach Nua's talk page regarding his removal of the image. I think the reaction section is an important one, and if you see an area in which it needs to be defluffed, defluff away. But the public reaction to her candidacy has been notable, and biographical, and should be included as such.   user:j    (aka justen)   15:06, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
The section needs expansion. I will tag as such. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:14, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
It requires additional viewpoints for NPOV. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:17, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
IMO this section will be a magnet for every bit of news trivia and commentary imaginable. The reaction section on the McCain campaign page is dreadful. T0mpr1c3 (talk) 15:29, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
Sofixit. Just because a particular section is prone to problems doesn't mean it should be deleted altogether. The public reaction to her selection is notable and has become biographical. Four years from now, whoever is in the White House, the public reaction to her candidacy will still be relevant. The section absolutely needs to be kept under control, but the first few days have had a clear focus: strong and sometimes unflattering media attention, an apparent bump in the polls for McCain due to her, and concerns over very limited media access.   user:j    (aka justen)   15:34, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Proposal

I can not see this section ever being neutral. Lets face it, the Republicans love her, the Dems dislike her. We can find sources all over the place to prove those points but they are not needed in her bio. This section currently discusses the press bashing her, her affect on the polls, and her magazine covers. The last section on the magazines and interviews can be moved up to the 2008 Vice-presidential campaign section. The rest violates WP:NPV and should be removed.

There are distinct differences (positive and negative) between the reaction to her and what the reaction would have been if McCain had picked Romney or Ridge or Lieberman. We can usefully and neutrally point these out: general surprise, enthusiasm from the religious right, qualms in many quarters about her perceived inexperience, and the factor of her being a woman (help appeal to Clinton voters? an insult to those voters to think they'll vote for anyone with a uterus?). We could title it "Initial reaction" so that its focus is limited and it doesn't become a grab-bag for everything that's said about her during the campaign.
Right now the section is heavily POV in Palin's favor, giving such prominent positioning to "Some Republicans felt that Palin was being subjected to unreasonable media coverage...." That wasn't even the most prominent Republican reaction. Certainly our discussion of what was said about her in the media should precede any discussion of what was said about what was said. JamesMLane t c 22:08, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
I'm not fond of the section at all. Deep-six it if you like. I did just delete the sentece that said "Time's Palin cover was cited in an article about media bias". That was offensivelt POV to me. Read Time's "McCain's Bias Claim: Truth or Tactic?" if you wish to see how littel value that reference had. The line contained nothing of value, did manage to put "Time", "Palin, and "Media Bias" together in a short little sentence. Spiff1959 (talk) 05:32, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Remove it It was deleted before, for the same reasons, and it should be deleted again. The reasons; hopelessly POV (one way or the other or both), piling on of more and more opinions, recentism, WP:NOT#NEWS, attracting POV pushers, crystal ball gazing. The information on "general surprise, enthusiasm from the religious right, qualms in many quarters about her perceived inexperience, and the factor of her being a woman..." can be integrated into other parts of the article. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 06:10, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
Agree that it should be removed. Right now it's a one-sided mostly fluff piece, and I think the idea that her nomination was well received depends entirely upon the political persuasion of the person making the observation. I can't see any way this section could ever be NPOV. JoelleJ (talk) 22:43, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Please understand that removing content that can be improved is really not acceptable on Wikipedia. If it is a fluff piece, fix it. If something isn't neutral, reword it. Instead of focussing on "Republicans feel..." or "Democrats believe...", write based on facts. It is a fact that a recent survey showed a majority of Americans believe the media has been unfairly critical. It is a fact that she has avoided giving an interview for two weeks now. But do not delete an entire section because of wp:npov concerns, fix it.   user:j    (aka justen)   22:52, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Comments

First I wrote a long response but in short I don't see a valid rationale for the deletion of the section. Hobartimus (talk) 16:44, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Obama's remark about lipstick

