Wikipedia

Talk:Sarah Palin/Archive 13

< Talk:Sarah Palin
Latest comment: 15 years ago by 98.243.129.181 in topic Full Protection until after the election
Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 12 Archive 13 Archive 14 Archive 15 → Archive 20

Need breakout page for "Speeches and Public Appearances of Sarah Palin"

Latest comment: 15 years ago13 comments8 people in discussion

I added Palin's Aug. 29 debut speech, but it is a bit long for this main article, and since then she has made her acceptance speech at the Republican Convention, and can be expected to make more. There are also several past appearances that are significant that should be included. On the other hand, her interview in which she asked what a vice-president does now seems somewhat insignificant. Therefore, I would like consensus from other editors about creating a new page, "Speeches and Public Appearances of Sarah Palin", to include the following, among others as they occur (in chronological order, which the list below is not):

The page might also have discussion and cites to commentary, such as analysis of language (e.g., the biblical origin of the phrase "servant's heart"), rhetorical technique (e.g., use or non-use of teleprompters), political significance, and cites to origins of phrases (e.g., the unattributed quote of Adm. Grace Hopper, who is reported to have been one of Palin's role models). Bracton (talk) 01:07, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Note: The phrase "servant's heart" is from Mark 10:44, "whosoever would be first among you, shall be servant of all." See http://www.bible-researcher.com/erv/mark.html#10 .Bracton (talk) 01:46, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
ZOMG BIBLE! ;) - Kelly hi! 01:52, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
Bracton, perhaps you could transribe Palin's speeches into WikiQuotes so we can link to them from here. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 02:18, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
A breakout page would be appropriate here, to avoid the "listing" that wiki frowns upon.Pianomikey0 (talk) 04:43, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
Unless she comes up with an iconic phrase like Truman's "the buck stops here", quotes should be sent to wikiquotes. And before anyone gets too gushy about the acceptance speech, keep in mind it was written by someone else (though presumably with her input). Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 06:08, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
Which reminds me: With her funny about eBay, I could imagine the internet-challenged McCain turning to one of his advisers and asking, "Where's eBay? Is that in Alaska?" Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 06:09, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
You should stamp that one before Leno steals it. :) Fcreid (talk) 12:27, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
All my jokes are released to public domain. Including the ones I've stolen from elsewhere. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 13:00, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
This article generally shouldn't contain multi-paragraph quotations, but retaining short quotations (or paraphrases) is appropriate. For example, her comment about wanting to know what the VP does has drawn attention and should be included. I could go either way on the "servant's heart" bit. By the way, any such breakout page should be titled in sentence case per MoS. JamesMLane t c 17:19, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Do we have more votes on this? I still don't get a consensus. When I get consensus support I will implement.Bracton (talk) 00:19, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

The proposal seems to be "about creating a new page, 'Speeches and Public Appearances of Sarah Palin'". What would have to be implemented here? I'd suggest that if someone wants to creat a new Wikipedia article, they should go for it. If it turns out well, then maybe it would be mentioned here in this article.Ferrylodge (talk) 00:32, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
I could create it but don't want to do that unless I can insert an internal breakout link into the main article, and that is protected.Bracton (talk) 01:49, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Passive voice in "Political Positions" category

Latest comment: 15 years ago15 comments8 people in discussion

I'm new to this, so please bear with me :) The sentence "Palin has been described as supportive of contraception" is passive voice, and should be changed to something more like "Palin is supportive of contraception"[citation]. Or maybe "ADN describes Palin as supportive of contraception." Pianomikey0 (talk) 02:38, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Except Anchorage Daily News is clearer than ADN, if that option is taken. 86.44.27.255 (talk) 02:34, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
How about just Palin supports contraception? Fcreid (talk) 03:16, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
Even though it's almost certainly true, I don't think that rephrase is quite supported by the reference.Pianomikey0 (talk) 03:50, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
I take it back. The referenced article says: "Palin said last month that no woman should have to choose between her career, education and her child. She is pro-contraception and said she's a member of a pro-woman but anti-abortion group called Feminists for Life." "She is supportive of contraception" would be almost directly quoted from the article.Pianomikey0 (talk) 03:56, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
Okeydoke. Nice and simple non-urgent request: {{editprotected}} remove the passive voice per pianomikey0. "She is supportive of supports contraception" 86.44.27.255 (talk) 03:59, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
Um, make it "She supports contraception." Pithy that way. Now I'll shut up.Pianomikey0 (talk) 04:05, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
Aye. 86.44.27.255 (talk) 04:07, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Except that contraception is not a notable political issue in 2008 in the United States. :-) Steve Dufour (talk) 04:26, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

That was good, Steve. Sometimes we get so caught up in nuances that we miss the obvious. :) ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:08, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
It's already in the article, in the passive voice. This is about removing the passive voice. Seperate issues, separate sections? You're against removing the passive voice? Sheesh. 86.44.27.255 (talk) 04:39, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
If the article must say something about this how about: "She is in favor of contraception." The source says, "She is pro-contraception." Steve Dufour (talk) 05:54, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
Contraception is less of an issue than abortion, but the Catholic Church, last I heard, still opposes contraception. It's also obvious that Palin's family doesn't use it, even if they favor it. Keep the quote on the matter to one sentence. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 07:17, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
"ADN reported in 2006 that Palin was pro-contraception" is accurate and reasonably brief. The ADN article from 2006 seems to be the only evidence that Palin is pro-contraception - I can't find any direct statements that Palin has made in support of contraception. To say "Palin is in favor of contraception" seems to go beyond what is known at this point. T0mpr1c3 (talk) 09:27, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
It is not obvious that her family doesn't use it. I know someone with two kids who were both the result of failed contraception (different methods each time). I know another family who uses contraception and has four kids, only one of which was the result of a mistake in the use of contraception. The other three involved intentional conceptions. Some people use contraception to space out their kids but still intend to have a large family. It's ridiculous to claim that her family obviously doesn't use it. Parableman (talk) 13:36, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Sandbox for article improvements

Latest comment: 15 years ago10 comments7 people in discussion


The Sarah Palin sandbox can be found here at the link provided for article improvements. Talk:Sarah Palin/sandbox. After consensus is reached an admin can edit it in the real article.

Regards, QuackGuru 04:33, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I do not see much need for this... {{editprotect}} is working quite well. In any case, if editors want to attempt a massive re-write, a sandbox may be handy. But I doubt this would be the case. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:49, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

An editor by mistake edited the sandbox in mainspace instead of the talk page. It needs to be deleted and salted. Sarah Palin/sandbox‎ QuackGuru 05:26, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Agreed with jossi. There is no need to further splinter out focus from the article to a third page. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 05:28, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

A sandbox will just be a target for more libel, slander, filth, and POV-pushing. That stuff isn't allowed there, either. Kelly hi! 05:30, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
I also agree with jossi. There's no need to add to the confusion by adding more pages out there. J Readings (talk) 05:31, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
The sandbox is a great idea. The mainspace version can continued to be protected for a week or even a month and we can improve the article by working towards consensus in the draft version. QuackGuru 05:56, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
Of course you would think it's a great idea, isn't it your idea? I don't. Have you been here dealing with the horrific crap on this article? There's no need to propagate this stuff to pages that are not well-watched. Kelly hi! 06:43, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
Better yet, let's have a whole bunch of sandboxes. We'll call it "content forks R us". Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 07:10, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
This seems likely just to cause edit wars on the fake article, rather than consensus on the real one. Coemgenus 13:50, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Track Palin's deployment

Latest comment: 15 years ago18 comments7 people in discussion

{{editprotected}} Please add the provided source [1] to the Personal Life section related to Track's deployment. Thanks! Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 12:39, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

The sources cited do not state that he is being deployed to Iraq. Someone please remove "He is set to be deployed to Iraq in September 2008.[120][121]" Lincoln F. Stern 12:22, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Why can you not do this yourself? This page is the grossest violation of the WP tenet against not owning articles ( see Wikipedia:Ownership of articles ) I have run across. People are so scared they are asking permission to change a comma into a semicolon. --Crunch (talk) 12:28, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
I'm sure the feeding-frenzy will died down soon. Meanwhile, what specific changes would you be making to the article? Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 12:30, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
Beelezubub man, this is NOT THE RIGHT PLACE to discuss that. We've linked you to the right place and continuing to complain about the full protection is wasting everyone's time. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 12:33, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
Please add this source then: http://canadianpress.google.com/article/ALeqM5g6GYPrhDjOw_MnIFo_4wj1Qwc65Q. Thanks! Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 12:32, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh please, BBugs! You cannot be serious in wanting me, or any other editor, to list all specific edits however minor we want to make. That is exactly my point. I am very frustrated. For starters, the edit suggested above. Next, about a dozen or more some extremely minor. Some grammatical and formatting. Some a little more substantial. Once again, I refer everyone to Wikipedia:Ownership of articles. --Crunch (talk) 12:35, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Kyaa, who are you addressing your request to? Who appointed themselves God who owns this article? --Crunch (talk) 12:37, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
Protection was requested and granted. The protection itself was debated and went back and forth until it became clear that semi-protection was insufficient. Go to that other page and make your voice heard. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 12:40, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
And the reason for the separate page is to prevent this one from getting too long. It's long enough as it is. You could almost have a separate spinoff page for each of the POV-pushing topics listed herein. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 12:44, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
WP:CONSENSUS. Nuff said. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 12:38, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
There are endless articles with grammar and spelling errors that the user could spend his energy on. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 12:42, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Two points: While we've been talking here, someone just put full protection on again. Again, you who are fully engaged in the Protection Wars may enjoy this game, the rest of us and the vast majority "out there" who just use Wikipedia as readers are finding it very frustrating. As for other articles that require grammar and spelling cleanup, let me clarify: I am interested in editing the Sarah Palin article. Much of what I am interested in editing is grammar and spelling. But that is not all. I am also interested in adding to the article and believe I can be trusted to do in a nPOV way that adheres to WP guidelines. I am not particularly interested in editing random articles for spelling mistakes at this time. That should have been clear. --Crunch (talk) 12:48, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Your reluctance to specify what you want to change, combined with your seemingly excessive frustration at editing this one article for grammar, makes me wonder what you're really up to. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 12:56, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
Baseball bugs, please WP:AGF. The reasons you give are entirely inadequate to justify the aspersions you are casting. Homunq (talk) 22:03, 5 September 2008 (UTC)


 N Edit declined. The request is not specific enough (add what where?). Also, if a reference is to be added, it should be provided in the proper <ref>{{cite news|...}}</ref> format.  Sandstein  16:39, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Gosh, someone didn't even read to verify there was consensus and missed the big blue link I provided. I've added it to the request so even a third grader could find it. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 11:58, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
Did you not read what Sandstein said: please put the reference in the correct citation template and then list it here. (<ref>{{cite news|title=|publisher|date=|last=|first=...etc}}</ref>)Then give us an exact place that you want it put. We cannot read minds. Woody (talk) 14:50, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

No Mention of Lifetime NRA Membership..?? Seems notable

Latest comment: 15 years ago6 comments5 people in discussion

No Mention of Lifetime NRA Membership..?? Seems notable

I think that's mentioned in Political positions of Sarah Palin. Kelly hi! 13:29, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
It should be briefly noted here as well, as being a member of the NRA is not necessarily a political position. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:43, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

How about adding it in the personal life section as such "Palin is a self-described "hockey mom" and mother of five. Among her common activities are hunting, ice fishing and riding snowmobiles; she has also run a marathon. She has a lifetime membership to the NRA." Any other notable memberships that surface could then be added "and is a member of such & such." --ThaddeusB (talk) 14:58, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

If I remember correctly, she has been described as a life-long member of the NRA, which is not the same as being a Life Member, which is what I assume you mean by “lifetime membership.” —Travistalk 15:03, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
The sources seem dubious, so how about just "She is a member of the NRA." --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:16, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
I'm pretty certain she says "lifelong NRA member" herself. Shouldn't be too hard to find a reference. I'll put that on the list.--Paul (talk) 14:59, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Levi Johnston's age

Latest comment: 15 years ago29 comments15 people in discussion
  Resolved

Per edit request below. Oren0 (talk) 19:13, 6 September 2008 (UTC)


The article contains the phrase "17-year-old Levi Johnston" with one relevant Washington Post reference. However, Johnston's age is reported by multiple sources as 18, so the age provided in the article should be considered an error or at least under dispute (or even removed given its insignificant relation to the subject matter.)

