Talk:Sarah Palin/Archive 12

Archive 5

←

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Beluga POV Plagiarism

Maybe she didn't like the beluga bill, and maybe something else, and maybe you should just read the source which is quoted directly. 79.74.252.173 (talk) 23:06, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

You're missing the point I think, repeating Blog opinions on a BLP is against wiki guidelines. Even for an Admin. --98.243.129.181 (talk) 23:10, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

You were asked for specific instances of BLP violations. You singled out the sentence on beluga whales. That sentence is accurately referenced to an article in Time magazine. It is not "an opinion on a blog". Can you admit your mistake? 79.74.252.173 (talk) 23:40, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Allright.. Not only is the sentance "opposes strengthening protections for beluga whales in Alaska's Cook Inlet" POV (she may not oppose thier protection, she apparantly just opposed that particular legal move) but it is also direct plagerism from the editorial piece in TIME (thanks for pointing that out brother). On both accounts, I think it needs to be removed. --98.243.129.181 (talk) 23:53, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Sister, it's a direct quote from the source, which is a signed article not an editorial, and the sentence itself is in any case a summary of material in the "Political positions" page which provides a further reference to a State of Alaska document. (Not to be persnickety, but if you like editing can I suggest that you use a dictionary?) 79.74.252.173 (talk) 00:04, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

So.. how is that "direct quote" not plagerism? And how is it that the POV wording doesn't matter? --98.243.129.181 (talk) 00:19, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I also see your POV point on this statement. If someone further researched, I suspect you'd find she did not oppose protecting beluga whales but rather opposed a bill that included protecting beluga whales (and possibly many other things). It makes it even greater POV not to show why she opposed that, e.g. impact on shipping, project costs or whatever, and thus leads the reader to conclude she just hates beluga whales! That's the insidious POV that you'll find in articles with a dog in that hunt. Fcreid (talk) 01:31, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

OK, now find a WP:RS to back up what you suspect, and then there can be a basis for a discussion. T0mpr1c3 (talk) 01:55, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I promised myself I wouldn't. It's all the same crap in the end anyway. :) Fcreid (talk) 02:11, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Palin Urges Feds to not list as Endangered and the reasons are given within it. Governor Palin said. “Seven years ago, NMFS determined that these whales weren’t endangered, and since then, we’ve actually seen the beginnings of an increase in their population. We are all doing everything we can to help protect these important marine mammals.” And then later, "In addition, state scientists point out that, in 2000, NMFS ruled that listing the Cook Inlet belugas as endangered was not warranted because hunting was the only factor causing their decline, and hunting has since been effectively regulated through cooperative agreements with Alaska Native organizations." Seems like that halted the Alaskan Native from hunting them - you want to include that for context? By the way, that might fall under a foreign policy experience for Palin. Theosis4u (talk) 07:39, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, the document her office put out disputed the scientific basis for listing beluga whales as endangered (as for the polar bears). She also says in the same document that "I am especially concerned that an unnecessary federal listing and designation of critical habitat would do serious long-term damage to the vibrant economy of the Cook Inlet area". So clearly economic considerations played a role in determining her position. T0mpr1c3 (talk) 09:03, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I haven't seen any sources yet in regards to this "scientific basis" she was disputing. And the article is making an illusion of corrupt motives by saying "where oil and gas development has been proposed." without actually proving the corruption. There's more merits to include the fact the State worked out with the Alaskan Native to stop hunting the whales then there is about the oil & gas. Theosis4u (talk) 09:25, 5

September 2008 (UTC)

You can hardly let Palin take credit for policies put in place years before she became governor. T0mpr1c3 (talk) 11:04, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Let me clue you in then: [1]

"The Cook Inlet beluga whale, Delphinapterus leucas, is a genetically distinct and geographically isolated population whose numbers have plummeted since the 1980s, when National Marine Fisheries Service scientists estimated the Cook Inlet beluga population numbered about 1,300 whales.

The most recent surveys by the agency, now known as NOAA Fisheries Service, show the population is currently estimated at 375 animals, the largest number counted since 2001.

Infrastructure projects - including the proposed Knik Arm Bridge, the Port of Anchorage Expansion, the Chuitna coal strip mine, and the Port MacKenzie expansion - will directly affect some of the whale's most important habitat. Following a 2006 petition from the conservation groups, the agency proposed to list the Cook Inlet beluga as endangered in April 2007. By law the agency was required to finalize the listing rule no later than April 20, 2008.

Instead, on April 22, the agency, bowing to pressure from development interests and the State of Alaska, announced that due to a "substantial disagreement" in the science it would delay the decision by six months.

The federal Marine Mammal Commission has stated that the purported scientific disagreement is "not scientifically credible."

I'll source these quotes to the original documents and post the results here. T0mpr1c3 (talk) 09:57, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Disagree - if it matters. Your pushing an organizational conflict into a Bio, it doesn't have a place here in my imo. Your source makes accusations, it's not a scientific criticism of the NMFS request. I think all these recent sources are noteworthy for an article on the Beluga whale - not in a politicians bio. Having lived in Alaska before, it wouldn't matter what governor was in office on this issue. They would of supported NMFS request for the extension. Theosis4u (talk) 10:05, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Another source - NMFS -Final determination regarding petitioned action; 6-month extension. If you read this and the other one above from Palin's office that this is nothing more than a request for more time to investigate the actually population count of the whales before accepting or rejecting the status of the whale as endangered under the Endangered Species Act. It's inaccurate to say, "Palin opposes strengthening protections" at this time in a meaningful way without full context. Theosis4u (talk) 09:52, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

The full context would have to include the fact that the document you source is a self-serving declaration by a representative of the Fishing Industry. The bogus scientific dispute is a fig leaf for commercial interests. T0mpr1c3 (talk) 10:03, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I think you just proved my point - this whole topic has no rightful place in Palin's bio at this time. That might change down the road depending on what happens. Theosis4u (talk) 10:07, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

• Far from it. It is documented fact that Palin has attempted to block the listing of the Cook's inlet beluga whale as an endangered species. This information rightly belongs under the "Energy and Environment' section in her bio. T0mpr1c3 (talk) 11:04, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Objection "Governor Palin has asked NMFS to work with the state and other scientists to finalize and implement a conservation plan for the Cook Inlet stock of belugas. Adopting this plan will do more good for their long-term survival than an unwarranted listing of them as endangered, she said here. This sentence is pure POV and slanted. Why do you get to determine what is or isn't "strengthening protection"? I could say this about all politicians if I claim that a "strengthening protection" protection plan would involve setting up military units to kill everyone that comes within a 5 mile range of the whales. And again, the inclusion of "where oil and gas development has been proposed" is pure agenda driven. Theosis4u (talk) 15:23, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Funny how you seem to think that the only statements that are not POV are those coming directly from governor Sarah Palin's mouth. T0mpr1c3 (talk) 15:45, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that is my argument at all. Your including a POV as a definitive to motives of Palin. You can either include Palin's and NMFS's point of view and the parties that are "legally" fighting against them or you can dismiss all POV's altogether. I mentioned before, the topic itself is an interesting and it should be fully explored on a article of the whales - but NOT in a political bio of Palin. Theosis4u (talk) 16:32, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

College Career Needs Editing

Associated Press reports that SP attended five colleges in six years before being granted her degree in 1987: Hawaii Pacific University (fall 1982), North Idaho College (spring 1983 and fall 1983), University of Idaho (fall 1984 to spring 1985), Matanuska-Susitna College (fall 1985 to spring 1986), University of Idaho (spring 1986, fall 1986, and spring 1987). The article is locked but I thought I'd post the info here, if anyone would like to add this information when it is unlocked. The article can be found at: http://www.adn.com/palin/story/516085.html Kitchawan (talk) 00:01, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Here is what is in the article:

Palin attended Hawaii Pacific in Honolulu for a semester in 1982, majoring in Business Administration. She transferred in 1983 to North Idaho College.[10] In 1987,[11] Palin received a Bachelor of Science degree in communications-journalism from the University of Idaho, where she also minored in political science.[12][13]

. I think what we have now is fine. It doesn't need all of that detail.--Paul (talk) 00:03, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Please post here your proposed rewording for the applicable section. Kelly ^hi! 00:04, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

We can't leave incomplete info on there. We can either say them all, or say she went to several schools before settling on UIdaho. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 00:08, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I think it would be simply acceptable to state the school from which she recieved her degree - thoughts? Kelly ^hi! 00:11, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I went to 7 schools before getting my undergrad. I only put 2 in resumes. The one I started at and the one I graduated from. We don't need to be exhaustive. --98.243.129.181 (talk) 00:13, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

It's just one more, it should be added. (U Idaho stay was interrupted.) If it was seven, maybe not. Or it can stay the way it is, she might have just been saving a little money that one semester. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 00:24, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

We need to put them all in if it's verified. What we do in our own resumes of course is irrelevant, as is our speculation on why she attended so many schools. The list of schools is notable because it is unusual. Including only some of the schools does not make sense, and putting only the one she graduated from would be misleading and therefore could appear to be biased. So we should include them all, assuming this is verified fact. Here you go - may be able to pare down the refs, but we need to include all of the info:

Palin attended Hawaii Pacific in Honolulu for her first freshman semester in 1982, transferring in 1983 to North Idaho College for two semesters. In 1987, She then transferred in Fall 1984 to the University of Idaho for two semesters, returning to Matanuska-Susitna College in Alaska for the Fall 1985 semester. She returned to Idaho for her last three semesters and in 1987 received a Bachelor of Science degree in communications-journalism from the University of Idaho, with a minor in political science.

<- Ugh. Awkward as hell and too much detail. Better to leave it as her degree-issuing school, I think. Kelly ^hi! 01:53, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

• It would be misleading to mention only the school which granted the bachelors degree. Certainly there should be no speculation about why she changed schools so many times. If it said she received a bachelors degree from the University of Idaho after attending three other named schools starting in 1982, with the inline footnotes at the end of the sentence, that would be enough detail. The reader could check the refs if he wish to learn her entire academic history. For an example of how much detail about a Vice President's college studies is found in a mature and stable article, see Dick Cheney which says He attended Yale University, but, as he stated, "[he] flunked out."[7][8] Amongst the influential teachers from his days in New Haven was Professor H. Bradford Westerfield, whom Cheney repeatedly credited with having helped to shape his hard-line approach to foreign policy.[9] He later attended the University of Wyoming where he earned both a Bachelor of Arts and a Master of Arts in political science. He subsequently started, but did not finish, doctoral studies at the University of Wisconsin-Madison." Al Gore has quite a detailed section on his college education as well. The schools are stated, but not in the semester-by-semester detail proposed. Edison (talk) 02:22, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
• Yeah, either leave it as is, or just add, "a one semester stint at Matanuska-Susitna College" somewhere. Which semesters were spent where isn't important. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 02:26, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree; there is no speculation about why she transferred, only fact that she did, which cannot be denied and is certainly not POV by any means. I agree with the suggested rewrite.Kitchawan (talk) 04:02, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

{outdent] No, Kelly, that won't do it, as has been said by several people. I was trying to keep to the structure that was already there, but how about this rewrite. Note that there is no confirmation in the sources that she minored in political science - and no indication of how much she studied it or where - that has to go unless we find more information, as including it smacks of POV. And there were way too many sources that add no additional information. So try this:

Palin spent her first college semester at Hawaii Pacific College, transferring in 1983 to North Idaho College and then to the University of Idaho. She attended Matanuska-Susitna College in Alaska for one term, returning to the University of Idaho to complete her Bachelor of Science degree in communications-journalism, graduating in 1987.

Tvoz/talk 04:48, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually, that's concise and readable. Me likey. :) Kelly ^hi! 05:34, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Looks good. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 06:05, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

An improvement, to be sure. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 06:49, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

{{edit protected}} YAY - will a kindly admin please replace the entire 4th paragraph about her education in "Early life" with this paragraph (refs and wikilinks as in the edit screen):

Palin spent her first college semester at Hawaii Pacific College, transferring in 1983 to North Idaho College and then to the University of Idaho. She attended Matanuska-Susitna College in Alaska for one term, returning to the University of Idaho to complete her Bachelor of Science degree in communications-journalism, graduating in 1987.

