Talk:Governorship of Sarah Palin/Archive 1

Archive 1

Ugh... removed some POV sentences.

This article needs work. Removed a couple of POV sentences, including one that purported to know Palin's state of mind at a given point in time. Cheers, --SimpleParadox 17:49, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Before removing $750 million dollar request for earmarks a discussion should ensue

Alaska's Federal congressional representatives cut back on pork-barrel project requests during Palin's time as governor, however Alaska is still the largest per-capita recipient of federal earmarks, requesting nearly $750 million in special federal spending over two years and obtaining $295 per citizen from the federal government. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26611103/ The Associated Press, Woodward Calvin, http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5ici5RhMkh6-9V07yckpLBEEjzf6QD932MU100

--MisterAlbert (talk) 20:48, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Opinion piece by Senator DeMint

Just to re-iterate here, an opinion piece, even one written by a Senator, can not be used as a reliable source for factual information, such as in these edits. Opinion pieces simply do not have editorial oversight, this is especially true for guest editorials such as the one by Senator DeMint. Literally anything can be said in opinion pieces regardless of their truth and many include the writer's opinion of what was reported in a reliable source. The proper course of action is to find the reliable source that the writer is talking about and source to that reliable source. Reliableness is not transferable, unfortunately. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 18:24, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Comparison to Murkowski

I'm not sure I agree with this edit. While it is true that this article is about Palin and not Murkowski, Palin has built her governorship upon cutting the expenses of government and her spending in comparison to her predecessor are an important part of illustrating the success/failure of this. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 22:18, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

The page is owned and all other palin pages at this point. And reasonable person can see it's relevant. How can one talk about economic issues about a governor [current content has the intent to besmirch her with an implied abuse of state funds] without referencing what was. Theosis4u (talk) 06:16, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Consensus For This Subartilce?

Does anyone know if there was consensus from the Sarah_Palin talk page for this section? Theosis4u (talk) 22:31, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Consensus to create this page is not necessary. Anyone can create an article. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 22:37, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

So I've learned, : Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Governorship_of_Sarah_Palin Theosis4u (talk) 22:56, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

The issue is that the guideline Wikipedia:Summary style isn't being followed. And it should be; the kind of massive duplication of content and citations we're seeing now is totally wrong. Either this article (daughter article) should be kept and the related content in the main Sarah Palin article reduced sharply in length (to a summary of this article), or this article should be deleted. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 20:15, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Passport

In 2007 Palin obtained a passport and traveled for the first time outside of North America

That is a fact reported in a reliable source. Why was it deleted? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:47, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Please see the guideline on an article's lead section. Please see the sections discussing the number of paragraphs in the lead, as well as the section on relative emphasis (which is pertinent in choosing which "facts" to include in the lead). I also invite a careful reading of WP:NPOV. Oh, and one might want to peruse the actual article that serves as one's "reliable source"; I believe the first sentence clearly states she received her passport in 2006. The fact that the author of this particular sentence chooses to make the distinction between "outside of the U.S." and "outside of North America" in the lead of an article about Mrs. Palin's governorship of the American state of Alaska, reveals his/her lack of interest in neutral POV. So now two "reliable" (ironic here that reliable is nearly an anagram for liberal) sources contradict each other on the same "fact". However, I'll leave it to another intrepid Wikipedian to step on an admin's toes. Cheers, SimpleParadox 17:47, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

As a third party obsever, I fail to see the POV of using the term "North America". While I understand its unimportance (and therefore removal from the lead section) I do not see why there would be a POV conflict. Also, the jab at liberalism is entirely unnecessary (not to mention I fail to see any liberalism in stating that she left North America). Finally, when editing, the contributions of admins are not inherently more valuable They are editors like the rest of us, they just have a more powers to afford them administrative tasks.--Vox Rationis (Talk | contribs) 21:14, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Ah, the voice of reason! :) You're right, the jab at liberalism was entirely unnecessary, but alas I am only human. Neutral Point of View is violated by assigning an unimportant fact undue weight. In an article that is supposed to be about the governance of a state, the choice to include a statement in the lead regarding how many times one may have traveled outside of North America (again the distinction here is specifically chosen; for example, why the distinction between United States and North America, or even Alaska and North America?) marks an attempt either consciously or unconsciously to push a certain POV upon the reader. That POV happens to coincide with the Governor of Alaska being the current Vice Presidential nominee for the Republican party. The argument that simply because it is a reliably sourced, verifiable fact it should then have a place in the article is absurd. I am sure that there are hundreds of reliably sourced, verifiable facts about Sarah Palin which have nothing to do with her governance of the state of Alaska. Thanks again for your response, --SimpleParadox 22:16, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Predator Control - "aerial gunning - hunting"