A selection of contrary references:

It's also been pointed out elsewhere that his exact birthday may be obtained via the Alaska Court System site, but that probably falls under original research.

(Sorry about the nonstandard citation format - easier to copy & paste) --Robort (talk) 13:35, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

While I appreciate your diligent research, I think a simpler solution would be to omit this irrelevant detail entirely. JamesMLane t c 13:49, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I suggested that option, but since I can't edit the article someone else needs to do so. --Robort (talk) 13:57, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
I'll do it, if there are no objections? UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 14:04, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
ok w/me. Kaisershatner (talk) 14:07, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
WP:BLP would seem to support this. I can't quickly see a better wording than just dropping the hyphenated age. GRBerry 14:12, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
BLP says no such thing. In this case his age is fairly important in that people would be reacting differerntly if it was more than a couple of years to either side of what it actualy is.Geni 14:17, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
If the sources don't agree, then you have to straddle it and say 17-some-sources-say-18 or some such. The age doesn't matter very much unless there's an issue of statutory rape - which I gather there isn't, as someone had said the age of consent in Alaska is 16. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 14:21, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
"Late teens" would cover it no?Geni 14:25, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
Geni, his age may be fairly important for some purposes, but I don't think it's important for Sarah Palin's bio. JamesMLane t c 14:33, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
The fact of her teen daughter's pregnancy is important. Unless there's a legal issue, the exact age of the father is not especially important. However, if someone could determine when his birthday was (maybe it was last week?) the 17 vs. 18 question might at least be answered and we would have some closure here. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 14:37, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
One tyop or misstatement of fact saying "the campaign said he was 17" does not trump numerous other reliable sources with an age which agrees with court records cited above saying 18. The incorrect reference should be removed and a reference with the 18 age should be cited. It removes any salacious speculation that he is much older (or younger) than the girl. Even the Washington Post can make a mistake, which was corrected in several Washington Post and other newspaper's stories in subsequent days. A footnote to The Telegraph follows the misstatement of Johnston's age, but the cited article does not give any age for Johnston. Edison (talk) 14:44, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
Bristol is important. She is important due to the pregnancy so the father is important. Going by the various teen pregnacy articles I've seen it would appear that his rough age is of some importance.Geni 00:03, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
I vote to remove the age entirely, as it is no relevance to Palin's bio anyway. --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:00, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
Concur. Fcreid (talk) 15:37, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
"We must get the article right." Until/unless there's consensus on changing the age, it should be removed. --Robort (talk) 17:04, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Quick canvass

What should we do about the reference to Levi Johnson's age?

Remove it

  1. Seems the only sensible thing to do since sources disagree; also it is not relevant to Sarah Palin's biography what his exact age is. --ThaddeusB (talk) 17:20, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
  2. What Thaddeus said. Kelly hi! 18:00, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
  3. Although I'm satisfied with the sources that state his age is 18, it isn't relevant to the subject whether he's 18 or 17. --Robort (talk) 18:08, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
  4. Remove it as irrelevant per Thaddeus Keeper ǀ 76 18:17, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
  5. Remove. Irrelevant to Sarah Palin's biography. Kaisershatner (talk) 19:49, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
  6. Remove. It's not relevant to the subject of the article (Sarah Palin). --Clubjuggle T/C 19:52, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
  7. Remove. The discrepancies in published information about the date aren't that big an issue. If there were such discrepancies about an important fact -- such as, for example, the birthdate of the subject of a bio article -- then we would simply provide the information available to us, as we do for Ann Coulter (see this section). Here, however, even if we had rock-solid information, there'd be no reason to include the birthdate of the bio subject's prospective son-in-law. JamesMLane t c 01:15, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Change to 18

  • Just go with the majority of the sources. The Washington Post just put down what the Palin campaign said, and said 18 in later articles. The other sources must have had some colleagues in Alaska do fact checking; they have BLP concerns too, you know. Getting it "wrong" in this instance is a non-concern, we are just reporting what major newspapers have said. His age should be in there; the age of consent issue means that users will be looking for it. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 18:22, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Change to agree with reliable sources. We do not remove facts from articles just because one source gave incorrect discrepant information. If her pregnancy and her age are encyclopedic, then his age is encyclopedic. Edison (talk) 19:53, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Leave as 17

Get it right

  • If you can determine for sure what his birth day and year actually are, then go with that. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 19:48, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Edit request

{{editprotected}} I request the sentence "Palin announced on September 1, 2008, that her daughter Bristol was five months pregnant chose to keep the baby and marry the father of her child, 17-year-old Levi Johnston." be changed to read "Palin announced on September 1, 2008, that her daughter Bristol was five months pregnant and intended to keep the baby and marry the father of her child, Levi Johnston." based on semi-consensus that his age is irrelevant to Sarah Palin's bio and complete consensus that 17 is inaccurate. --ThaddeusB (talk) 16:43, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

  Done based on consensus here. Oren0 (talk) 19:10, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Suggested edit to PSC section (2)

Latest comment: 15 years ago6 comments5 people in discussion

{{editprotected}}

I propose that the PSC section be reordered to address the faulty chronology. On August 1, the Alaska Legislature hired an independent investigator to review the situation.[1] Palin's acknowledgement that her staff had contacted Monegan dates to August 13. [2]. The reordered text would read:

... He further alleged that contacts made by Palin herself, her staff, and her family had constituted inappropriate pressure to fire Wooten.[3][4] On August 1, the Alaska Legislature hired an independent investigator to review the situation.[1] On August 13, Palin acknowledged that her staff had contacted Monegan or his staff regarding Wooten.[2] Palin stated that most of those calls were made without her knowledge, and reiterated that she did not fire Monegan because of Wooten.[3][5] ...

T0mpr1c3 (talk) 20:27, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Agree, this is just reordering, not expansion. Homunq (talk) 22:43, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
Included in version 3 above, template here gutted. Homunq (talk) 16:21, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
Is topic #15: "Add information on Monegan firing" now officially dead, and this where the Monegan dismissal issue is to be discussed? The other thread appeared to be on-going. If not, I think anyone reviewing it would find it pertinent. 216.170.33.149 (talk) 16:51, 5 September 2008 (UTC) Paul

Oppose. There is no faulty chrnology in the article. The article presently does not mention the internal investigation, or when it occurred.Ferrylodge (talk) 20:33, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

The chronology is still faulty. Someone removed the reference to Palin's internal investigation, but left the statement that she admiited to improper contact(s) in the section prior to the news of the State Legislature launching an investigation. This is a non-factual order of events, and affects the readers perception of any motiovations for making the admissions. Spiff1959 (talk) 21:57, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Ebay error

Latest comment: 15 years ago13 comments9 people in discussion
  Resolved

The current article states about the governor's jet:

In August 2007, the jet was listed on eBay and later sold for $2.1 million.

While technically correct, this is misleading, because it was never actually purchased on eBay; instead, it was sold through an aircraft broker. See No bidders on eBay; sold it offline Joshdboz (talk) 17:36, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree, although I am not much of a wordsmith so can't offer a compelling alternative. Maybe, "In August 2007, the jet was listed on eBay although a buyer was not found and later sold for $2.1 million through a private brokerage firm. "zredsox (talk) 17:46, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
I created this particular wording because I felt it accurately and succinctly captured the transaction. It was listed on Ebay, and then it later traded. Further details, such as the specifics of the transaction including whether EBay received a commission or a broker, seemed superfluous. I'm happy to change the wording, but not at the expense of wordiness. Ronnotel (talk) 18:08, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
If we do not want to succinctly define the transaction to remove ambiguity, we should just remove the eBay part altogether.zredsox (talk) 18:14, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
Just a slight tweak: "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.[6]" If there's not much controversy I'd appreciate if an admin would clarify this in article. Thanks, Joshdboz (talk) 18:07, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
Done--Appraiser (talk) 18:34, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. Ronnotel, I agree with the need to stay crisp, but since the line has found its way into official campaign talk, we might as well state it completely to avoid POV one way or the other. Joshdboz (talk) 19:16, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

John McCain parroted this misleading lie. "You know what I enjoyed the most?" McCain said in Cederburg, Wisconsin, according to ABC News' Bret Hovell. "She took the luxury jet that was acquired by her predecessor and sold it on e-Bay. And made a profit!" http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/09/the-ebay-myth.html Macshill (talk) 22:32, 5 September 2008 (UTC) macshill

Don't you think "lie" is a bit harsh, in light of the fact that it could easily be a misunderstanding of the exact chain of events? --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:55, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
Naw, it's a lie. Campaigns have teams of fact-checkers and speechwriters to make sure that their candidate doesn't mis-speak. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 22:29, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
Especially since it wasn't sold for a profit, but rather a $600k loss (or more? was there a broker's fee?). RobHar (talk) 22:35, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
The difference between a lie and a mistake is in the mind of the speaker -- something we can't determine and must not speculate about. If what was said was incorrect -- and it seems it was -- we can determine that, as can some reliable source woe can cite to. Coemgenus 22:36, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
How about "involuntary lie"? (just kidding) RobHar (talk) 23:14, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Political positions section (2)