Thanks. Tvoz/talk 07:19, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Done. Cenarium ^Talk 02:29, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Convention speech

It's almost a day later and the reaction to her speech has been covered by a number of sources. I think it's time to begin working out a paragraph or so to cover it here.

BTW, if you do a Google search on "speech", one of the suggested searches is "Palin speech", so people are interested. A.J.A. (talk) 01:06, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I fully agree. Maybe we can start with this Associated Press article as a base.[2] zredsox (talk) 01:20, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

What a partisan hack job!--Paul (talk) 01:32, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, not surprising that would be his pick. A.J.A. (talk) 01:36, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I assume that was a slight? Thanks. I appreciate your civility.zredsox (talk) 01:42, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

That speech was the partisan hack job. The AP article separates fact from fiction. I figured I'd help work toward balance by jumping out in front with a link to a solid WP:RS so it would be clear what type of affronts to a fluff section on the speech would be brought to bear. zredsox (talk) 01:44, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

For comparison, here's what is in the Obama article

On August 28, Obama accepted the nomination in a speech that received praise from many media commentators and political analysts.[104] The speech, delivered in front of 84,000 supporters in Invesco Field, contained pointed criticism of McCain and President Bush and added details to his stances that were not mentioned in previous campaign speeches.[105][106] The speech set a record as the most-watched convention speech in history, seen by more U.S. viewers than was the Beijing Olympics opening ceremony.[107]

Sarah is in 2nd place in the Nielsen speech sweepstakes:

CHICAGO (MarketWatch) -- Wednesday night's acceptance speech by Republican Vice-Presidential nominee Gov. Sarah Palin drew more than 37.2 million combined viewers on six networks, just short of Barack Obama's 38.3 million viewers last week at the Democratic National Convention, according to Nielsen Media Research.

However, I'm not sure we need a paragraph about the speech.--Paul (talk) 01:28, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Like Obama, a reaction should say more than just how many people saw it, of course. Dragons flight (talk) 01:34, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I wonder if the Obama article has anything about his speechwriter. A.J.A. (talk) 01:38, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

See above -- Need breakout page for "Speeches and Public Appearances of Sarah Palin".Bracton (talk) 01:50, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't think I agree with your proposed structure. It seems more natural to cover her speeches and debates under the campaigns they happened in. A.J.A. (talk) 01:56, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Mentioning them, perhaps, but quotes of entire speeches overload a main article, and it is marginally POV to summarize things like speeches, when we have the speeches themselves.Bracton (talk) 02:07, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Hey everyone, Wikipedia says Associated Press is a reliable source, so its a reliable source on anything. Yes most journalists in United States like almost all support Obama and you can't help having a slant when it is like that. But Wikipedia is not about being fair or right it is about being reliable, verifiable. On a topic like Obama or Palin where the media has a big slant it is going to have that slant to, deal with it. Don't like it? become a journalist. RetroS1mone talk 02:13, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Except Wikipedia has a policy called NPOV that doesn't allow "slanting" you seem to advocate here. Hobartimus (talk) 03:12, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

RetroS1more can restate the point, but allow me to offer that the Associated Press, Reuters, and other reliable source bring a POV of their own to their news reporting. We don't have to accept the slant the AP and call it the neutral point of view. An summary analysis of the Palin speech would include pro- and anti- Palin points. patsw (talk) 12:40, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't really want to see very much on this in the article, it's too newsy. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 02:21, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

A speech heard live by 37.2 million people given by the first GOP VP nom. is certainly of historical and therefore encyclopedic significance. patsw (talk) 12:40, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Better would be a list of some sort of recent noteworthy appearances, with footnoted links to objective news coverage, for those who are interested. Each appearance can have a single sentence description.Pianomikey0 (talk) 04:02, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Make sure to include the name of the guy who actually wrote the speech. According to this [3] it was a GOP writer named Matt Scully. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 06:17, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Baseball Bugs, somehow I didn't see your comment in Talk:Barack Obama urging that the names of his speechwriting team be included in the article. The USA Today account simply states Scully wrote the speech. Baseball Bugs adds two sneers: "wrote" becomes "actually wrote" and "Matt Scully" becomes "named Matt Scully". For a different (and balanced) account see TIME here http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1838808,00.html which discusses how "Horror! Palin used a speechwriter" was the talking point de jour of the Obama campaign yesterday. The use of speechwriters is routine and in an NPOV does not need to be commented upon. patsw (talk) 13:13, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm not bothering to compare this section to those in other articles, either well-written or poorly-written. I'm just concerned with this article and wonder what substantiation there is for the statement "the speech was well-received by the crowd and media analysts"? Neither of the references corroborate that media anaylsts in general were receptive to the speech. The consensus from the many reviews I've read boils down a speech focused mainly on attacking the opposition, that was well-delivered. I request that the opinionated "and media analysts" be stricken from the sentence. 216.170.33.149 (talk) 18:04, 5 September 2008 (UTC) Paul

Clarity About early "firings" in Wasilla

It seems like some sources are leaving out the details of this situation, I'll admit it's confusing to track down. In Wasilla keeps librarian, but police chief is out it says this, 'The mayor told them she appreciated their service but felt it was time for a change. I do not feel I have your full support in my efforts to govern the city of Wasilla. Therefore I intend to terminate your employment ... the letter said.'. Notice the word "intend" with this letter she sent out. There was meetings Palin and the others had about "working out their issues"... in the end, only one person was fired, Police Chief Irl Stambaugh. I think another person resigned. The current wiki article states, "She rescinded the firing of the librarian...". To rescind, she would of had fired her (librarian) in the first place. Theosis4u (talk) 03:46, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Posted today, the Anchorage Daily News has a much fuller story about the librarian episode at http://www.adn.com/sarah-palin/story/515512.html Kitchawan (talk) 04:07, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

She also notified them of the day they were supposed to stop working -- February 13th, 1997 -- two weeks after she served them the notice. That's a two-week notice to pack up and leave, and traditionally, that's how you fire someone. You don't walk into their office and tell them to leave their desk that instant. You give them notice, and notice of being fired always predates the person physically leaving the job. Palin simply retracted the termination before the date at which Emmons was supposed to leave. That seems like a firing to me. But if the language is more agreeable, we could call it a notice of termination.Like.liberation 17:38, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

"a letter of notification with an intent to terminate" That sounds like the most accurate way to describe it. We could go farther if we had a FULL copy of the letter, but we only have the little bit that was referenced by the police chief. Who knows, the parts after the intent could of gone on to say that she would like to discuss the matters with the people and so forth. Theosis4u (talk) 18:39, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Total Viewers Of Palin Speech - Beats Obama?

Palin Ratings [http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2008/09/04/mccain-speech.html Towards the end. I'm having a hard time finding a apples to apples comparison. Would it be notable if she did beat Obama's total viewers numbers? Theosis4u (talk) 04:14, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

What I heard, she was like 37 million to his 38 million, but she was on four fewer networks, making her number more impressive. Still worth noting.--King Bedford I ^{Seek his grace} 04:16, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Worth noting, but I'd prefer it be part of a somewhat meater "response to her speech" paragraph. There is a thread proposing that somewhere around here. Dragons flight (talk) 04:20, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

The article says PBS reported an extra 4 million which would take Palin to 41.2 million total viewers. Hobartimus (talk) 04:21, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

This should be noted in the article on the campaign, if at all, I think. I really also must say that curiosity about a new person could have helped her TV ratings, Obama has been in the public eye for years. Steve Dufour (talk) 04:22, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

The other side of the "curiosity" coin is that it could of been larger if people did know her for 18 months? Either way, it's cool to watch these two historical situations happen before our eyes within a week of each other. Theosis4u (talk) 04:26, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes. Politics has been kind of boring lately, before this year that is.  :-) Steve Dufour (talk) 04:28, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

In all fairness Palin shouldn't be compared to Obama who had the main slot at the convention, she should be compared to Biden the other VP pick, who had 24 million viewers. Hobartimus (talk) 04:26, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I think you need to compare Palin to Obama, star to star. :-) Steve Dufour (talk) 04:30, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

All that proves is that no one wants to listen to old, white guys. ;-) Of course if that really is the case, maybe her ratings will beat McCain's. It will be interesting where he falls in comparison to Obama and Palin. Dragons flight (talk) 04:32, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I certainly find her more interesting McCain... hell I've already fought with my wife about that issue. I'd call it noteworthy =D

Somebody else has to make this Obama (or McCain) comparison for us to use it in any article, we can't really do it as editors. 86.44.27.255 (talk) 04:43, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm not sure what your asking for here? Theosis4u (talk) 05:06, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, were we to find reliable figures for both, and put them side by side in an article, that would probably be what people around here call "Synthesis of published material which advances a position". Whereas if we find a reliable source doing the same thing, it's good to go if editors think it important enough. 86.44.27.255 (talk) 05:14, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Her ratings also could have been helped by the large number of WP editors doing research for this article. :-) Steve Dufour (talk) 05:15, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

And by the curious, to see how well she could read someone else's speech. Obama is a known quantity. She was unknown to the general public. And with that over with, she'll probably disappear again. This is about Obama and McCain, lest y'all forget. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 07:12, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Let's reign it in. There is not really any encyclopedic reason to compare Palin viewers to Obama viewers because the variables were so different. Different event, different days of week, different competing shows on other channels/networks, different curiosity issue, different office, different party. In other words, it's apples and oranges. I would leave out any comparison altogether. --Crunch (talk) 07:52, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Um. Same day of the week. I no know my days of the week. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 07:54, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Her speech's TV ratings vs. Obama's is of no relevance whatsoever. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 08:00, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Sean Hannity did make note of the fact that Palin had almost the same number of viewers as Obama, and she was only the VP pick and had fewer networks with her speech, but he may be a little partisan in favor of Palin.--King Bedford I ^{Seek his grace} 08:02, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Ya think? The report I just saw on TV indeed said Obama's acceptance speech was 38 million and hers was 37 million. It's still irrelevant. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 08:40, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Ratings don't imply anything beyond curiosity. For example, Johnny Carson often had important political figures on his show, but his highest rated show for many years was Tiny Tim marrying Miss Vicky. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 09:02, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I'll admit I watched, and I'm usually loathe to do so. No matter how this goes, you've got to be amazed that we have a woman and a black man in our presidential race. What a country! Fcreid (talk) 10:24, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Summary : Palin Numbers and Obama Numbers . Obama's numbers still appear to be higher, but only because 4 other networks aired Obama's speech which Nielson's tracked. I think some people are reporting the Palin PBS numbers on top of the Neilson ones unfairly against the Obama Neilson numbers. Addition of PBS numbers puts both of them over 40 million.