The neutral term is "culling" and not gunning, shooting, or killing. Theosis4u (talk) 07:18, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Culling is: to reduce or control the size of (as a herd) by removal (as by hunting) of especially weaker animals  ; also : to hunt or kill (animals) as a means of population control Theosis4u (talk) 07:02, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Predator Control - "volunteer pilots and gunners"

Come on gunners , this is likely to invoke the "flight of the valkyrie" in the background and the mumblings of Brando. Theosis4u (talk) 07:25, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Culling is: to reduce or control the size of (as a herd) by removal (as by hunting) of especially weaker animals  ; also : to hunt or kill (animals) as a means of population control Theosis4u (talk) 07:02, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Beluga Whales

"Palin also opposed, on economic grounds". The main argument is not "on economic grounds", Palin said it was a concern. By only listing this reason it is implied it's the only one! The Time's article doesn't source this reason of "economic grounds" - it implies it about Palin. The reasons are given here. This is a bias POV.

Besides - economic impact. "Palin said ... However, the state is going to closely review all the scientific information in the proposal to be sure it meets the requirements for listing under the Endangered Species Act, she said. Additionally, the state will study whether existing federal law, such as the Marine Mammals Protection Act, provides sufficient protection, she said." Proposal to list belugas as endangered has leaders wary over projects & Decision to list Cook Inlet belugas delayed

Full list of reasons:

1. wants to confirm population in light of restraint on whale hunting over the years

A. doesn't address the issue of why whales haven't had an increase when compared to other whale population growths of 2-6%/year.

2. be sure to meet requirements for ESA (the beluga whales in cook inlet I believe still haven't been demonstrated as genetically unique.)

3. whales are covered by existing laws - question is if it's sufficient.

4. and of course, economic impact due to the possibility of how the ESA is enacted. There would be a difference if the habitat is including in the policy verses not being including.

Remember, the NMFS decided to NOT list the whales in 2000 with the same population numbers. That's why they are taking the six month extension to do another population estimate. For reference. "In 2000, the agency [The National Marine Fisheries Service] refused to list the whales." source

'Rod Hobbs, leader of the beluga whale research project at NOAA's National Marine Mammal Lab, also in Seattle. Hobbs said the long view shows that this year's [2007] estimate of 375 beluga whales is about what it was in 1999." ... 'In June, NOAA biologists flew five surveys of waters in the upper Cook Inlet where the whales tend to be most often and recorded video of the belugas in groups. The biologists came up with the new estimate of 375 whales _ up from 302 whales last year _ by examining the video and from counts made by researchers. ... This year's increased estimate is the largest since 2001 when 386 whales were counted." source

Theosis4u (talk) 08:11, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Amazing. Theosis4u (talk) 07:03, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Some changes

I made some changes including removing one sentence which made no sense and another that violated NPOV without the proper context (which probably wouldn't be appropriate either). I also cleaned up some syntax and made a couple of more sentences more readable. Cheers, --SimpleParadox 17:56, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I re-added the fact that it was her first trip outside of North America. That fact is well-supported by the cited source and it is significant to many readers. As NPOV writers, we should put out the facts and let readers draw their own conclusions, rather than cherry-pick the facts to push a conclusion.--Appraiser (talk) 18:42, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Really? So as an "NPOV writer", you chose to make the distinction between traveling outside the United States and outside of North America? Was this her first trip outside the United States, as well? Pray tell how her travel history outside of "North America" has anything to do with her governorship of the state of Alaska. The irony of your last statement is rich! --SimpleParadox 19:06, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, I don't know when her first trip outside of the U.S. was—perhaps as a child, since passports weren't required to travel to Canada at that time. Numerous sources, including the cited one, mention that she obtained a passport and first traveled outside North America in 2007. For someone who is likely to become the most powerful person in the world, her "world-experience" is probably something readers care very much about.--Appraiser (talk) 13:33, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Appraiser, thank you very much for your response. The article is about the Governorship of Sarah Palin (namely of the state of Alaska) and you have now admitted to writing the article with the intention of conveying some type of information that would have bearing on her Vice-Presidential nomination. This article should have nothing to do with that! You are free to start an article called The Reasons Why Sarah Palin Should or Should Not Be Vice President. Furthermore, I do not think it is any editor's place to determine what he or she thinks readers care very much about. An editor is responsible for providing reliably sourced, verifiable facts without giving them undue weight. A Neutral Point of View is one of the most important foundations of Wikipedia, and your contention that you know what readers want to read and therefore you can cherry-pick which facts appear in the lead and frame those facts in such a way in order to present an unspoken commentary on the person in the article is flat-out wrong. In light of your own response, I respectfully urge you to reconsider your position. Thanks. --SimpleParadox 15:40, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