Latest comment: 15 years ago52 comments17 people in discussion

I've rewritten this, turning the list into prose per some guideline or other. I know it's not perfect, but it can be improved and is broadly accurate and fair. One thing though: I very much think that that section should not be very long: not when we already have a whole article dedicated to her political positions (Political positions of Sarah Palin). The stuff about the polar bears belongs there not here. BTW, are we sure the stuff about abortion is actually 'political as opposed to just a personal preference. What I mean is, the NRA membership is obviously related to her politics, because as veep she would obviously try to block attempts to limit the right to bear arms, but has she actually said she would like to see Roe vs Wade overturned? If not, the abortion stuff is more tangential than anything else. Moreschi (talk) 19:54, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I am not sure you should bypass edit protection by creating a new article. GtstrickyTalk or C 20:09, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
A new article? Moreschi (talk) 20:10, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
Yea... I need more coffee..... GtstrickyTalk or C 20:13, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
The point about the ESA listing of the polar bears is that, unlike the typical politician "position" where the politician is just spouting off, this issue is one where Palin acted on her position by suing the federal government. The suit by Alaska (under her leadership) might be included in a summary of her gubernatorial administration, but it fits well in this section, too. It should be in the article somewhere. JamesMLane t c 20:14, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
It's addressed in Political positions of Sarah Palin. Kelly hi! 20:30, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
You can't just have "positive" things and not balance it out with stands that she has taken which are considered less popular. That is taking a POV. That is the real problem here.zredsox (talk)
I think you're confusing "positive" with "neutral". Kelly hi! 22:28, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
No, actually I am not - but thanks. zredsox (talk) 00:21, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
Great work, Moreschi...and it's of about the same length as the equivalent section in Joe Biden. Kelly hi! 20:18, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
Please note that it is somewhat frustrating to see admins editing this article while there are unresolved editprotect requests on this page. Not that your edits are bad, just that that's not what adminship is supposed to be about, I think. Homunq (talk) 20:23, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
Hmm, very true, but then good admins who actually do what they're supposed to always are the boring ones :) Moreschi (talk) 20:26, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
This edit chopped the Political positions section to a stub. Forget consensus, forget Wikipedia process, and now we have admins gone wild. QuackGuru 20:40, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
Actually, it's WP:SUMMARY style. For what it's worth, the really wild admins are the ones who repeatedly unprotected this article. Cool Hand Luke 20:56, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
Stub, bollocks. There's no reason for it to be longer when we have a child article for this issue: as Cool Hand Luke says, summary style. Moreschi (talk) 21:18, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
  • What on earth was wrong with proceeding in an incremental and consensual way as Gstricky was trying to do above? Why has this section been completely rewritten by an admin? Someone tell me what is the process for getting this reverted. I feel like someone has just wasted a lot of other people's time. T0mpr1c3 (talk) 20:49, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
We won't revert, unless there's consensus that we should. The process to gather consensus can continue. On a side note, I think that Right to bear arms should disambiguate to Right to keep and bear arms, no objection ? Cenarium Talk 20:56, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
I strongly support the rewrite. ANY summary is better than the list we had. If you have problems with the summary, then please state them, but please let us not even consider going back to that horrible list. Please! --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:53, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
What is the f------ point of stating any opinion at all if an admin is going to take things into his own hands? Why should I bother trying to contribute to this page? T0mpr1c3 (talk) 21:12, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Shrugs. Guys, look at it from my view. The article is fully-protected, right? Which means you can't edit it. IMO, that's a shame, but if I unprotect, I get demopped and heavily thwacked with a big trout by arbcom. Supposedly, this has been done to deal with BLP issues. But the protected version itself contained major problems: arguably the previous version of this section was a BLP vio, as it read like a laundry list of "all these crazy things Palin thinks", without bothering to establish context. Ergo, if I'm not allowed to fix problems like this - and I can well understand why you'd be pissed off - well, then, what was the point of protecting in the first place? Moreschi (talk) 21:18, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
    • You didn't fix it, you rewrote it, junking half the material and inserting a bunch of new stuff, all without any attempt at achieving consensus beforehand. I'm taking this to the arbitration page. T0mpr1c3 (talk) 21:23, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
      • Please, go ahead. I don't expect the arbs will sympathise, though. And I didn't junk anything: anything that I didn't retain is already in Political positions of Sarah Palin, as has been pointed out at least 3 times already. And what new stuff? Obviously she's a social conservative and an economic libertarian - you're not disputing that, are you? This is just basic background context that should have been there in the first place. Moreschi (talk) 21:28, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
        • Thank you, I did. The point is not the content of the edit but the arbitrary way you decided to make it. T0mpr1c3 (talk) 21:37, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
          • Well, what am I supposed to do? Sit and wait for a week's discussion while that BLP-dubious list just sits there being viewed by hundreds of thousands? Moreschi (talk) 21:43, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
            • Millions is more like it, have you seen the page stats? Thanks for saving our reputation. Kelly hi! 22:47, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
              • I'd like to state a Strong support for Moreschi's version, and getting rid of the dubious list that was put into the article during the controversial unprotection that is currently the subject of Arbcom proceedings. The list was a byproduct of the unprotection wheel war. Hobartimus (talk) 00:07, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
              • This is an improvement. I would not have trimmed quite so much, but without doubt it still is better now. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 04:41, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
I'd like to state opposition to the textual change made by Moreschi, and strong opposition to the unilateral way he did it.
BLP. When I started on Wikipedia, there was a dismaying tendency for some editors to use "NPOV violation" to mean "any edit I don't like". That persists, of course, but it's now been joined by "BLP violation". The phrase is invoked as a catchall in any article about a living person. BLP requires that negative or contentious material be properly sourced. I looked over the text replaced by Moreschi and I don't see anything that could reasonably be thought to violate that rule. Furthermore, even Moreschi's defense claims only "arguably" -- well, if something's "arguably" a BLP violation, then the issue should've been discussed here. BLP doesn't mean that anyone who objects to a passage in a bio article gets to remove it, no questions asked.
Other rationales. Editors can reasonably differ over what WP:SS requires here. I personally believe that the previous text was far more consistent with WP:SS (and with WP:NPOV) than is Moreschi's replacement. It should be obvious that these are the sorts of issues we're supposed to be discussing here, and that they should not be the basis for a unilateral edit. JamesMLane t c 04:47, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Note: Moreschi's edit is under discussion at Wikipedia:Arbitration_enforcement#Massive_change_to_Sarah_Palin_made_without_consensus. Please take further commentary to that page. T0mpr1c3 (talk) 08:31, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Massive change to Sarah Palin made without consensus

This massive change chopped the Political positions section to a stub without consensus. Careful now. QuackGuru 21:17, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh, don't be silly. 1) in-article lists are not permitted, 2) said list was arguably a BLP vio, 3) please see my post above, and 4) please read Wikipedia:Summary style. There's a massive difference between this and {{stub-section}}, which my rewrite clearly isn't. Moreschi (talk) 21:21, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
  • This change was not arrived at with any sort of consensus, has a heavy POV and needs to completely scrapped. zredsox (talk) 21:29, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
  • This isn't a massive change. I think it is excellent. 1) It is in summary style, it is accurate, and it isn't pushing a point of view. It does, however need better cites.--Paul (talk) 21:31, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
    • Hmm. Mostly I just copy/pasted the cites from the previous version and didn't actually look at them. I suppose this should be checked. BTW, can we not use uber-complex citation templates all the time? It just clogs up the edit box and makes it impossible to tell whether material is text or reference, the cites go on for lines on end. Just a personal gripe...Moreschi (talk) 21:34, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

{{editprotect}}

  • There was never any hint of consensus for this massive change. Therefore, I request the controversial edit be reverted. QuackGuru 22:21, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
    • No, there's consensus, see above. Also see WP:SS. Besides, the issue is being discussed elsewhere, don't complicate by forking the conversation all over the place, please. Kelly hi! 22:25, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
      • Also, please stop enabling the "editprotect" template, it's disruptive. It's not going to be filled when the issue is under discussion. Kelly hi! 22:37, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
        • Because you are an involved editor you should not touch the editprotected. You could be blocked if you continue to modify my edit. QuackGuru 22:50, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
          • Kelly, I see several editors on this page expressing disapproval of Moreschi's unilateral change, and others doing so on the AN page. Would you explain to me by what process of reasoning you conclude that your personal preference is backed by consensus? JamesMLane t c 05:36, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Barack Obama#Political positions

A featured article has a very well written political positions section.Barack Obama#Political positions This article would easily fail to be a WP:GA because of the very short political positions section. Thanks. QuackGuru 22:50, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks QuackGuru. I think this is the best example thus far of why we need an expanded section with positions beyond the Base's Red Meat. zredsox (talk) 23:59, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

 N Edit declined. There is currently no consensus either here or at WP:AE to revert Moreschi's change. Please use {{editprotect}} only after a consensus for a change in the article has been achieved (see CAT:PER. The edit request is otherwise not actionable.  Sandstein  05:39, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Comparison with Joe Biden

For comparison, see Joe Biden#Political positions. We've now got sections that are relatively similar in style, which is a good thing. Kelly hi! 22:35, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Read this . Basically it says in order to achieve good article status (on the Biden article) the Political Positions section needs to either be expanded or deleted. So, I don't think it makes for a very good example.
"Either expand "Political positions" or get rid of it. It has a separate article, and that's fine, but the one in this article is way too short for its own section."
Ask QuackGuru said above, the Obama summary is what we should be working toward as we know it is considered high quality copy. zredsox (talk) 00:39, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Simple rule suggested

Same process for regular users and admins. You suggest an edit here by proposing the modified text with {{editprotect}}, when some time passes and you've gotten some positive feedback you (for admins) or an admin (for users) implements it. Further modifications are fine. Same annoyance level for both, everything is fair. As close as possible to a normal flow of edits, given the protection. OK? Homunq (talk) 21:54, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Great idea!

Homunq (talk) 21:54, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

zredsox (talk) 22:25, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Fcreid (talk) 22:46, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

JamesMLane t c 05:37, 6 September 2008 (UTC): I was under the impression that this was the plan from the start, except with regard to manifestly uncontroversial stuff like misspellings.

Horrible idea!

No, the idea is that an admin can come along and act on a request that they can see has already gained consensus, not hover 'til they see how it pans out. 86.44.27.255 (talk) 23:49, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

"there is a plan and that that plan is God's plan"

Latest comment: 15 years ago33 comments11 people in discussion

God probably didn't plan so many "thats" in this sentence of the article.Ferrylodge (talk) 20:52, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Who are you to question His grammar? MastCell Talk 20:54, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
Maybe He stutters. Nobody's perfect. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 20:56, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
I think you're a sock of Porky Pig, Bugs. And Mastcell's comment leaves me humbly speechless. :-) Ferrylodge (talk) 20:58, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
  Done: I took this as an {{editprotected}} request and fixed it. MastCell Talk 20:59, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
Um, the source says "that that", who are we to correct the sources? Woody (talk) 21:01, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
25,300 google his for that that and 4930 for that. I think it should be reverted. Cenarium Talk 21:03, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
If you say the whole line out loud, the double that makes sense. Pray that there is a plan and that that plan is God's plan--Cube lurker (talk) 21:07, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually, the full sentence is, "That's what we have to make sure that we're praying for, that there is a plan and that that plan is God's plan," and the double-that is correct. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 21:06, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

D'oh... OK, with the full sentence it's clearly gramatically reasonable. I'll revert it back. Sorry. MastCell Talk 21:06, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
41,900 hits for one "that".Ferrylodge (talk) 21:08, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
Come on folks, we're making it sound like she can't speak English.Ferrylodge (talk) 21:11, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
I'm not a grammar expert, but i'll be honest, I use that sentance structure in conversation often. i.e. Can you make sure that that file gets put back when you're done. use only one that and it doesn't sound right. Can you make sure that file gets put back when you're done.--Cube lurker (talk) 21:18, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
Yeah revert, it makes sense. Plus, even if it was grammatically incorrect, it's a quote, so [sic] should be added next to it. Deamon138 (talk) 21:10, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
I read 4,920 for one that. The entire citation makes sense and should be respected. Should we give the entire citation ? Cenarium Talk 21:13, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

It's more than grammar, it's spin. If you read the whole sentence with a single that, it doesn't quite make sense. Deconstruct the double-that, and it does make sense: Pray (1) that there is a plan, and (2) that that plan is God's plan. That makes sense. I suspect those who put a single "that" in there are spinning that into a statement, rather than a question. I wonder if it's on tape anywhere? Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 21:13, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I give up. MastCell Talk 21:15, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
Ferrylodge, yes there are less hits for two "that"s, but notice how in this link, the words are surrounded by quotation marks, but in yours they aren't. In a quote you provide the same structure. i.e. two "thats", which with the full quote is also correct anyway according to the above. Deamon138 (talk) 21:15, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

←User:MastCell's edit summary was probably the funniest today: (→Personal life: minor grammar correction: I do not believe this can possibly be controversial, though I am ready to be proven wrong). Probably should never say that with this article!OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 21:17, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Part of the spin is to omit the preceding "pray that". Include that, and it's clear she's expressing a hope rather than making a statement that the war is God's plan or something. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 21:18, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

(undent)Since I started this, I'll lay it out very clearly. The cited source says: "Switching to the war in Iraq, Palin told the group of students that they should not only pray for men and women in the military but to make sure the leaders of this country are sending U.S. soldiers 'out on a task that is from God. That's what we have to make sure that we're praying for, that there is a plan and that that plan is God's plan.'" In contrast, the present article says: "On the topic of Iraq, she asked that people pray for the soldiers and that 'there is a plan and that that plan is God's plan.'"