Total Viewers Of 2008 Convention Speech From 6 Primary Networks

Person	NBC	ABC	CBS	FNC	CNN	MSNBC	Totals (In Millions)
Obama	6.1	6.6	4.7	4.2	8.1	4.1	33.8
Palin	7.7	5.9	4.9	9.2	6.2	3.4	37.3

Nielson's also collected numbers from BET, TV One, Univision, and Telemundo. These networks didn't air the Palin speech. Neilson's total numbers reported for both candidates with all airing networks that they tracked was: Obama at 38.379 and Palin at 37.244 [in millions]. It has also been reported that Obama had about 4.0 and Palin with 3.9 [in millions] viewers from PBS. PBS didn't participate in the Neilson study - nor does C-SPAN (numbers unknown). Theosis4u (talk) 15:50, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

If an anon can make a comment: How is this pertinent to the main article? Other than interesting chat on the "Discussion" page, I don't see how you would expect to draw any meaningful conclusion from these numbers. There are far too many factors involved to derive anything of value out of this. If this gets included as a section in the article are you going to delve into why the difference in viewership on all-but-one network is 25% or less, yet on FNC, 220% more of their viewers watched the Palin speech and not the Obama? Let's get into the psychology of the viewers of different networks, debate their openness to opposing views, discuss how much curiosity each side displays in hearing what the other side has to say, eh? (Not!) Thank you for your time. 216.170.33.149 (talk) 16:41, 5 September 2008 (UTC) Paul

If it was deemed worthy for inclusion, like on Obama's page. It could be written as, "On September 3, 2008, Palin delivered a 40 minute acceptance speech at the Republican National Convention that was well-received by the crowd and by media analysts. The speech set a record as the most-watched [U.S viewers] convention speech in history by a women. It would also be the most watched convention speech in history if compared only against the tv channels that view both Obama's speech and Palin's. [As collected by Nielsen Media Research]" Then include the two sources above. Theosis4u (talk) 16:50, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Nothing one-sided about your interpretation! "well-received... by media analysts"? Good luck getting that in there! 216.170.33.149 (talk) 17:00, 5 September 2008 (UTC) Paul

That's in there now. I just added sentences onto the existing section of the article to show placement. I believe there was a talking point on that issue earlier, wasn't involved though. Theosis4u (talk) 17:14, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

One thing that I'm seeing above frequently repeated is that Obama was carried on 4 more Neilsen networks than Palin and conflating that to mean that if you did a one to one comparison of only the networks the two speeches shared that Palin actually had more viewers than Obama. While based purely on numbers this is true, the problem is, it also comes with the assumption that the viewers on the 4 extra stations that Obama was on would not have viewed his speech on one of the other stations. There's literally no way that we can make that assumption. While it is more likely that the viewers on the other 4 networks would have viewed Obama's speech on another network than not, we have no way of knowing how many of them would or would not have watched it on a different channel. The only thing that can be said is that according to Neilsen Obama's speech was viewed by 38.3 million and Palin's was viewed by 37.2 million... --Bobblehead ^(rants) 17:31, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, it's hard to come up with any apple to apple comparison. I don't believe there's even a weak argument to suggest though that the missing 4 channel viewers would of watched it on one of the other 6 though. Spanish language viewers are from - Univision, and Telemundo. Theosis4u (talk) 18:03, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

You're right, it does state that palin's speech "was well-received by the crowd and media analysts"! I request that be edited to remove "and media analysts" as that is a judgement call and not corroborated by either of the attached references. The overall concensus of the many reviews that I've read would boil down to the speech was "well-delivered, and mean-spirited". Someone stating is was well-received by the media in general is a fabrication. 216.170.33.149 (talk) 17:48, 5 September 2008 (UTC) Paul

All mute now because McCain draws record 38.9 mln viewers, bests Obama Theosis4u (talk) 18:58, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Eldest son's middle name

According to the Anchorage Daily News's 2007 high-school graduation announcements, her eldest son is Track CJ Palin (no periods between C and J). See http://dwb.adn.com/life/hometown/graduations_07/story/8931787p-8831967c.html and look under Wasilla High School students. Kitchawan (talk) 04:35, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

CJ? What kind of a name is that? Track, I could see. But CJ??? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 06:18, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

A middle one (badum boom). Its a middle name, who cares? :P Unless it was like Hussein or something! Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 06:33, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Sure, as in King Hussein, an ally of ours, in case you've forgotten. Or Nasser Hussein, a world-class cricket player. At least it's not "Danforth". Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 07:08, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Danforth is a mighty name, like Davron or Spencer. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 07:49, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

It's mentioned in the Bible: "Go, Danforth, and do likewise." Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 08:58, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Support for Obama

On August 4, 2008 Palin issued a press release indicating her support for Barack Obama's energy policy, but it has since been deleted from her website. However an archived version can be found at http://versionista.com/diff/JJ2w@!EyRIzwBhWF7@qt6Q/?showscript 71.95.17.217 (talk) 05:53, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

What's your point? Kelly ^hi! 06:41, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Did any news orgs notice? If so, please provide links to them. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 06:45, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it was noticed. A few links from a quick check, not trying to be comprehensive: msnbc.om [4], Real Clear Politics [5], and Politico [6]. Although the campaign website was indeed scrubbed, the press release is still available in the "Press Archive" section of the Alaska governor's website: [7]. JamesMLane t c 12:10, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that Obama and McCain's energy policies aren't terribly different, McCain's simply adds more alternatives. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 12:12, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Minor change requested

{{editprotected}} "Palin served two terms on the Wasilla, Alaska, city council from 1992 to 1996, then won two terms as mayor of Wasilla from 1996 to 2002." The comma after Wasilla, Alaska does not belong. Thanks, Enigma ^message 07:14, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

 Done - Kevin (talk) 07:18, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Since when? Wasilla city council. Wasilla, Alaska, city council. Not Wasilla, Alaska city council. Alaska does not have a city council. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 08:28, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

What about "...on the Wasilla (Alaska) city council..."? Reads a little smoother to me. Kevin (talk) 08:55, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Proper English writing, last I heard, would be, "...served on the Wasilla, Alaska, city council..." Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 09:05, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Units

{{tl:editprotected}} "5K and 10K" should be in lowercase, or even better read "5 km and 10 km". --Slashme (talk) 07:28, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

• Done, though I think "5K" and '10K" are standard terms for those races. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 07:33, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
  • 5K and 10K are common usage. I've never heard anyone say "5 km" race. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 07:37, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

There is a difference between spoken and written English. You might not say "5 km" but you can still write it like that. Anyway, whether you write "k" or "km", the k is definitely lowercase, as it's a contraction for km, which is lowercase. --Slashme (talk) 07:52, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

• It's called a 5K race or a 10K race. It is not wikipedia's place to try to re-invent how people use terminology. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 08:38, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Wolf hunting

I'd like to wikilink wolf hunting. I could edit through protection, but given the, ahem, high-profile stuff about recent admin actions here, I thought I should double-check that typos, minor copyediting and grammer fixes and wikilinking and markup corrections can be done without talk page consensus? Am I right to say that? Carcharoth (talk) 07:31, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Seems to be a nonissue. You have my seal o approval! :P Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 07:34, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Go for it. Kelly ^hi! 07:35, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

That would be for those readers who don't know what a wolf is nor what hunting is? Well, it seems harmless enough. Go ahead. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 07:36, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Edit made here. I wikilinked Alaska Department of Fish and Game (a short stub), wolf hunting [Bugs, you might want to read that article to see the history and the controversy surrounding wolf hunting - or maybe see Elmer Fudd? :-)], and Cook Inlet (rather a nice article, actually). We don't seem to have articles on the Alaska Natural Gas Development Authority or the Alaska Gasline Inducement Act, though we probably should. If anyone notices these turning blue, or writes a stub, please link from this article as well. Carcharoth (talk) 07:48, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Object. The wolf hunting wiki article references old source data in regards to Alaska. Also, "wolf hunting" should be removed under the context of Governor Responds to the Protect America's Wildlife Act. Alaska's argument was it wasn't "hunting" or “aerial hunting”. It sole purpose was for game management. It is different than going to apply for a license every year to hunting a whitetail deer. Theosis4u (talk) 07:52, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Other sources in regards to "Management"

• The Wolf in Alaska
• Management & Harvest Reports

Theosis4u (talk) 07:56, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Ah. I did look around for a predator control article, but hadn't realised that wolf hunting might be a controversial link. Will remove it until talk page discussion concludes here. Actually, on second thoughts, the text is the problem, rather than the linking. So will leave as is, and urge any passing admins to implement any changes requested here in the wording (not just the linking) of the article. I have to leave now, unfortunately. Please use {{editprotected}} if you need to ask for an edit. Again apologies about that. Someone could also link Gravina Island and Ketchikan, Alaska if that is not overlinking. Carcharoth (talk) 08:04, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

This issue might of been struggling to get on Palin's bio page for the last couple of days because of this - The measure went down to defeat Aug. 26, 2008 . Let the dust settle? Theosis4u (talk) 08:05, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

OK, I've reverted that addition I made. Carcharoth (talk) 08:10, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Track Palin's name

Did she really name her kid after the Track and Field season, as is claimed at http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/us_elections/article4669290.ece ? --Slashme (talk) 07:57, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Possibly. I have a friend who named her kid after Sailor Moon characters. Mothers are crazy people. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 08:02, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

There's the Phoenix family and the Zappa family for other odd namings. And I once read that Ron Howard said his kids' middle names came from the hotels they were conceived at. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 08:09, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Track is in the Army now, he's not behind the plow... and it would be ironic if he ended up driving a half-track. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 08:20, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Palins Speaking in Tongues at Wasilla Assembly of God

Her former church, Wasilla Assembly of God practices speaking in tongues.

Does anyone have know any links to videotapes of Palin or her pastor [speaking in toungues]? Does anyone know if she were to be vice president, white house services would have speaking in tongues? Does her new church, Wasilla Bible Church, also have speaking in toungues? The article for Wasilla Bible Church was deleted and directed here, and all of the information on it is no longer available. A videotape of Palins should go on the Palins page, while one of others in the church should go on that church's page, which is an argument to un Delete that page. EricDiesel (talk) 08:46, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

How is the normal religious observances of her church related to the notability of this person? Other than a veiled attempt to bash her for being religious, I don't see any reason this material would be encyclopedic. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 08:52, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Strictly prejudicial, does not belong. And keep in mind that Bush often speaks in tongues, without the help of any church. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 08:53, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Aren't religious beliefs normally a part of biographic information? If verifiable, seems like something that should be there. Why would it be prejudicial? Some people may have trouble with it but others may not.--Rtphokie (talk) 11:58, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Have we got even a single solitary bad source that even alludes to the Palins doing this? Once we have several good sources that say they did it and specifically that she did tongues, it's something we can look at. But this would be like saying "Sarah Palin speaks in tongues, because, you know, thats what Christians do." rootology (C)(T) 12:05, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

This keeps getting better and better. Maybe it should read "The Tongues Speaking - Snake Handling Sarah Palin" WTF !!! Scary Stuff. 72.91.113.17 (talk) 12:26, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I can assure you stupid crap like that even if it somehow sneaks in is going to be pulled really quick. rootology (C)(T) 12:30, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

You don't write for National Enquirer, do you? :) 12:31, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

::::I struck my own inquiry, since as I am NOT suggesting that if she speaks in tongues should be on her article. I was actually just curious, since cable news reported her church's [speaking in toungues]], and I have never heard it. There is no Wikipedia related video. Obama's black church initially looks pretty kooky, but if you have ever gone to one, your atheism would be challenged by your getting the spirit forcibly put into your body by the amazing drumming and singing. Speaking in toungues might be similarly interesting, especially if it is an exotic remote Alaskan version that includes the singing. There must be a reason why Palins chose to go to such a church.EricDiesel (talk) 22:29, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

You can actually delete this whole section if it's not about the article. This would be per the "not a forum rule" --98.243.129.181 (talk) 23:57, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I can't strike my comment at the very top without everyone's comment going. If anyone knows what is wrong, you can strike it for meEricDiesel (talk) 22:29, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Done. 86.44.27.255 (talk) 23:55, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Interwiki request

Resolved

 – the wub "?!" 10:20, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Please add a link to the article et:Sarah Palin. Andres (talk) 10:16, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Wasilla Bible Church, Larry Kroon, Wasilla Assembly of God, Ed Kalnins Redirect

Wasilla Bible Church, Larry Kroon, and Ed Kalnins links should NOT be sent to the Sarah Palin article. This is grossly unfair for Palin, since it is not established that Palin was present for every controversial remark of Kalnins that is quoted in the the media, and since the church is associated with the controversial David Brickner, and all Palin did was attend a speech of his. Wasilla Bible Church, Larry Kroon, and Ed Kalnins should have their own articles, where information in the media unrelated to Palin can be written and sourced, and links to the Palin article can be put only where they are relevent. Wasilla Assembly of God is up for Delete and redirect here, but it should have its own article by the same reasoning.