What readers care about is closely related to Wikipedia:Relevance. The reason that sentence is in the Governorship article is because her first trip off the continent was while she was Governor, presumably having something to do with her role as commander of the Alaska National Guard. If the sentence is going to be there, important details provided by the cited source should not be omitted. That would be cherry-picking to accomplish a ruse, which as you point out is contrary to WP foundations. I urge you to reconsider your position.--Appraiser (talk) 17:44, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

You ignore official Wikipedia policy and link a one sentence essay? You have yet to reconcile the inclusion of that sentence with actual Wikipedia policy. I would expect more from a Wikipedia Administrator. Also after reading your talk page and a certain response ("I'm sure some of the editors are either paid or unpaid staff on the McCain campaign...") you made to another user, I suggest you reread WP:AGF. Some introspection may be necessary as to why you feel that there are McCain staffers (specifically) on this page and not political staffers from both parties. Leave your biases at the door, please. --SimpleParadox 19:02, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Wow, Appraiser has on their talk page "Status: Taking a break from Sarah Palin. I cannot compete with staffers who's careers are on the line." Good thing being an wiki administrator isn't a career, otherwise that job would be on the line as well. Theosis4u (talk) 05:09, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Appraiser's biases were blatantly exposed by his/her own statements both on this page and his or her own talk page. I'm happy that the user disengaged after realizing that he/she could not remain neutral on this topic. --SimpleParadox 18:28, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the fact that this was (likely) her first trip outside of North America should be included, if a description of the trip is included, but I think that her overseas travel should not be a part of the intro. Qqqqqq (talk) 19:21, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. If there is a section on her dealings with the Alaskan National Guard it would be relevant to mention her visiting them. However, the fact that she obtained her first passport while a governor is neither first-class introduction material nor particularly relevant to her governorship. Information about her travel habits would be far more relevant in whatever article or section of an article discusses her foreign policy knowledge or experience. 155.212.30.130 (talk) 16:04, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Picture in infobox

The previous picture in the infobox was too dark, so I replaced it with the one that is currently on her main page. Cheers, --SimpleParadox 21:48, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

The bridge

Palin didn't support the bridge as an "as-is" blanket statement of approval. She supported a "link" for the residents of the islands. And that she would "evaluate" the details when it was appropriate. Palin said, "The money that’s been appropriated for the project, it should remain available for a link, an access process as we continue to evaluate the scope and just how best to just get this done," from Boston Herald I think that is notable considering the current description implies is did, when we know she didn't.

Also, the Alaska’s Department of Transportation is still considering alternative to the "ear marked" inflated proposal - pdf of alternatives. The main Alaska DOT site on it

Population numbers are only relevant and in context with the reasoning behind the bridge - or link as Palin puts it. For the bridge in Ketchikan you'll see we have a town of 8k that is landlocked. It's only accessible from sea and air. The airport is across the water from the city, on the Gravina Island. You'll notice this in the map. The [1]] map is useful for conjecture. You'll also see why the island was also desired for more development. Theosis4u (talk) 07:23, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Bridge to Wasilla?

Is there a reason the Knik Arm bridge is called a bridge to Wasilla in this article? The proposed bridge is across the mouth of the Knik Arm, much as the Golden Gate Bridge crosses the mouth of San Francisco Bay. Wasilla, Alaska is way the hell up on the north end of the Knik Arm, nowhere near the proposed bridge. Here is a map of the Knik arm and Wasilla. I'm thinking the references to Wasilla in regards to this bridge should be removed. Kelly ^hi! 13:26, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

There is a reason, Kelly, but we've signed the assume good faith pact. :) I agree with you that references to Wasilla should be removed. --SimpleParadox 15:48, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I didn't. Unless there's a good argument why this indirect benefit is so noteworthy as compared to all other indirect benefits that fail for inclusion it isn't justified. Then one needs to argue why "indirect" benefits or negative are necessary to increase the size of the article on Palin's page. Failing those, this inclusion has one purpose - to create an inference that Palin is trying to "help" her old home city. Theosis4u (talk) 05:22, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Aerial gunning of wolves/predator control

I think that it should be mentioned in the section on predator control that the people of Alaska have voted down this measure not once, but twice. Also, artificial trying to raise moose and caribou populations are proven to be a disaster to the ecosystem.

http://www.idausa.org/campaigns/wildlife/alaskan_wolf.html

That article tells a little of the vote down in the third paragraph. I am in the process of gathering more sources. I think it is important to note when the government does something against the wishes of the majority of it's people. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.45.201.72 (talk) 16:18, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