Thus, the present article accurately quotes the source, but quotes it out of context in a grammatically and syntactically incorrect manner. Please change the current article to: "On the topic of Iraq, she asked people to pray for the soldiers and to pray that 'there is a plan and that that plan is God's plan.'" She wasn't asking that that plan is God's plan, she was asking that people pray that that plan is God's plan. Alternatively, remove the quotes and write a more understandable sentence.Ferrylodge (talk) 21:25, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

There is a discussion above which reached consensus on remvoal of this, I'll re-enable that edit request. Kelly hi! 21:30, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
The non-spin version, stated by Ferrylodge, also becomes non-controversial, because it's something anyone could say. But it might be useful to keep the entire quote, to pre-empt someone from trying to post the spin-version. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 21:32, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
The referenced discussion above had 14 advocating removal, 3 advocating retention. Kelly hi! 21:33, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
I see, #Undue Weight on "God" quotes. Cenarium Talk 21:34, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
I'll add my name above for removal, on grounds of distortion (perhaps unintentional).Ferrylodge (talk) 21:36, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
The quote itself is fairly trivial, but by deleting it you then have to keep watching for someone trying to add back the spin-version. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 21:40, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
Then put the non-spin version in a footnote for easy reference.Ferrylodge (talk) 21:45, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

<- Maybe Wikiquote is the right place for this info? Kelly hi! 21:50, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

There you go. Provided it's quoted correctly. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 22:11, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
WTF? "That that" is a Germanic construction, and as English is a Germanic language ... well. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;dissera! 23:33, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
Well, Jim, I think that that is a legitimate point you're making. No one is saying that "that that" is never appropriate. The issue here was that "that that" makes for a confusing and misleading sentence in a particular context. While "that that" may sometimes work fine, that "that that" that was in this article did not work fine, got that? Now that that "that that" that was in this article is gone from this article, it is readily apparent that my initial comment in this section was entirely correct, and that's that.  :-) Ferrylodge (talk) 00:25, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
LOL. We have come to dedicate a portion of this article as a final resting place for proper grammar and NPOV, that that nation might live. It is altogether fitting and proper that we should do this. Kaisershatner (talk) 14:29, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

A solution for the Political Positions section fiasco

Latest comment: 15 years ago10 comments7 people in discussion

Those editors who say that people who what to read more can just click through to the Political positions of Sarah Palin article; if you really believe that then you should have no problem with the following proposal:

I propose that the entire section consist of {{main|Political positions of Sarah Palin}}.

That way, everybody's happy; those that consider the current summary as a whitewash, those who didn't like the list that was there before, everybody. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 23:08, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

It's pointless to propose anything as long as the Republicans have their little dwarves around here to vote in mass against.
Anyway, I think it would have been better to make the section be a summary of the detailed article, like the policy says: Wikipedia:Summary style#Keeping summary articles and detailed articles synchronised bogdan (talk) 00:04, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Support

Oppose

  1. That's not how it works; main article should have the subject covered in summary style. If there's a problem with POV we should focus on fixing that. Lampman (talk) 23:44, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
    How can we, when an admin will come along and change it to suit his whim? Phlegm Rooster (talk) 23:46, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
  2. Oppose. People don't want to be overwhelmed on the bio page. Fcreid (talk) 23:50, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
  3. Oppose. WP:SS isn't just policy, it's common sense. Some readers won't care about her political positions and will skip over this section whatever is in it. Some readers will want to know as much as possible and will click through to the daughter article regardless of what's in the summary. Some readers in the middle, though, will want the highlights but not every last detail. That's why there should be a summary here. JamesMLane t c 01:40, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Will Not Matter

  • The root problem with this is Palin's positions themselves - they don't lend themselves to summaries well. Against abortion except for saving life of mother (is personal or political?) BUT no real evidence this is a political position she is pushing. She would support capital punishment but isn't pushing it politically. She's against "gay marriage" but then follows "political reasoning" on same-sex health benefits [she pushed it back to the voters rather than push her own opinion]. So, how do you take positions like that and summarize them without edit & pov wars? Theosis4u (talk) 04:11, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Theosis4u, this is a good analysis. The 'problem' is caused by the fact that Palin is not a traditional evangelical, she has libertarian leanings. Although she has a lot of opinions that mirror traditional evangelical beliefs, she has no desire to use the power of government to enforce them. This is why saying she is for "teaching creationism in schools" is inaccurate. She might prefer that, but would never do anything in political office to bring it about, because she doesn't think that is the role of government.--Paul (talk) 04:27, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
  • TY. And some could now argue that your complimenting her and others will say your making her sound like she's a typical politician just trying to be popular. In the end, it will get resolved when people find another target to inflict their extremism upon. Theosis4u (talk) 04:37, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
And where am I "complimenting her"??--Paul (talk) 04:47, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

To be added to 2008 vice-presidential campaign - No interviews for Palin

Latest comment: 15 years ago6 comments5 people in discussion

Can this be added to the 2008 vice-presidential campaign section - Thanks

On Sept 4 the McCain camp announced that Gov Palin will not give interviews to the media. [7]

That source is a blog. Kelly hi! 23:59, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
Looks like the blog linked to the Time website. Hmmm - we don't normally write about what people don't do in their biographies, but perhaps the article on the McCain campaign would be appropriate for this info. Wow, that reporter who wrote the Time piece sounds really bitter. Kelly hi! 00:01, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
He's TIME's Washington bureau chief. :) 86.44.27.255 (talk) 00:17, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
It's quite remarkable, and surely worthy of inclusion, when a VP candidate will not give interviews. It's been reported in a number of places, this page has lots of quotes and video of McCain people talking about it[8]. I think this needs to go in the Sarah Palin article, not just the McCain campaign article.217.43.168.198 (talk) 10:31, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
For the benefit of those who wont even look at a Huffington Post link, here's what's on the website of The Atlantic: "A senior McCain campaign official advises that, despite the gaggle of requests and pressure from the media, Gov. Sarah Palin won't submit to a formal interview anytime soon. She may take some questions from local news entities in Alaska, but until she's ready -- and until she's comfortable -- which might not be for a long while -- the media will have to wait." I agree with the anon that this is quite remarkable and therefore worthy of inclusion here. JamesMLane t c 14:15, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
I agree that the strategy of keeping Palin away from the media is noteworthy. It's not controversial to note it. It's a fact and McCain spokesperson Nicolle Wallace essentially derided Jay Carney of TIME for suggesting that Palin should answer questions from the media and conceded that she's not talking to the media at this point when the two appeared on MSNBC's Morning Joe as noted by ABC's Jake Tapper[9] I don't think Carney sounds bitter. He sounds perfectly reasonable. We shouldn't excludes a notable event covered by multiple media outlets and noted by the campaign itself because an editor has the subjective impression that one of the reporters involved is "bitter." --JamesAM (talk) 20:52, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

factual error

Latest comment: 15 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Houndly (talk) 00:08, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Correction to a factual matter: Mayor Sarah Palin did NOT raise the City of Wasilla sales tax from 2.0% to 2.5 percent to finance a sports complex, unless you consider possibly signing it into effect after it passed a voter referendum. She advocated for the complex from what I understand, but it was put into law by a public vote after being put on the ballet by a vote of the city council. That's a far different matter from "raising taxes."

And the sales tax was reduced to its earlier 2.0% after the target funds were raised as specified in the referendum.

From Anchorage Daily News circa 12/6/2001 "The city council will have a public hearing Monday before deciding whether to ask residents to raise the sales tax from the existing 2 percent to 2.5 percent to pay the estimated $14.7 million cost of the center. If passed, the question would appear on the ballot in May. Voters would have to approve the sales tax increase before the center could be built."


For confirmation you might look to The Anchorage Daily News (ADN) and not to the New York Times.

http://www.adn.com/sarah-palin/background/story/517370.html

If I am reading correctly we should change "She increased the city sales tax to pay for the new Wasilla Multi-Use Sports Complex,[23] which eventually went over budget due to an eminent domain lawsuit." to "She advocated increased the city sales tax to pay for the new Wasilla Multi-Use Sports Complex. A temporary sales tax increase from 2 to 2.5% was put on the ballot and passed. The sports complex was built, but went over budget due to an eminent domain lawsuit." I would, however, like to see some confirmation that this is actually what happened. --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:17, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, the statement embedded in the article says: "She increased the city sales tax to pay for the new Wasilla Multi-Use Sports Complex,[21] which eventually went over budget due to an eminent domain lawsuit.[23]" which to me implies that Mayor Palin raised the tax herself. The choice to raise the sales tax (temporarily) was one of the voters. As I was sniffing around I noticed that Wikipedia had already included information on the matter at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wasilla_Multi-Use_Sports_Complex

[quote] The Wasilla Multi-Use Sports Complex is a 2,500-seat multi-purpose arena in Wasilla, Alaska. It is home to the Alaska Avalanche ice hockey team. It was originally funded by a 0.5 percentage point sales tax increase voted by residents, implemented by then-Mayor Sarah Palin.[1] The cost went over budget due to an eminent domain lawsuit brought by the prior property owner, Gary Lundgren.[2] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Houndly (talk • contribs) 00:26, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Political positions section redux

Latest comment: 15 years ago72 comments15 people in discussion

I see Bogdangiusca (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) is editing through protection on this section - there's an inaccuracy in the summary. It says "She is a proponent of teaching both creationism and evolution in science classes, but she did not push creation science as governor of Alaska." - in actuality, she is not in favor of teaching creationism at all, but simply allowing discussion. This is discussed in Political positions of Sarah Palin. Kelly hi! 00:42, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

See #Direct Plagerism. Though I'll leave a note. Cenarium Talk 00:51, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
Actually these are different edits to the "Political positions" section. They're in prose style but there's an inaccuracy. Kelly hi! 00:54, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

ANCHORAGE, Alaska (AP) — As a candidate for governor, Sarah Palin called for teaching creationism alongside evolution in public schools. [2] PS. Archive the page- Francis Tyers · 00:58, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

The discussion on archiving is at #__..--_META_DISCUSSION:_ARCHIVING_--..__. It's a 24 hrs setting and already 403 kb. Cenarium Talk 01:07, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Proposed change

Change the word "teaching" to "allowing discussion". Kelly hi! 00:52, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

