Talk:Sarah Palin/Archive 32

Archive 25

←

Archive 30

Archive 31

Archive 32

Archive 33

Archive 34

Archive 35

Bias

I have taken a 2 week break from the article in hopes that someone would try to bance the article. I still find it too far slanted as Pro-Palin--Lambchop2008 (talk) 22:36, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Where to start... Your assertion that she neglected the welfare of an unborn child by flying home from Texas (or is Trig really even her child?) Her religious beliefs could be interpreted to support that she called dinosaurs Jesus Ponies? How about ritualistic spiritual behavior with an African Witch Doctor? Fcreid (talk) 23:25, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Lambchop, you came here two weeks ago spouting about comparing "baby bumps" on Palin and her daughter and demanding the article reflect Trig as her grandson and not her son. You now have the audacity to waltz in here two weeks later, without any contribution whatsoever, and place a demand for review of neutrality? Crawl back into whatever hole you just left, will you? There is no "good faith" to be assumed here. Fcreid (talk) 00:13, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Again, generalized concerns about the bias of the article are not useful. If you could pick particular things to be changed, we could discuss those.--Loodog (talk) 00:22, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Agree with Loodog, disagree with Fcreid. Specific complaints are useful, random abuse is not. Fcreid, we know you feel strongly about Sarah Palin, but try to keep some perspective. Regards, Ben Aveling 00:39, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, Fcreid does not feel strongly about Sarah Palin, but does feel strongly about bias and libel. My style is usually to avoid direct confrontation, but in Lambchop's case he/she has only tried to insert the most absurd and libelous material here and made no positive contributions to this article. An editor's actions either adds to their goodwill and presumption of good faith, or it subtracts from it. It's fine for Lampchop to use the talk page to make suggestions for improving the article, but given his/her history, tagging the article with a {{bias}} tag is simply harassment of other editors.--Paul (talk) 15:26, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Paul. You're correct on all counts. At least I strive for that level of objectivity. It's necessary to stop degrading trash before it presents itself as legitimate discussion, though. Moreover, I'm sure any feelings I have towards Palin would be unreciprocated! :) Fcreid (talk) 21:48, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

My feelings have nothing to do with anything, Ben, but I oppose turning this article into some trashy tabloid. Lambchop used up all of its "Good Faith" tokens within hours of its first appearance here. It has nothing of value to contribute. 75.148.1.26 (talk) 15:12, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Nonetheless, words like 'spouting', 'audacity' and 'crawl back into whatever hole you left' are unhelpful. Regards, Ben Aveling 19:59, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Placing a bias tag on the article without stating any specifics is useless. Please remove tag ASAP. IP75 75.25.28.167 (talk) 00:45, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

From the BLP Noticeboard on "Don Young's Way"

See [1]

This was the only comment made thus far by an editor not involved in this article:

Here goes: there aren't different rules for evaluating due weight in BLP articles and non-BLP articles. The burden is normally on the editor that wishes to include information to demonstrate that it is both verifiable and appropriate. Once that's accomplished, you should generate consensus (not necessarily unanimity) among editors on the article about the method of inclusion. One editor never really achieves veto power. As to the issue of the bridge name, I can't see a valid objection to the inclusion of the fact, especially if including the fact is key to allowing people to get effective results from search engines. Given the circumstances as to how it became known as "Don Young's Way", I can see weight and BLP considerations in terms of how the fact is introduced. As long as it is neutral (i.e, write the first mention of "Knik Arm Bridge" as Knik Arm Bridge (a.k.a. "Don Young's Way"), with no other commentary in the sentence) I have a hard time seeing a reasonable objection.—Kww(talk) 03:00, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

The important things here, as I see them are:

-- no different rules for evaluating due weight in BLP and non-BLP

-- burden on editor to show verifiability and appropriateness (both of which we have easily shown with "Don Young's Way")

-- no editor has veto power

-- can't see valid objection to inclusion of fact, especially as key to getting it from search engines

Based on this, I will re-add the short parenthetical on Don Young's Way, which all agree is verified fact. If you are opposed to this addition, please state precisely why. Based on the comment by KWW and my own understanding of WP:BLP, BLP is not an appropriate objection to any verifiable, non-private fact, but other objections may be.GreekParadise (talk) 04:50, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Small point: when you start by asking people to see this, I think that you actually want them to see this. (Perhaps the section has been renamed since you last looked at it.) -- Hoary (talk) 07:32, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

You're right. Thanks for fixing the link!GreekParadise (talk) 17:31, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

I would add to the above abstract of important points the following: once it has been established that the claim is verifiable and relevant, "consensus" refers to how it should be written into the article, not whether or not it should be written into the article. Slrubenstein | Talk 14:59, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

I couldn't agree more.GreekParadise (talk) 17:31, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

(undent)Folks, I would be glad to accept the comment you quoted above as gospel, as you seem to be doing. The burden is normally on the editor that wishes to include information to demonstrate that it is both verifiable and appropriate. The burden is normally on the editor that wishes to include information to demonstrate that it is appropriate, not on other editors to convince you that it's inappropriate.

The main problem I'm having is with the section about the bridges. This article is supposed to be using WP:Summary style, and therefore we should merely be summarizing what's in the sub-article (Governorship of Sarah Palin). However, this section about the bridges has become huge in the main article, and I don't think it's appropriate. If you would follow the "gospel" that you've quoted, we would be able to address this situation, because the burden is not on those who believe a smaller section would be appropriate.Ferrylodge (talk) 00:20, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't see this as a BLP issue, and I don't see how it's relevant to include a ceremonial name. Many bridges, roads, and interchanges have these names that are assigned by the legislature or department of transportation, sometimes (as here) even before being built, and they are almost never used unless the media consistently uses them (which is not true in this case; search Google News for "Knik Arm Bridge" vs. "Don Young's Way"). The standard I've always seen has been to use the common name everywhere, and to mention the ceremonial name at most once in the article about the facility. Examples of this are Four Level Interchange and Chesapeake Bay Bridge-Tunnel. --NE2 00:32, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

But in this case, because the Associated Press is in so many newspapers, the media has recently used "Don Young's Way" 86 times (Google News with duplicates added) and "Knik Arm Bridge" only 48 times (same standard). Plus the use of "Don Young's Way" is one of the reasons it was called a "bridge to nowhere" and was a symbol of earmark and pork barrel spending, which is not the case with the two bridges you mention. I personally heard of Don Young's Way years ago, long before Knik Arm Bridge, and that is how it's primarily known outside of Alaska. The parenthetical is quite short.GreekParadise (talk) 01:32, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Actually the AP article does use both names, just not the exact wording: "The Knik Arm was one of two bridge proposals..." --NE2 02:47, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

True, but that just shows you that "Knik Arm Bridge" is not the name of the bridge per se.GreekParadise (talk) 04:47, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't think the bridges section is "huge," compared to other sections. On my computer it's 22 lines and could be less if you removed some paragraph breaks (which is fine with me). It's about the same size as troopergate and her first term as mayor and smaller than vice president or political positions. Given that the bridges are probably the single thing she is most known for, given that the "bridge to nowhere" is the only policy of hers in Alaska that both she and McCain talk about in every speech, and given that it's her most controversial item, I don't think that's too much space. I think the "road to nowhere" is far more important, for example, than her measure to curtail the hours at Wasilla's bars which could be a detail in the subsection.

Ferrylodge has said "If it stays in the article, it ought to be converted from anti-Palin propaganda into something resembling neutrality." I'm all for that, staying in the article and being NPOV. Currently, it has one neutral sentence, one pro-Palin sentence and one anti-Palin sentence. The second and third sentences on the road were suggested by Collect (pro-Palin) and Crust (anti-Palin), not me. Do you want to delete them and leave the neutral one? What do you propose to change it to, Ferrylodge? Why don't you suggest an addition to the second pro-Palin sentence on development or whatever you like? I don't want to remove the topic entirely but I'm all for balance and summary.

And if you want to shorten the entire bridge article, here are my suggestions for cutting it by 1/3, shortening it from 22 lines to 15 lines and 3 paragraphs without any loss of valuable content (references would have to be put back in of course):

Two proposed bridges supported by Palin in her 2006 Gubernatorial campaign gained national attention in 2005 and 2006 as symbols of pork-barrel spending:[94] the Gravina Island Bridge and the Knik Arm Bridge. The Gravina proposal became nicknamed the "Bridge to Nowhere" because of bridgeless Gravina Island's small population of 50; more rarely, the term "Bridges to Nowhere" has referred to both proposals. But both bridges have been touted as necessary for development. Gravina Island contains the Ketchikan International Airport serving 350,000 passengers annually who arrive there by ferry. The Knik Arm Bridge a.k.a "Don Young's Way" after Alaska's Congressman, would provide a $600 million alternate link from Anchorage to Wasilla and places beyond but is being evaluated as a threat to beluga whales.

In 2005, a $442-million Congressional earmark for these bridges was passed in an omnibus spending bill but then discovered and criticized. Congress stripped the earmark from the bill before final passage and instead gave the $442 million to Alaska as transportation money with no strings attached.[95] In 2006, Palin ran for governor with a "build-the-bridge" plank in her platform,[94] saying she would "not allow the spinmeisters to turn this project ... into something that's so negative."[102] She criticized the use of the word "nowhere" as insulting to local residents[94][103] and urged speedy work on building the bridges "while our congressional delegation is in a strong position to assist."[104]

In September 2007, Palin said that Congress had "little interest in spending any more money" on the Gravina Bridge due to what she called "inaccurate portrayals of the projects" and canceled the project, directing Alaskan officials to research an alternative.[105] Palin opted not to return the $442 million in federal transportation funds.[106] Instead, Palin spent $25 million on a Gravina Island highway to the place where the bridge would have gone.[108] This was her only "viable alternative", according to the McCain Campaign, as the road contract had been signed before she entered office. But the Alaska Department of Transportation and Federal Highway Administration said that the contract could have been cancelled at minimal cost, with the money could returned to the Federal Government. See Gravina Island Bridge#Road to Nowhere. Palin continues as of September 2008 to support the Knik Arm Bridge project, although in June 2008, she ordered it undergo a funding and feasibility review.GreekParadise (talk) 01:32, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Why do you insist on saying that she could have cancelled the road upon taking office? The question is whether she could have cancelled the road when she cancelled the bridge, which was nine months AFTER taking office. And why is it not sufficient to cover the road in the sub-article? The cost of the road is miniscule compared to the bridges, and so is the news coverage. And one could read this entire section about the bridges and the road without perceiving any reason that Palin had for building the road, other than she didn't want to return the money. You know that's not correct, don't you? She said it would open territory for development, which is why roads are often built in the United States. Also, do you still insist that you have a right to insert material into this article without consensus?[2]Ferrylodge (talk) 02:25, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

The Alaska Department of Transportation -- not me -- says she could have cancelled the road contract. Most of the rest I've already answered above. I said I don't mind making the road section briefer but I don't want to delete it entirely. I also said I don't mind your adding it would open territory for development. As you recall, the substance of the first sentence was put in three weeks or so ago with consensus, and the second and third sentences were suggested by Collect and Crust, respectfully, recently. I think once Collect's pro-Palin sentence was added (without consensus), then it only made sense that Crust's anti-Palin sentence had to be added too. You can't insist that only pro-Palin stuff doesn't need consensus while anti-Palin stuff does. Besides, if you read the CNN article which Collect cites, 95% of it is highly critical of Palin and Collect picked out the one sentence that supports her.

Now, if your goal is summary style and not deletion of content, please tell me what you think of my proposal to reduce the bridge section by 1/3 without loss of content. Is there any important content you feel I've deleted in my proposal (which I've now put in italics so it can be found easily)? I'm trying to work with you here, and I would think a 1/3 reduction might be something you're looking for.GreekParadise (talk) 02:59, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

The source for the statement by the Alaska Department of Transportation is Propublica which is not a reliable source. According to an editorial from Investor's Business Daily: "With left-wing foundation cash yoked to investigative reporting, the potential for mischief in the coming election year should not be underestimated. This project may be well-intended, but the sources of its funding and its premise about the state of the media raise questions. Let it be known by its product."[3]

Moreover, even if it were a reliable source, you are specifically selecting information that you must know presents a distorted picture. Of course Palin could have cancelled the road immediately upon taking office. And Murkowski could have cancelled it. And Congress could have never funded it. So what? It's all irrelevant. The relevant point is whether she could have cancelled the road without cost when she cancelled the bridge, in September 2007.

I will suggest a different version shortly.Ferrylodge (talk) 03:14, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I see what you're saying about Propublica (though it calls itself independent and non-partisan and cites a source by name Roger Wetherell, head of Alaska Department of Transportation, who could ask for retraction if they got it wrong). But I have no problem saying it's an unfair source. (It was Crust's source, not mine. See above.) Instead, I could supply examples directly from Alaska DOT where they've canceled contracts. And Palin cancelled a Juneau road. At any rate, you seem to agree she could have cancelled it. (Sp? canceled? cancelled? I'm too lazy to look it up.) Anyway, your real question--a fair one--is "whether she could have cancelled the road without cost when she cancelled the bridge, in September 2007" Let me see if I can help answer that.

This is from a source you do trust, the Associated Press (cited in Palin article and the original source for road): "Meanwhile, work is under way on a three-mile road on Gravina Island, originally meant to connect the airport and the new bridge. State officials said last year they were going ahead with the $25 million road because the money would otherwise have to be returned to the federal government. [Palin spokesperson] Leighow said the road project was already under way last year when Palin stopped the bridge, and she noted that it would provide benefits of opening up new territory for development - one of the original arguments made for the bridge spending."