(A third Palin pastor is Riley, who is more often quoted in the media, but he only appears in the media talking about Palin, so he does not merit his own article simply by being Palin's pastor.)EricDiesel (talk) 10:54, 5 September 2008 (UTC) EricDiesel (talk) 10:46, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Refactored BLP violation away. Will be warning Eric. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 10:51, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Since I created the redirects, it would be nice if the discussion would stay here rather on the individual pages to keep the discussion centralized. I created the redirects per a request on my talk page, but they can stand to be pointed elsewhere. I'll be away for the weekend, so if any admin wants to take it up, you have my blessing. seicer | talk | contribs 11:26, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

If the church ones aren't notable, send them to the Wasila page. If they're notable, the Kroon and Kalnins can go to the churchs. If the Kroon and Kalnin AND the churchs arent notable, nuke the Kroon and Kalnin. Not one of those should go to Sarah Palin. rootology (C)(T) 12:07, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Education

2 schools are missing from the list of colleges/universities that Palin attended before receiving her bachelor's degree from University of Idaho in 1987. An AP story that came out last night and is in most US papers this morning adds Matanuska-Susitna College in Palmer, AK. A biography of Palin "Sarah: How a Hockey Mom Turned Alaska's Political Establishment Upside Down" by Kaylene Johnson also add University of Hawaii at Hilo to the list of schools Palin attended. Any objections to adding this information to the paragraph on her education? --Rtphokie (talk) 11:56, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

This was discussed above. Kelly ^hi! 13:15, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Which section? I'm not seeing it. I'm seeing another section below this one but nothing above.--Rtphokie (talk) 14:36, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

{OUTDENT} What happened here? We reached consensus last night on this and I left an edit request here: now I see the edit was not made and I can't find the section in the archives where we discussed it - this was at 7:19 AM UTC today - it is now 20:47 UTC - just 13 hours later. I don't know why this section was removed, why the edit was not made, or where the discussion was put - maybe it is a mistake but there may be other things that have been agreed on that have been lost as well. If I'm missing it in the archive which is certainly possible, please tell me, but I think we need some assistance on this page to get things straightened out. Tvoz/talk 20:49, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I found the missing material - it had not been archived, but was just deleted, perhaps by mistake. I reinstated the sections here and aked for the edit again. Tvoz/talk 21:22, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Trivial edit, image alignment

{{editprotected}} Can someone just shift this image, first in this section to standard right alignment? Lead images in sections, especially tall ones, just look funky and not so good. Probably super-trivial. rootology (C)(T) 12:15, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

No, because the images are meant to alternate between left and right per the MOS. It should be "upright" though, which will shrink it which I will do now. Woody (talk) 12:39, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I believe the intent of the left alignment is that the first image is on the right, and the second on the left, and then the third (in Iraq) is on the right again. The images alternate, which is consistent with the MOS. I'd actually want to reverse the first and second images in that section (Governor of Alaska), since the top image looks to the right, and the second image looks to the left; in theory, they're supposed to face the text. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 12:42, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Ultra's way to fix it is better, yeah. Can we do that? rootology (C)(T) 12:59, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Currently, the Lead image is on the right, then the next on the left, etc as it should be. Preferably, images of people should have the subject looking inward, but it is not always possible. Currently, the only one not alternating is the 2008 VP campaign one, which should switch to left alignment. Woody (talk) 13:20, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I meant to switch the first image in that section for the second, rather than switching alignments. There's enough separation between this section (Governor) and the VP section that I think we can leave it alone for the moment, or maybe we can find a free image to use in the intervening section? UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 14:03, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Done now. Woody (talk) 14:24, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Inaccurate Description of "Bridge to Nowhere

The bridge had been cancelled before she had gotten to office. See references from the Wiki page on the Gravina Island Bridge, which state the bridge as having already been removed as of Sept 21, 2005, before Palin took office. The funds were not cancelled, and Palin was the person to actually allocate them to other projects. The way this is written as/is sounds as if Palin cancelled the bridges, when infact they had already been cancelled, and just needed to have the funds utilized. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.169.195.238 (talk) 12:55, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Factcheck has a bunch more details on this, including cites. It does appear that she was supporting it until there was no point in doing so and it became more politically expedient to be against it. But then she kept the money allocated to this project and redirected it to other transportation projects. --Kickstart70-T-C 14:36, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

When running for governor, she supported funding the bridge until it got out into the national scene as something unpopular. Now she is against it.

Political positions - broken link for reference

The link for the following reference appears to be broken: <ref name="eagle-forum-questionnaire">{{cite web | url=http://eagleforumalaska.blogspot.com/2006/07/2006-gubernatorial-candidate.html | publisher=[[Eagle Forum|Eagle Forum Alaska]] | title=2006 Gubernatorial Candidate Questionnaire | date=July 31, 2006 | accessdate=2008-09-01}}</ref> Pingku (talk) 13:20, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

1. Where is that in the article? (Reference # & text section)
2. What is the correct link?
3. Separately from the minor issue of fixing this, do the editors think any version of that link should be used; I note the "blogspot" in the url... GRBerry 13:55, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

1. It's in 'Political positions'. Second paragraph, sentence "She backs abstinence-only education and is against "explicit sex-ed programs" in schools." Currently ref #106 - it is the third of three references for that same claim. Without seeing the link I don't know what it adds to the other two, neither of which is a primary source.
2. My on-site search on the title ("2006 Gubernatorial Candidate Questionnaire") couldn't find a match.
3. On consideration, I'd like to draw editors' attention to the fact that the justification for the claim is an answer to a question in a questionnaire. (The questionnaire was sponsored by Eagle Forum: hence, apparently, the relevance of the original url.) To the question "Will you support funding for abstinence-until-marriage education instead of for explicit sex-education programs, school-based clinics, and the distribution of contraceptives in schools?", Palin replied "Yes, the explicit sex-ed programs will not find my support." The political position should perhaps be put into context as pertaining to the gubernatorial contest, and a definitive reference would be a complete text of the questionnaire and responses. Pingku (talk) 15:17, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Sigh, I'd thought this was going to be an easy and non-controversial correction of some silly typo. You are right that the primary source url is not working at all. They internet archive/wayback machine only has versions of that site from June 30 2007 and earlier. I'd suggest we remove that link completely at this point; the MSM sources are adequate for the sentence; heck even the MSNBC source by itself is adequate. GRBerry 16:43, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Agree. Pingku (talk) 17:47, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, no fact needs 3 references - esp if one of them is dead. --ThaddeusB (talk) 17:59, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

 Done I left both main stream media sources in. GRBerry 18:06, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Gov. Sarah Palin's National Security Credentials

I just picked up some little known info on Palin's National Security Credentials. Some have shrugged off her position as Commander of the Alaskan National Guard but see this:" Alaska is the first line of defense in our missile interceptor defense system.

The 49th Missile Defense Battalion of the Alaska National Guard is the unit that protects the entire nation from ballistic missile attacks. It's on permanent active duty, unlike other Guard units.

As governor of Alaska , Palin is briefed on highly classified military issues, homeland security, and counterterrorism. Her exposure to classified material may rival even Biden's.

She's also the commander in chief of the Alaska State Defense Force (ASDF), a federally recognized militia incorporated into Homeland Security's counterterrorism plans.

Palin is privy to military and intelligence secrets that are vital to the entire country's defense. Given Alaska 's proximity to Russia , she may have security clearances we don't even know about.

According to the Washington Post, she first met with McCain in February, but nobody ever found out. This is a woman used to keeping secrets.

She can be entrusted with our national security, because she already is."

Terry Cochran USN Vietnam Veteran

Sounds like an op-ed piece. Kelly ^hi! 13:28, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Terry, please separate "credentials" from "Republican talking points". -- Yekrats (talk) 14:18, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

"I just picked up some little known info" is not a basis for including claims in Wikipedia. There have been cited on this page wire service stories quoting a National Guard general and the adjutant of the Alsska Nation Guard to the effect that a state governor has no real role in the national defense activities of the state's national guard, but has the authority to call it out for flood's forest fires, and other such emergencies. Is there reliable sourcing for the occasions when she called out the Alaska National Guard? For riots? For blizzards? Edison (talk) 14:25, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

"Palin hasn't ordered Alaska National Guard to do anything". From McClatchy/Kansas City Star. The idea that the Governor of Alaska plays a meaningful executive role in the nation's missile defense certainly requires a source. MastCell ^Talk 16:41, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Education history

The following is accurate, not what is in the article:

Palin attended one semester at Hawaii Pacific University, then transferred to North Idaho College where she attended for two semesters. From there she transferred to the University of Idaho, then transferred to Matanuska-Susitna College, and then transferred back the University of Idaho where she graduated with a bachelor's degree in broadcast news journalism.

Booksnmore4you (talk) 14:19, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Technically, her semester at Mat-Su College wasn't really a transfer: it's a DK talking point claming she "changed colleges 6 times in 6 years" to try to paint her as unstable. She went with a group of Wasilla High students to college in Hawai'i, didn't like it; and then went to her birthplace area of Sandpoint, Idaho to the community college, and then transferred to UIdaho. Her semester at Mat-Su was what most of us would call "a semester off, take a class at home"... I'm not sure how UIdaho counts a two colleges: this must be the logic that counts Grover Cleveland as two presidents. (Forgot to login, Sturmde

Great, another POV-pushing meme. I really wish people would understand that stuff published by the Daily Kos is libelous trash. Kelly ^hi! 14:55, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Technically, this is probably published at DKos, not by them. Homunq (talk) 16:19, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Kelly, you should've some of the libelous trash that's been posted at DKos about such poor maligned innocents as Scooter Libby, Duke Cunningham, Larry Craig, Bob Ney.... My point is that a DKos posting isn't generally a source we'd cite, but the presence of an argument on DKos doesn't disprove it, either. JamesMLane t c 17:31, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Meh, they were the ones who were publishing the Trig Trutherism bullcrap that gave us no end of headaches here, and Moulitsas defended that in the press. I used to regard that site with some respect, but something has transformed them a source for gutter-licking trash. It's sad. Kelly ^hi! 17:58, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

It's a forum, not a site like Salon that decides what to "publish". On Democratic Underground, some people were pushing this speculation about Trig, and others were calling them morons (and worse). That's the nature of a forum. Both those sites get thousands of posts per day. Thus, there's some crap (unlike, say, Wikipedia, where every post in every talk page is polite and well-reasoned). JamesMLane t c 01:22, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, don't let any facts get in the way of your POV-pushing. The article is by the AP and was caried in the Anchorage Daily News. Booksnmore4you (talk) 18:35, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

The language is a bit clunky. How about this:

Palin enrolled for one semester at Hawaii Pacific University, then attended North Idaho College for two semesters. She later transferred to the University of Idaho for the remainder of her collegiate career, excepting one semester in which she studied at Matanuska-Susitna College. Palin she graduated with a bachelor's degree in journalism.

Coemgenus 19:47, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

[OUTDENT} This was discussed last night and consensus language agreed upon - see here - and it is discussed a few sections up as well. The section seems to have mysteriously disappeared. Tvoz/talk 20:52, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I found the material that had been removed and reinstated the edit request. Tvoz/talk 21:22, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Proposal for splitting up history/talk pages while leaving article together

I have a proposal which would help this article return to semi-protected status at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Arbitration_enforcement#Another_proposal:_transcluded_subpages. Please post your opinions for or against it there. Homunq (talk) 14:51, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Picture change requested

Resolved

 – Image deleted - impossible to get proper license

I think the picture of her family under "Personal life" should be changed. Left, original; right, proposed new.

Palin family members at the announcement of Palin's vice presidential selection, August 29, 2008. From left: Todd, Piper, Willow, Bristol, and Trig.