"As a candidate for governor, Sarah Palin called for teaching creationism alongside evolution in public schools." zredsox (talk) 00:58, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually, this is the source cited for the statement in the summary[3], which states Palin said discussion of alternative views on the origins of life should be allowed in Alaska classrooms. "I don't think there should be a prohibition against debate if it comes up in class. It doesn't have to be part of the curriculum. Kelly hi! 01:01, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
We are both citing the same source so this should be easy. Check out the very first sentence. zredsox (talk) 01:03, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
Actually, I read the whole article, including the headline, which says Palin has not pushed creation science as governor. :) Kelly hi! 01:05, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
Great, then I am sure you caught the first sentence. zredsox (talk) 01:16, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
I think the referenced AP article is excellent, both informational, and balanced and it should be used as the footnote. Now all we need to do it agree on what to say in OUR article.--Paul (talk) 03:14, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
Zredsox, that quote says nothing about science classrooms. It could refer to a class on wolrd religions, or a social studies class. The present article is asserting something that simply is not in the cited source. And this bogus info was inserted into the article just now, while the article was in full protection, without any consensus here at the talk page.Ferrylodge (talk) 01:01, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
I've contacted Bogdangiusca. Cenarium Talk 01:07, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
Zredsox, the article you linked to says "'I don't think there should be a prohibition against debate if it comes up in class. It doesn't have to be part of the curriculum,' she said." (emphasis added) So are you objecting to the proposed edit or agreeing - you source seems to agree.--ThaddeusB (talk) 01:08, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
FL, that's splitting hairs. The teaching of Creationism is prohibited in Public Schools in the US anyways, so my personal opinion is she can babble on about this all day long, and the Supreme Court is going to bash it down. But I digress. It doesn't matter where it's taught, it can't be taught. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 01:09, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
The Supreme Court has not spoken on the issue. Nor has any District Court forbidden any public school from describing the beliefs of various religions, for example in a social studies course or a course on world religions.Ferrylodge (talk) 01:15, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
I support this purposed change as being more accurate to what she actually said.--ThaddeusB (talk) 01:08, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
I support the proposed change too.Ferrylodge (talk) 01:11, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
Except for the tiny little issue is that she actually did call for "teaching" creationism. It doesn't matter, since she's constitutionally prohibited from doing so. And McCain is a firm backer of science. And VP's are kind of irrelevant. I don't support.OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 01:12, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
Here we go again, the "majority wagon" is rolling through! I do not support trying to remove impeccably sourced views out of her bio if they somehow fall on the fringe. Absolutely not. zredsox (talk) 01:15, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
Your own source disagrees with your assertion, yet you continue to push it. I think you need to take a good look in the mirror about who is being POV. --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:29, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
You are so blinded at this point. Read the first sentence. It is clear as day. Read the Globe article. It is more of the same. Stop being so partisan for just one minute and read.zredsox (talk) 01:39, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
Maybe you should open your own eyes and stop being so partisan. Both the headline of the article and the text support a more rich understanding than "creationism should be taught." I read the ONE SENTENCE and I read the REST of the sentences too. To argue that that article says "She is a proponent of teaching both creationism and evolution in science classes" is just nuts. You can't just take the one sentence you like and ignore the rest. --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:50, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
Nope. she's argued for teach both. That she may latter have softened on that position may also be mentioned but she has clearly argued for the teach both positon "I am a proponent of teaching both."[4].Geni 01:16, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
Meh. The way I read the AP source is that she made a remark and later clarified it. It looks like the Boston Herald included the first part of the AP article and omitted the second. Kelly hi! 01:20, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
The word "science" occurs only one place in that cited source, and that's in the title ("Palin has not pushed creation science as governor"). Why did Bogdan override protection to insert it into this Palin article, as if Palin supports teaching creationism in science classes.?Ferrylodge (talk) 01:19, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
Oppose She said it herself, in a televised debate (not a remark): "When asked during a televised debate in 2006 about evolution and creationism, Palin said, according to the Anchorage Daily News: "Teach both. You know, don't be afraid of information. Healthy debate is so important, and it's so valuable in our schools. I am a proponent of teaching both." The next day, she said she didn't mean creationism should be part of the curriculum. She wants it "debated" along with evolution, which is taught in biology classes. That's what she said, so why not have the article reflect it? I am forced to conclude Kelly thinks it will lose Palin some votes. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 01:23, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
Mr. Rooster, you're the one who is saying "biology class". Palin didn't say "biology class" or "science class". So why did Bogdan put "science class" into this article while it's in full protection, without consensus? Perhaps to make Palin lose votes?[5]Ferrylodge (talk) 01:27, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
The quote in question is from a debate. She clarified what she meant the next day. Why is what she said on the spur of the moment given presidence over what she said the very next day? Do you always 100% accurately state your position every time you are asked?--ThaddeusB (talk) 01:29, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
This is not about identifying the best gotcha quote that's been rehashed and parsed from the Anchorage Daily News, but to find the best source which explains her political views in a complete, neutral way. patsw (talk) 01:32, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
It is also not about identifying populist views to display proudly while stashing the rest in the closet. zredsox (talk) 01:37, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't want to hear any more garbage about the page being hijacked by Republicans. This should be a clear cut edit to change it to what she actually believes, but instead people are focusing on one spur-of-the-moment comment and not what she said the very next day, not the way she campaigned, and not the way she actually governed (all of which support the change). --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:36, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

It was in a debate, not a slip of the tongue. Other sources say she "injected" this and other "wedge" issues into a race that had not been debating them, to get the social conservative vote. She did it on purpose. Also, the goal of Wikipedia is not report the "truth" but to report what reliable sources say. I note that you attack the source. This is not how it is supposed to be done. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 01:42, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
Um I didn't attack the source, I read it. Pulling one line out of the source and ignoring the context, is not using a source it is abusing it.--ThaddeusB (talk) 01:45, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
They make headlines for a reason. I oppose changing the statement. Other do ro. Stop arguing and go find an admin who will violate the rules again. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 01:49, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
Specifically the get people to read the article. And they make text to explain what the headline actually means. In any case the headline was "Palin has not pushed creation science as governor" which certainly doesn't support "She is a proponent of teaching both creationism and evolution in science classe" so what is your point? --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:01, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
What don't you get here? this is 100% true, correct and verified. "As a candidate for governor, Sarah Palin called for teaching creationism alongside evolution in public schools." [6] zredsox (talk) 01:38, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
And it is 100% correct that she clarified what she meant the next day, but you want only the gotcha quote and not the position she actually ran on. Tell me if you said something at a work function and didn't realize people could misinterpret you, but corrected yourself the next day with more precise language, which version would you prefer people associate with you - the exact words you said or your more precise explanation the next day? --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:44, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
So was Trig being her grandson when you posted that, right? Fcreid (talk) 01:41, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
I have no idea what you are talking about, but I think you are in the wrong section as this has nothing to do with Trig. zredsox (talk) 01:44, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

(undent) Bogdan's non-consensus, full-protected edit says: "She is a proponent of teaching both creationism and evolution in science classes, but she did not push creation science as governor of Alaska." Would someone who supports that edit please point out where in the cited source, or where in the summarized Wikipedia article, anything is mentioned about "science classes" or "biology classes", as opposed to "social studies" or "comparative religion" classes? Thanks.Ferrylodge (talk) 01:42, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

If "science class" is your big "issue" I am all for changing it to "She is a proponent of teaching both creationism and evolution in public schools, but did not push creationism as governor of Alaska" per the AP article text. Finally, Consensus! We did it! zredsox (talk) 01:48, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for helping to demonstrate that language Bogdan inserted into the article during full protection has virtually no support here at the talk page. But even that correction you suggest would be insufficent, I think. I would be more inclined to support this: "She is a proponent of teaching about or allowing discussion about both creationism and evolution in public schools, and did not push creationism as governor of Alaska." (After all, the cited source says "Palin said discussion of alternative views on the origins of life should be allowed in Alaska classrooms" and also quotes her as saying that, "It's OK to let kids know that there are theories out there.")Ferrylodge (talk) 02:13, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Doesn't matter, evolution is taught in biology. The article doesn't say she wanted taught in social studies, does it? Phlegm Rooster (talk) 01:46, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
Mr. Rooster, evolution is not only taught in science classes. For example, I believe that Darwin is often discussed in history class. And his excellent book "Origin of Species" is also a great work of literature, suitable for English classes. By the way, did you know that Darwin and Lincoln were born on the same day?[7] See, you can learn about Darwin in all kinds of places.Ferrylodge (talk) 01:50, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
The sentence as it stands is misleading. The phrase "called for teaching" is an exageration of the quoted statement from the debate. I would favor "described herself as a proponent of teaching" or "opposed prohibiting debate about." Celestra (talk) 01:51, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
As eloquent as the options you have presented might be, they are not what is in the article that we are sourcing. zredsox (talk) 02:00, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
Yes, the WHOLE article not just the one line you like. The article as a whole does not come close to supporting "She is a proponent of teaching both creationism and evolution in science classes" --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:05, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
We know how you feel Thaddeus. One thing is for sure, you are consistent with your views. *wink* zredsox (talk) 02:15, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
Yep, consistent that you should use all the available information to form the best possible conclusion - not just pick one sentence we like and ignore the rest. Please note, for example, that I am advocating expanding the "library controversy" section above. There certainly is no argument about your consistent anti-Palin view though. --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:21, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
This is an encyclopedia, material in this article should communicate what Palin's real views are on teaching creationism. We have her own words on the matter. Do editor's arguing for the sentence from the debate really think that it represents Palin's view? If so, please answer these questions: 1) if her true view is that creationism should be taught in school, why did she say the opposite the next day? 2) if her true position is that creationism should be taught in schools why is it that the ONLY source of this supposed policy position is one sentence from a debate? If she is really for teaching creationism in schools, why hasn't she done anything about it as governor? Wikipedia is not a newspaper. We aren't supposed to report news - like what someone said in a debate - we are supposed to communicate knowledge, not use a "gotcha quote" to spread disinformation.--Paul (talk) 02:56, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for trying to interject some rationality into this mess, although I am confident you'll either get no response or "the first sentence of this article says so, that's why." --ThaddeusB (talk) 03:13, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
Nope NPOV requires that we produce something along the lines of "sarah palin was quoted as saying "I am a proponent of teaching both.". She later stated that this satement had been misinterprited and that she meant whatever". obviosuly with better spelling.Geni 03:18, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
Nope, that is not what NPOV requires. NPOV requires "representing fairly, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources." In this case we have ONE source, the Governor of Alaska. We need to "represent fairly" and "without bias" what her view really is.--Paul (talk) 03:34, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
Actualy no. We report the various POVs on what her POV is. See we can't be pretending to know which of the two POVs expressed is the real one.Geni 03:42, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Point of Order

Could someone explain what empowers Bogdangiusca to edit this protected article without discussing the edits here? 01:53, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

That's being addressed by the ArbCom - I'm sure there'll be some desysoppings, warnings, or trout-slappings handed out liberally when things are sorted out. :) Kelly hi! 02:04, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
I assume it was to "correct" the "incomplete" summary. --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:06, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
It is funny that people are complaining now about this admin edit, when in fact the summary itself was an illegal admin edit without consensus. Actually, there have been admin edits all day without any sort of consensus. I guess it is only something worth mentioning if your shinny POV somehow gets tarnished. Then scream bloody murder!zredsox (talk) 02:11, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
Open your eyes. MANY complained about the first summary edit. (Personally I didn't complain about either, sorry if it sounded like I was complaining about this one.) All the other edits were non-controversial. --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:18, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
All the other edits were non-controversial TO YOUR POV. zredsox (talk) 02:43, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
To any point of view. I wasn't aware correcting formatting, spelling errors, etc. was POV. I should stated that a bit better though "All the other edits were completely non-controversial or had clear consensus." Of course, we all no how you feel about letting people better explain themselves at a later time, so I guess this explanation won't be allowed and I'll have to stick by the original sound byte version. --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:57, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
You can't speak for "any point of view." All other edits were completely non-controversial to you or had a clear consensus to you. Lets not go in circles with this as you can not speak with any authority as to what I find controversial or not. Thanks. zredsox (talk) 03:24, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
Oh brother, are you seriously arguing that spelling corrections are controversial in some POV? --ThaddeusB (talk) 03:41, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
I am not talking about spelling corrections. The admins have been making article changes since the initial lockdown and I promise you they didn't just make grammatical edits. Lets just agree to disagree, Ok? Thanks.zredsox (talk) 03:44, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) If you are going to make inflammatory comments about a whole class of generally trusted editors on this project, I'd like to see a dif or two to back them up. Gentgeen (talk) 03:48, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Just head over to Wikipedia:Arbitration_enforcement#Massive_change_to_Sarah_Palin_made_without_consensus and join the discussion. zredsox (talk) 04:01, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

OK, I've read that whole, horrible discussion, and all I see is the action of a single admin being called into question. You said, "The admins have been making article changes since the initial lockdown and I promise you they didn't just make grammatical edits." That is an attack against an entire class of users, with absolutely no supporting evidence. If I was a user who had been blocked multiple times in the recent past, and had been warned rather recently not to make personal attacks, I would be very careful about making blanket attack statements regarding other users. Gentgeen (talk) 05:41, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

This is not productive and does not belong here. If you want to read more about "admins gone wild" head over to the wheel war discussion. If you'd like to get a few more jabs in on me, take it to my talk page. Thanks. zredsox (talk) 13:11, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Another proposed change

Our problem arises from trying to give an accurate summary of a set of confused and confusing statements by Palin. The nuances can be fleshed out in the daughter article. For purposes of this summary, I think the best way to be clear is to acknowledge the lack of clarity. I suggest:

"Palin has spoken favorably but somewhat ambiguously about the teaching of creationism alongside evolution in the public schools."