So the AP says that a Palin spokesperson says it was underway when she stopped the bridge (score one for Palin) but it also says the work is still "under way" as of the date of the article August 31, 2008. So the road began more than a year ago but continues to be built today, meaning that cancellation would have saved some funds.

(I wrote this and got an edit conflict. I have yet to read your proposal but I'm doing it now. I put this above your proposal since it responds to your last comment and I haven't read your proposal yet.)GreekParadise (talk) 03:49, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't see how one implies the other. Perhaps the cancellation fee on the contract would have eaten up most or all of the money that continued to be spent on the road, so there was no point in not continuing to build it. -- Zsero (talk) 04:03, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps, Zsero, although it seems very unlikely. She cancelled a $18.6 million contract to build a Juneau road and that only cost Alaska $65,500. Given that the road continues to be constructed one year after cancelling the bridge, it seems unlikely Alaska was "almost finished" when she cancelled.GreekParadise (talk) 04:50, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Revised draft by Ferrylodge

(undent)Here's how I'd edit the section that's presently in the article (insertions in bold, deletions struck through):

Two proposed bridges were supported by Palin in her 2006 Gubernatorial campaign after Congress had already provided hundreds of millions of dollars in transportation funds. These bridge proposals had gained national attention earlier in 2005 and 2006 as symbols of pork-barrel spending:[111] the spending.[111] Ultimately, Palin cancelled one of the bridges, commonly known as the so-called "Bridge to Nowhere".

The Gravina Island Bridge was proposed to connect the 8,000 residents of Ketchikan to the Ketchikan International Airport on the bridgeless sparsely populated Gravina Island where an international airport serves 200,000 passengers per year.[112] and the The Knik Arm Bridge , officially named "Don Young's Way" after Alaska Congressman Don Young, was proposed to cross Cook Inlet, north of Anchorage, Alaska provide an alternate link between Anchorage and Wasilla.[113][114] The Gravina Island Bridge proposal became nicknamed the "Bridge to Nowhere" because of the island's population of 50.[112] More rarely, the term "bridges to nowhere" has been used to refer to both bridge proposals.[115]

The goal of the Gravina project, according to the Alaska Department of Transportation & Public Facilities, was to "provide better service [than the existing ferry] to the airport" which serves 350,000 passengers per year,[116] and "allow for development of large tracts of land on the island."[117] The Knik Arm Bridge is a $600 million project to open up development and provide an alternate link from Anchorage to Wasilla;[118] the bridge is being evaluated by officials as a possible threat to nearby beluga whales.[118]

In 2005, a $442-million Congressional earmark for bridge construction was included in a an early version of a 2006 omnibus spending bill, but was strongly criticized. Congress stripped the earmark from the bill before final passage in November 2005 and instead gave the $442 million to Alaska as transportation money with no strings attached.[112]

In 2006, Palin ran for governor with a "build-the-bridge" plank in her platform,[111] saying she would "not allow the spinmeisters to turn this project ... into something that's so negative."[119] She criticized the use of the word "nowhere" as insulting to local residents[111][120] and urged speedy work on building the bridges "while our congressional delegation is in a strong position to assist."[121] However, in In September 2007, Palin said cancelled the Gravina Island Bridge saying that Congress had "little interest in spending any more money" on the Gravina Bridge due to what she called "inaccurate portrayals of the projects".[122] Palin She opted not to return the $442 million in federal transportation funds.[123] In June 2008, Palin ordered a funding and feasibility review concerning the Knik Arm Bridge, and the bridge is also being reviewed for impacts on beluga whales, because of concerns about its financial impact,[124] though she continued to support the project as of September 2008.[113] Palin also directed Alaskan officials to look for an alternative way to connect Gravina Island with the mainland.[122] Palin spent $25 million in federal funds on a Gravina Island road to the bridge site, rather than return the funds to the Federal government, saying through her spokesperson that it would open territory for development.[125] A McCain-Palin spokesperson said that "because the contract for the road was already signed before she got into office, the governor was left no viable alternative."[126] The Alaska Department of Transportation and the Federal Highway Administration state that the contract could have been cancelled at minimal cost and that the federal money could have been returned to Congress for other uses, if the road had been cancelled when Palin took office in December 2006, but the bridge to the island was not cancelled until September 2007.[127]Ferrylodge (talk) 03:38, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I like many of your proposed changes but dislike others. In general, I like a summary style but disagree when you remove important content, particularly direct quotes from Palin. I'll take it piece by piece.GreekParadise (talk) 03:52, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

In the first paragraph, you're primarily adding language which detracts from the goal of summarizing. Your first addition "after Congress had already provided hundreds of millions of dollars to help finance them" isn't quite accurate. It is explained precisely below that Congress first provided for the bridges as earmarks then changed it to "no strings attached" transportation funds. That's not really millions of dollars to finance them. So why add this sentence? Second sentence added is also repetitive when we're trying to cut down.GreekParadise (talk) 03:57, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

The airport serves 200K passengers/year, not 350K. The ferry carries 350K passengers/year. I assume the bulk of those extra 150K ferry trips are airport workers, and other people visiting the airport without actually flying anywhere. -- Zsero (talk) 04:01, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I fixed the number of passengers in my draft. Thx. I also clarified in the first paragraph about the transportation funds. I am not aware that she advocated squeezing Congress for money during her 2006 campaign to pay for the bridges. The first paragraph ought not to imply the contrary, right?Ferrylodge (talk) 04:14, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't see the implication. Section says that Congress made its decision earlier.GreekParadise (talk) 04:26, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

If a person reads only the first paragraph (which many people will do), the first paragraph gives the impression that she campaigned to squeeze Congress for money to fund this pork. This is very easy to correct in the first paragraph, and I have done so.Ferrylodge (talk) 04:35, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Not the way I wrote it. See below. There's no implication as it makes clear it happened earlier. And your proposed change is inaccurate for the reasons I cited. Are you OK with my first paragraph (except for DYW, which I know you hate)?GreekParadise (talk) 04:45, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I think your first paragraph has the exact same problem as the first paragraph now in the article. It labels these projects as pork, and says Palin campaigned for them in 2006. The implication is that she campaigned for pork, which is false AFAIK. The money had already come from the feds.Ferrylodge (talk) 04:55, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I mostly like the second paragraph changes, except, as you know, I don't want to delete the Don Young's Way name. Your second paragraph changes allow you to delete most of the third paragraph's first sentence. But I think three other parts of the third paragraph should be left in so as not to delete content (development, $600 million, whales). What do you think of the way I combined it above?GreekParadise (talk) 04:00, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the "Don Young's Way" matter, please see this comment above by NE2. Also, please take a look at NE2's user page. He seems to be a real expert on this subject. If we're going to write a neutral article, we ought to treat the naming issue the way we would for any other bridge or highway. I think you've already acknowledged that you're not merely trying to help those very few people who only know the bridge as "Don Young's Way" and instead are using this name to cast the project in a bad light, and this is POV. As NE2 explains, the standard is to use the common name everywhere, and to mention the ceremonial name at most once in the article about the bridge.

The folks at the BLP noticeboard agree with me on the issue, as well as a number of wiki-editors. It's done for both reasons. And I AGREE to only use the name once. So we're OK here.GreekParadise (talk) 04:45, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I really urge you to try harder to accurately characterize what other editors say. As far as I can tell, only one commenter at the BLP Noticeboard agreed with you about inserting "Don Young's Way" into this article.[4] And I do not agree. As NE2 explained, it should not be used even once in this article. You acknowledge that you're basically doing it partly to slime Palin, and that is not a valid reason. We don't try to slant neutral facts in order to solime people. See WP:NPOV. Please read carefully what NE2 wrote.05:01, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

And why should we mention that the Knik Arm Bridge is a $600 million project if we don't mention how many dollars the Gravina project would require? The key thing is to mention how much the feds gave, and I did not delete that. Also, it would be redundant to say that the Gravina project would open territory for development, when that's already covered in the last sentence ("saying through her spokesperson that it would open territory for development"). I've put the beluga whales back, in a better spot.Ferrylodge (talk) 04:31, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I suppose you could take out $600 million, although I hate to delete content and want to see what other think. I like your beluga whales spot and used it mine below to delete an entire sentence. I put development up top for both bridges, since Knik Arm is also for development. If you want to delete it below, that's fine with me, but I thought you wanted it there.GreekParadise (talk) 04:45, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Content is always deleted in order to summarize a sub-article.Ferrylodge (talk) 04:55, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Not in the least. Oftentimes you can summarize, condense, and tighten redundant material without losing a bit of content, as I have done by condensing 22 lines to 15. I agree to tighten. I do not agree to loss of content. I think you need consensus before you remove important content. I think you need to propose each deletion of content to a wide group of wikieditors and let them decide. As jossi said on the BLP Noticeboard, "editors should not remove material without consensus."GreekParadise (talk) 02:26, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Again, you're selectively quoting in order to distort what another editor has said. As you know, Jossi said that after saying that editors should not insert material without consensus. If no material is inserted without consensus, then I agree 100% that no material should be removed without consensus. That is not the case here.Ferrylodge (talk) 02:31, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Your fourth paragraph contains the same deletion I made. I'm fine with it. In the fifth paragraph, I strongly disagree with removing the Palin quotations. They don't take up much room and they are the most primary source possible. But I'm fine with your cancelling the second and third sentences on the road. You (inadvertently?) neglected the Knik Arm continued support and June review.GreekParadise (talk) 04:08, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I did not remove the Knik Arm continued support and June review. I'll be back to you shortly about the Palin quotes.Ferrylodge (talk) 04:39, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Okay, regarding the Palin quotes, please see WP:PSTS. Primary sources are disfavored at Wikipedia: "Wikipedia articles should rely mainly on published reliable secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources. All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors. Primary sources that have been published by a reliable source may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them" (emphasis mine). Also see WP:QUOTE which says: "Quotations should be put in context and given any necessary explanation. As an editor, it is your responsibility to read the source of the quotation thoroughly, in order to prevent misrepresentation. Third, while quotations are an indispensable part of Wikipedia, try not to overuse them. Too many quotes take away from the encyclopedic feel of Wikipedia." This is why I think we should cut down on quotes, especially quotes from a primary source.Ferrylodge (talk) 04:48, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I have carefully read all four sources and am quite confident we did not misrepresent or take any quotation out of context. If you believe a quotation is taken out of context, by all means, let me know. All of these are direct quotations from Palin from secondary sources. In fact, the only thing that's a primary source is her cancellation of the project (which you left in).GreekParadise (talk) 05:01, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I find it exceptionally difficult to communicate with you. You said above that these Palin quotes "are the most primary source possible." And they are, notwithstanding your most recent comment. Quotes from the subject of a BLP are primary source material, wherever they were copied from. We need to cut down on direct quotes, especially direct quotes from primary sources. If you want to put quotes in the footnotes or in the sub-article, then maybe that would be okay, but this main BLP can do without them for the reasons I described. We're supposed to be writing a short an enclopedic biography here, not hunting for the juiciest snippets uttered by the subject.Ferrylodge (talk) 05:08, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Oh wait, I see you put June review up earlier. At any rate, why don't we combine yours and mine like this?

Two proposed bridges supported by Palin in her 2006 Gubernatorial campaign had gained national attention earlier in 2005 and 2006 as symbols of pork-barrel spending:[94] the Gravina Island Bridge and the Knik Arm Bridge. The Gravina Island Bridge was proposed to connect Ketchikan to the sparsely populated, bridgeless Gravina Island where an international airport serves 200,000 passengers per year. The Knik Arm Bridge (a.k.a "Don Young's Way" after Alaska's Congressman) was proposed to provide an alternate link between Anchorage and Wasilla. Both bridges have been touted as necessary for development. The Gravina Island Bridge proposal became nicknamed the "Bridge to Nowhere" because of the island's population of 50. More rarely, the term "Bridges to Nowhere" has referred to both proposals.

In 2005, a $442-million Congressional earmark for these bridges was included in an omnibus spending bill but was strongly criticized. Congress stripped the earmark from the bill before final passage and instead gave the $442 million to Alaska as transportation money with no strings attached.[95] In 2006, Palin ran for governor with a "build-the-bridge" plank in her platform,[94] saying she would "not allow the spinmeisters to turn this project ... into something that's so negative."[102] She criticized the use of the word "nowhere" as insulting to local residents[94][103] and urged speedy work on building the bridges "while our congressional delegation is in a strong position to assist."[104]

However, in September 2007, Palin cancelled the Gravina Island Bridge and directed Alaskan officials to research an alternative, saying that Congress had "little interest in spending any more money" due to what she called "inaccurate portrayals of the projects." She opted not to return the $442 million in federal transportation funds. Palin spent $25 million on a Gravina Island highway to the place where the bridge would have gone, rather than return the funds to the Federal government; her spokesperson said it would open territory for development. Palin continues as of September 2008 to support the $600 million Knik Arm Bridge project, although in June 2008, she ordered it undergo a review for funding, feasibility, and its impacts on beluga whales. GreekParadise (talk) 04:27, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

It's very difficult to see what material is old and what is new here. That's why I used strikethrough and bold above, to show what would be different from the version presently in the article.Ferrylodge (talk) 04:50, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

By moving stuff around, I saved space, which I thought was the primary goal of this. I absolutely agree to summary style, but I do NOT generally agree with deleting content. I haven't deleted any content from your version. Read yours and read mine and you'll see that all I've done is consolidate space. You may not like some of the content that I've left in from the original, but I did not delete anything that you left in. Besides, I really don't think you and I alone can decide to delete content that's been in the article for weeeks. I don't mind deleting the Collect and Crust additions because they're a day or two old, but for the rest, we really need to hear from others first. Besides, if your goal is to shorten the article, we're succeeding admirably. If your goal is to delete content, not just to shorten the article, that's a different kettle of fish, one I wish you'd let go. As Slrubenstein so finely put it at the top of this long section: "I would add to the above abstract of important points the following: once it has been established that the claim is verifiable and relevant, "consensus" refers to how it should be written into the article, not whether or not it should be written into the article."