I'm sure this will be brought up eventually. [14] [15] [16] [17] Thoughts? Hobartimus (talk) 17:22, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Seems ephemeral to me. See WP:Recentism. Although I agree it would be amusing to provide Wikipedia readers with an illustration. :)Ferrylodge (talk) 17:25, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
Obama responded to it so I think the issue should be included. The question is where. It seems like a pretty minor point at this time so I don't think it deserves its own section. I also don't think it should go under the reception section in the VP Campaign section. Perhaps a new section should be created like "Criticism of Obama" or something like that.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 17:28, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
I'd personally disagree. Seems like much more of a campaign issue then part of Palins bio. Particularly since if it's going to be represented NPOV you have to add Obama's claims that it was unrelated to Palin and was adressed to McCain's policies.--Cube lurker (talk) 17:33, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
Oh God. Lipstickgate. I have to agree with Ferrylodge, which may be a first :) Can we give this a couple of days and pray that some issue of substance actually replaces it in the news cycle? If there an element of the McCain/Palin campaign message develops which aims to paint Obama as sexist, then perhaps this would warrant a brief mention there, but right now it's just today's talking point. Let's not run with it unless it gains more traction and becomes more encyclopedic and less newsy (per WP:Recentism and WP:NOT#NEWS). MastCell Talk 17:38, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
(EC)FYI I basically agree with this. I should have said If it belongs anywhere it belongs in the campaign not the bio. But if we write paragraphs on every barb-counter barb from now to November these articles are going to be uglier then they already are.--Cube lurker (talk) 17:45, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
(ec)Agree (that's twice in 24 hours, Mast). No direct evidence he meant Palin. Seems like a pretty bonehead thing to say but I don't think it rises, yet, to notability for this article. Of course that may change if the story lingers and/or (unlikely) snowballs. Ronnotel (talk) 17:44, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
It does seem more of a campaign issue. And of course, we'd also have to include Palin calling herself a dog with lipstick during the RNC speech as well. Aprock (talk) 17:40, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
(ecx2)Move along, nothing to see here. We're trying to add information that is notable in the medium and long terms. This is not wikinews. This will be forgotten in a few days, and has no bearing here. Consider this: if you were publishing a biography on Palin, would this merit a mention? Oren0 (talk) 17:41, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
Lipstick-gate seems to have a lot more to do with the election specifically than with the life of Sarah Palin. Not the kind of thing that seems to fit this particular article. Dragons flight (talk) 17:45, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
Obama's actual words don't smear Palin, they're being twisted by the Republicans to make it look that way. It's just electioneering. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 17:52, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
Some of the Republicans (read: Jane Swift).Ferrylodge (talk) 17:56, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
I'll let you in on a little secret. Both sides have been doing this and both sides will keep on doing it for two more months. And no, none of the back and forth belongs in an encyclopedia. --B (talk) 17:59, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
Really? Shazam! Clearly we've come a long way since the clean, good old days, for example when some prominent Democrat said that Thomas Dewey looked like the little man on a wedding cake; or when TR, in 1912, said that Woodrow Wilson had a yellow streak down his back. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 18:05, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
Don't forget Grover Cleveland extramarital affair and paternity allegations. Hey, why is that a redlink? We need a content fork! :) MastCell Talk 19:45, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

No reason to include it. Besides if you did, then to be fair, you'd have to include in both the McCain and Hillary bios where McCain used the exact same quote ("lipstick on a pig") against Hillary. I agree it's ephemeral.GreekParadise (talk) 20:00, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Agree. Recentism, and irrelevance. It's a common metaphor used by McCain, Thompson, and others. Now, if he'd said "lipstick on a moose", we'd have more than one word in common.--Loodog (talk) 20:27, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

The appropriate home for this information is United States presidential election, 2008. That's that the point of making two articles, so that not everything that's said during the campaign gets shoved into a bio. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 20:51, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree with this statement. --98.243.129.181 (talk) 21:35, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Adding Obama's "lipstick on a pig" comment to this article would be absurd. It will be forgotten ten days from now. This is an encyclopedia, not some source of childish "gotcha" journalism. --JHP (talk) 23:38, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Not needed It'll be a distant memory 3 days from now except for the extremist. There is more appropriate "sexist" comments we could use besides. And even then, I think that content, if it was to be included, should go under United_States_presidential_election,_2008. Maybe under a subartcile that deals with these issues in regards to both Palin and Hillary. Theosis4u (talk) 01:11, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

You're discussing putting this in but you omitted the entire section (except for fly-by sentences) about her assault on the environment (mentioned in political points of view, which, as I have stated before, is not sufficient given the state she governs, the environment, the natural resources, etc)? Obama's comment had nothing to do with her. I suppose this answers my question about the environmental issue: it really sounds like this is becoming a very Republican friendly article, and not a very fact filled one as a result. Jolly momma (talk) 17:20, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

WP:NOTNEWS. This isn't relevant to her bio at all. Kaisershatner (talk) 18:54, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Admin Attention - Please resolve issue with Mayoralty of Sarah Palin and Governorship of Sarah Palin