If you go to the AP article, you can mine it for quotations that support either side. For a short summary, the best we can do is to recognize that fact. JamesMLane t c 05:51, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Oppose. If there's nothing unambiguous to say about this, then I think it should not be dealt with here. Vague stuff can be detailed in the sub-article.Ferrylodge (talk) 06:00, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
It's quite a leap to say that there's nothing unambiguous to say about this. To characterize an ambiguous statement as ambiguous is not, itself, an ambiguous statement. Palin certainly spoke favorably about the subject, far more so than many politicians have. That information shouldn't be suppressed. We can unambiguously state that she spoke favorably but ambiguously. JamesMLane t c 14:18, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Broadband connection required for one of the external links.

Latest comment: 15 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

The EL "PBS NOW Bio and interview with Sarah Palin" requires a broadband connection. Could you please put a note on the EL letting readers know that this link requires a broadband connection? --64.181.90.183 (talk) 01:48, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Done. Gentgeen (talk) 10:48, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Proposed change "classical libertarianism"

Latest comment: 15 years ago16 comments11 people in discussion

The article currently says:

Palin is known for her support of "individual freedom and independence"[10], and her endorsement for the minimal state and economic liberty of classical libertarianism: she is known in Alaska for her strong opposition to what she views as excessive government spending and corruption.[11]

Neither of sources provided, one an interview and the other an op-ed, does not use the terms "minimal state" or "classical libertarianism", so I propose that this WP:Synthesis be removed. The sentence should simply read:

Palin supports "individual freedom and independence"[10], and she is known in Alaska for her strong opposition to what she views as excessive government spending and corruption.[12]

Thanks, Phlegm Rooster (talk) 04:19, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Can we stop doing the Support/Oppose sections and simply discuss, which seems to be working so far. We don't do votes here. 86.44.21.70 (talk) 15:42, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Support

  1. That phrasing struck me aa peculiar when I read it a few days ago. It feels like something taken from a manifesto. Moving Palin to the ranks of "classic Libertarian" because she is for "less government" and "less taxes" does seem a leap withot better sourcing. At the least, some punctuation ought to be inserted to divert the rare(?) reader from construing that Palin supports "minimal economic liberty".
  2. These phrases are spin, not substance. A classical libertarian or supporter of the minimal state would favor legalization of marijuana. Let's see Palin run that one past McCain. We can consider calling Palin a supporter of "individual freedom and independence" when she comes out against the PATRIOT Act. The phrase really adds nothing to the reader's understanding because few contemporary American politicians characterize their own views as opposition to "individual freedom and independence". JamesMLane t c 06:17, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
  3. If she were a true libertarian, she would be in the Libertarian Party. This is spin similar to the attempt to connect her to the Alaskan secession movement and to Christian extremism. "Support", I assume means REMOVE the comment about libertarianism. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 10:05, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
  4. I support this change, as the new wording is more accurate to the sources. --ThaddeusB (talk) 14:21, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
  5. Support for reasons I mentioned below. I also agree with James Lane that the "individual freedom and independence" quote should be removed. There is no evidence she is "known" for this quote, nor does the fact that she said it differentiate her from any other American politician. Queerudite (talk) 15:18, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. Oppose I think those are very accurate descriptions and are undoubtedly true. They will go a long ways towards explaining why she might be for discussing creationism in schools but would never use the state government to do anything about it. The correct way to fix this problem is find better references. I commented on this earlier today on the Administrators Bulletin Board. UPDATED - Here is a possible reference for the libertarian claim: The Libertarian Case for Palin--Paul (talk) 04:34, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
What we think is not the issue. I think that being a pro-life libertarian is an oxymoron, and that being a libertarian who raised sales taxes in Wasilla and got millions in fed handouts is being a hypocrite. Luckily, neither Paul.h nor I has any sources but blogs to back us up. I support this change. Homunq (talk) 04:59, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
Has she ever said anything about leaning libertarian? It's supposed to about her positions, not what some libertarian commentators claim for her. I say it's still out as WP:Fringe and WP:Undue. There's so much else out there on her political philosophy that seems better attested. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 05:02, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
Well, there's this: To recap: Sarah Palin attended at least two meetings of the ALP in 2005/06 as a speaker, including one early on in her candidacy for Governor. She gladly accepted the last minute endorsement of the ALP for her Gubernatorial Campaign, and very publicly thanked the Party and their candidate for Governor Billy Toien for their support. But it's from a blog, not a RS. I guess I'm going to remove my opposition, as there just aren't good sources out there for claming that Palin has strong libertarian leanings, though I do think that it is accurate.--Paul (talk) 05:26, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
It's really the characterization that is a problem. It already says she's against "excessive government spending", so "minimal state" is an extreme interpretation of that. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 05:32, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

{{editprotected}}

  Done - Consensus here combined with WP:BLP, we can't have something like this remain in the page unsourced. Oren0 (talk) 19:39, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Wider discussion is ongoing, but it appears that "her endorsement for the minimal state and economic liberty of classical libertarianism" was a controversial and unsupported addition, therefore for now this can be changed to:

Palin supports "individual freedom and independence",[10] and she is known in Alaska for her strong opposition to what she views as excessive government spending and corruption.[13]

Thanks. 86.44.21.70 (talk) 19:03, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Radical Overhaul

Neither of these two alternatives is accurate. How is support for restrictions on abortion (even in cases of rape/incest), an amply endowed Pentagon, an interventionist foreign policy, and for government wiretapping -- just to pick a few at random -- anything even approaching "minimal government", "individual freedom", or the other bromides in the current or proposed revised text. Come on editors, this is bad analysis and description. N.B. I am not trying to express a partisan opinion on Palin or these issues, just an editorial one: these descriptions are NOT accurate and NOT encyclopediac. They do not hold up to any scrutiny whatsoever. As for the first statement, though: Palin's positions would appall someone from the Libertarian Party, so you can throw that appellation right out the window. Arjuna (talk) 10:17, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

A description of "traditional conservative Republican Party positions" or something like it is the most accurate NPOV description. Arjuna (talk) 10:20, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
I don't mind this being removed, but I'd like to point out I'm not such a moron as everyone seems to assume: the point I was trying to make was that Palin's economics are libertarian (as Gerard Baker said in my source) - obviously her social views are nothing of the kind. Guess I didn't get that across well enough. Moreschi (talk) 21:08, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Political positions

Latest comment: 15 years ago4 comments4 people in discussion

Palin is known for her support of "individual freedom and independence", and her endorsement for the minimal state and economic liberty of classical libertarianism...

The above statement from the Political positions section is unsupported by the sources cited and should be removed.

1) The only source cited for Palin being "known" for her support of individual freedom and independence is a quote from Palin herself. The article does not mention any of Palin's policy positions that support individual liberty except the right to bear arms. In fact, the preceding paragraph lists political positions limiting individual liberty such as banning abortion and same-sex marriage.

2) There is no source cited for being "known" for her "classically libertarian" views. The article does not mention any classically libertarian positions other than those that coincide with modern conservatism. Again, the preceding paragraph establishes political positions that seem contrary to libertarian principles. Queerudite (talk) 06:37, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

This has been discussed fairly extensively above, please contribute. Kelly hi! 06:47, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
Yes, please do provide input. I think we independently made similar comments. Arjuna (talk) 11:48, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Best evidence of her "libertarian" views are her support of gun rights and jury rights (see above). Those, especially the latter, are two key libertarian positions. This can be confirmed by examining the Libertarian Party Platform, which contains both, and note that jury rights appear nowhere in the platforms of the two main parties, but does in the Constitution Party Platform, which reflects the views of social conservatives who agree with libertarians on most issues except abortion. Both of these minor parties are active in Alaska, and Palin can be expected to be familiar with their positions, particularly since the Alaskan Independence Party is affiliated with the Constitution Party. We can't cite these platforms because we don't have evidence Palin has examined or commented on them, but it provides a direction for further investigation.Bracton (talk) 00:15, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Sarah Palin protection arbitration case is open

Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I have no clue why no one left a note here. The admin protection/unprotection war the other day on this article is open as an arbitration case:

---> Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Sarah Palin protection wheel war

Just a heads up for those that are regulars here who may not have been aware. rootology (C)(T) 09:46, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikiquote

Latest comment: 15 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion
  Resolved
 – Kaisershatner (talk) 14:20, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

{{editprotected}} Under External Links please add a sister link to Wikiquote:

{{Wikiquote}}

Sbowers3 (talk) 12:40, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Has been done by someone else, disabled editprotected. Woody (talk) 14:37, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Chronology of nomination and acceptance speech

Latest comment: 15 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

How is the chronology of Sarah Palin's formal nomination and acceptance speech? Her speech was at Wednesday, September 3. This was also the occasion when she accepted the nomination.[8] But according to the articles I've read she was nominated on Thursday, September 4.

E.g. "Palin nominated by acclamation Associated Press - September 4, 2008 8:23 PM ET MINNEAPOLIS (AP) - The Republicans have nominated Sarah Palin by acclamation as their vice-presidential pick. It comes just hours before John McCain makes his acceptance speech tonight at the convention in St. Paul." [9]

Also here: "Sarah Palin, governor of Alaska, was officially named the Republican vice-presidential candidate Thursday evening. The nomination was made by acclamation." [10]

Shouldn't she be first nominated and then accept the nomination, not the other way around? It was like that for Obama. Vints (talk) 13:08, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Palin read her acceptance speech on the 3rd, was nominated on the 4th. Check the the wording of her acceptance speech; it's designed to point out she would accept the nomination. GoodDay (talk) 13:30, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
I know there has been a lot of talk comparing Palin and Obama but remember: Palin is the vice-presidential nominee; Obama is the presidential nominee. It is traditional for the VP nominee to speak on the second-to-last night; the P nominee on the last night. It is not uncommon for the VP nominee to say that s/he "would" accept the nomination in advance of the actual nomination. Remember that these conventions are staged for television. The roll call is rather boring so the planners schedule it for non-prime time while the acceptance speeches are scheduled for prime-time. Sbowers3 (talk) 14:32, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Political Positions of Sarah Palin Removal

Latest comment: 15 years ago5 comments4 people in discussion

If we are not going to follow WP:SS with the summary currently in place, we should remove it. At just over a hundred words, it does not have enough substance to support its own subheading and should be integrated into the article itself. Even though there is a "Stay the course" mentality of making this section like the Joe Biden summary, it has already been discussed that the Biden summary is not what is to be aspired to at all. Actually, that poor summary is one of the primary reasons that the Biden article is not consider a Good article. The Biden PP Summary, which needs to be either expanded or removed, is actually 22% larger than the Palin PP Summary! I know I have brought this up ad nausium (and been completely ignored because it goes against the logic others want to apply) but it is a valid point. We do not want to mold a section after something that is flawed and slated for removal! As for WP:SS, the intention of a summary is not to obfuscate views. The summary should include a balanced sample of what is actually in the daughter article and we should not pick only what is politically expedient. No, we do not need to go into great detail on each point as that is what the spin off is for, but we do need to bring up a fair sample of her positions.

I'll be honest in saying I am just about out of steam on this topic as it seems that "the machine" is going to get its way no matter what critical thinking is applied to the situation. Even after a long discussion and a virtual consensus on the re-wording of the creationism sentence, it was arbitrary removed because the previous admin made a change without consensus even though the version before it was also achieved via the same methodology and was actually cited in an arbitration case for being wrong! We need to start to differentiate the terms majority and consensus as we have seemingly lost focus and are not taking into account valid minority opinions.