That statement by Slrubinstein is very very wrong.[5] If editors believe that inserting some material would violate WP:Summary style or WP:Undue weight or some other policy, then the material should not be put into the article without consensus. Failure to adhere to this very simple principle can turn Wikipedia into a very unpleasant experience for everyone, as you are demonstrating again and again and again.Ferrylodge (talk) 05:04, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I do not know what you are talking about. Slrubenstein | Talk 18:39, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Slrubinstein, suppose a claim is verifiable and relevant. You stated above that it does not then require consensus to put it into the article, and that consensus is only required to determine how it is put in. I disagree. The material requires consensus about whether it should be written into the article, even if it is verifiable and relevant. For example, verifiable and relevant material may still violate WP:Summary style or WP:Undue weight. I didn't mean to be rude, and I know you've made a lot of good contributions, but GreekParadise seems to be relying on this statement of yours to support his attitude that stuff can be jammed into this article without consensus. Maybe he (and I) have not correctly understood what you were trying to say.Ferrylodge (talk) 19:10, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I do not think we really disagree. I am sure I have stated somewhere that as this article gets to be too big, sections of it should be turned into new articles, and this article should as you correctly say use summary style to summarize what is in the other article. However, I think it would make a mess to create several small articles. Readers will google Sarah Palin and come to this article and as long as it does not get too long anything directly relevant to Sarah Palin, her political career, and her current political campaign, should be inn here; we should only create smaller articles when this gets too big. And I repeat: at that point I completely agree with your point about summary style. By the way, the link you provide is still confusing or misleading. Slrubenstein | Talk 19:40, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

(And with that, I've got to go to bed so I can wake up in the morning for work. But we can see what others think and continue this tomorrow.)GreekParadise (talk) 04:59, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, I'm glad that you haven't deleted any content from my proposed version above, and that you did not delete anything that I left in. Since we agree about that material, I'll implement it for now, and then we can discuss remaining issues. To the extent that there is not consensus to include content here in this summary article, I have no objection to including it in the sub-article Governorship of Sarah Palin.Ferrylodge (talk) 05:24, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Huh? Why did you delete all the content unilaterally when I expressly said I was opposed to it? If you want to delete massive amounts of content that's been there for weeks, I specifically said you need consensus. I will re-add it back. I suggest that you post on the talk page specifically all the things you want to delete one by one and why. I DISAGREE that accurate quotes from Palin about the bridge are irrelevant to an article about Palin and the bridge. I told you so. And as a number of editors told you on the noticeboard, they are not appropriate in the sub-article. You sought help on the BLP and when they said things you didn't like, you acted unilaterally. YOU KNOW AT NO TIME DID I EVER AGREE TO DELETE CONTENT. I merely agreed to summary style, i.e. deleting redundant material. I will revert, so we can start over again. If you want to delete content, you're going to have to argue each one by one on this talk page.GreekParadise (talk) 02:03, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

At the heart of our differences is your belief that one editor has veto power to keep any and all information out of this article. You brought the issue to the BLP noticeboard and they expressly rejected your philosophy. Deletions require consensus too. Just because I agree on some content does NOT mean I agree that you can unilaterally delete all you don't agree with. If you want to delete something, I suggest you bring it to everyone's attention as I have just done with your request to delete all of Palin's quotes in support of the bridge but none in opposition. If you have other issues, bring them up. I acted with you in good faith on the assumption that you meant what you said, that you just thought the article was too long. I changed 22 lines to 15 lines without losing a bit of content. But since your real agenda apparently is to delete content -- and only one side of content -- then I suggest you're going to need a much wider agreement and you won't get it from me. If you want arbitration, let's do it. But I strongly believe that Palin's quotations on the bridge are relevant to the bridge section of her biography. Summary form is OK, but they must be there. Indeed, I would delete everything else before I deleted that. It's the heart of the article.GreekParadise (talk) 02:18, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

That is not true. One editor should never have veto power to keep any and all information out of this article. Please stop making stuff up and attributing it to me. All I have said is that there ought to be consensus to insert disputed material into the article. That's it. I dispute that the material you want to insert is consistent with WP:Summary style, WP:NPOV, and WP:Undue weight. So now all you have to do is get a consensus to insert it, and I'll be fine with that.Ferrylodge (talk) 02:24, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

But that's what you did. You unilaterally took stuff out of the article, making deletions that no one agreed to, including direct Palin quotations that have been in the article for weeks. "Consensus to include disputed material" is just a nice way to say "single-editor veto" if you alone can disrupt "consensus." Who, besides you, agreed to remove Palin's quotations in support of the bridge but leave in her quotations against it?GreekParadise (talk) 02:33, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Error in notes

The references to articles for cites 200 and 201 have their authors swapped, and both link to the same article.

Currently:

1. ^ a b Suddath, Claire (2006-08-06). "Same-sex unions, drugs get little play", Anchorage Daily News. Retrieved on 2008-09-01.
2. ^ a b c Hopkins, Kyle. "Conservative Believer", Time. Retrieved on 2008-09-16.

Should be:

1. ^ a b Hopkins, Kyle (2006-08-06). "Same-sex unions, drugs get little play", Anchorage Daily News. Retrieved on 2008-09-01.
2. ^ a b c Suddath, Claire. "Conservative Believer", Time. Retrieved on 2008-09-16.

A correct link for the Anchorage Daily News article is: http://dwb.adn.com/news/politics/elections/governor06/story/8049298p-7942233c.html

Odsock (talk) 02:51, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

 Done Thanks. -- Zsero (talk) 04:21, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Adam Brickley

No mention?  Esper  ^rant  03:53, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Nope. Mr. Brickley started a blog promoting Palin for VP. That would belong in a sub-article, more than it would belong here.Ferrylodge (talk) 04:01, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Add education to the stat-box

I'd like to see Palin's Educational history added to her stat box.

Just stick it in between Residence and Profession. A quick line listing her degree, YOG, and Alma matter. It seems like a basic fact to know about her or any political leader. Worth listing there.

DigitalPants (talk) 05:11, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Beluga whale

Ferrylodge...when you moved LLLL's mention of the effect the bridge had on Beluga whales, you removed the word, deleterious. I don't see why. It is desciptive of why the report was requested. Please revert your deletion.--Buster7 (talk) 10:23, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Done.Ferrylodge (talk) 15:02, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank You.--Buster7 (talk) 20:16, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

abstinence only education?

"Abstinence only" failed in her own case & in that of her daughter. Really? Did either she or her daughter have "abstinence only" education? Maybe if they had had it, it would have stuck. The debate over the effectiveness of such education will go on, but the fact that it didn't have its touted effect on someone who didn't have it is hardly an argument against it! -- Zsero (talk) 19:42, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

LOL she told her daughter not to root around, even if her daughter had/did not know condoms exist. Obviously her daughter was not abstinant, and she had been told to do this!--203.192.91.4 (talk) 00:42, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Of course Palin & her daughter had "abstinence only" education! It's the only kind of "sex education" Pentecostals allow... 96.231.165.216 (talk) 03:17, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Just to clarify, the issue is not Palin but the child. There is no reason why you should need to know the exact birthdate / birthday. Hobartimus (talk) 20:05, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Just to respond to BenAveling. No, we are not all in agreement that almost certainly conceived prior to marriage. Did you miss the part about 1/3 of the births being premature. Unless you or others have specific knowledge about when these two were having sex or about the birth details, drop it. --Tom 20:19, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

One third of births are premature? Your source for this statistic being? You don't mean "pentecostals who practiced 'adstinence-only sex education' report that one third of their first births are premature?" Geo Swan (talk) 10:49, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Medically, "premature birth" refers to "under 37 weeks" -- 34 weeks is "3 weeks premature" by that standard. http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/premature_birth . Collect (talk) 13:59, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Even the McCain campaign has acknowledged the discrepancy . There can be no real doubt. 140.139.35.250 (talk) 20:25, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Should Palin announce that her first son was conceived prior to marriage, it will then become biographical. At this point, considering it's not certain, it's sole intent here is to embarrass the subject of the article potentially very unfairly. I strongly vote it has no place in the article (beyond the obvious privacy concerns of identifying birthdates). Fcreid (talk) 21:52, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Are you kidding?? If something is not explicitly announced, it certainly does not mean it is not biographical. That is absurd. 208.255.229.66 (talk) 15:17, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to think that Track was just prem. But I gotta admit, the 1/3 prem claim probably doesn't apply here. According to Premature_Babies, 1 baby in 8 is >3 weeks prem. Track, as I understand it, arrived 33½ weeks after the wedding. So that would be 6½ weeks. There's a chance of a baby being that prem, but it's small. And it's certainly enough time to miss a period and arrange a quick wedding. But, arguing about whether she walks the walk isn't important. She made a mistake. Ideally, nobody would care what she does in her private life. It's what she would do as VP or as President that matters. She knows that abstinence only education leads to pregnancy, statistics show it - her own experience is just one datapoint. And she still supports it. She believes that abstinence only education has benefits that outweigh the costs. And that's what we should be saying. Regards, Ben Aveling 21:52, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

She knows that abstinence only education leads to pregnancy, statistics show it - her own experience is just one datapoint. How is her experience a data point? Did she have abstinence only education? -- Zsero (talk) 19:42, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

"But, arguing about whether she walks the walk isn't important. She made a mistake" So people knowing somthing doesnt work then keep pretending it does is a good thing? Did not work for her, did not work for her daughter! Think she would have worked it out by now.--203.192.91.4 (talk) 00:46, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Ben, your figure is incorrect for firstborn children who has a much higher incidence of prematurity. Fcreid (talk) 21:53, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Did you consider that perhaps firstborn children have a higher incidence of prematurity due to marriages which occurred when the bride missed a period? Edison (talk) 05:54, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Damn statisticians! :) Fcreid (talk) 22:43, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

She made a mistake? I love holier than thou people. geesh --Tom 23:55, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Leave it out! If any reader is interested, they will do their own math. Wikipedia is not the only source for information, but it can be the most reliable.--Buster7 (talk) 08:42, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

@Fcreid: We work with what we have. I'm sure there are actuarial tables around, but here's a simple rule of thumb. If 3 weeks early means 1 in 8, then 2 * 3 weeks is probably going to be something like 1 in 64. It's possible, but it's low. Throw in an elopment as well. At 6 weeks prem, Track would probably have been fine, but he wouldn't have left the hospital quickly. And as pointed out above, at less than 4 weeks prem, it would have been unlikely for them to realise, but at 6+ weeks, quite possible. Sadly, nothing else really adds up. But don't make too much out of it: Does this fact alone suddenly make her a bad person? No. Happens to lots of people, and plenty of them respond in worse ways than getting married and staying married. Does it make her a hypocrite? Not in my opinon. See my response to Tom below. Other people might feel differently, at least if they are trying to make her look bad.

@Tom: Yes, she made a mistake. And are you accusing me or her of being holier than thou? Either way, yes, she made a mistake, and it led to her getting pregnant and married. Probably two things she wanted to do sometime, but I suspect not quite as quickly as she did. Not that any of us know for sure, but the evidence is that she made a mistake, and I don't see it as hypocritical of anyone to say "don't do what I did". "Don't do what I do" is hypocrticial. Yes, "Don't make the mistake I made" would be better, more honest, braver, etc, but I'm not sure how many of the rest of us would be tough enough to carry that line through what she has to go through.

@Buster7: I'm not suggesting that we say anything more than what we know. We know they got married, 7 1/2 months ahead of the birth of their first child. And that's all we can say, and that's what we should say. It's not OR. To say anything more than that would be OR, so we don't have to say more than that. But I can't see any reason to say less than that either, and I've been trying, and I can't see any reason to leave the matter out entirely. About the only reason I can see to leave it out is censorship. Nobody forced her to bring her kids on stage; she herself has made them part of the narative, and so - I'm open to suggestions here - but I can't find any decent excuse for us not to tell the whole storys

Regards, Ben Aveling 11:20, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, i am saying you are being holier than thou because you keep on insisting she made a mistake without any proof of such. Unless you know on what dates she was having sex, then you are being judgemental. Do you know when she first had sex with Todd? Yes or no question, no blathering. --Tom 13:19, 23 September 2008 (UTC) ps, you wrote but the evidence is that she made a mistake do you have 5 x 8 color glossies of her having sex that are time stamped? What is this "evidence" that allows you to be so judgemental? --Tom 13:23, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Posting the dates serves only one purpose, and that is to insinuate (in the absence of any absolute proof) that she was pregnant at marriage, and some of the ones pushing for it have made it clear that that's precisely why they want it. She recently gave birth to a preemie, so it's possible the first one was also a preemie. Likely? Maybe not. But posting the dates is inappropriate. Now, IF she owns up to it, or IF some solid proof emerges, that would be different. But 7 1/2 months is insufficient "proof", it's only inference and doesn't belong. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 11:58, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Tom, it's possible that Track was prem, but it's not plausible. 7 1/2 months. Quickie wedding. And every opportunity in the world to just say that he was prem. As for the holier than thou, no, I'm no holier than any one else on this one. By Palin's mistake, I mean becoming pregnant. I don't know what information she had at age 24, but as a potential VP/P her own views and experience on sex education matter. Sex before marriage is an individual choice for each person and couple to make on their own. In my opinion, it should be an informed choice. Whether it is an informed choice isn't up to me or you, or even the VP/P alone. But they have a lot more input into it than most. This is verifiable, it's important, it's relevant. Regards, Ben Aveling 21:10, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh, her "mistake" was becoming pregnant? Again, that is your opinion and judgement.--Tom 14:14, 24 September 2008 (UTC)ps, again, you keep talking about sex before marriage. Do you have ANY evidence of this? Color glossies with time stamp work the best. --Tom 14:19, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Concur, Bugs. Ben, I'm certainly not questioning your motivation, but rather the encyclopedic value of this fact unless it's presented in an awkward and "clinical" fashion. In other words, if you listed every child's birth date (and, possibly, the gestation period for each), that would seem encyclopedic (albeit quite invasive). In contrast, a comment like "they eloped... and Trig was born 8 months later" is clearly an insinuation. Yes, facts are stubborn. In addition to those discussed above, we are also ignoring the fact that Palin was 24-years old when she married (and not 17!) That simple fact, and others we do not know such as whether she was living with her parents, would lead to even stranger conclusions. Again, I see no value for the detail in the article except for salacious and possible incorrect conclusion. Fcreid (talk) 12:14, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I concur that insinuations without precise facts should be excluded. However I feel trying to turn this into an abstinance only issue is totally missing the point of that campaign. Abstinance only is presented as the best way to control the spread of sexually transmitted diseases. Personally I feel that people should not have sex unless married. However, For the arguments against abstinance only to have any meaning here you would have to demonstrate either that one of these people had had sex with another person creating a potential spread of zexually transmitted diseases, or that the father of an unborn child had abandoned the mother instead of going through with standing as the father. Lastly your attacks on abstinance education ignore the psychological costs of free roaming sex and ignore the fact that condoms and not impermiable. It also ignores the fact that any genital contact will spread the HPV.Johnpacklambert (talk) 00:19, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Regarding claims about "premature birth": By definition previously cited, it applies to before 37 weeks. Thus the child was ~3 weeks premature. Which is quite common for first time mothers of any age. I trust this obviates the statistical misinformation which might otherwise be attached to the discussion. Collect (talk) 14:03, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Not at 99% certain. Not even at 100% certain.