I can't find references for these subarticles [ Mayoralty of Sarah Palin and Governorship of Sarah Palin ] being approved by consensus and there are threads on this showing consensus isn't given yet. So, why are they still allowed? Theosis4u (talk) 22:09, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Why are what still allowed? The references, or the articles themselves? -- Scjessey (talk) 22:15, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
The references of being a subartilce and the articles. I believe all the other references [subarticles] did go through a consensus process [on this talk page]. Theosis4u (talk) 22:23, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
See , Talk:Sarah_Palin#Mayoralty_of_Sarah_Palin , Talk:Sarah_Palin#Mayoralty_of_Sarah_Palin , Talk:Mayoralty_of_Sarah_Palin
I can't find any references to the Governorship of Sarah Palin page consensus at all.
Theosis4u (talk) 22:28, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
Anyone can create any article they want. If you'd like to discuss possible deletion of the Mayoral sub-article go here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mayoralty of Sarah Palin--Paul (talk) 22:44, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
Made this then : Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Governorship of Sarah_Palin
This addresses the issue of the articles themselves, not their subartilce links from the main Palin page without consensus (if we are still trying for that). Theosis4u (talk) 22:48, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
The issue is that the guideline on daughter articles makes it clear that the information in the main article should be a summary. That's clearly not the case here: Sarah Palin#Mayor of Wasilla is not a summary of Mayoralty of Sarah Palin is very similar to , and Sarah Palin#Governor of Alaska is not a summary of Governorship of Sarah Palin.
And, at the risk of stating the obvious: have very similar, detailed content in two places is absolutely wrong because (among other things) it requires updating two different articles when information changes, it means that content discussions need to take place on two different talk pages, and (worst of all) readers directed to the (slightly) longer "daughter" articles are not going to be interested in reading through them just to figure out what they have already read (in the main article) and what is additional content.
So: let's decide whether we want separate articles (if so, then shorten information in the main article) or not (if not, then delete the daughter articles): Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Governorship of Sarah_Palin, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mayoralty of Sarah Palin. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 00:32, 11 September 2008 (UTC)


Hey I agree...it is better to have sub aritcles and keep the main page short..plus there is too much control on the main page..I mean a locked page defeats the purpose of the wiki... Probably why all the sub pages started up. It allows more input from people who like to wiki. After all it does take a tremondous amount of time and research. Look how much the sub page Mayoralty of Sarah Palin has improved over the main page article. It is clearer , easier to read, and easier to access the references. Possibly that is why there is so much opposition to it and the fact it is now open to all editors. --207.232.97.13 (talk) 03:21, 11 September 2008 (UTC)Fred

For the very reasons you state it shows it to be a bad idea. If that is the motive behind the pages then their content will get out of sync with the data as represented on the other consensus based pages. If this resolves to keep those pages...then the talk activities on this page need to go back and re-sync the contents of them. As to minimize any disjointed impressions to the reader. Just an opinion I'm expressing here. My only intent is to get content between all pages to have a consistent flow to the depth of details.
The following is also true for the mayoral page as well. Topics being equally represented in lengths - though content and sourcing is different.
The main topics presented in Governorship_of_Sarah_Palin are the following
Energy & Environment , is already covered in Political_positions_of_Sarah_Palin#Energy_and_environment , Sarah_Palin
Budget , is already covered in Political_positions_of_Sarah_Palin#Government_Spending , Sarah_Palin
Matanuska Maid Dairy, ISN'T covered in Political_positions_of_Sarah_Palin#Government_Spending but could be.
Bridge to Nowhere, covered in Political_positions_of_Sarah_Palin#.22Bridge_to_Nowhere.22 , Sarah_Palin, and Gravina_Island_Bridge
Earmarks, covered in Political_positions_of_Sarah_Palin#Earmarks, Sarah_Palin
Public Safety Commissioner dismissal, covered in Alaska_Public_Safety_Commissioner_dismissal , Sarah_Palin
Theosis4u (talk) 04:16, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

This main page article is by far too cumbersome . I find wading through this page very tiring...and much prefer the sub pages. They are more reader friendly. They also allow the wiki to function as a wiki where everyone can edit, and particpate and they have been doing fine. New information is being added daily.