At this juncture I move that the Political Positions of Sarah Palin be removed until such time as a true consensus can be reached on improved and fully encompassing copy that is balanced and meets Summary Style guidelines for Wikipedia. zredsox (talk) 13:33, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

It's tragic, the way this article has suffered from political biases (from both sides). GoodDay (talk) 13:38, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
As noted on your talk page red, the bias is not coming from the myriad of editors who wish to see a good artical here. Nothing was done arbitrarily but by following strict guidelines and coming to an understanding of one another's opinions. As I addressed on your talk page it appears that you have made edits here based on your feelings of the editors rather than the material they were presenting. This kind of editing I think produces a "machine" that is contradictory to the application of "critical thinking" as you worded it. An assumption of good faith in the consensus of the masses of editors despite one or two who are opposed because of thier own personal bias would benefit all in determining what should or should not be edited. Most importantly though are the BLP standards that we are growing closer and closer to.. --98.243.129.181 (talk) 15:13, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
You should take your own advice and review the materials presented above rather than attack the messenger. You proved my point. You have looked past all my arguments and instead made it personal. The topic of this discussion is the removal of the Sarah Palin Political Positions. Please stay focused. Thanks. zredsox (talk) 15:27, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I vote to keep the Political Positions breakout page for now. I sense the original purpose in creating it was that it was expected we would find a lot more to put in it, leaving only a few of the most important positions for the main article. We can still expect more as the discovery of Palin continues. If in a month we find little more, we can fold the breakout into the main article. Bracton (talk) 23:57, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Minor Edit: Spelling of Anne Kilkenny

Latest comment: 15 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion
  Resolved
 – Spelling fixed

-- Vary | Talk 19:03, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

While I object in principle to this form of editing by proxy, I am coming around to seeing the need for it, and I believe the article as it currently stands is about as non-biased as it's been in a week. Anyway, here's a very minor edit for someone to do. The last sentence of the third paragraph in the Wasilla section reads: "According to Ann Kilkenny, a Democrat who observed City Council, Palin also brought up the idea of banning some books at one meeting, but did not follow through with the idea." Ann should be spelled Anne, with an e on the end. The New York Times reference confirms this. Thanks. --Crunch (talk) 14:52, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Seems reasonable. Support. ++Lar: t/c 15:51, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

And... how long does it usually take to get something like this done? It's an obvious edit that isn't happening because a bunch of Wikipedia admins are squabbling amongst themselves and now the article got locked. This does wonders for Wikipedia's reputation for having content of questionable accuracy. --Crunch (talk) 18:57, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Hockey mom

Latest comment: 15 years ago8 comments7 people in discussion
  Resolved

I understand "hockey" and "mom"; should I understand what a "hockey mom" is? -- Hoary (talk) 15:52, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Hoary, a hockey mom is akin to a soccer mom. It is the mom of kids who play hockey. It has the connotation of an involved parent driving their kids to different activities, including their sports. She is a hockey mom since she is in Alaska. RonCram (talk) 15:56, 6 September 2008 (UTC)


Soccer mom is helpful. It's not an obscure term to me, a non-american, and the transfer of meaning to "hockey mom" is clear. 86.44.21.70 (talk) 17:21, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
What is the opinion on wikilinking soccer mom where hockey mom is first mentioned in the article? Oren0 (talk) 19:42, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
I would say it would be fine, if Soccer mom is updated to reflect Hockey mom as a synonym. (I haven't looked at that article.) Kelly hi! 19:50, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
Whoops - actually Hockey mom redirects to Soccer mom. So probably OK to wikilink the redirect, in case anyone ever writes the "Hockey mom" article. Kelly hi! 19:52, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

{{editprotected}} Please change the wiki-link on 

Palin, a self-described "[[Ice hockey|hockey]] mom", is a mother of five.

to 

Palin, a self-described "[[hockey mom]]", is a mother of five.

as this link will be more helpful for someone unfamiliar with the term. Hopefully this is a non-controversial edit that can be preformed immediately :) --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:02, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

 Y Done.  Sandstein  21:41, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Geraldine Ferraro

Latest comment: 15 years ago18 comments11 people in discussion

{{editprotected}} I noticed a bit of odd piping in one of the lead paragraphs:

Palin is the [[Geraldine Ferraro|second woman to run for vice president]] on a [[major party|major-party]] ticket and the first Republican woman to do so.

Piping "Geraldine Ferraro" that way is a bit of a no-no according to WP:PIPE. As a clearer alternative:

Following [[Geraldine Ferraro]], Palin is the second woman to run for vice president on a [[major party|major-party]] ticket and the first Republican woman to do so.

Could the sentence please be changed to reflect my suggestion? Just64helpin (talk) 15:44, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Seems a reasonable change to me. Support. ++Lar: t/c 15:49, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
Agreed, seems pretty common sense. Joshdboz (talk) 16:03, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

We don't really need to say she is the first Republican here. If we say she is the second and Ferraro, a Democrat, was the first readers will be able to figure it out. :-) Steve Dufour (talk) 16:12, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

To Steve, this was discussed at Talk:Sarah Palin/Archive 11#Geraldine Ferraro. Also see this and my reply. This edit is simply to fix piping. Regards. Woody (talk) 16:17, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
Sorry. The sentence as it now is is fine. (Two "is's", is that as bad as two "that's"?) Steve Dufour (talk) 16:31, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
Steve, two "is's" isn't even as bad as one "that." I defy anyone to find a sentence where there is a loss of meaning if take the word "that" out. RonCram (talk) 18:11, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
It is a bit of a no-no, but only a bit. Grouping the relevant words together definitely suggests to the reader that they should click if they wanna know who was first, so the main concern of wp:pipe is alleviated. The sentence as is parses, whereas Following Geraldine Ferraro, Palin is ... the first Republican woman to do so is a bit ewww. 86.44.21.70 (talk) 17:15, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
NB we did have a resolved argument about this; the consensus was to link to Ferraro rather than "List of VP candidates," which would have been my preference. The main line of agreement was that Ferraro need not be mentioned by name in the intro to Sarah Palin's biography. Kaisershatner (talk) 17:19, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
I was aware of the previous discussion Kaisershatner, I linked to it above when I made the edit. I made the correction solely to avoid having a misleading piped link, per WP:PIPE. I have no opinion on the wording, but the current version looks to be the consensus driven version. Woody (talk) 17:44, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I think it should be left as it is. If any change is made, the only thing that really needs to be changed is to move the word "second" out of the link, so it says:

Palin is the second [[Geraldine Ferraro|woman to run for vice president]] on a [[major party|major-party]] ticket and the first Republican woman to do so. Ferrylodge (talk) 17:51, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

So instead of mentioning Ferraro directly, we're misleadingly disguising a phrase to link to her article? Can someone explain how this makes sense? Just64helpin (talk) 18:20, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
What about "Palin is the second woman to run for vice president on a major-party ticket (Democrat Geraldine Ferraro having been the first, in 1984)."
—WWoods (talk) 17:47, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
Let's put Ferraro in the title of the article too.Ferrylodge (talk) 17:51, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
I like Wwood's version. Much more elegant way of putting it. -- Vary | Talk 18:17, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
The most elegant way of all would be to simply say that she would be the first female Vice President. Having parenthetical in the lead is bad form. If it's not important enough to say without parentheses, then it's not important enough to be in the lead.Ferrylodge (talk) 18:31, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
Bad form? Says who? And it is 'important enough to say without parenthesis', it's just difficult to say eloquently. -- Vary | Talk 18:53, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
Seriously? There was a whole discussion about this, but I if needed let's have it again - there is simply no reason to mention Ferraro by name in the introduction to Sarah Palin's biography. Ferraro is mentioned in the body of the article. Kaisershatner (talk) 19:05, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Inappropriate conduct of administrators on Sarah Palin

Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Please, be aware of Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Inappropriate_conduct_of_administrators_on_Sarah_Palin. Discussion is there. Cenarium Talk 16:15, 6 September 2008 (UTC)


WP:ACCESSIBILITY

Latest comment: 15 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Per WP:ACCESSIBILITY and WP:MOS#IMAGES I have made this (hopefully non-controversial) edit, after a request on my talkpage. Any comments of course are welcome. Woody (talk) 17:47, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

{{edit protected}}

The image in the Sarah Palin#Personal life section has similar problems. Would another admin please move the image to after the first paragraph (to avoid alignment issues with the header) and left justify the thumbnail image (so that the people in the image are not "facing away" from the article text). --Allen3 talk 18:51, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
  Done--chaser - t 19:04, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Westwind II Controversy Update

Latest comment: 15 years ago11 comments8 people in discussion

The Westwind II jet, unused after purchase, was sold to a Palin campaign contributor for $600,000 less than the purchase price. A news account at the time of the sale indicates the sale was brokered by the Republican speaker of the Alaska House of Representatives.

Source: Washington Post, Saturday, September 6, 2008; Governor's Plane Wasn't Sold on Ebay http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/05/AR2008090503722_pf.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.107.54.157 (talk) 18:38, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I fail to see a conflict with our current version that reads "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." We *could* mention that the winning bid fell through instead of just say 'no buyer was found' and we *could* add more details about how exactly the sale was arranged. However, I don't see any reason to do either. The current version is succinct and as such doesn't give undue weight to a minor event. --ThaddeusB (talk) 18:50, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
The article cited by the IP says it is unclear how the sale was ultimately arranged, with one side saying a private brokerage was used and the NYTimes reporting that the Republican Speaker arranged it. With that in mind I'd suggest that "through a private brokerage firm" is potentially problematic. Dragons flight (talk) 19:08, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
To be fair, a number of reports say "a broker" rather than a "brokerage firm". I suppose the Speaker might also count as "a broker". Dragons flight (talk) 19:14, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
Oh my, another "controversy"! Shocking! :) Seriously, I agree with Thaddeus on the undue weight, at least for now. Also, we need to wait until at least a little time has passed, because for some reason our normally "reliable sources" like the New York Times and the Washington Post seem to be screwing the pooch a lot lately, and their stories on that topic are constantly having to be corrected or retracted - cf the New York Times pushing the bogus "secessionist" meme. Kelly hi! 18:55, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I think the text is fine and totally accurate the way it is. Adding "the winning bid fell through" is both vague and probably inaccurate. My understanding is that there was no actual winning bid. It was listed three times and got bids, but none of them were up to the reserve set in the auction. In eBay terms this means the sale could not be completed. Let's just leave it as it is. A bid "falling through" would mean that a succesful bid came in, but for some reason, the buyer did not pay, or the jet could not be delivered. This is not what happened. --Crunch (talk) 19:06, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, there's been some confusion in the news because McCain apparently has mistakenly said that she "sold" the jet on eBay. Shame on McCain. :) Kelly hi! 20:20, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
"reliable sources" with scare quotes when referring to the New York Times and the Washington Post???? What's up, Kelly? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:55, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
Would the UK Times be also scared-quoted? "Vendetta row can't hold Sarah Palin back as she outshines John McCain - Times Online". Retrieved 2008-09-06. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:12, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
The whole kerfuffle around McCain and his campaign saying it was "sold on eBay" is probably better suited for the campaign article than here. I don't think Palin has ever said she sold it on eBay, just that she listed it on eBay. Granted, she didn't say it didn't actually sell on eBay and then had to sell it for a loss through a broker, but the "controversy" is a campaign issue (and a very minor one at that), not a Sarah Palin issue. --Bobblehead (rants) 21:27, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

The current wording, which was suggested by me the other day, was based on this account [11] from Politifact.com. It in turn cited these articles [12] and [13]. The second one quotes the owner of the Turbo North brokerage firm on the still to be completed contract with the eventual buyer, Larry Reynolds. I don't see the NYT offering up real proof to counter that for the time being. Joshdboz (talk) 21:18, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Minor change: Mother of five