Seems like we had this debate several weeks ago, and you indicate the important point yet again - that you can't necessarily draw conclusions from 7 1/2 months. If it were 4 or 5 months, there would be no question. But this is just ambiguous enough that it's a POV push to use it. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 12:21, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Why would you include it at 4 or 5 months, but not at 7 1/2 months? Regards, Ben Aveling 13:02, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't, necessarily. All I'm saying is that 4 or 5 months would be sufficient to demonstrate that the child was conceived out of wedlock. 7 1/2 months isn't, but the POV-pushers want to suggest to the reader that it is. But it isn't. 4 or 5 months would be. That doesn't mean it belongs in the article. But at least it would be solid proof. 7 1/2 months isn't. Did I say that already? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 13:32, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

And maybe I'm not being clear enough on the larger point. Posting the dates amounts to analysis or drawing (or trying to get the reader to draw) conclusions. That is a violation of the wikipedia philosophy. Now, if you can find a reliable source (and the Enquirer emphatically does not count) that discusses this issue, then you might have something, or at least something worth talking about here. But it is not wikipedia's place to draw that inference unilaterally. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 13:38, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

One of the editors said the dates were available in connection with the Hannity & Colmes TV show. So the question is, did they debate the matter? What conclusions did they reach, if any? Because now you're looking at verifiable citations, instead of wikipedians trying to decide what significance 7 1/2 months has, if any. What did they have to say about it? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 13:41, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Dunno. I don't watch the news. It clouds my judgment. :) Fcreid (talk) 14:01, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I hear ya. But don't confuse H&C with "the news". :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 14:05, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Bugs, you were saying that you don't want it included if it was 99% likely, now you don't even want it included if it were 100% certain. Mind if I ask why not? Which specific WP policy are concerned about? Regards, Ben Aveling 20:39, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Ben, I think it's simply a matter of decorum, particularly given that there is a fair possibility that it's an erroneous assumption on anyone's part. I just don't see how it could be included here in an encyclopedic manner without insinuation. More importantly, and as this relates to the talk topic you chose about abstinence, is it really your contention that Palin didn't understand where babies come from at 24? Fcreid (talk) 22:35, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

By the way, I just read the article, and it indicates she supports pro-abstinence sex education but also the discussion of contraception (in deference to the blinding reality that kids screw around!) I may be showing my age, but what's missing from that curriculum, e.g. are there alternatives missing from that program that you feel should be included? Furthermore, I an much more incredulous that a woman of her obvious attraction "abstained" for 24 years, or I truly want to shake Todd's hand for being the most patient man I'll ever meet! Whatever the case, it's none of our business. Fcreid (talk) 23:50, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, Palin has apparently voiced support for sex ed which includes discussion of contraception (interestingly, this puts her at odds with both John McCain and the official Republican Party platform, which support abstinence-only education). If you want a policy basis for leaving out the date of birth, WP:BLP suggests that we use only the year (if that) for non-public individuals, which would include all of Palin's children. If you want a common-sense basis... come on, people. There's a multilayered economic disaster unfolding, a few wars, a resurgent Russia, climate change, dependence on foreign oil, a critical number of people without health insurance. It's 2008. Who cares whether her first child was born less than exactly 9 months after her wedding day? Can't we all go back to fighting about the Bridge to Nowhere, at least? MastCell ^Talk 18:49, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Well stated! That was much easier just to ignore!  :) Fcreid (talk) 19:01, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

We're not creating the speculation. It already exists. We're just choosing whether or not we self-censor information that is relevant to it. I'm not aware any policy citing decorum as a reason not to include information. As per BLP this alegation is "notable, relevant, and well-documented by reliable published sources". Regards, Ben Aveling 07:55, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

This isn't 1910, Ben. If their oldest child was conceived prior to Nuptuals, he is no different than millions of 21st Century Americans. Plus, let's have some regard for his , how should I say it, "legitimacy". IMHO--His parents sexual activities (and when they took place)(and what resulted from them) are private.--Buster7 (talk) 08:29, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia doesn't censor itself because a public figure might be embarrassed. Regards, Ben Aveling 21:34, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

However:

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

Have you no shame?--Paul (talk) 21:39, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Have I read that bit? I wrote it: [6]. You're right that we need to be balanced. Would this fact, and it is a fact, be appropriate for an article about a random person? No, of course not. Not even for a random politician. But this isn't a random politician, this is a vice-presidential candidate who is running on a values platform. That makes her own adherence to those values relevant. Regards, Ben Aveling 21:53, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Point me to that platform again, Ben? Oh, and by your tone, you did find evidence she engaged in premarital intercourse? Do you have anything to present for peer review? 23:03, 26 September 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fcreid (talk • contribs)

Political positions of Sarah Palin more or less covers her platform. To summarise: She has said she is pro-contraception and that she opposes sex education. She wants abstinence taught instead of contraception. She also wants contraception taught. She has knocked back bills that restrict abortions while claiming that she supported the bills. She has said that Roe v. Wade should be overturned. She has described Abortion as an option. If some of these positions seems contradictory, they are statements she has made over a period of time and sometimes under pressure. She may have misspoken and people's positions do change over time, but until she clarifies herself, this is what we have. In short, she's consistently in favour of abstinence and if she has a consistent position on sex education, I can't work out what it is, but whatever it is, she's 100% behind it. To touch on your second point, it is not certain that she engaged in pre-marital sex, but it is the only plausible explanation, and she's never denied it. If you like, it is certain that it is highly probable that she did, and it is certain that it is highly unlikely that she didn't. Regards, Ben Aveling 12:14, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

(Over here) It boils down to a simple proposal, Ben: You're asking us to embarrass Palin, her husband and her son in the article to make a completely inconsequential and tangential point on your narrow interpretation of her moral platform (in which others, myself included, do not join you in your interpretation). Worse yet, there is a distinct possibility you're wrong (and statistically you've overstated the odds supporting your supposition). Finally, as it relates to the *specific* moral position relevant to premarital sex--Sex Education--we both acknowledge her approach of promoting abstinence, while also discussing contraception, is utterly sound and sensible. You're certainly welcome to bring the point up for consensus, but I can't lend my support to something this picayune yet so much lacking decorum on our community's behalf. Fcreid (talk) 10:05, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

If Palin is embarrassed by the fact, she can issue a clarification or a denial. But we're not going to say either that he was conceived prematurely, or that he was born prematurely. That discussion is happening elsewhere, and if ever we get an answer, we'll run with it. In the meantime, there is one fact that is well verifiable that we are leaving out, as you say, because you don't want to risk embarrassing her - not that it's clear she would be embarrassed. Fcreid, this is an encyclopaedia. Not embarrassing people is something we take into account, but it is not our overriding principle. Don't take this the wrong way, but you'd benefit from working on a few other pages as well as this one. Regards, Ben Aveling 01:08, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

1. We have no clear evidence that the Palins did have sex before they were married. 2. Even if they did, standard good-old-fashioned small-town American Family Values ™ are that marriage before a baby is born retroactively legitimates all the sex that preceded it, and nothing more is said about it. That's the way it's been for at least 150 years, and probably centuries longer. Note, for instance, the six months between Obama's parents' marriage and his birth; had they remained together this discrepancy would have been regarded as unremarkable. 3. Conclusion: there's nothing at all to see here. -- Zsero (talk) 00:48, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

There is clear evidence that it is far and away the most likely scenario. Better than 99% likely. Closer to 100%. And if it's no big deal, lets just mention it and move on. Regards, Ben Aveling 12:14, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Better yet. Let's not mention surmise and conjecture. Move on. Collect (talk) 11:43, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Wasn't planing to. I just want to include a known fact. Regards, Ben Aveling 01:08, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Ben..prior you mentioned about embarrassing a public figure, My point was that inclusion would embarrass the young man not his parents.--Buster7 (talk) 01:34, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it could be embarrassing, whatever Zsero says above. And we do give some more latitude for semi-public figures and for private individuals. But not to the extent that we'd leave out something like this. Regards, Ben Aveling 05:08, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

How bout let's just say: A lot of us disagree with you. You seem (at least to me) to be the only one supporting your opinion; thus, you're outnumbered. The majority wins. Get over it. 75.180.224.161 (talk) 18:02, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

The majority can be wrong. No offense, but more than a few people here haven't been anywhere else in Wikipedia. It's not their fault if they don't understand how Wikipedia works. It's not just about the numbers, it's about the facts. And the facts make it quite clear that on this occasion, she didn't live up to what she now preaches for others. Regards, Ben Aveling 19:47, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes Wikipedia is not a democracy. In this case it means that if you try to inject your personal opinion "she didn't live up to what she now preaches for others" or try to edit a BLP based off of that, you may be stopped even if you had more people agreeing with you. Even the majority can't trump some "hard rules" such as BLP and keeping personal opinion out. Exactly right. Hobartimus (talk) 19:53, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Hobartimus, you keep bringing up BLP, and each time someone has to explain to you that our BLP policy in no way prohibits adding verifiable notable views from reliable sources into this article. The only issues in this particular discussion are NOR and V. And yes, thse are very serious issues. But please, let's stayon track and be clear about what the policy issues are. Here they are V and NOR, we do not even have to get into BLP. Slrubenstein | Talk 19:59, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, Ben, your being against the rest of the grain on this issue earns you the distinct privilege of being a "Maverick". Unfortunately, as you have learned, mavericks never accomplish anything within the realm of democracy. Precisely because the maverick, in order to be one, must be opposed to the majority. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.58.144.199 (talk) 08:38, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia policies that apply to this article

Wikipedia is growing all the time, and many new people are getting involved in this article--that's great! But it means that some people do not understand our policies, and it is clear from the past few days' discussion that we need to sort some things out.

Core policies at Wikipeida apply to all articles equally. In other words, we do not distinguish between different types of articles because some policies apply to some and some policies do not apply to some. It goes without saying that only material that is relevant should go into an article. Beyond that, our core policies are WP:NPOV which states that all notable significant views about a topic must be represented neutrally; WP:V which states that all notable significant views must also be verifiable. This does not mean that they have to be true or right or good. In fact, Wikipedia editors are encouraged to add views thought to be false, wrong, or bad - as long as they are notable significant and verifiable; meaning there is evidence available to anyone that people actually hold this view. Closely related to WP:V is WP:RS, which states that views should come from reliable sources. Reliable does not mean true or right or good, it means well established. The New York Post, The Daily News, The Village Voice, The Wall Street Journal--all represent a wide range of views and it is likely that everyone has contempt for at least one of these newspapers. But, they are all considered reliable sources for the news. Finally, WP:NOR, no original research. Even if we read through lots of news reports and develop a sophisticated analysis of the news based on solid research, we cannot put it into an article. The bottom line is, editors simply do not put our own views into articles. That really covers the main policies that should guide us in writing this article.

Some people have thrown around the phrase BLP, which stands for "Biography of Living Persons." BLP does not refer to a type of article - like I said, from the perspective of Wikipedia policies, there aren't any different types of articles, all articles are subject to the same policies. BLP does not say that some articles are biographies; it says that sometimes we add to an article biographical content and it provides some important points about how to do that. WP:BLP basically reiterates what I just said: we need to comply with the same policies we comply with in articles on gravity and Australia and golf. What the BLP policy says is that when we add biographical information to an article we need to be especially careful to use reliable sources, most assuredly if the material is contentious. It doesn't say we cannot add contentious material, only that, if we do, we need to bend over backwards to make sure the source is reliable. Moreover, we should be careful not to write in a titillating or sensationalistic style. Likewise, when we add criticisms (which NPOV practically demands we will) we have to be sure they come from reliable sources.