File:Palin Family.jpg

The Palin family. From left: top: Track, Sarah, Todd; bottom: Willow, Piper, Bristol

-Zeus- 23:54, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Oppose. Copyright and source of new suggested image are doubtful. Vey nice picture though.Ferrylodge (talk) 23:57, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Oppose pending verification then Support Looks like its the official picture. It's credited to US gvt and has public domain status. --98.243.129.181 (talk) 23:59, 4 September 2008 (UTC)Edit.. I took description to be gospel. If it's ever verified as government or public domain, i vote yes. --98.243.129.181 (talk) 00:15, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Oppose - I've flagged the image for speedy deletion at Commons. No indication it's a work of the federal government. Kelly ^hi! 00:02, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Comment I believe that pic is on the Alaskan state gov't site. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 00:04, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

The Alaskan state govt doesn't release its work into the public domain. Kelly ^hi! 00:05, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose http://gov.state.ak.us/photos/PalinFamily_Outside_Med.jpg is the source and there is no release on the image. patsw (talk) 00:14, 5 September 2008 (UTC) I marked it copyvio sd. patsw (talk) 00:25, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Here's the page where the file is shown; http://gov.state.ak.us/bio.html

Release for the Alaska state photo

I just sent an email to the webmaster asking for permission. -Zeus- 00:47, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Ok people this should be good enough; Message 1/252 Mills, Andy J (GOV) <andy.mills@alaska.gov> Sep 4, 2008 04:46:56 pm -0800 Date: Thu, 04 Sep 2008 16:46:56 -0800 Subject: RE: Bio Image To: <REDACTED> <REDACTED>-

Please feel free to use the image for Wikipedia if it's a non-partisan and non-campaign related use (which is the requirement for this release).

Thank you for your permission request. Please note that newest member of the Palin family (Trig Paxson Van Palin) is not pictured in that photo.

Kind Regards- Andy Mills Office of the Governor Webmaster

---

Original Message-----

From: <REDACTED> Sent: Thursday, September 04, 2008 4:41 PM To: Mills, Andy J (GOV) Subject: Bio Image

Hello,

I am representing Wikipedia and requesting permission to use the file located at http://gov.state.ak.us/photos/PalinFamily_Outside_web.jpg on the Sarah Palin Wikipedia page at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarah_Palin

I found the file on http://gov.state.ak.us/bio.html

Thank you, -Zeus- 00:50, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

• I am not a Wiki-lawyer but I'm not sure that a release for the Wikipedia is valid. When I have done this myself, the grantor needs to reference one of GFDL, CC-SA, CC-BY-SA, or FAL explicitly for it to be a valid release. See commons:project:Email templates for the sort of release expected. patsw (talk) 01:03, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

• • So what do I need to do now? -Zeus- 01:16, 5 September 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by -Zeus- (talk • contribs)

• • • Try again. Use the boilerplate we suggest be used, and ask that it be returned, verbatim, with their signature at the bottom. Explain why the current permission is insufficient. Hope that helps.++Lar: t/c 01:30, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

• • • • Well according to that template he can't release that file because I doubt the webmaster is the copyright holder of the file :( —Preceding unsigned comment added by -Zeus- (talk • contribs) 01:38, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

The form of release that is the easiest to explain is http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/ But this release is explicit in granting usage that could be partisan or campaign-related. As far as I know, the Wikipedia can't use images that have such usage restrictions. My suggestion:

To permissions-commonswikimedia.org

I hereby assert that I am the creator and/or sole owner of the exclusive copyright of WORK http://gov.state.ak.us/photos/PalinFamily_Outside_web.jpg

I agree to publish that work under the free license LICENSE [choose at least one from http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Choosing_a_license#Common_free_licenses ] (patsw suggests CC-SA http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/)

I acknowledge that I grant anyone the right to use the work in a commercial product, and to modify it according to their needs, as long as they abide by the terms of the license and any other applicable laws.

I am aware that I always retain copyright of my work, and retain the right to be attributed in accordance with the license chosen. Modifications others make to the work will not be attributed to me.

I am aware that the free license only concerns copyright, and I reserve the option to take action against anyone who uses this work in a libelous way, or in violation of personality rights, trademark restrictions, etc.

I acknowledge that I cannot withdraw this agreement, and that the work may or may not be kept permanently on a Wikimedia project.

DATE, NAME OF THE COPYRIGHT HOLDER

This is the form of release expected. patsw (talk) 01:44, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

See also Commons:Email_templates which gives (too?) detailed instructions, and has a link to further example emails you can use. If he is an "authorised agent" of the copyright holder, (the State of Alaska) he can release it. But you need to be clear that it's a release in accordance with our license. As incentive, remind him that if we can't get permission, we may have to use other freely licensed pictures which might not be as nice to look at, and also remind him that this page got 2.5M views a few days ago and is on track to get well over 20M during the month of September. Does he want a nice picture used, or one we scare up from someone??? ++Lar: t/c 01:47, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

• • Ok I sent as you guys suggested let's hope he agrees. I think he will.—Preceding unsigned comment added by -Zeus- (talk • contribs)
    • You might want to forward that email response (if you get another) to at least one or two administrators for record as well. JungleCat Shiny!/Oohhh! 02:25, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

All images on US government sites are in the pubic domain, unless stated otherwise. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:13, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Works of the US Federal Government are public domain, not state governments. - auburnpilot talk 15:18, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually, most states do not place their copyrightable material in the public domain. It is either explicitly copyrighted, or automatically copyrighted, since a copyright notice is not required to establish a copyright. patsw (talk) 03:22, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Note that, if Alaska prohibits use for partisan or campaign purposes, the official probably can't give a GFDL or similar license, because that license would enable a campaign to use the photo in a GFDL-compliant document. JamesMLane t c 16:57, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

So, what was the reply from the state of Alaska? patsw (talk) 18:54, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I concur with JamesMLane. The first response already precludes what we need for inclusion.--Appraiser (talk) 20:05, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

No release under a free license. We are not going to get a valid release. Image deleted.Geni 01:00, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

incorrect spelling

Palin addresses the 2008 Republiican National Convention

That was description of one picture. After I noticed it I checked "big picture" - there Republican was spelled correctly.

I can't modify it myself - perhaps a moderator is willing to do so.

done. my one big contribution to this page so far. --barneca (talk) 15:58, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Pastor Paul Riley, Pastor Ed Kalnins, Pastor Larry Kroon, and Pastor David Brickner

Add this to religion section of article- Paul Riley was her pastor for most of her time at Wasilla Assewmbly of God Associated Press reports “Her pastor for most of her time at Wasilla Assembly of God, Paul Riley”. http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5jCeGgS4vbVt6qpxTpahCgGn_R-dQD92VOKVG0

• 1. Paul Riley is NOT notable, as he only appears in the media talking about Palin as far as I know, and notability cannot be inherited. If he becomes controversial, or is the subject of media stories for some other notable thing, only then he should only then get an article.
• 2. The “controversial figure” Ed Kalnins IS notable, since the content of the many media articles in which he is featured regards his controversial remarks. These remarks should NOT be on the Palin page, as there is no information I am aware of that directly links Palin to the controversial remarks. E.G., USA Today reports “The Rev. Ed Kalnins had no way of knowing he'd be a controversial figure in the 2008 presidential race.” http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2008-09-03-palin-pastor_N.htm . So Kalnins should have his own article in which his controversial remarks can be documented, as well as his bio, and any information about him that can be sourced.
• 3. Larry Kroon IS notable. He is in many major media stories linking him as far back as 2004 to the highly controversial Jews for Jesus and David Brickner. The Atlantic Monthly magazine reports this Jews For Jesus pamphlet (PDF) from 2004 that reveals more details about Palin's pastor.” This is a year 2004 association, long predating Palin’s rise from mayor. http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2008/09/palins-pastor-a.html Numerous other news articles report on Kroon, e.g. The Chicago Tribune http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-alaska-palin_monsep01,0,3504940.story . The 2004 stuff is unrelated to Palin, so Kroon should have his own article. It is unclear Palin knew Kroon would be speaking when she recently sat through his sermon.

• Therefore, articles should NOT be created for pastor Paul Riley, but articles SHOULD be created for Ed Kalnins and Larry Kroon. Links from the Sarah Palin article should be established to the Ed Kalnins and Larry Kroon articles, and the controversies should NOT be in the Palin article unless someone meaningfully associates her to the controversies. A link to from Palin’s article to David Brickner or Jews for Jesus should exist, but the ONLY information that should be in Sarah Palin article, unless more information emerges, should be that she attended a Jews for Jesus Fundraiser with the sermon given by David Brickner.
• Wasilla Assembly of God and Wasilla Bible Church should have their own pages, where information reported on them in the media (controversial or not) that is unrelated to Palin can be reported, without tarring other pastors, like Paul Riley, with information on Ed Kalnins or Larry Kroon.

EricDiesel (talk) 15:58, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

• • Eric, please stop flogging this church thing in multiple forums. You already know what the answer is from the fact that the articles you have been creating keep getting deleted. Knock it off. Kelly ^hi! 17:16, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

• • • Kelly. I do not "already know what the answer is". The articles are not deleted. Please correct your remark.

• It is not fair to Sarah Palin to put controversial quotes of pastors on her page, as is being argued for by some, just because they are her pastors, as is being argued elsewhere. This is guilt by association!
• Palin might not have even been there for Ed Kalnins' controversial remarks! She deserves same neutrality and respect as any other living person.
• I do not already know what the answers are, as you assert. It is kind of disrespectful for you to say this, when Paul Riley was not the subject of anything I wrote, except to include a statement that he is one of her pastors on her page. No one is responding to my comments because a few people are making statements like "[I] already know the answer" and claiming a meaningful response is "elsewhere", when it is not. Either respond or don't respond, but don't try to get me ignored by INCORRECTLY stating that the issues were addressed.
• My David Brickner article has been getting 100% keep, after the intitial delete. Why should the years of controversy about him be put on Palin's page. All she did is go to church once, and he started speaking. She never went anywhere to see him since then. Why tar her with his controversial remarks from 2004?
• I added the names Ed Kalnins and Larry Kroonan to the Palin article in a completely neutral way, and my exact wording is still there. Why shuold Pual Riley not be added also, as I wrote. How would I "know the answer" about him. Why should I not put this here? Should he is not be NOT be mentioned in her article just because he made NO controversial remarks. Do only the controversial people get included?

Kelly, you should strike your incorrect statement about my knowledge, strike your remark if it is not responsive to what I wrote.

• It would be better if you responded, though since we are likely to agree with each other if each of us looks at what the other is saying. As an experienced user, you could probably teach me the ropes in less time than the time it takes you to deride me.EricDiesel (talk) 22:39, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

EricDiesel (talk) 22:43, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia edit controversy??

Has there been any mention of the allegations that somebody from the McCain campaign favorably edited Palin's wikipedia page before the announcement was made? I heard the story on NPR over this past weekend, and haven't seen anything on this page about it. Here are two links

NPR story[8]

NYT article[9]

AstroZombieDC (talk) 16:22, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry--I did not see the table titled "this article has been mentioned in the press".

AstroZombieDC (talk) 16:31, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Add redirect to disambiguation

Per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, Palin should redirect to Sarah Palin. In order to do this, however, we'll first need to add {{Redirect|Palin}} to the top of this page. Since the article is fully protected, much to my chagrin, could a sysop please add the above template to the article? —  X  S  G  16:24, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea. Let's wait for 24 hrs to see if there are any objections, after which in none are forthcoming I will make the edit. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:30, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm thinking Michael Palin would disagree with that. While Sarah Palin is rather popular in the search engines right now, she just jumped on the scene in a very public and high profile way, it is too soon to determine if she is the primary usage of "Palin" over a protracted period of time. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 16:47, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, good point. Maybe a disambig page would be best for this, with Michael, Sarah, and Todd Palin. Any others? Kelly ^hi! 16:50, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Palin is already a disambiguation page. There's a fair number of names on there already. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 16:56, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Plus, there's no consensus in the existing discussion at Talk:Palin to redirect here. --Ckatz^chat_spy 17:06, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Palin, by itself, should not link to any specific person. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 20:35, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Clarification on the Bridge to Nowhere

It should be mentioned that Palin reversed her decision on the bridge to nowhere mainly because she thought the federal government would pay for most of it. She only opposed it because she later found out that the state of Alaska would be paying for most of it instead.