Latest comment: 15 years ago4 comments4 people in discussion

The first sentence of Sarah_Palin#Personal_life reads:
"Palin is a self-described "hockey mom" and mother of five."
Unless the intent is to say she is a self-described mother of five, you might want to change this to read:
"Palin, a self-described "hockey mom," is a mother of five."
Any questions? I hope this can be done in a timely manner. Thank you. --Crunch (talk) 19:15, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Support. Fixes bad syntax.Ferrylodge (talk) 19:56, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Support. Having to wait for consensus for changes like this make WP feel like a bureaucracy. Oren0 (talk) 20:01, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Done. --- RockMFR 20:12, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Ferraro Reference

Latest comment: 15 years ago10 comments6 people in discussion

I know the Ferraro reference has been discussed in depth, but there is still an inaccuracy in how the text is currently written. It says:
Palin is the second U.S. woman to run on a major party ticket. The first was Geraldine Ferraro, the Democratic vice-presidential nominee of former vice-president Walter Mondale in 1984.
Ferraro was not Mondale's nominee. She was the nominee of the Democratic party. This may sound like a picky point, but it's not. A second point to raise is whether the point is that she is a U.S. woman or that it is a U.S. major party? I think it's the latter. So I would suggest this rewrite. The issue of who is doing the nominating is hard and fast. The issue of which nationality you want to emphasize, the woman or the party, can be debated:
Palin is the second woman to run on a major U.S. party ticket. The first was Geraldine Ferraro, the Democratic vice-presidential nominee in 1984, who ran with former vice-president Walter Mondale.
Thank you. --Crunch (talk) 19:25, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Good observation. But why not just change "nominee" to "running mate"?Ferrylodge (talk) 19:29, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
Two reasons: 1) These are two different things. Mondale picked her as his running mate. Then her name was put in nomination at the convention. A vote was taken, and she was the nominated and became the official nominee of the party. History will refer to her as the nominee. She can still be called running mate, or second on the ticket, or whatever else, but the technical term now is nominee after the floor vote. 2) I was trying to change as little as possible from the original text to avoid a lengthy discussion of what else to change that would open up an unnecessary can of worms and lead us on a protracted discussion. --Crunch (talk) 19:39, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
Also add that Mondale was the party's presidential nominee. GoodDay (talk) 20:29, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Support. Seems non-controversial, and fixes a clear error.Ferrylodge (talk) 19:43, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Support per Crunch. Kelly hi! 20:18, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Support No reason not to fix an error. --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:18, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment in response to GoodDay's suggestion to add that Mondale was the party's presidential nominee. That's the can of worms I was hoping not to open. If she's the VP nominee, he would have to be the Pres. nominee. The party rules don't allow for any other situation. We went round and round with this on August 29 with me explaining the difference between candidate, nominee, presumptive nominee, running mate, VP pick, best buddy, etc. --Crunch (talk) 20:37, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

{{editprotected}} Please change "Palin is the second U.S. woman to run on a major party ticket. The first was Geraldine Ferraro, the Democratic vice-presidential nominee of former vice-president Walter Mondale in 1984". to the more technically accurate "Palin is the second woman to run on a major U.S. party ticket. The first was Geraldine Ferraro, the Democratic vice-presidential nominee in 1984, who ran with former vice-president Walter Mondale." Presumably this is non-controversial and can be fixed without lengthy debate. :) --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:36, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Not controversial, and done.
  Resolved
 – Kaisershatner (talk) 20:44, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Gay Rights and Abortion

Latest comment: 15 years ago6 comments3 people in discussion

I'm sure it was discussed in detail, but can someone briefly summarize why the section Gay Rights and Abortion was removed?--Nowa (talk) 20:19, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

It's pretty much all in Political positions of Sarah Palin now. Kelly hi! 20:21, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. Good article.--Nowa (talk) 20:27, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
BTW, do any of you with inside knowledge know if any of the suggestions for change will be made to that article? It's been stagnant all day. thanks --Crunch (talk) 20:40, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
It was only locked for 24hrs. Kelly hi! 20:48, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
Well, that's confusing. It still has the gold full protection lock icon on it. What's up with that? --Crunch (talk) 21:03, 6 September 2008 (UTC)


Full Protection until after the election

Latest comment: 15 years ago22 comments11 people in discussion

As several requests have been made to to include information that may not view Sarah Palin in a positive view I would like to request that any current negative points in the article are removed and the article is permanently locked until after the election. We of course should leave Biden's and Obama's article semi protected and open to modifications. This will ensure the current "NPOV" by the admins is maintained and each politician is treated equally. Sitedown (talk) 20:43, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Is this sarcasm? Kelly hi! 20:45, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
This article would be unprotected if questionable edits weren't made (before discusson). GoodDay (talk) 20:47, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
Is the job of wikipedia to portray Sarah Palin in a positive view? I didn't know the McCain Campaign owned wikipedia. I've gone to Senator Obama's page and seen racial and political smears on it - and you have the audacity to say THEY should be only semi-protected while hers should be fully. Hypocrisy at it's finest.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.123.224.177 (talk • contribs)
Sooo if there's smears at the Obama article; you prefer smears here too? GoodDay (talk) 20:54, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
The first person who started this did. "We of course should leave Biden's and Obama's article semi protected and open to modifications." Otherwise I wouldn't have mentioned it. What I prefer is that I do not open the Obama page to see only "Left-wing nutcase socialist who wants to raise everyones taxes" like I did a few days ago. Either make them BOTH fully protected or not. Don't slant it to the right OR the left.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.123.224.177 (talk • contribs)
If the rate of vandalism is the same at both articles? Then I'm in agreement. GoodDay (talk) 21:00, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
I am fine with this proposition under the condition all articles about Senators McCain, Biden and Obama are put to the same level of protection. However, if any of these stories are proven true by the national media, I would like them added.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.123.224.177 (talk • contribs)
Okay.. This is just nutty. Vandalism will happen on Wikipedia and it is corrected as quickly as possible. The difference here is that because of the newness of Palin on the national scene and the press taking the "Just run with it! We'll post a correction later if we have to" attitude with her there was a lot of crap in reliable sources this last week. Once the press gets settle down and actually starts to fact check and the editors here get some of the rough bits ironed out, there shouldn't be a reason why this article can't be semi-protected at most... --Bobblehead (rants) 21:04, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
We are not here to decide when a reliable source is no longer so. The Washingto Post, NPR, The Times, and many others' reports can and should be used in WP articles. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:15, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
This is very true. My comment was not intended to indicate that the sources should not be used, just that the press was rather loose with their standards this week and as a result there was a lot of contradictory information out there. As a result of this reasonable editors fought over which source was "more correct". --Bobblehead (rants) 21:21, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
"Rather loose"? And who are we to make these value judgments? One can call it "rather loose", others may call it "doing their job" in a country in which there is freedom of press. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:32, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
Jossi, even the New York Times[14] and the Washington Post[15] have printed false claims about Palin this week. Kelly hi! 21:36, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
... and if that is the case, we report it. NPOV 101. Or are we now the deciders/censors of what we report in WP articles? I don't think so. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:38, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
Report what? Kelly hi! 21:41, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
What the sources say. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:47, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
Jossi, I totally understand where you're coming from. But per WP:REDFLAG we have to be really cautious about the controversial stuff. There's no harm in sometimes waiting a little while for things to be verified - there is no deadline. Kelly hi! 22:54, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
(outdent somewhat)*sigh*Seriously, Jossi. Dial it back a bit. I think we're both on the same side here. The press is certainly doing their job and looking into Palin's past and, for the most part, have done a good job of it, but they've also made some mistakes in their rapidity to get the information out. Are the mistakes as bad as the Republicans are making it out to be? Absolutely not. I don't know what Palin and McCain were expecting to happen when they brought her basically out of nowhere, but she's just getting the attention usually given to politicians, just in a much more concentrated form. --Bobblehead (rants) 21:49, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Whoo, chill out. I am quite confident that the OP was just expressing there frustration about not being able to edit in a sarcastic way. Also, mystery user please start signing your posts. Just add --~~~~ to the end of what you write. --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:06, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Agree with Thaddeus. Obvious sarcasm borne of frustration. No need to escalate. --Crunch (talk) 21:10, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
Fair enough, but I do not agree with the premise that because someone may not be viewed favorably on their page they deserve protection for it. The job of wikipedia is not to provide a positive view of any politician or individual - it's to provide some facts backed up by sources. --165.123.224.177 (talk) 21:10, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
Sure, but unsourced crap won't be tolerated either. Pre-protection, this page was attracting a lot of that. See WP:BLP. Oren0 (talk) 21:29, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I think Jossi's point is simply that Wikipedia cares about NPOV, V and NOR, not about whether a view is positive or negative (it is precisely because we editors have such divergent feelings about what is negative or positive that we have the NPOV policy! This is what it is here for!) That said, I assume Jossi agrees that BLP applies here as well. I see no cause for a complete freeze of this article (or the articles on Obama, McCain, Biden) before the election, especially since the main page will surely include stories about them that match current events. I do know that this page has become very heated. Is it possible for all partices to agree (1) that the page can be edited as long as edits crupulously comply with NPOV, V, NOR and BLP? Furthermore, are people in agreement that (2) as long as the page is protected, edits should be discussed on the talk page before being made to the article? It seems to me that things have calmed down here over the past 24 hours and I hope that is so but yesterday people were expressing a good deal of concern at AN/I. It seems to me that as long as everyone agrees to (1) and (2), the article need not be locked. Slrubenstein | Talk 23:30, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Hello Slrubenstein, welcome! I am taking a much needed wikibreak over the next few days. Your always judicious comments and clarity will most certainly help here. Hope you can stick around and lend a hand. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:55, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

There was just an edit revert war on this talk page. It whizzed by so quick it's hard to even see let alone handle appropriately.. That being said I think that to open up the mainpage to consensus free editing at the moment would be a mistake. The article is starting to look good and I think if we get a larger framework of editors to catch all these little things in place then we could open it up. As it is, we cant even maintain the talkpage well enough just yet. :) Keep it locked until lots more seasoned editors come in to help or until the buzz dies down.. presumably after the election. Either way, no need for any hasty decisions nor decisions that lack proper consensus. --98.243.129.181 (talk) 02:33, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

  1. ^ a b Loy, Wesley (2008-07-29). "Hired help will probe Monegan dismissal". Anchorage Daily News. Retrieved 2008-08-29.
  2. ^ a b Sean Cockerham (2008-08-14). "Alaska's governor admits her staff tried to have trooper fired". Anchorage Daily News. Retrieved 2008-08-29.
  3. ^ a b Cite error: The named reference grimaldi was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  4. ^ Cite error: The named reference Staff pushed was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  5. ^ Hollan, Megan (2008-07-19). "Monegan says he was pressured to fire cop". Anchorage Daily News. The McClatchy Company. Retrieved 2008-07-22. Monegan said he still isn't sure why he was fired but thought that Wooten could be part of it.
  6. ^ "No bidders on eBay; sold it offline". PolitiFact.com. Retrieved 2008-09-05.
  7. ^ http://www.americablog.com/2008/09/mccain-campaign-palin-wont-do-any.html
  8. ^ http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/09/05/no-questions-palin-wont-t_n_124256.html
  9. ^ http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/09/palin-media-avo.html
  10. ^ a b c Cite error: The named reference TimeInt was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  11. ^ Baker, Gerard (2008-09-05). "Sarah Palin: it's go west, towards the future of conservatism". The Times. Retrieved 2008-09-05.
  12. ^ Baker, Gerard (2008-09-05). "Sarah Palin: it's go west, towards the future of conservatism". The Times. Retrieved 2008-09-05.
  13. ^ Baker, Gerard (2008-09-05). "Sarah Palin: it's go west, towards the future of conservatism". The Times. Retrieved 2008-09-05.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sarah_Palin/Archive_13&oldid=1140678860"