Finally, some people may refer to WP:BIO. Again, this is not a policy about "biographical articles" - like I said, we do not make such distinctions at Wikipedia. Moreover, WP:BIO links to a guideline, not a policy - it has no binding force. But it is a useful guideline. What is it about? It has to do with one of the policies I mentioned above (that views need to be significant). It raises a related point: articles have to be on notable topics. WP:BIO talks about what kinds of people are notable enough to merit inclusion in articles. One thing it makes clear is that politicians, probably of the rank of mayor and certainly of higher position, are notable enough to be included in Wikipedia. So Sarah Palin definitely meets our notability criteria because of her political position.

That's really it about policy. Palin is notable because she is a politician, and any notable significant view from a verifiable source about her political career or campaign, or about her political views as expressed in her career or in the campaign, or any criticisms of her political career or campaign or views, can go in this article as long as they come from verifiable, reliable sources. If we add any biographical information, especially if it is contentious - and yes, WP:BLP allows us to add contentious biographical information - we DO have to ensure it comes from highly reliable sources. That's about it everyone, as far as policies go! Slrubenstein | Talk 19:03, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I pretty much agree with all that, but it seems incomplete. There are other important policies and guidelines. For example, there's WP:Consensus, and WP:Summary style, and WP:Undue weight to name a few. Just because some inserted material satisfies WP:NPOV, WP:V, WP:RS, and WP:NOR does not mean that an editor can insist (repeatedly) on inserting it into an article. And whether the material satisfies those policies should be determined not just by an individual editor but by consensus.Ferrylodge (talk) 19:17, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Ferrylodge, I certainly accept that other policies may apply. And I know you are acting in good faith with good intentions. But with all due respect, I think your message muddies the waters. First of all, "undue weight" is a subsection of NPOV. By my linking NPOV, I simultaneously included undue weight. The difference is, I made it clear that NPOV is the umbrella policy and "undue weight" is just a component of that policy and has to be interpreted in the context of the policy as a whole. You took it out of context which could mislead some people. Also, "Summary style" is not a policy. I was talking primarily about policies. Summary style is a guideline and it may be useful to editors but it does not have the force of a policy. Finally, I agree with you about consensus, but the consensus policy addresses a different issue than I was raising. My point was about what can go into articles. Consensus says nothing about what can or cannot go into articles. The consensus policy is about interpersonal behavior and process. The consensus policy is not about content; NPOV, V, and NOR are about content. It is NPOV, V, and NOR that determine what is acceptable and unacceptable content. The consensus policy lays out a process for resolving conflicts over content. But it does not establish principles for resolving the conflict. The principles remain NPOV, V and NOR. When editors get into a conflict, we should consult WP:CONSENSUS for ideas about how we can better work together. But before consensus-based editing, the first step to working together is agreeing to abide by the content policies, NPOV, NOR, and V. Slrubenstein | Talk 19:48, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree that "whether the material satisfies those policies should be determined not just by an individual editor but by consensus," but consensus does not mean unanimity (according to the policy), it is a process of collaboration. And to participate in this process everyone has to agree that "if content is a notable significant and verifiable view from a reliable source it will go in even if I do not like it," if they cannot say this, and mean it, they are not participating in a consensus process. And some people above have argued that content should not go in even if it is notable, verifiable, and from a reliable source. Those people are not participating in a consensus-building process. Slrubenstein | Talk 19:51, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, SL. very nicely explained for all who seem to be missing these salient points. •Jim62sch•^dissera! 20:13, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Good points regarding undue weight being a subset of NPOV, and regarding the difference between policies and guidelines. However, I still argue that content should not go in even if it is notable, verifiable, and from a reliable source, if it violates WP:Summary style. The content should go in a sub-article such as Governorship of Sarah Palin if putting it in this article would make the corresponding section of this article too long.Ferrylodge (talk) 19:58, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree, but continue to note that summary style is a guideline and cannot trump core policies like NPOV, V and NOR. Also, if we are going to be guided by Summary Style, let's follow what it says: first, the guideline applies only when an article gets too long. Second, splitting the article into smaller articles has to be done in a reasonable fashion. The material that most readers will most want to see stays in the main article; less notable material goes into smaller articles, and spin-offs have to be content forks and never POV forks, no coatracking. As long as the discussion about summary style foregrounds these principles I am fine with that. But I continue to insist, a style guideline never trumps a content policy. Slrubenstein | Talk 20:12, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. And, of course, the present article would be way too long if all the material in the sub-articles were included in this one.Ferrylodge (talk) 20:16, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

(ec) Thanks Slrubinstein, well presented. @Ferryloge: if it violates WP:Summary style.WP:SUMMARY is a useful guide on how to approach spinning off articles, and does not dictate any particular way to do this. So, it is up to active editors to work together in summarizing a spin-off article, so that the summary is comprehensive and could stand on its own. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:34, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm not clear on exactly what you mean by "notable" here. The notability guidelines are about whether a topic merits an article on Wikipedia, not about the content of an article. Your "notable, verifiable, and from a reliable source" seems to exclude the issue of NPOV, which is what most of the extended arguments here and in other political articles are about. —KCinDC (talk) 20:30, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

To whom are you speaking? •Jim62sch•^dissera! 20:42, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

NPOV was the first policy I brought up, so that should suffice to make clear that I mean that the NPOV policy applies to this article, I didn't think anything I had written suggested anything but this. The NPOV policy used to feature the word "notable" but following present practice I have changed it to "significant." It is true that I brought up notability about people as topics for an article, but that is only because at least one editor in the past day or two has brought this matter up. That editor seemed to think the policy meant that anything not of a purely personal biographical nature was by definition "not notable" because of the policy. My intention was to make clear precisely what you say: that the policy that editor was invoking was referring to "whether a topic merits an article on Wikipedia, not about the content of an article." That was my point precisely and I am pleased for you to repeat it. Slrubenstein | Talk 20:38, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I realize you talked about NPOV, but I'm troubled by this part: "And some people above have argued that content should not go in even if it is notable, verifiable, and from a reliable source. Those people are not participating in a consensus-building process." That seems to be saying that those are the only factors that people should consider when looking at content, and it doesn't mention NPOV, but it does mention notability, which you've just agreed isn't a criterion for content (also, being from a reliable source is part of verifiability, so that bit seems redundant). I think that requires some clarification. —KCinDC (talk) 20:46, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I just made some corrections, do they satisfy you? "significant" and "view" are direct references to NPOV and I hope I have been clear that the whole policy is important. Slrubenstein | Talk 20:48, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Excellent, Slrubenstein. A well needed compalation of the codes of conduct necessary to maintain order and civility. As you state, early in your lead, many new editors are coming on board. Moderately experienced editors (like myself) are participating at levels they didn't expect 4 weeks ago. Let me say that the ebb and flow of discussion about core Wikipedia policies is a tremendous learning opportunity. The Editing Community shines when we find a balance between differing (dare I say it!) points of view.

<soapbox>A wonderful thing happens when I lose the "I" of my edit and give in to the "WE" of being a Wikipedia editor. I sacrifice ownership of "my idea, my edit, my contribution" and join a working community focussed on excellence and quality.</soapbox>.

Both you and Ferrylodge and many other veteran editors are providing leadership and training. Many times I have wanted to step away from this article and return to random editing. But the knowledge and experience that is going on here is invaluable...and it draws me back. Thanks to you all!--Buster7 (talk) 20:54, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I second that. I only wish we'd had this discussion a month ago! Fcreid (talk) 21:53, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Slrubinstein. "Significant" is good. You still have the sentences I quoted above, though. I understand that changing "notable" to "significant" there doesn't work because I don't think anyone's arguing that "content should not go in even if it is significant, verifiable, and from a reliable source". The argument is usually precisely about what's significant, in NPOV terms. But maybe you were referring to something else. If you're going to be including what amounts to an accusation against some other participants, I think it needs to be clearer what you're objecting to. —KCinDC (talk) 21:01, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Well written Slrubinstein, but I'd like to add one important point. All of the wiki process, and all of the policy, operates on discussion, compromise, and the discovery of consensus between editors. Policy is important to be sure, but more important is Wikipedians talking with each other, not at each other, about policy and content. I think we've all seen enough of that in the "real world."--Tznkai (talk) 13:24, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Two other things to remember: one should ignore all rules when necessary to improve the article or Wikipedia, and (more importantly) none of us own this article, Gov. Palin, or Wikipedia. Good day to all. --Evb-wiki (talk) 14:03, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Protection Request

IMHO, this article, along with the articles Joe Biden, Barack Obama & John McCain (plus McCain & Obama's presidential campaign articles), should be fully protected until after the US prez election. GoodDay (talk) 21:11, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Why?--Cdogsimmons (talk) 00:07, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I think ABC, CBS, NBC, PBS, FOX, CNN and CNBC should go off the air from now until the election.

Folks, Wikipedia has been around since 2001. There is nothing going on now that hasn't come up before, and we have policies for everything that counts. To show up here and ask that we violate or disregard wikipedia is an explicit act of bad faith. Slrubenstein | Talk 00:53, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Let's say something big happens in the campaign or in the lives of one of the individuals. Then we would have to wait for an admin to edit the article, meanwhile not having the info for the people who want the information. Erik the Red 2 ~~~~ 01:08, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

This article is protected by the editors that watch over it on a daily basis...24/7...--Buster7 (talk) 01:14, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

B-O-O-H-O-O. Grsz^X 02:33, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Slrubenstein that this has gone on before -- such as, for example, in the last presidential election, as reported in this story in the New York Times. And let me be the first to predict that it will go in during the 2012 campaign. And that we will deal with it. JamesMLane t c 08:11, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Semi-Protection?

..'til after the US prez election? GoodDay (talk) 14:08, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

It has been semi-protected since 9 September 2008, and will almost certainly stay so until after the election at least. KillerChihuahua^?!? 16:27, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Oh, cool. GoodDay (talk) 18:01, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

MASSIVE text deletion

This is one of those WP:WTF moments. QuackGuru 02:50, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Look at the immediately two preceding edits, during which all of that material was suddenly added. Also, see the extensive discussions above about this.Ferrylodge (talk) 02:54, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

The bridge section has been returned (by Grz) to its prior consensus state. I had meant to do that but apparently chose the wrong version. It was my error and Grz thankfully fixed it. We have disagreements on the bridge, but that particular version I briefly and wrongly added didn't belong there. It's fixed now. I can't speak for the rape kit section.GreekParadise (talk) 03:26, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I've restored the bridge section of earlier today, but including the material that you felt is indispensable: "She said that she would 'not allow the spinmeisters to turn this project ... into something that's so negative,' and she urged speedy work on building infrastructure 'while our congressional delegation is in a strong position to assist.'" To my mind, this stuff does not really provide any significant information and should not be part of a brief summary of the sub-article, but there you go.Ferrylodge (talk) 04:19, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Wasilla Anchorage distance

A reference to the "City of Wasilla History" was used as a source for the distance. Alas, that fact is not in that cite at all. I did find a superior cite for the distance, which is now referenced. It is an entirely apolitical fact as far as I can tell. Collect (talk) 16:26, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Governor's Offical Portrait

I talked with the Press Secretary to the Governor's Office yesterday. They are not releasing any photos to the media, (Wikipedia included), at this time, on the grounds that it may be viewed as a campaign contribution. Sorry everybody, I tried. Maybe after the election?

I also checked at the local campaign office, and all I got was a lousy bumper sticker :-) , (and no offers for a job :-( , sorry to burst everybody's bubble). I'll check around with the locals here and see if I can come up with something better.Zaereth (talk) 17:26, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Had to lol @ the pretzel logic excuse for not releasing photos. See for a 'fake news' story on Palin handlers' blacking out news releases and any info about Palin.

With so many photos already does the article need more? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:56, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, we always need more photos! IP75 75.25.28.167 (talk) 00:48, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Criticism of Obama section

I recently started a section on Palin's criticisms of Obama under the campaign section here. Specifically I included info from the New York Times that Palin accused Obama of palling around with terrorists. Predictably, my edit was immediately reverted by another editor, Eric the Red, who claimed it violated WP:UNDUE. I reverted his edit because I do not believe it does. Palin's criticisms of Obama have real weight and relevance to her campaign, far more than her ties to churches or her positions on bridges while she was still Mayor of Wasilla and the section on her campaign is virtually silent regarding any substantial policy issues. There is a section devoted to her poltical positions on the page but I don't think this would fit there as well. In any event, I think it belongs in the article. It relates directly to the style and the substance of her vice presidential campaign.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 03:57, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

I would also note that according to the NYT article, the increase in the criticism of Obama marks a shift in the McCain campaigns tactics.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 03:59, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Here's the BBC's version of the story with a nice video.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 04:00, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

The NYT article is here.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 04:02, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

1. Having a whole section about criticism of Obama is dubious whether it should ever be included.

2. Having this recent criticism of Obama's involvement with Ayers as the only sentence in this section makes it definitely not worth inclusion at the moment. Both campaigns criticize each other every day, single criticisms are not noteworthy. This section is not noteworthy enough to be included at the present in my opinion. LonelyMarble (talk) 04:08, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Cdog- A dedicated criticism section of Obama does not belong in the main bio of Sarah Palin. No other candidate has a 'criticism section' of another candidate in their main bio. IP75 75.25.28.167 (talk) 04:23, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Maybe that's because none of the other candidates are accusing each other of "palling around with terrorists". LonelyMarble, I'm afraid I don't really understand your first point. Why shouldn't there be a section on how Palin criticizes her opponent? It's what she's saying. It's the point she's making to distinguish the two sides. That seems important to me. As far as your second point, just because there isn't a lot of info in the section is not a good reason to erase the info that is currently there. It's a reason to merge it into another section, but not to erase it. When people erase info on this article that's well sourced and relevant to the topic, it looks like one of two things to me: (1) sloppy editing, or (2) like you are trying to prove a political point. Both are unacceptable.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 04:26, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