On this main page it appears the spin doctors are trying to manipulate the content, hence the need for gatekeepers, and to me shows the reason for a topic heading being opened under the title "Three Palin-related content forks need watching ". It clearly shows to me the need of some editors to restrict the flow of information. An ongoing complaint on this board if you read the comments. --207.232.97.13 (talk) 04:53, 11 September 2008 (UTC)Fred

Again, one of my points is that the content is becoming disjointed across the pages and usually involves 90% of the content from a page that did go through and still is a consensus process. Much of the diff's are items that were rejected by the consensus process. And if you followed this page since the announcement about Palin - you'll recognize most of these at one time on the pages, fought to be kept on the page, and so forth. Do what thou wilt , though. Theosis4u (talk) 05:14, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
Yes, content is becoming disjointed - I find this statement pretty scary: Topics being equally represented in lengths - though content and sourcing is different. Lots of duplicate work, twice the number of fights. This is not the first time that Wikipedia has had to deal with this issue: We have a guideline: Wikipedia:Summary style, for how to spin off daughter articles. What we don't need and don't want is this massive duplication - either we need to kill the daughter articles, or we need to shorten the main article by only have summaries - three or four paragraphs at most - related to each daughter article. (And yes, I know it's hard to right a neutral, accurate, comprehensive four paragraph summary, but that's no justification for having both daughter articles and long, long sections that duplicate most of the content in those daughter articles. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 16:06, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
This bio article certainly shouldn't repeat all the detail in the daughter articles. As John McCain and Barack Obama are, we should strive to make this a high-quality article, summarizing the major sections, and directing readers to daughter articles about each of the major topics. It is there that details and nuances can be wikified and worked out through consensus. One can tell, just by reading this Talk page, that this article has had too many contentious details. Once this article gets down to a respectable biographical summary, its quality can be enhanced and this Talk page will have a more reasonable volume of consensus-building. If the deletionists are successful in killing the daughters, we'll never get there.--Appraiser (talk) 18:04, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

CNN aired the two Tax Plans MCCain and Obama side by side and showed the differences

http://money.cnn.com/2008/06/11/news/economy/candidates_taxproposals_tpc/index.htm

since she is running for McCain should this be added to her article, I would Suggest it for Obamas and Also for MCCains.

--207.232.97.13 (talk) 04:39, 11 September 2008 (UTC)Fred

No, it has nothing to do with her biography. Grsztalk 13:47, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
In fact, it has nothing to do with her, just as Obama's tax plan has nothing to do with Joe Biden. It's McCain's plan; Palin wasn't even selected as the nominee at the point where it was published/publicized. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 15:59, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Earmark return

I know the entire Bridges section is being discussed elsewhere but I want to focus on one statement: "Alaska did not return the $454.4 million in the original earmark to the federal government". The dollar amount is not supported by the cited source which says "$223 million". I am guessing that someone has done some OR and added some numbers here. Also, the cited source says specifically, "...Alaska was still granted an equivalent amount of transportation money to be used at its own discretion." The statement made in the WP article seems to come from a statement made by Ketchikan Mayor Bob Weinstein (Democrat), and Mike Elerding (was Palin's campaign coordinator) and is not a statement made directly by the cited source. The sentence in the WP article is very misleading and needs to more accurately reflect the sources. WTucker (talk) 04:42, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

so fix it..., please. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:43, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm fixing the sources now. The $223 refers to just one of the two bridges. The 442-454.4 number represents both bridges. This was all perfectly sourced but then folks messed with the text without checking the sources. :-( GreekParadise (talk) 06:29, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

All sources fixed (and it's 3:30 am and I'm tired!). Let me know if you still have a problem. I made it easier to follow by putting each source in this section directly after the text that it references.GreekParadise (talk) 07:30, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

"Respectfully" or "respectively"?

"In the general election, she defeated Democratic nominee Tony Knowles, 48% to 41%, respectfully.[169]"

The word is "respectively," not "respectfully." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.165.51.55 (talk) 07:07, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Neither word needs to be there. The fact that she won indicates that 48% is her, "respectively" is redundant. Good catch, fixed. Oren0 (talk) 07:15, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Red links in infobox - ethics supervisors in conservation commission

The infobox includes Palin's position as "ethics supervisor" in the Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission. Predecessor Camille Oechsli Taylor and successor John K. Norman are currently redlinked, so how notable was Palin's position? Relevant enough to be included in her infobox? Notably, Palin's position as ethics supervisor is not further elaborated in the article. --Hapsala (talk) 11:18, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