66.71.54.51 (talk) 18:01, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I see. So she was for it only if paid for by earmarks? Source? zredsox (talk) 18:10, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Source? --Robort (talk) 18:10, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I think there's some confusion here. My understanding is that she was for it while running for Governor, and then after it became the poster child for pork barrel spending she came out against it. Then, when she was Governor the federal money was redirected to other Alaska highway projects. The road leading to the bridge was built with federal money under her watch however, because THAT money would not have been able to be spent elsewhere ("use it for this or lose it").[10]--Appraiser (talk) 18:40, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Major government and military construction projects are funny (in an ironic sense) that way. As wasteful as it is, they cannot legally be "turned off" once the spigot has been turned on upstream (usually many years earlier). I won't profess to understand all the legalities, but I have known of many similar including, coincidentally, an entire road that was build on the island of Adak (in the Aleutians) and scheduled for completion the year after the base there was closed! Perhaps that is one of those areas in government contracting where one of these folks will affect some desperately needed change. Fcreid (talk) 19:24, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Press Conferences

Is it normal practive for political figures running for election to talk to the MSM. Is there any truth in the statements that Sarah Palin will not be providing any press conferences (or has not for 7 days) and will only be providing approved statements? If this is a case is it worth mentioning this ? [11] Sitedown (talk) 18:41, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Based on the complete and utter trash that the media has been publishing about her and her family, could you blame her? But I'm not sure how we would include a statement about that in the article. She was only officially nominated two days ago, give it some time. Kelly ^hi! 19:14, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

What happened to the paragraph about Trigs birth?

The article used to say (on the Sep 3rd)

Palin's announcement in March 2008 that she was seven months pregnant generated publicity and surprise, as did the circumstances of Trig's birth.[123] More than a month before the baby was due, she was in Texas to deliver the keynote address at a conference. While at the conference her water broke[124], reportedly at about 4:00 a.m. local time. She remained in Texas to deliver the speech before taking the eight-hour flight back to Alaska. She landed in Anchorage at 10:30 p.m. and drove to the Mat-Su Valley Regional Medical Center, arriving an hour later. She gave birth at 6:30 a.m. the next day; her physician induced labor but there were no other complications.[125][126] Palin returned to work three days later.[47]

1. ^ Wesley, Loy (March 6, 2008). "Secret's out: Palin pregnant", Anchorage Daily Times. Retrieved on 2008-08-:29.
2. ^ Lori Tipton (April 18, 2008). "Welcome to Alaska, Trig Paxson Van Palin", ktuu.com.
3. ^ George, Rebecca (April 22, 2008). "Palin says she felt safe flying to Alaska to have baby", Daily News-:Miner. Retrieved on 2008-08-30.
4. ^ Demer, Lisa (April 22, 2008), "Palins' child diagnosed with Down syndrome", Anchorage Daily News

Mystic eye (talk) 18:46, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

PS if this section is in the wrong place I am sorry, its a little confusing in a talk page this big and I'm not sure where to put things.

This is a fine place to ask the question. Some editors argued to have the section removed because it is too personal, Joe Biden doesn't have a similar paragraph, and readers might WP:Synth an opinion about her judgment from that information even though they are not medical experts. I believe that when a person is asking the voters to evaluate her fitness as a potential president, that a well-sourced chronology of facts is appropriate, even if it IS personal. And any issues that speak to Biden's judgment should be included in his bio too.--Appraiser (talk) 18:56, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

No, we will not ever be synthesizing original research to express a point of view about her judgment based on her reproductive system. Kelly ^hi! 19:11, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

The Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Make the case that this hour-by-hour chronology is part of a summary of her biography and and not merely a news story relevant to their readers on April 18, 2008. patsw (talk) 19:16, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Reasonable people can differ about the importance of the information, but Kelly's criticism of the pasage is completely false. There was no synthesis. There was no original research. The passage summarized material that had been published in the Alaska newspapers at the time.

There were two practical problems, however. The first was that, at roughly the time we were considering this language, there was an unfounded speculation floating around about the birth. Most editors thought that the speculation had no place in Wikipedia. I concurred. Unfortunately, some editors took it further and overreacted against anything relating to the birth, lest we be seen as fueling the speculation (more often referred to, incorrectly IMO, as "rumors").

The second and similar problem was that, in the contemporaneous newspaper articles and in other contexts, the argument was raised that Palin's decision to fly back to Alaska was ill-advised and reflected on her judgment. There was medical opinion on both sides of the question. At one point that controversy was noted. As the discussion developed, it seemed more sensible that, at least until we had better information from reliable sources, the controversy be dropped in favor of a simple recitation of the facts. The story was told, not because of any controversy, but simply because it was an unusual event that some readers would be interested in. Discussion in several threads produced the version that you quote. There was still this strong reaction, however, that any mention of the subject must be intended to cater to the evil incarnate that is the Daily Kos, where the speculation arose, or at least to support a covert POV attack on Palin's bad judgment. These views prompted some editors to expunge the information entirely.

Here are some, though almost certainly not all, of the prior threads: Talk:Sarah Palin/Archive 5#Excess details about Trig's birth, Talk:Sarah Palin/Archive 5#Vague aspersions of prenatal endangerment, Talk:Sarah Palin/Archive 8#Blow-by-blow account of youngest son's birth, and Talk:Sarah Palin/Archive 8#This is an encyclopedia biography, not a campaign document.

As the hysteria about the prior speculation dies down, we can hope that this unusual incident in Palin's life -- which has been commented on from the podium at the Republican National Convention and on Meet the Press -- will be restored to our article. Evidently, however, it will take a while before people can address the text on its own merits, without reading things into it. JamesMLane t c 19:44, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for that summary JamesMLane. I also disagree with Kelly's characterization of the now-deleted information as a 'synthesis'. It seemed to be a straightforward presentation of facts related to the unusual events surrounding the birth of her youngest son. No matter how one looks at it, a mother's decision to fly to her home town in another state to give birth in those circumstances is a noteworthy part of her biography, but it needed to be presented without editorializing, as indeed it was when I first read it. The decision to delete is disappointing and diminishes the relevance of the article to real readers who will now have to look for this information on other websites, many of which do have overt political agendas. Wikipedia's great strength has been its ability to present information from a NPOV, so that ordinary people aren't completely obliged to rely entirely on biased internet sites, or corporate or national news organizations. As long as that information remained in the article, I was prepared to believe that the editing process was working reasonably well.Corlyon (talk) 20:16, 5 September 2008 (UTC)Corlyon

I forgot about one of the other sideshows that gave this subject a bad odor. Some versions of the article played up the fact that Palin boarded the plane without telling the flight crew anything about her condition. Some people were editing the article to try to throw mud at Palin over that fact. Even that wasn't completely OR or synthesis, because the point was raised in the newspaper accounts, but most of us thought it didn't belong in the Wikipedia article. It doesn't appear in the version you quote, which I think is the last good version before the expungement. JamesMLane t c 20:21, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

All of it amounts to certain wikipedians playing Dr. Spock and telling the world what she "should have done". It's totally inappropriate. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 20:34, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, Bugs, for proving my point. JamesMLane t c 21:24, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

• I agree with JamesMLane 100%. T0mpr1c3 (talk) 21:20, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Should Release the Article for Publish Editing?

I think it's against Wikipedia's original spirit to lock this article from editing. I hope you all agree with me and appeal to the board to stop blocking this article from editing!

What you guys are afraid?

Dreamliner888 (talk) 18:57, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Mostly afraid of violations of WP:BLP, WP:RS, WP:V, WP:OR and maybe one or two I haven't listed.--Cube lurker (talk) 19:00, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

And of course the old favorite WP:VAND.--Cube lurker (talk) 19:02, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I think we should trust the community, if there is any violation, we should lock up the offender's account.

Dreamliner888 (talk) 19:03, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

If you'd like to express your opinion on this, see Wikipedia:AE#Sarah_Palin and Wikipedia:AN#Please_help_on_Sarah_Palin. There is plenty of discussion to be had. Oren0 (talk) 19:06, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Take a look at the page history frenzy earlier this week, and that might give you a clue. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 19:44, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Political position section

Resolved

{{editprotected}} I have not changed any information (other then pronouns). I just tried to convert it out of list mode and removed the tag. It is just to make the page read easier. Thanks Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 19:33, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Political positions (1)

Main article: Political positions of Sarah Palin

Palin has described the Republican Party platform as "the right agenda for America," adding "individual freedom and independence is extremely important to me and that's why I'm a Republican."

She has called herself as "pro-life as any candidate can be " and would permit abortion only in cases where the mother's life is in danger, and supports mandatory parental consent for abortions. Palin is a member of Feminists for Life. Palin has been described as supportive of contraception. She backs abstinence-only education and is against "explicit sex-ed programs" in schools. She supports capital punishment and opposes same-sex marriage and supported a non-binding referendum for a constitutional amendment to deny state health benefits to same-sex couples.

Palin has said she supports teaching both creationism and evolution in public schools, but not to the extent of adding creation-based alternatives to the required curriculum. She has strongly promoted oil and natural gas resource development in Alaska, including in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR). She has opposed federal listing of the polar bear as an endangered species warning that it would adversely affect energy development in Alaska. Palin does not believe that global warming is human-caused.

Palin, a long-time member of the National Rifle Association, strongly supports its interpretation of the Second Amendment as protecting individual rights to bear arms, including handguns. She also supports gun safety education for youth.

Palin's foreign policy positions were unclear at the time she was picked as McCain's running mate. When asked for her views about troop escalations in Iraq, she replied "…while I support our president, Condoleezza Rice and the administration, I want to know that we have an exit plan in place…"

Comment

I support this change in principle, because it reads better. I would further suggest, however, rephrasing the gun issue section as "Palin supports the interpretation of the Second Amendment as protecting individual rights to bear arms, including handguns. She supports gun safety education for youth. She is a long-time member of the National Rifle Association." (with sources moved appropriately). This avoids any subtle synthy connotations that she is an advocate for the NRA (although if that can be sourced, it may too be fair game). I particularly like the rephrasing of the education content. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 19:52, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

You totally beat me to this. It makes it sound like she supports the NRA's position on gun rights rather than a more general individual right to bear arms. an advocate for the NRA. Plus, the cited source indicates her praise of the Heller decision from DC, it explicitly does not support "Palin supports the NRA's position," but rather evidences her support of her own position on gun rights and the approval of the Heller decision. How about "Palin supports the right to bear arms and applauded the Supreme Court's recent decision in "Heller". She supports gun safety...and is a long-time member of the NRA." Kaisershatner (talk) 20:00, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Not disagreeing with either of you since this is such a heated article right now could we take baby steps and agree to my version above with no content change and then work on the content? Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 20:21, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Never mind. Section has been reworked by an admin. Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 20:32, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

A good point, but now moot due to Talk:Sarah_Palin#Political_positions_section... Kaisershatner (talk) 20:34, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Grammar nit-pick: hyphenation

Resolved

{{editprotected}} I know it pales in comparison to other matters here, but unlike the one in "vice-president", I don't believe the hyphen in "vice-presidential" is optional. This appears many times on the page. I don't think this calls for a consensus, unless someone out there knows something I don't about hyphenation. BBrucker2 (talk) 19:35, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I think you're correct; phrasal adjectives should always be hyphenated. Coemgenus 19:39, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