If you don't like the term criticism, why not "Soundbites" or "Campaign message". I'm just concerned that the campaign section is woefully inadequate in describing what techniques Palin is using and the messages she is conveying.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 04:32, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

My original thinking was that if it is decided to include info about that criticism, it should probably just be in the "2008 Vice-presidential campaign" section. I'm still not sure it's noteworthy enough to include though. If you can get others to agree it's important enough to include then I'm okay with it being merged into that section. I'd have to agree having an own section about anything like criticism or campaign message will end up being undue weight because everything in that section could probably be trimmed down and just put in the main 2008 Vice-presidential campaign section. LonelyMarble (talk) 04:36, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

They are all accusing each other of something 24/7. It's called politics and it belongs in a campaign article IP75 75.25.28.167 (talk) 04:40, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

As opposed to the campaign section?--Cdogsimmons (talk) 04:42, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Next, we will include Obama's camp saying that what she said are '"desperate and false attacks" intended to change the subject from the economy.' The fact is, Cdogsimmons, it's over, McCain has lost, and you can't help him on Wikipedia. Stop trying. Fee Fi Foe Fum (talk) 04:51, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Fee Fi Foe Fum doesn't have a clue what he's talking about and should keep his allegations to himself. The info was well sourced, relevant and informative. I know that some people don't think the NYT is as fair and balanced as other news sources, but NPOV? Really. I'm not going to edit war with you. I just think this info is interesting. Palin accusing Obama of associating with terrorists is the nastiest thing I've heard said so far this campaign (it almost sounds tantamount to aiding a terrorist which is a serious crime in the United States) and it is reflective of a stated policy shift by the McCain campaign to up the attacks. I think it passes the WP:UNDUE test if included in the campaign section, though I admit it may not deserve it's own sub-section, so why not keep the info in?--Cdogsimmons (talk) 05:01, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

I think mostly this needs more time to see if it is worthy to be included or not. Maybe wait a couple days and see how much impact this story has? As of right now it doesn't seem to be important enough to include yet, that may change in a few days though. Political jabs like this happen every day, it's hard to tell what is memorable and what is not. LonelyMarble (talk) 05:06, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

WP:RECENT, WP:UNDUE. It belongs at John McCain presidential campaign, 2008, if anywhere. --Evb-wiki (talk) 05:08, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Questioning other editors' motives or political affiliations is unhelpful. I agree with Onlymarble that we simply do not know whether today's talking point is very relevant to her campaign, much less her life story. Probably not. Whether she becomes Vice President or not, it seems unlikely a year from now that anyone will define Palin by her being the mouthpiece of a particular campaign attack. Further, to describe this in an NPOV way we would have to mention what some of the reliable sources conclude, that this is part of the McCain campaign's announced efforts to go negative because they are losing momentum, and that her claim is misleading and misrepresents her sources. We don't need to do that here in a biography.Wikidemon (talk) 05:17, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

The same NYT article mentions that Todd Palin has refused to testify before the Alaskan State Legislature investigating his wifes abuse of power. Should we include that in the article? The Ayers connection is not new or newsworthy. It is an obvious ploy to confuse the voting public and we should certainly not be involved in helping to perpetrate fraud on our readers. Not every utterance that Gov Palin will be making for the next few weeks is worthy of inclusion. BTW, FFFF did not make any allegations. And no one mentioned having any problem with the source. The problem is with the Palin criticism re:Ayers (whom she doesnt mention by name BTW)--Buster7 (talk) 05:42, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

The subpoena issue is in the article on the trooper investigation. It certainly doesn't belong on this article. Maybe on Todd's, but probably not. He got a subpoena, took legal advice, and followed it - it will only be notable if the subpoena is upheld and enforced. -- Zsero (talk) 05:51, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Disagree. Unless I am misinformed, their defiance of the subpoenas is a significant development in the (stupidly) so-called "Troopergate", which obviously has quite a bit to do with Sarah - and has a small subsection dedicated to it already, understandably. I'm still green behind the ears regarding the general consensus on what warrants inclusion on Wikipedia, but this seems reasonable to me - and I'm hardly anti-Palin. -- Drlight11 (talk) 21:33, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

"Nasty"? It's just the undisputed truth. He does have a close personal connection with terrorists Ayers and Dohrn, and their terrorist past was clearly not enough to make him shun them. How is it "nasty" to say so? Still, it's not a notable thing about Palin that she attacked him for it. Of course she did - she's the VP candidate in an election against him, so attacking him is her job, and this is an obvious flaw that he has. It's notable on his article, not hers. -- Zsero (talk) 05:51, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Forty years ago I was on a Mens bowling team with a guy that later became Child molester. Should My picture be circulated to my neighbors? Obama had nothing more than a cursory relationship with a person that May have been remotely involved in bombings in the "60's. And his relationship was many, many years later. Palin makes it sound like Obama helped to make the bombs. Typical Political Obfuscation. --Buster7 (talk) 06:17, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

1. There's a difference between "later" and "before". Obama knew who Ayers and Dohrn were when he became close to them. And his relationship was not in any way "cursory", it was very close. Why does it matter how many years later it was? Did they become better people in the interim? More fit for civilised company? If McCain was friends with a rapist we'd never hear the end of it, but somehow being friends with anti-American terrorists is OK? -- Zsero (talk) 06:47, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Rrrrright, we're off-topic here. It's absurd to write a criticism of Obama section into an article about Palin. I don't think any significant portion of her life is defined by criticizing Obama. Politicians criticize each other in a heated race, that's it. When she does criticize Obama, it's on the McCain platform, not as a consequence of her experience in Alaska or otherwise. The VP candidate is more or less obligated to perpetuate his/her principal's message.--Loodog (talk) 06:24, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

In no way was their relationship close. No more than my relationship with Zsero is close. They worked toward some of the same Neighborhood objectives in the Hyde Park neighborhood of Chicago (Ayers was an educator at the University of Chicago which is located in...Hyde Park). Like Palin you attempt to confuse the facts with your own imagination. The bomber and Obama are un-related. Even tho Palin hinted that they are, it really has nothing to do with her BLP and can not be included. It is just campaign, swift boat type, rhetoric. Not worth any more time.--Buster7 (talk) 07:04, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Come on, you know better than that. Or if you don't you shouldn't comment. Ayers and Obama go way back to before he even went to law school. And then there's the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, which Ayers founded and put Obama in as chairman, and where they worked closely together spending over $100M to radicalise school children. Ayers and Dohrn even launched Obama's political career at their house. This is about as close as allies get. And it didn't bother Obama one bit that Ayers and Dohrn are unrepentant terrorists who hate America. You're right that it's swift-boat type rhetoric; it tells the truth, exactly as the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth did about Kerry. But the fact that Palin is telling the truth about Obama doesn't belong in the article, because it's not a notable fact about her. -- Zsero (talk) 07:44, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Reliable sources extensively covered Palin's comment that Obama is "palling around with terrorists" AP AFP WSJ NYT and several hundred others. Now a single statement hardly makes a "section" so that's a little premature first the discussion should focus on the extensively covered "palling around with terrorists" comment. Hobartimus (talk) 09:05, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Another reliable source claims its 'no big deal" [7]...--Buster7 (talk) 13:06, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

WARNING Ok, I tried to archive this section and roll it up, and that was promptly undone by someone who isn't done arguing about the candidates - I will say this one more time: This page is for discussing improving the article, not for discussing the subject, or having political arguments which are more suited to a forum. Just as examples:

• Fee Fi Foe Fum: it's over, McCain has lost - take it to a forum. Do NOT place that kind of post here
• Cdogsimmons: Fee Fi Foe Fum doesn't have a clue what he's talking about - personal attack
• Zsero: multiple posts about Obama , not Palin - take it to a forum. Do NOT argue about Obama on Palin's talk page or indeed on Wikipedia at all.

Failure to follow the above advice may lead to being encouraged to take a break from this article, from political topics, or from Wikipedia all-together. For those who wish to be dense, I'm talking about possible article, subject, and site blocks and bans. So step away from the keyboard long enough to focus, and next post, make it something which directly addresses this article without insulting any of your fellow editors. You may wish to read WP:Writing for the enemy while you take your break, or WP:TIGER or WP:MASTADON. KillerChihuahua^?!? 14:51, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

If you look at my previous comment that Fee Fi Foe Fum doesn't know what he's talking about, it was in the context of dispelling his claim that I was in some way affiliated with the McCain campaign, which is untrue and which I take personally. My response should not be interpretted as a personal attack but a strong clarification. KillerChihuahua's edit above only selectively quotes the exchange and I do not believe accurately represents the facts. Thank you.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 03:21, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

(ec)There is too much discussion here of what editors think are valid criticisms of Obama or not. What we should be discussing is, what criticisms, by Palin and of Obama or Biden, have been notable enough to gain considerable public discussion by the news media or Obama or Biden. If it is notable and from reliable sources, it goes in. If it is not notable enough to be in a couple of major newspapers over a couple of days, then it should not go in. Whether an editor thinks mcCain will win or loose, or thinks the criticism is valid or not valid, is simply irrelevant. KC is of course right. Slrubenstein | Talk 14:55, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

As I tried to point out above, this is recentism and carries undue wieght. It belongs at John McCain presidential campaign, 2008, if anywhere. Wikipedia is not a newspaper.--Evb-wiki (talk) 15:05, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

This article is about a woman who is notable largely because of current events, so relevant current events are ... relevant. Moreover, statements Palin makes belong in the article on Palin, not McCain. Slrubenstein | Talk 15:12, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree. This isn't Palin on Obama; it's pure presidential caimpagn rhetoric. --Evb-wiki (talk) 15:23, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

You have raised two issues: recentism, and whether material belongs in this article or the article on McCain. As for the latter issue, it is not for us to decide whether something Plin says expresses her own views or something spoon-fed her by the McCain operatives. All we know is that palin said it. If she said it, and if wht she said is notble in the context of current events, it belongs in this article, period. If there is a notable controversy in the public sphere - persistent accusations from Obama or Biden, for example, or continued argument in the national news media, that Palin was not really expressing her own viw but McCain, we should summarize that view, provide references to reliable sources, and add it to the article. But if palin expresses a view, what is important is that it was Palin, the object of this article, who said it.

As for recentism, well, that is an essay expressing the personal view of another editor. it is not Wikipedia policy. But that aid, even the recentism essay you invoke says the following:

The second sense of recentism—the creation of a glut of new articles on a recent event—is not entirely a negative. Inter-article relative emphasis may be skewed and a particular topic inflated (2006 Lebanon War is longer than George Washington, for example), but these new additions also have definite benefits explained below.

Experience has shown that collaborative editing on wikipedia has resulted in the ability of Wikipedians to compile a (long tail) set of comprehensive and well-balanced articles on the many varied current events of the mid-to-late 2000s. This ability of Wikipedia to record and synthesize the events of the day may be valuable to those in the future who seek to understand the history of this time period. In other words: "if we don't make sense of it today, someone else will struggle to make sense of it tomorrow."

It is widely regarded as one of Wikipedia's strengths that it is able to collate and sift through vast amounts of reporting on current events, producing encyclopedia-quality articles in real time about ongoing events or developing stories: natural disasters, political campaigns and elections, wars, product releases, assassinations. It would greatly weaken the encyclopedia project if article development about ongoing events were discouraged in a campaign against so-called "recentism".

This last sentence seems to speak directly to your comment. In short, if it is notable and verifiable, it should go in. Slrubenstein | Talk 15:36, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Now that Gov Palin has found her voice, and improved her confidence, she may begin to produce daily soundbites for the press and the voters to quibble over. Should we, for the sake of future readers, begin to include everything she says? Maybe we should create a daily calendar-type section with her thought for the day? We need to stay calm and non-partisan. Palin's comment about Obama is current but the Ayers/Obama relationship (as a current story) is not. Slr, you present a strong support for inclusion of what she might say tommorrow but what she said yesterday is already fading into the distance.--Buster7 (talk) 15:58, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

For G*d's sake folks, this is an encyclopedia, not a newspaper! Are editors suggesting that every time Sarah Palin makes a political speech that its contents should be reported here? And if that isn't the argument, and folks are arguing for including material which is "notable" to the life of Sarah Palin, how can we possibly know if a statement made in speech 12 hours ago is significant? A little perspective is needed, and perspective takes time. By inserting every statement that gets folks' blood boiling, editors are turning this article into a political blog. My take is adding a section on Palin's criticism of Obama at this time is absurd, and it clearly violates the WP:BLP strictures against undue weight.--Paul (talk) 15:48, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Are editors suggesting that every time Sarah Palin makes a political speech that its contents should be reported here Given the fact that Palin was relatively unknown just a few weeks ago, the answer to your questions is yes. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:10, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Such actions would conflict with WP:Not#Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information.--Paul (talk) 16:35, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

It seems as tho we are setting ourselves up to have daily, long-winded, contentious discussions about whatever Gov Palin says. We would probably best serve Wikipedia and our visitors to come to some general agreement as to what is in and what is not (regarding what Palin says from hereon). I defer to veteran editors to provide some guidance. I think we are on the verge of creating a "hornets nest". --Buster7 (talk) 16:28, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Paul, I would like to take your comments in good faith but I just do not understand how I can interpret your bringing up "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information." Of course Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information! Why on earth would you think anyone here is suggesting otherwise? First of all we, made a cllective act of discrimination in choosing out of all the human beings on earth to have an article on Sarah Palin - and we made this choice for specific reasons, one of which that she is running for Vice President of th US. We should also discriminate among information to go into this article: first, we should discriminate between those things Palin says, those things others say about her, and those things that people say about oysters and gravity. I propose that only stuff Palin says or that people say about her goes into this article, not oysters and gravity, how is that for discrimination. In fact, I propose we be more discriminating: since she is only notable as a politican, I think we should exclude stuff she has said, or stuff people have said about her, that have no connection to her political career. Moreover, since she is most notable because she is currently running for vice-president, we should discriminat further and give more weight to things she says as part of her campaign to be elected vice-president and to defeat the Obama-Biden ticket. I know other people are running for president but let's be honest, Obama and Biden are the only real competition. I suggest we discriminate between things she says about Obama or Bidan, and things she might say about, well, for example, Bob Avakian, I think what she says about Obama and Biden meet the threshold of notability but we should discriminate against comments about any other candidates like Avakian. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:17, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Paul writes that Wikipedia is not a newspaper. Sorry Paul, of you go to WP:NOT you will see that the word "newspaper" does not appear. It is true that we are not a newspaper, but we are the only encyclopedia in the world that is updated constantly. This is one of the most important things that distinguishes us from other encyclopedias like Brittanica, even once they have gone on-line they are up-dated only every several years. The point is not that we are not a newspaper, the point is that technology has enabled us to overcome the most serious constraint on all prior encyclopedias, the fact that physical requirements prevented them from having articles on current topics. Now, Paul, since NOT says nothing about newspapers, let's see what Wikipedia policy really is, shall we? The main page, for as long as I can remember, has had an "in the news" section prominently on display, with links to many articles, so it is evident to me on its face tht Wikipedia has articles on current events. And that policy, what Wikipedia is not? The first thing it says, practically, is:

Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia

Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia; there is no practical limit to the number of topics it can cover, or the total amount of content, other than verifiability and the other points presented on this page. However, there is an important distinction between what technically can be done, and what reasonably should be done, which is covered in the Content section below.