First of all, just two months ago Alaskans defeated the measure to restrict this program. So if you're concerned about the wishes of the people, that's the best indicator that Palin was right. Second, the two times the measure passed were in 1996 and 2000, and each time the program was suspended for two years as the measure had required. Once they expired there was no reason for the legislature not to reauthorise the program. Third the facts were in the article already, and I've just edited them to make them more accurate. -- Zsero (talk) 20:04, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

The wording in the bill was confusing (as governments who know what their people want, but want an opposite outcome are apt to make it) and sources show that the people want the gunning to stop. What sources, you say? If my damn school email would open, I would be happy to share. It is looking that may have to wait for a new day. However, gun groups wish for this practice to continue to raise moose population. It should be noted that killing predators only leads to problems in the prey populations. In Tennessee, for example deer have no natural predators, so they get hit by cars which causes thousands of dollars of damages, starve to death, and pass diseases easily amongst themselves. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.45.202.35 (talk) 16:00, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Resignation info needs to be better balanced & NPOV

I know this is a breaking story but the final paragraph makes it sound as if there is some sort of consensus among news commentators that not only is her motivation based on better positioning herself for a presidential bid in 2012 but that such reasoning is actually sound.

The pertinent portion reads: Palin has not yet announced reasons for leaving, but it has been speculated that the resignation is related to the upcoming 2012 United States presidential election. Many sources in media coverage claim that resigning may help Palin to clear a way for her seat as a Republican presidential nominee in 2012 and to brush up on the needed political experience that she lacked while running for vice president in 2008.

From my last reading of the news sites, there were far more media sources saying this move is political self destruction or simply inane and only a handful of Palin supporters were saying such an approach could be successful.

I really think the current language in the article, by omitting the overwhelming sentiment that Palin's resignation is a very negative and foolish thing for a politician to do, tends to weigh the article in a way that supports Palin's action. It definitely minimizes the considerable criticism Palin's resignation has generated among both conservative and liberal commentators.

Can an experienced editor please take a moment to do a more appropriate balancing act here?

Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.130.204.82 (talk) 02:06, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

I would be delighted to do so, that is, if you could please provide a source that says her action was "negative" and "foolish" as a statement of fact.Jarhed (talk) 19:07, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

The main article for the resignation is Resignation of Sarah Palin. Both this article and the Sarah Palin#Resignation article should summarize that article. Does it seem reasonable to use the same wording here as in the Sarah Palin article?

On July 3, 2009, Palin announced at a press conference that she would not run for reelection in the 2010 Alaska gubernatorial election and would resign before the end of July. Palin gave a speech offering reasons for her departure.[146] She argued that both she and the state have been expending an "insane" amount of time and money in order to address "frivolous" ethics complaints filed against her.[147][148][149] She also said that her decision not to seek reelection would make her a lame duck Governor.[149] Palin did not take questions at the press conference. A Palin aide was quoted as saying that Palin was, " no longer able to do the job she had been elected to do. Essentially, the taxpayers were paying for Sarah to go to work every day and defend herself."[150]

One small change would be to tighten the wording of the 2nd and 3rd sentences to "Palin cited among other reasons that both she and the state have ..." Sbowers3 (talk) 21:22, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

This page needs serious editing - a lot of biased reporting.

I'm sorry, but I found most of the content of this article as distorted. Overwhelmingly, critique made and any controversy appears quickly deflected and defended. There is no real debate of the other side and has Palin's comments stand as the final and verifiable word. This needs honest review. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.209.10.169 (talk) 16:42, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Possible reference for Alaska's Clear and Equitable Share

I removed the following reference from the Alaska Aces disambiguation page: TimBentley (talk) 21:22, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

http://gov.state.ak.us/omb/11_omb/budget/10-Year-Plan/Exec_Summary_10-Year-Plan_12-14-09.pdf

Article probation

This is a notification that articles related to Sarah Palin (broadly construed) have been placed by the community on article probation. See Talk:Sarah Palin/Article probation‎ for details. Thanks - Kelly ^hi! 17:34, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Now lifted.   Will Beback  talk  23:31, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Governorship of Sarah Palin. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080220051533/http://www.adn.com:80/opinion/story/238813.html to http://www.adn.com/opinion/story/238813.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 06:10, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 4 external links on Governorship of Sarah Palin. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080902055934/http://www.adn.com:80/front/story/442702.html to http://www.adn.com/front/story/442702.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090614114137/http://www.wildlifenews.alaska.gov/management/control/predator_booklet.pdf to http://www.wildlifenews.alaska.gov/management/control/predator_booklet.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080908142706/http://www.cnn.com:80/2007/US/09/22/alaska.bridge.ap/ to http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/09/22/alaska.bridge.ap/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080908070808/http://www.adn.com:80/sarahpalin/story/510378.html to http://www.adn.com/sarahpalin/story/510378.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 05:14, 24 February 2016 (UTC)