And maybe throw a comma (or two) in the following: "In August 2007 the jet was listed on eBay, though with no buyer found it was later sold for $2.1 million through a private brokerage firm." One is needed after "with no buyer found", and one could be added (although it's not 100% necessary) after "In August 2007". --198.185.18.207 (talk) 19:49, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Hyphens and comma added.--Appraiser (talk) 19:56, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Poll: Palin more popular than Obama, McCain

See the Rasmussen Poll [12] Hobartimus (talk) 21:05, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

The only poll that matters is Election Day. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 21:07, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Well we can just lock the article until then right? Wrong. We don't wait until election day for improvement and polls that say relevant things can always be considered. Other related poll [13]. Hobartimus (talk) 21:14, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Poll schmoll, CBS News comes up with some completely different numbers so who cares? T0mpr1c3 (talk) 21:10, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

WP:NOTNEWS it will change tomorrow, and the day after, and so on.... Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 21:16, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Maybe post a chart of their poll numbers, day by day - or, if necessary, hour by hour, or minute by minute. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 21:20, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Planck time by Planck time? Deamon138 (talk) 21:32, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I concur with holding off. No sense on constantly updating polls, wait until we get some sources discussing trends. Kelly ^hi! 21:33, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

We shouldn't post trends in this case either. It is not going to be relevant in two months so why bother?zredsox (talk) 21:37, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

It will be relevant but better suited to the article about the election, not to Palin's bio. (It's relevant there to say something like "as of this date the race was close, then ___ opened up a big lead, then..." etc.) JamesMLane t c 21:46, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I should have thought of that. The campaign/election article is the right place for this. Kelly ^hi! 21:49, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

So, a poll. Nice. What were the parameters, the demographics, the precise question, etc, etc, etc? Polls are utterly meaningless without that data and often meaningless with it. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;^dissera! 23:10, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely, I don't like them either. I think it's a lot better to wait until enough time has passed for the issue to be treated in a scholarly way, then include the info. After the election is over would be ideal. Kelly ^hi! 23:12, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good to me.  :) &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;^dissera! 23:15, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Adminstration notice boards

I'm seeing constant references to edit warring and NPOV accusations and so on on /three/ separate administration notice boards. (AN/I AN, and ArbEnforcment) Anyway you guys can settle things in one place at a time?--Tznkai (talk) 22:30, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Welcome to the party, pal!. :) Kelly ^hi! 22:31, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Only the die-hard, those with no life, or those with a seriously biased axe to ground will be left to edit this article when the protection comes off. Good luck to all of us (not saying if this includes me). --Crunch (talk) 00:30, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

This is ambiguous

Sometimes we can't see the forest for the trees, and I suspect that is what is happening in the Wasilla section, where it is stated:

"In October 1996, she asked the Wasilla police chief, librarian, public works director, and finance director to resign, and instituted a policy requiring department heads to get her approval before talking to reporters. In January 1997, Palin notified the police chief, Irl Stambaugh, and the town librarian, Mary Ellen Emmons that they were being fired."

So, did the police chief and librarian resign in October 1996? Or did they defy her? Are they the same police chief and librarian she fired in January 1997? The article doesn't rule out the possibility that the chief and librarian resigned in 1996, and were replaced by a new chief and librarian who were then sacked in 1997. It's ambiguous. Kaiwhakahaere (talk) 00:03, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Direct Plagerism

Because it's not clearly noted above.. Our article:"Palin also opposes strengthening protections for beluga whales in Alaska's Cook Inlet, where oil and gas development has been proposed." Thier article:"She opposes strengthening protections for beluga whales in Alaska's Cook Inlet, where oil and gas development has been proposed..." As you can see we copied this word or word from the source. It should be removed quickly as it is illegal. --98.243.129.181 (talk) 00:07, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure some capable passing admin can reword that quickly. 86.44.27.255 (talk) 00:09, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Done. bogdan (talk) 00:37, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

This should just be removed anyways until it's write correctly - Talk:Sarah_Palin#Beluga_POV_Plagiarism Theosis4u (talk) 02:46, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Palin is Clearly Off the Hook for Kalnins’ Remarks

Ed Kalnins became the subject of media coverage following Palin’s nomination, for preaching sermons with allegedly controversial remarks. Two of the remarks were that critics of president George Bush’s handling of Hurricane Katrina would go to hell, and that voters for John Kerry would not get into heaven. A third allegedly controversial remark was that the Iraq war is God's Will. Palin left the church in 2002, the Iraq War remark was made after 2003, Kerry was nominated in 2004, and Hurricane Katrina occurred in 2005, so Palin was not present for any of these remarks.

Sources -

• USA Today

http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2008-09-03-palin-pastor_N.htm

• Wall Street Journal http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122048406528596987.html?mod=googlenews_wsj
• Pakistan Daily Times

http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2008%5C09%5C04%5Cstory_4-9-2008_pg7_73

• Chicago Tribune

http://www.swamppolitics.com/news/politics/blog/2008/09/palins_past_pastor_bushfoes_he.html

• MSNBC

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/09/02/1327574.aspx

• Atlantic Monthly

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2008/09/palin-in-wasill.html

• The Guardian

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/sep/04/uselections2008.sarahpalin3

• Associated Press

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5jCeGgS4vbVt6qpxTpahCgGn_R-dQD92VOKVG0

• Associated Press

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5jNulPSqaP1eyysv8ENJWhk0ZSrPgD92VJPL00

• Hong Kong Standard

http://www.thestandard.com.hk/breaking_news_detail.asp?id=5282&icid=4&d_str=20080904

• ABC NEWS

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/09/website-with-sp.html

• Washington Post

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/09/02/by_juliet_eilperin_when_alaska.html EricDiesel (talk) 00:40, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

After Palin’s nomination, Larry Kroon became the subject of international media coverage for having invited David Brickner, head of Jews for Jesus, to speak at Wasilla Bible Church, and for taking collections for Jews for Jesus. The sermon was attended by Palin. The coverage regarded Brickner’s controversial sermon statements, including that a brutal Palestinian terror attack on civilian Israeli Jews, using a bulldozer to runs them over was God’s punishment on the Israeli victims for their failure to convert to Christianity. There is no evidence that Palin or Kroon knew what Brickner would say in advance.

• Israeli News video of statement

http://www.israelenews.com/view.asp?ID=3026

• Wall Street Journal

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122048406528596987.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

• Atlantic Monthly

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2008/09/palins-pastor-a.html

• Jewish Journal

http://www.jewishjournal.com/elections/article/mccain_team_palin_rejects_views_of_churchs_jews_for_jesus_speaker_20080903/ ABC News http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/09/website-with-sp.html

• IsrealNews

http://www.israelenews.com/view.asp?ID=3005 EricDiesel (talk) 00:53, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Bridge to Nowhere

Just a note that [14] confirms that Alaska kept the money allocated to the "Bridge to Nowhere". -- Beland (talk) 01:40, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

If you've ever dealt with federal government budgets, you'd know that once money has been allocated, it's allocated. You can't give it back. It's a weird part of our system. Kelly ^hi! 02:16, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

And if AK wrote a check to the US Treasury (or similar) they would refuse to cash it? I'm sure it's possible in principle to return (or even simply not use) the money. Dragons flight (talk) 02:41, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

The couple have five children...

The current sentence reads: "The couple have five children: sons Track (born 1989) and Trig (born 2008), and daughters Bristol (born 1990), Willow (born 1995), and Piper (born 2001)." The repeating 'born' seems awkward and I'm used to seeing a chronological order. I'd suggest: "The couple have five children: son Track (born 1989), daughters Bristol (1990), Willow (1995) and Piper (2001), and son Trig (2008)." I also notice that the reference does not provide the birthyears, merely the ages and just 'baby' for Trig. Celestra (talk) 02:07, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I would agree with that, I think it reads better. Kelly ^hi! 02:14, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

"b." is a standard abbreviation in this context. patsw (talk) 02:14, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I agree that this is awkward wording - I believe it is following the style prescribed at WP:DATE for listing year of birth but it does seem off-putting here. How about: "The couple have five children ranging in age from infant to 19: sons Track and Trig and daughters Bristol, Willow and Piper." A little less detail but more readable I think.Ronnotel (talk) 02:18, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

On a similar note, Wikipedia is omitting the date of her oldest child's birthdate: April 20, 1989. Presumably because it shows that Sarah was pregnant before she was married.

Request for new internal link

Request a link to Wikipedia article "Anne Kilkenny". This article is about the letter that recently has appeared on the front page of the New York Time and other major media containing personal reflections on Sara Palin by a long-time Wasilla, Alaska native.

This link could be included by adding the following to the "Personal Life" section:

Wasilla, Alaska native Anne Kilkenny appeared on the front page of the New York Times and in other global media after a letter she wrote emerged on the internet. Ms. Kilkenny's letter contained personal observations of Palin's Mayoral tenure in Wasilla.

I've nominated that article for deletion per WP:BLP1E, and the fact that it's a POV fork. Kelly ^hi! 02:41, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Actual Budget Actions and Voting History

I have been looking up to find the source of claims about her budget actions and voting record.

Most of the claims on the net claim to come for the "wasilla comprehensive annual financial report (year)" and I haven't found the 2003 record, just references to it. The "Politico" document here: http://www.politico.com/static/PPM106_palin_doc.html that harshly criticizes Palin's performance is referenced like crazy all over the 'net, and it references FY 2003.

However, the only ones available on the City of Wasillas site are from 2004 to present, for a different Mayor. here: http://www.cityofwasilla.com/index.aspx?page=67

Where'd they go? Did they ever exist?

This be fishy. (yet another pun... :P)

Please post verifiable info on her budgets and voting. t1n0

• The City of Wasilla has posted the most frequently requested information (since Palin got the nomination) in the "Documents Central" section of their website. The items are located in the folder City Documents > Recently Requested > Former Mayor Palin. All financial reports from 1994 - 2005 are there:

http://www.cityofwasilla.com/index.aspx?page=136 71.210.132.185 (talk) 03:19, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

• Palin termed out and left the mayor's job at the end of 2002.--Paul (talk) 21:56, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Is the Budget section the correct place to mention the sale of Westwind II Jet or Matanuska Maid Dairy Closure?
In an earlier revision the Matanuska Maid Dairy Closure has its own section. --Qmf (talk) 00:55, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sarah_Palin&direction=prev&oldid=235069895

I have just spent 1 1/2 hours typing out the detailed chronology to have the text vaporise.... That my friends, is frustration. t1n0

Well, we shouldn't be doing original research on primary documents anyway. You'll need secondary sources that do the analysis. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 06:57, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

What does that mean? As far as I know, we are supposed to be pulling together information from sources we can cite, correct? I was trying to summarrize everything, because it was lenghthy.

Maybe I'm nuts, but I think the fact that she replaced a board that disagreed with her, and replaced it with members that she knew, and would vote the way she wanted, is a major problem. The point they were deciding may not seem so important, but then why did she change the whole board, hold a closed session, wherein they fired the CEO, and reversed the prior decison to her liking? Oh yeah, btw, there's a shitload of funds involved. t1n0

• That means, "please see WP:PSTS." You can't do your own research on primary sources such as budget documents and put it on Wikipedia. That is what very specialized people like forensic accountants and knowledgable reporters do for a living. I'm telling you this so you don't waste time; there is no way anybody is going to let raw budget numbers on the page. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 08:35, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

1) The state run Dairy, Mat-Maid, had been suffering financial losses for years.

2) The 20 year CEO recommends to the board to either privatize to regain competitiveness, or close and liquidate to cover debts.

3) Governor Palin disagrees, citing concerns for dairy farmers and employees. This is under dubious auspices because Palin claims to run on a atrong fiscal responsibility platform, yet this business was losing hundreds of thousands of ollars per month, and had only 50 or so employees. It seems it might have been cheaper to support them on welfare or unemployment, for Christ’s sake.

4) She replaces the board with people she is familiar with, and the hold a closed session where (surprise!) they fire the CEO that disagrees with her, and they reverse the decision, and manage to sink another 600K into the dairy.