This policy is not a free pass for inclusion: articles must still abide by the appropriate content policies, particularly those covered in the five pillars.

The five pillars emphasize NPOV, NOR, V, free content and, oh yeah, this one:

Wikipedia does not have firm rules besides the five general principles presented here. Be bold in editing, moving, and modifying articles.

I see nothing in policy that suggests we should not include public statements Palin has said in her position as vice-presidential candidate about her political agenda or about her opponents. Paul, you are welcome to your opinion but if you want to prevent someone from adding content to this article, you had better demonstrate that it violates policy. Anything relevant to the campaign and verifiable should go in. Jossi is right. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:28, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

It violates WP:UNDUE. Statements that Palin makes criticizing Obama are those of the McCain-Palin campaign. She was not a vocal Obama critic before she was tapped as VP, which makes this an artifact of her presence on the ticket. As such, any criticism by Palin of Obama or the Obama-Biden ticket is more appropriately placed in John McCain presidential campaign, 2008. Palin is not defined by her criticism of Obama; the McCain presidential campaign is.--Loodog (talk) 17:34, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

One candidate for election criticizing another? Unheard of!!! Grsz^X 17:37, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Loodog writes "She was not a vocal Obama critic before she was tapped as VP." True. Before she became a candidate for vice-president, she was not campaigning for vice president. is this your point? Are you saying we should remove all reference to her running for vice president, because before she ran for vice president she was not a vice presidetial candidate, Loodog? Slrubenstein | Talk 17:42, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

No, but thanks for refuting an argument I didn't make.--Loodog (talk) 17:57, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, if we include her vice-presidential candidacy, then material that is relavent to her candidacy by definition is relevant to this article. If she says something about Obama or Biden, it should go in this article. It definitely does not belong in an article on john McCain. If you ever find an actual policy that supports your view please share it with us but there is nothing in the undue weight provision that suggests that material directly relevant to precisely what makes her most notable is somehow inappropriate for this article - nothing. Palin's vice-presidential candidacy is highly notable, so things she says as a vice-presidential candidate belong in this article. Slrubenstein | Talk 18:05, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Sure. WP:STRUCTURE: "'Segregation' of text or other content into different regions or subsections, based solely on the apparent POV of the content itself.".--Loodog (talk) 18:15, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Loodog states that the Palin statement violates WP:UNDUE. That really is a judgment call, because the only relevant thing WP:UNDUE says with regard to facts in an article is, An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. That can be interpreted so broadly as to be almost meaningless. It's a judgment call whether or not to include a particular bit of information in an article. Unless you've got some overwhelming evidence you can point to, either way, it's better not to bring up WP:UNDUE because it just clouds the issue. Make the judgment call by consensus and be done with it. This seems to be one of the most prominent (probably the most prominent) attacks Palin has made as a VP candidate so far. It can easily be eclipsed in upcoming weeks by other, more prominent attacks. (As we know, attacks are a traditional thing for VP candidates to do.) One thing to think about is whether this page will need yet another discussion thread to remove this bit of information if editors want to make room for some statement that becomes even more prominent. Seems like too much work, to me, but if editors are up for it, go for it. -- Noroton (talk) 18:19, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

What would the proposed section even say? Palin has criticized Obama for "palling with terrorists" as well as raise attacks as to the consistency of his running mate. Perhaps if specific sentences were proposed we're have more to debate on than doing it in the abstract.--Loodog (talk) 18:44, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

WP:structure? Loodog, this section does not prohibit the inclusion of anything, it just warns about a possible concern, for which there are solutions. Loodog now seems to be appealing to sophistry. Keep looking for some rule to prove your point, loodog, but this is not rational. We do not start with conclusions and look for rules to support them. We start with policies which themselves are flexible and look for ways to write good articles. Your reasoning does not hold up. Any statement by Palin is by definition going to represent Palin's POV. Are you seriously suggesting that we have an article on Palin without any account of her views? That is just absurd reasoning and unless you are so dogmatically committed to your position that you simply refuse to change your mind - that you have already decided that no argument will change your mind - you would acknowledge this. Having an article on Sarah Palin is not a POV fork, it is a content fork. Once we have decided that the article contents is "stuff relevant to Palin" Palin's views become relevant. It is as simple as that. Keep coming up with different a postoriori justifcations for your position, but the fact is, you are actually opposed to Wikipedia policy in this particular matter. Palin's political views, including views about her opponents, are relevant to the article on Palin. The way to avoid a POV fork is simple: if she expresses a view about Obama or Biden, and Oboma or Biden have responded, or some other notable person (a notable politician or notable policy expert or notable reporter) has provided a different view, NPOV requires we add that to this article. No POV fork at all. WP:STRUCTURE does not prohibit adding views (e.g. Palin's views). it only makes clear that if there are alternate or opposing views they should go in the same section. Slrubenstein | Talk 18:52, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

This has gone past WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF. I'm not going to continue.--Loodog (talk) 18:58, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

I guess I was right, no reasoning or reference to Wikipedia policy will change your mind, so there really is no point discussing this. Slrubenstein | Talk 19:00, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Stay civil Slrubenstein. Loodog is right that this is the wrong article for a criticism of Obama section. That doesn't mean we shouldn't report that Palin has launched an attack on Obama, indeed, I believe we should. Just keep in mind that we need to keep the conversation on her, not on him. Regards, Ben Aveling 10:51, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

How about this, as a compromise: any criticism she has made of Obama that simultaneously expresses her own position on a particular view should go in this article? That seems reasonable? Slrubenstein | Talk 14:24, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

It's been a couple of days and it still seems to be in the news. See this. Obama took the effort to respond to it. See here. I tried to just add the information to the campaign section before without its own subsection but the information was again removed. Let's try to form a consensus here. Should the day to day details of the campaign dealing with Sarah Palin (like the controversial things she says in speeches) be reflected on this page? Or should that info go into the more general campaign article at United States presidential election, 2008? I notice that that page does not really cover day to day talking points from the candidates either. Where else could this info go? Maybe in Political positions of Sarah Palin or Public image and reception of Sarah Palin?--Cdogsimmons (talk) 17:14, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Day to day stuff in a BLP? Nope. It is a campaign topic, and only belongs in articles directly and completely concerned with such stuff. If the details will be of no interest in 10 years in a BLP, keep it out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Collect (talk • contribs) 17:19, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Cdogsimmons, go ahead and add it to the article, I think you have demonstrated its notability (we can ignore collect's fabrications of non-existent policies just to serve his petty political views). Any material that is relevant and verifiable, and from a reliable source, can go in; if it has been in the news for a few days, and covered by national news outlets, it definitely has to go into the article, whether it is pro-Palin or anti-Palin. Slrubenstein | Talk 18:37, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Very well. I will insert the information again. I do not think it violates any policy on BLP because it is NPOV, Verifiable, and is not original research. I also think that issues surrounding Sarah Palin's campaign, especially her own statements made during a speech, are clearly issues of public concern.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 23:56, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Ayers, Obama, & NY Times

Since we've had a couple of reverts on this, we should really get the wording of the Palin attack on Obama in regards to his "relationship" with Bill Ayers nailed down... As far as whether or not Palin was referencing the NY Times article, when someone begins their talking point with "I was reading the NY Times today...." it's generally summarized as referring to the article... If we are going to be sourcing her specific speech on October 4, I'm not sure how we can say she was not referring to the article. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 05:01, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Current wording clearly states the facts without partisanship.--Buster7 (talk) 05:17, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Obviously, I agree. Tvoz/talk 06:02, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the current wording is NPOV. The problem is that it picks up one particular Palin attack against Obama. The more important information, for the Palin bio, is that she's been moving to the traditional VP candidate role of "attack dog". Instead of quoting a specific attack, we should note that general point. I propose removing the current paragraph and replacing it with:

Upon returning to the campaign trail after her debate preparation, Palin stepped up her attacks on the Democratic candidate for President, Senator Barack Obama. At a fundraising event, Palin explained her new aggressiveness, saying, "There does come a time when you have to take the gloves off and that time is right now."

This cites a reliable source (Bloomberg News) for the general point, and gives Palin's explanation in her own words. This is more informative about Palin than is her specific blast about "terrorists", which isn't unique to her and merely echoes a general Republican talking point. JamesMLane t c 06:15, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

The issue is already discussed above here on the talk page at length [8] [9] Hobartimus (talk) 10:10, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

James, your suggested para does strike a balance between her almost complete silence and her current tough rhetoric. Obviously, I prefer it to the current sentence since it removes mention of the "palls" and the guilt by association factor. I just don't think that your version gives the reader a true sense of the demonizing of the opponent that has begun to take place. ("He's not like us" and "That one" come to mind)--Buster7 (talk) 10:35, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure that Palin's "attack dog" strategy is a notable enough of a departure from the usual flavor to make the details notable in her bio. Aprock (talk) 18:29, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

"Attack dog" topic is much less covered than the quote "palling around with terrorists" that it refers to. Only taking into account the reliable sources covered by google news the "palling around with terrorists" qoute appeared in over 4000 news sources. Hobartimus (talk) 19:20, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Hobartimus, I saw the earlier threads. I posted here because this is the most recent thread on the subject.

Buster7, the "demonizing" is real but generally doesn't belong in this bio. For us to examine multiple comments like "That one" and conclude that the McCain/Palin campaign is going increasingly negative would be original research. We might find a reliable source performing that synthesis -- I seem to recall reading a breakdown of the campaign's TV ad spending that reported a shift toward the negative ads, with the positive ads now getting little or no airplay. Something like that, if coming from a reliable source, could be included to give the context of Palin's shift in tone. Meanwhile, the Bloomberg article I cited is such a source for the fact of Palin's shift in tone.

I agree with Aprock that this article shouldn't go into detail about each attack that Palin launches. Some editors, however, are obviously committed to including her Obama-bashing. While that discussion continues, I'll refrain from removing the "terrorist" stuff. Is there any reason not to include the Bloomberg item, regardless of whether the "terrorists" quotation stays in? JamesMLane t c 21:05, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

We certainly need to find a reliable source that claims that Palin is going negative - if we do not find one, it cannot go in the article; if we do find one, it goes in the article. Let me remind people that this is not according to Wikipedia a "biography." It is an article that contains biographhical material and other material relevant to the topic of the article, i.e. all significant views concerning Sarah Palin. Slrubenstein | Talk 21:13, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree we'd need sourcing. The Bloomberg article I cited is pretty good for that purpose. It includes a verbatim quotation from Palin herself about taking the gloves off, in the context of the overall negative campaigning.