It isn't relevant enough to be included, in my opinion. She was chair of the commission, and happened to also be designated as the ethics supervisor of the commission. One article I read said that she was frustrated because that position gave her no leverage in dealing with the other two commissioners. I think this is something like being designated the person to review EEO complaints, or the person designated to review whistleblower complaints; it's a very secondary role.
I've removed this from the lead section; as noted in my edit summary, WP:LEAD doesn't support adding very minor facts to lead sections. As far as I know, there has never been an article solely about such a role on the Commission, probably because there are relatively few ethics complaints in any given year. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 15:56, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
What about the conservation commission? Is it notable enough to be included in the infobox, as no more elaboration is made in the article? --Hapsala (talk) 17:43, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Religion - born again

An editor just removed the statement that Palin is a "devout born-again Christian" with a reason given that the term is pejorative and redundant with converting from Catholicism to Pentecostalism. I don't know whether she is or is not born again - but I'd just like to point out that there is nothing pejorative about being born again, being Pentecostal, or whatever. It's perfectly respectable, and if people have an issue with it, that's their deal. Also, does joining a Pentecostal church mean you have to be born again? The article doesn't talk about conversion, it just says she joined a church. They probably welcome people in all stages. The sources seem to be murky. I guess we ought to simply report her religious leanings without judgment, to the extent she has revealed them and they are important to understanding her life and career. And if the sources are unclear or she prefers to keep that quiet we can say that. Some sources say she is "post-denominational", which presumably means she chooses her churches for personal spiritual reasons rather than loyalty to a particular organization. Wikidemon (talk) 14:37, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Here's the edit.[18] The word "devout" has some interesting implications editing-wise. Is that sourced, uncontroversial, and relevant? Wikidemon (talk) 14:39, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I removed it on that basis. I don't mean to pose it negatively. I was not suggesting there is anything wrong with born-again Christians. My point is not that everyone views the term negatively. However, there are certainly some significant number of people who view that term negatively. It is like a litmus test, and one group of people would view her in a more positive light, and another group of people in a more negative light. As such, it is probably not best for the article. Also, as I said, the article already explains her origins as a Catholic, conversion to Pentacolstalism, and then rejection of pentacostalism in favor of non-denominationalism. So it seems her religious history is well covered. I don't think adding the term "born-again" adds to that in any meaningful way. (That is, the point that user:Wikidemon brought up. Is it relevant, uncontroversial and sourced? I don't think it is any of those three. Atom (talk) 15:03, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
I also removed the material about her contacting her pastor for spirtual advice after joining the rep ticket since that is not waht the citation says. Thank you. --Tom 15:37, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
  1. ^ a b c Forgey, Pat. "Abortion draws clear divide in state races". Juneau Empire. Retrieved 2008-08-30.
  2. ^ Palin, Sarah (2006-11-07). "Issues". "Palin for Governor" (inactive web site) quoted in On the Issues. Retrieved 2008-09-01.
  3. ^ a b c Cite error: The named reference same-sex-unions was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  4. ^ "Sarah Palin on Education". OnTheIssues.org. Retrieved 2008-09-08.
  5. ^ Palin, Sarah (2006-11-07). "Issues". "Palin for Governor" (inactive web site) quoted in On the Issues. Retrieved 2008-09-01.
  6. ^ "Sarah Palin on Education". OnTheIssues.org. Retrieved 2008-09-08.
  7. ^ Cite error: The named reference TimeInt was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  8. ^ Baker, Gerard (2008-09-05). "Sarah Palin: it's go west, towards the future of conservatism". The Times. Retrieved 2008-09-05.
  9. ^ Cite error: The named reference ANWR was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  10. ^ Palin, Sarah (2006-11-07). "Issues". "Palin for Governor" (inactive web site) quoted in On the Issues. Retrieved 2008-09-01.
  11. ^ "Sarah Palin on Education". OnTheIssues.org. Retrieved 2008-09-08.
  12. ^ Ververs, Vaughn (2008-08-09). "New Poll Shows McCain Up; Palin To Give First Interview". cbsnews.com. CBS News. Retrieved 2008-09-09.
  13. ^ Bentley, John (2008-06-09). "McCain, Palin Avoid Hot-Button Issues at Colorado Rally". cbsnews.com. CBS News. Retrieved 2008-09-09.
  14. ^ The Anchorage Daily News, January 20th, 2008
  15. ^ Washington Post Palin Per Diem, Travel Expenses Scrutinized September 9, 2008.
  16. ^ http://marriage.about.com/od/politics/p/sarahpalin.htm
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sarah_Palin/Archive_18&oldid=1142445109"