5) This money came from a 25 million dollar grant that the Feds gave them in 2002.

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

7) Competing private Dairy businesses are also given federal funding. (So they can further pummel the MatMaid into history, I suppose)

8) The Dairy is eventually closed, seriously in debt. (Surprise!)

9) Nobody offers to buy it a 3.5 Million.

10) Recently a Storage Company purchased it for 1.5 Million, to convert it.

11) What was so important about keeping a hopeless dairy open for a few more months, that she had to wield supreme executive powers? (After all, we all know that “You can’t expect to wield supreme executive powers just because some watery tart threw you a sword!”. (What is your quest?...What is your favorite color?...)

12) Bonus question: Where’s the rest of the 25 Million? Because according to the sources, it hasn’t been disbursed.

Here are the 'webcittes' of the articles. I did it like this so they don't 'disappear', and because some require registration/email to view, so I did it once for everyone, so to speak.

http://www.webcitation.org/5act9Rnjf

http://www.webcitation.org/5acsBLvMD

http://www.webcitation.org/5acsE8XHu

http://www.webcitation.org/5acsMwJJ7

http://www.webcitation.org/5acsOzILn

http://www.webcitation.org/5acsQa4gW

This last one, I wish I had found sooner, but it doesn't cite references. However, it does name names, and it sounds like wwhat really happened. http://www.webcitation.org/5actYqWTe

This is his reference: Andrew Halcro, of Alaska legislature, Harvard Graduate, and Local Businessman. Here Andrew grilled the new board: http://www.webcitation.org/5acttlFqf

The $600K blank check : http://www.andrewhalcro.com/dec_28_looting_matanuska_maid_-_the_lion_sleeps_tonight

The state audit: shows they kept paying farmers, the same ones whose friends and family were on the board, another 39K, and that the 600K check was put into a general checking fund, and was 'comingled' with other funds so it was just spent... http://www.legaudit.state.ak.us/pages/digests/2008/30049Adig.htm

Mat Maid private attorney and Ass't Attorney General both resign, no proper Request for proposal, and equipment is being auctioned off.: http://www.andrewhalcro.com/matanuska_maid_this_time_we_mean_it

http://www.legaudit.state.ak.us/pages/digests/2008/30049Adig.htm

And then the Government tells the staff, no more talking to press about Mat MAid: http://www.andrewhalcro.com/nov_19_no_spilling_the_milk_a_gag_order_on_the_matanuska_maid_fiasco

That's it. Would someone else please help me with this?? Read the articles, and go from there. t1n0 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.166.172.130 (talk) 08:27, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Groomed

{{editprotected}}

At one point the article says that she was "groomed" by the Republican Party for higher public office. ("During her first term, the state Republican party began grooming her for higher office.[19]") The source does not say this. What it says is, "Party officials say Palin was already being groomed for bigger and better things, even as she talked about sewers and road-paving projects." So the source is just quoting the opinion of some unnamed "party officials". I think the whole sentence should be removed. The same thing could be said about any young politician and it is really meaningless. Steve Dufour (talk) 17:18, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

• Comment The source is local and from 2006, though, and can therefore be safey assumed to be a window into that time, uncolored by current concerns. And how is "higher office" really different from "bigger and better things"? The reporter is from a reputable Alaska newspaper, and nobody from Palin's office or the state GOP complained back it 2006. It has meaning, because part of Palin's story is that she bucks the old-boy network; this source says that in the beginning, she was supported by the state party. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 18:10, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't object to "bigger and better things" being changed to "higher office." I do object to "Party officials say Palin was already being groomed" to "the state Republican party began grooming her." One is just a newsreporter's interpretation of statements by anonymous sources. The other is a statement of fact. Steve Dufour (talk) 18:48, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia doesn't report truth, it reports what reliable secondary sources say. The source headline is 'Fresh face' launched Palin RISING STAR: Wasilla mayor was groomed from an early political age. I think that if a reporter, his editors, and the headline writer all did that, it must mean something. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 18:59, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I noticed the headline too. But the only thing in the article about the subject was the one line. Steve Dufour (talk) 19:16, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I think that Steve Dufour's point is that the article is synthesizing a statement that wasn't directly made in the reference. I think it should be reworded as discussed above, or removed. Pianomikey0 (talk) 03:33, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

• Comment I don't think the statement has much value, but I don't object to leaving it in either. --ThaddeusB (talk) 18:28, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

•  Declined More discussion please; consensus has not been reached. GRBerry 20:23, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

• Remove It's just blurb and dubiously rephrased to boot. T0mpr1c3 (talk) 23:20, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
  • T0mpr1c3, you should read the whole article. Really. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 02:33, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
• Leave it in The fact is, even if some people might think being "groomed" is bad, in politics it's a major positive event to get noticed and helped by the big players. Fee Fi Foe Fum (talk) 08:42, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

• • What is the evidence for that though? On the basis of this article, just that one sentence: "Party officials say Palin was already being groomed for bigger and better things, even as she talked about sewers and road-paving projects." I don't think that this vague endorsement from unnamed party officials is notable. T0mpr1c3 (talk) 09:13, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the article's description is lame, but it's a reliable source. And it came true, didn't it? Let's leave it in. Coemgenus 13:45, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Picture change requested

I think the picture of her family under "Personal life" should be changed. Left, original; right, proposed new.

Palin family members at the announcement of Palin's vice presidential selection, August 29, 2008. From left: Todd, Piper, Willow, Bristol, and Trig.

File:Palin Family.jpg

The Palin family. From left: top: Track, Sarah, Todd; bottom: Willow, Piper, Bristol

-Zeus- 23:54, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Oppose. Copyright and source of new suggested image are doubtful. Vey nice picture though.Ferrylodge (talk) 23:57, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Oppose pending verification then Support Looks like its the official picture. It's credited to US gvt and has public domain status. --98.243.129.181 (talk) 23:59, 4 September 2008 (UTC)Edit.. I took description to be gospel. If it's ever verified as government or public domain, i vote yes. --98.243.129.181 (talk) 00:15, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Oppose - I've flagged the image for speedy deletion at Commons. No indication it's a work of the federal government. Kelly ^hi! 00:02, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Comment I believe that pic is on the Alaskan state gov't site. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 00:04, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

The Alaskan state govt doesn't release its work into the public domain. Kelly ^hi! 00:05, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose http://gov.state.ak.us/photos/PalinFamily_Outside_Med.jpg is the source and there is no release on the image. patsw (talk) 00:14, 5 September 2008 (UTC) I marked it copyvio sd. patsw (talk) 00:25, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Here's the page where the file is shown; http://gov.state.ak.us/bio.html

Release for the Alaska state photo

I just sent an email to the webmaster asking for permission. -Zeus- 00:47, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Ok people this should be good enough; Message 1/252 Mills, Andy J (GOV) <andy.mills@alaska.gov> Sep 4, 2008 04:46:56 pm -0800 Date: Thu, 04 Sep 2008 16:46:56 -0800 Subject: RE: Bio Image To: <REDACTED> <REDACTED>-

Please feel free to use the image for Wikipedia if it's a non-partisan and non-campaign related use (which is the requirement for this release).

Thank you for your permission request. Please note that newest member of the Palin family (Trig Paxson Van Palin) is not pictured in that photo.

Kind Regards- Andy Mills Office of the Governor Webmaster

---

Original Message-----

From: <REDACTED> Sent: Thursday, September 04, 2008 4:41 PM To: Mills, Andy J (GOV) Subject: Bio Image

Hello,

I am representing Wikipedia and requesting permission to use the file located at http://gov.state.ak.us/photos/PalinFamily_Outside_web.jpg on the Sarah Palin Wikipedia page at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarah_Palin

I found the file on http://gov.state.ak.us/bio.html

Thank you, -Zeus- 00:50, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

• I am not a Wiki-lawyer but I'm not sure that a release for the Wikipedia is valid. When I have done this myself, the grantor needs to reference one of GFDL, CC-SA, CC-BY-SA, or FAL explicitly for it to be a valid release. See commons:project:Email templates for the sort of release expected. patsw (talk) 01:03, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

• • So what do I need to do now? -Zeus- 01:16, 5 September 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by -Zeus- (talk • contribs)

• • • Try again. Use the boilerplate we suggest be used, and ask that it be returned, verbatim, with their signature at the bottom. Explain why the current permission is insufficient. Hope that helps.++Lar: t/c 01:30, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

• • • • Well according to that template he can't release that file because I doubt the webmaster is the copyright holder of the file :( —Preceding unsigned comment added by -Zeus- (talk • contribs) 01:38, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

The form of release that is the easiest to explain is http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/ But this release is explicit in granting usage that could be partisan or campaign-related. As far as I know, the Wikipedia can't use images that have such usage restrictions. My suggestion:

To permissions-commonswikimedia.org

I hereby assert that I am the creator and/or sole owner of the exclusive copyright of WORK http://gov.state.ak.us/photos/PalinFamily_Outside_web.jpg

I agree to publish that work under the free license LICENSE [choose at least one from http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Choosing_a_license#Common_free_licenses ] (patsw suggests CC-SA http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/)

I acknowledge that I grant anyone the right to use the work in a commercial product, and to modify it according to their needs, as long as they abide by the terms of the license and any other applicable laws.

I am aware that I always retain copyright of my work, and retain the right to be attributed in accordance with the license chosen. Modifications others make to the work will not be attributed to me.

I am aware that the free license only concerns copyright, and I reserve the option to take action against anyone who uses this work in a libelous way, or in violation of personality rights, trademark restrictions, etc.

I acknowledge that I cannot withdraw this agreement, and that the work may or may not be kept permanently on a Wikimedia project.

DATE, NAME OF THE COPYRIGHT HOLDER

This is the form of release expected. patsw (talk) 01:44, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

See also Commons:Email_templates which gives (too?) detailed instructions, and has a link to further example emails you can use. If he is an "authorised agent" of the copyright holder, (the State of Alaska) he can release it. But you need to be clear that it's a release in accordance with our license. As incentive, remind him that if we can't get permission, we may have to use other freely licensed pictures which might not be as nice to look at, and also remind him that this page got 2.5M views a few days ago and is on track to get well over 20M during the month of September. Does he want a nice picture used, or one we scare up from someone??? ++Lar: t/c 01:47, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

• • Ok I sent as you guys suggested let's hope he agrees. I think he will.—Preceding unsigned comment added by -Zeus- (talk • contribs)
    • You might want to forward that email response (if you get another) to at least one or two administrators for record as well. JungleCat Shiny!/Oohhh! 02:25, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
      • You can if you want, but the better thing to do is make sure it gets into OTRS so it can be tagged with the {{OTRS}} template and ticket number. forward it to permissions@wikimedia.org as the instructions I referenced explain and it will get processed. That's much more solid than a few admins having a copy, it's in a trackable system that way. ++Lar: t/c 04:25, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

All images on US Federal government sites are in the pubic domain, unless stated otherwise. Most=, if not all state sites have similar licenses. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:13, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually, most states do not place their copyrightable material in the public domain. It is either explicitly copyrighted, or automatically copyrighted, since a copyright notice is not required to establish a copyright. patsw (talk) 03:22, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

The non-posed picture should be retained, assuming it's a free photo, unless there is evidence that it's standard wikipedia practice to include P.R. family photos for politicians. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 06:04, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh go on, it's a cute pic. T0mpr1c3 (talk) 09:45, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

It's from "happier times", before the daughter managed to get knocked up and hence is all smiles. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 11:08, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Moot for now. Image:Palin Family.jpg has been deleted on Commons. If and when permission is given, the discussion could be revisited. (Bugs, it's standard practice to use the best pictures we can find that have free licenses... this is a good picture, and, were it licensed freely, it would be a better one to use in that part of the article than the one on the left... however it currently is not, and apparently prospects are dim that it will be...) ++Lar: t/c 15:47, 6 September 2008 (UTC)