The passage in the article has now been edited so that Palin's smear stays in but any countervailing view is removed. With Palin launching a direct personal attack against Obama, NPOV requires that if we report the attack we report the opposing view. I will add that, although I still believe that removing the exchange entirely would be preferable. JamesMLane t c 21:34, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Slrubenstein what did you mean when saying, "that this is not according to Wikipedia a "biography.""? Was there some discussion on this, could you give a link where "not biography" classification was discussed? Hobartimus (talk) 21:37, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

here. There is no policy of Wikipedia that classifies some articles as biographies and others as not. The BLP policy clearly refers to adding "biographical information" to articles, not writing certain articles called "biographies." The closer we stick to Wikipedia policy, the more progress we will make. The last thing in the world we need is for people to be inventing policies we do not have. Slrubenstein | Talk 22:18, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Wife beating

@ paul h...re:your edit summary for recent change...the correct question is "Do you still beat your wife?" The important word is "still" implying on ongoing act. The way you phrase it just asks for a timeframe...The entrapment isn't as deep. See Loaded Question--Buster7 (talk) 12:38, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

net worth

Cite for net worth estimate is careful when making a definite statement that her net worth "likely tops $1 million." The $1.2 million is stated as speculative "add(ing) up their income and assets." Income is not assets, last I checked. Also no deduction is made for the home mortgage. Result? Just the lede remains, which is now correctly mentioned. Collect (talk) 13:44, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Section order

I find it troubling that a biography article places relevant personal informnation to the very last part of the article. The *Personal life* section belongs at the top after (or combined with) early life and education information. Her career can follow logically from that. Why is even *Political positions* given a more prominent placement. --Evb-wiki (talk) 00:19, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I think what you say has merit. I have moved that section up as suggested. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:58, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Mmmm... not sure it works well there, though. What others think? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:00, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Barack Obama#Family and personal life is near the bottom. Joe Biden and John McCain don't even have related sections. Grsz^X 01:14, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Both George W. Bush and George H.W. Bush have a marriage and/or family section up top. --Evb-wiki (talk) 01:19, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

(undent) I think the personal life section was okay lower down. She's not famous for her personal life, so it makes sense to help readers find out what they're most interested about. I don't think it's a big deal, but I like it better down the page.Ferrylodge (talk) 01:26, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Except that every other section has a main article where the details get placed. This is, after all, the biographical part of the Sarah Palin collection. --Evb-wiki (talk) 01:30, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

In theory.Ferrylodge (talk) 01:31, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Ferrylodge says: "In theory." That's for sure. See: Talk:Sarah Palin#AP article on her personal life.--Paul (talk) 01:47, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I liked where it was before. Its kinda like moving the couch in the living room. It just doesn't look right in its new spot. Familiarity, I guess.--Buster7 (talk) 02:18, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I usually work on stub to B class articles, and I know we're shooting for better than that. But in the short-ish bios I usually see, it often works to group things in this kind of order: 1) parentage/childhood/education (which includes ethnicity, nationality, siblings), 2) early career, 3) notable career, 4) any other notable things, 5) stats, lists, awards, achievements, books written, etc., and 6) personal life (which includes spouse, children, hobbies, current residence, etc). That seems to flow well, although it does reflect a certain value judgment about what is worth mentioning in what order, personal life being a bit of a wrap-up, like the dessert after a big meal.Wikidemon (talk) 04:33, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

(Undent) I'm still kind of leaning toward putting it back lower in the article. Above I explained that she's not famous for her personal life, and having that section where it is now delays the reader on his way to what is really of interest. But there are other reasons too. Before this section was moved there, the article was chronological up to what is now the seventh section (2008 campaign). Having the personal life stuff near the top throws off the chronology. Additionally, stuff near the top of an article always gets more attention, and I have qualms about putting things like her daughter's pregnancy and the name of her boyfriend so high up in the article. This is very personal material, and I would feel much better if it were not emphasized so much by placing it near the top of the article. Another reason why I'm leaning toward a revert is because the image seems to be sandwiching text with the infobox, which is not compliant with the MOS.Ferrylodge (talk) 15:09, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I do see your point(s). I agree that the chronology is a bit muddled. I can live with your placement. (At least it's ahead of *Political positions*. ha.) --Evb-wiki (talk) 15:44, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

A new editor has once again changed the placement, without discussion. Is there an essay or a WP:Check_at_talk_first_before_you_make_a _major_change, or a label, or something?? Or do we all go to Twilight's talk and discuss Wiki-etiquette?--Buster7 (talk) 11:10, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

The change is here. I'll change it back, and put a note at the editor's talk page.Ferrylodge (talk) 17:51, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Bridge Again: Does Palin's Position on the Bridge Matter? I say Yes.

An editor has requested deletion of all of Palin's quotations in support of the bridge. This editor admits the quotations are accurate and not taken out of context, but he wants to nonetheless remove them and put them in the subarticle. However, he wants to leave in all of Palin's quotations in opposition to the bridge. I say leave the quotations alone. I believe Palin's direct and brief quotations in support of the Bridge to Nowhere belongs in a Bridge to Nowhere section in her biography, just as her brief quotations cancelling the bridge do as well. Do I have support?GreekParadise (talk) 02:11, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Oh come on. Consider the following Palin quote: Congress had "little interest in spending any more money" due to "inaccurate portrayals of the projects". She's blasting Congress for not funding the bridges. That is hardly a quotation in "oppositon" to the bridge. But I would be glad to remove it from the article if you would like.Ferrylodge (talk) 02:16, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I want both sides represented. I don't want to remove either side. Soon, if we remove one side and then the other, there's no article left. All of Palin's quotations are accurate, in context, and in summary form, and belong in the article. GreekParadise (talk) 02:37, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

How better do we explain Palin's opinion on the bridge than through quotations? What a lousy argument. Grsz^X 02:32, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Grsz, what do you think of the edits I made? The section seemed to be way too long, and so I tried to write a better summary of the bridge material in the sub-article Governorship of Sarah Palin.Ferrylodge (talk) 02:37, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

If you think it's too long, Ferrylodge, you know I was working with you to cut length without cutting content, to cut fat without removing bone. I cut it from 22 lines to 15 lines without removing any content except repetition. Can we please work together to put this in summary style WITHOUT removing content? Once we do that, if you still think it's too long, you can ask for consensus to remove content. But to remove Palin's position on the bridges is to remove the very heart and most important part of this section.GreekParadise (talk) 02:39, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

(undent)I don't agree that Palin's position about the bridges has been removed:

Two proposed bridges were supported by Palin in her 2006 Gubernatorial campaign....Ultimately, Palin cancelled one of the bridges....Palin said in Ketchikan that the Gravina Island Bridge was essential for prosperity, but later cancelled the bridge....Palin ran for governor with a "build-the-bridge" plank in her platform.[97] However, in September 2007, Palin cancelled the Gravina Island Bridge .... she continued to support the Knik Arm project.

What position is missing here?Ferrylodge (talk) 02:50, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I have consistently told you I don't agree to remove her quotations. GreekParadise (talk) 02:56, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm done for the night. I gather that you will not answer my very simple question above: "What position is missing here?" And your most recent edit seems to be in bad faith, in that you not only inserted some quotations, but also made dozens and dozens of other changes.Ferrylodge (talk) 02:59, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

All I did was revert to the old version that was there before you made the changes. I figured that was "more fair" than putting in my own summary version. (Oops. I reverted to wrong version. I meant to go back to old consensus and I messed up and went to some other version. Thank you, Grz, for fixing this.) But I'm still willing to work with you to cut fat (repetitiveness) and not bone (content).GreekParadise (talk) 03:21, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

It's not just that she supported the bridge and then cancelled it. It's the nature of her support, why she supported and why she cancelled it, that matters. And who better to give her reasons than Palin herself? If you thought any of the quotes were inaccurate or out of context, that would be another matter.GreekParadise (talk) 03:12, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Utterly unacceptable. The quotes quite obviously belong in both articles. The subject was deemed important enough to be in her acceptance speech; all of her opinions are relevant. And then there is the tiny little matter of it being a flip-flop and the acceptance speech being a prevarication at best, of which the quotes are evidence. Anarchangel (talk) 03:18, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, by all means let's not paraphrase. We must have direct quotes to build our airtight case against her.Ferrylodge (talk) 03:24, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

(undent)I've restored the bridge section of earlier today, but including the material that you felt is indispensable: "She said that she would 'not allow the spinmeisters to turn this project ... into something that's so negative,' and she urged speedy work on building infrastructure 'while our congressional delegation is in a strong position to assist.'" To my mind, this stuff does not really provide any significant information and should not be part of a brief summary of the sub-article, but there you go.Ferrylodge (talk) 04:21, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I completely agree with GreekParadise's answer to your "very simple question" about what's omitted. It's not sufficient to say that on one day she supported the bridge and on another day she opposed it. As a result of her own speeches this year, her position on the bridge has gotten more attention than anything else in her career. Therefore, instead of just saying that she changed her position, we provide a summary of her explanation for the change. The best way to do that is to quote her own public explanations of her reasoning in 2006 and 2007. If those verbatim quotations contribute to building a "case against her", it's only because some readers will see a discrepancy between what positions she took then and how she now characterizes her record. I trust you will agree that the possible utility of a particular fact for campaign purposes, whehter pro- or anti-Palin, is no reason to expunge that fact from the article. JamesMLane t c 08:05, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Ferrylodge's changes to bridge article highlighted for discussion

Ferrylodge and I have had a long discussion on the bridge section above. Unfortunately, despite his comment in the history section ("This should be universally acceptable"), he knows well that I do not consider some of his many changes to be non-controversial. Some of these changes I support and some I don't. I respectfully suggest it would have been better if Ferrylodge had come here on the talk page to make clear exactly what content he was deleting prior to making all the changes he just did, not just for me but for other editors as well who may or may not agree with him or with me. Again, I have no problem with consolidating and summary style, but I think we should lay out exactly what content was changed. And since Ferrylodge has not clearly laid out what he did separately from our long discussion above, I will do so now. I apologize for the length of this but FL made many changes.GreekParadise (talk) 06:17, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

1) FL added this line "after Congress had already provided hundreds of millions of dollars in transportation funds" in the first sentence. I consider this line redundant and therefore unnecessary and it obviously makes the article longer rather than being a summary, but I will leave it in and see what others think. If no one else minds, he has my acquiescence.

2) FL took out the word "ominibus" on the Congressional spending bill. An editor named Duuude07 thought that was a tremendously important addition as it showed Congress was overlooking the earmark and he and I and several others agreed on this language weeks ago. Ferrylodge and I have never discussed this precise point. I will restore it.

3) FL took out cost of Knik Arm: $600 million. I'm neutral on this. I won't add this back again but some editor may want to. I flag the change.

4) FL removed: "A McCain-Palin spokesperson said that "because the contract for the road was already signed before she got into office, the governor was left no viable alternative."[112] The Alaska Department of Transportation and the Federal Highway Administration state that the contract could have been cancelled at minimal cost and that the federal money could have been returned to Congress for other uses.[113]" I prefer to summarize this rather than delete it entirely, but I will not make the change back. FL has removed both sides of the controversy so there's no POV problem. I'll leave that to another editor to restore if he/she wishes.

5) FL removed one of the four quotations: "She criticized the use of the word "nowhere" as insulting to local residents[97][106]" Perhaps this was inadvertent. But it seemed to me the clear thrust of the discussion above was not to remove Palin's quotations on the bridge. As FL, based on that discussion, restored the other three quotations. I will restore this one.GreekParadise (talk) 06:17, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I suspect FL will be OK with the five sections above. I will acquiesce in 1, 3, and 4. I'm not endorsing the changes, but neither will I fight them. I will let it go to see what others think. On 2 (small change we never discussed) and 5 (consensus above to include Palin quote on bridge; deletion may have been inadvertent), I will restoreGreekParadise (talk) 06:17, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

6) And finally, Don Young's Way. This one FL knew I wouldn't like. This one we've been round and back several times. More than a dozen wikieditors have commented on it, on both sides. I believe more support inclusion than removal, but I recognize there are opinions on both sides. A few days ago, I asked FL for arbitration on this. He went to the BLP noticeboard and there was substantial support for including the brief parenthetical mention I wish to include.[10] FL knew this wasn't "universally acceptable" to delete. I will restore it.GreekParadise (talk) 06:17, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

In sum, I hope the only controversial thing I'm doing is restoring a brief parenthetical mention of 6 (Don Young's Way -- the oft-reported name of the Knik Arm Bridge) based on the long discussions we have already had, the many editors who support it, and the BLP noticeboard. I know FL and I strongly disagree on DYW. I propose we submit it to arbitration or mediation. I know that at least a half dozen, perhaps even a dozen wiki-editors think it should be included and it doesn't take up much space: in fact, the brief parenthetical is shorter than 1), the part FL added to the first sentence. I have many reasons for including it that I've laid out in the past but I won't do so here just yet. As I suspect we're going to have a long back and forth on DYW, I suggest we begin a whole new section on it, with FL's reasons for deletion and my arguments for including it. It might help if folks read the discussion on the BLP noticeboard where everyone at least appears to agree it's not a BLP issue. And then I think FL and I should both wait to see what others think.GreekParadise (talk) 06:17, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I have also tightened the section and removed a paragraph break by moving the picture down, all in an effort to reduce the length of the section without deleting content. It is my profound hope and prayer that FL and others will agree to the summary article as he and I have now revised it, with only one final point of contention being whether to briefly mention Don Young's Way, the official name of the Knik Arm Bridge, in the article.GreekParadise (talk) 06:17, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

It would have been better if I'd come to the talk page to make clear exactly what I was doing? Oh, please. I explained everything in minute detail days ago, as you know very very well. See above. And this has all been explained and talked to death already.Ferrylodge (talk) 06:59, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm hopeful, with the possible exception of Don Young's Way, that you and I and many others have together created a bridge section that we both can support and that will be stable into the future. I appreciate your work on this, Ferrylodge, and I think we've arrived at a good compromise. I hope others agree.GreekParadise (talk) 14:34, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Ferrylodge, I do not understand you ropposition to the changes I made. It seems as if you use "consensus" as a disguised way to indicate your failure to WP:AGF. I made changtes in good faith. As I explaine most of my changtes did not afect content, but rather eliminated redundancies and clarified matters by distinguishing between the two bridges and by arranging material more chornologically. I took pains to keep material you considered important. I added material others considered material. Now tell me, do you thihk any of the material i added violates Wikipedia policy? Do you think any of my edits violate Wikipedia policy? If so by all means explain them here. But please do not abuse the concept of consensus. Consensus is a spirit fo collaboration, not a demand that edits require unanimity, there is NO Wikipedia policty demanding this. I am convinced my revision is better than the previous version. Can we make it even better? Let's try! But while we are trying, let's not restore an inferior version. Let's just discuss ways to keep improving it ... like we do with other Wikipedia articles. Slrubenstein | Talk 02:53, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I do not understand why you choose to comment in this section, when I explained my reasons in detail in another section below.Ferrylodge (talk) 02:56, 10 October 2008 (UTC)