Talk:Sarah Palin

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.

Most Googled Person in history

According to Google Trends Palin has had the highest number of searches for any person in its history (over a one week period). Is this worth mentioning? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.178.93.150 (talk) 09:23, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Is there an article, posting or press release on this? "most google person in history" seems unlikely, but you never know... --Paul (talk) 17:55, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Aside from the lack of link, that "(over a one week period)" isn't just a parenthetical detail but undermines the whole claim that she's the most googled in history. Clearly it would be pretty hard for her to be the most googled because of the short time most people have even been aware of her. Presumably she's far behind Britney Spears and many other people in the total number of searches "in history". —KCinDC (talk) 18:08, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, or paris hilton after her tape dropped... this is totally nonfactual! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.183.190.233 (talk) 18:50, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

abstinence only education?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Even the McCain campaign has acknowledged the discrepancy 1. There can be no real doubt. 140.139.35.250 (talk) 20:25, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

However:

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

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

Have I read that bit? I wrote it: [1]. You're right that we need to be balanced. Would this fact, and it is a fact, be appropriate for an article about a random person? No, of course not. Not even for a random politician. But this isn't a random politician, this is a vice-presidential candidate who is running on a values platform. That makes her own adherence to those values relevant. Regards, Ben Aveling 21:53, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

SemiProtection

Do you think y'all can handle protection being downgraded? I (or another admin) can throw it right back up if need be, but if people think they can handle in influx of newbies and the occasional vandal, I think we should downgrade protection.--Tznkai (talk) 18:07, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

The Biden, Obama, and McCain articles are all semi-protected. Why on earth would we downgrade the protection here, an article that is much more controversial and subject to disruptive edits????--Paul (talk) 18:20, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

I think unprotection would be a bad idea. "Occasional" vandal? --barneca (talk) 18:23, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

As much as I think wikipedia should really stay true to its "anyone can edit" essence, there's just too much contention about Palin. This article has been mulled over so much that seemingly every sentence represents the consensus of some involved talk page discussion.--Loodog (talk) 18:33, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

So "Thanks but no thanks"? :-) -- Zsero (talk) 18:36, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Bad idea, Tznkai. All other candidate's articles are semi'd and for good reason. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:38, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Keep it semi-protected until after the election, maybe. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 19:55, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

If you think the WorldNetDaily dittoheads on here are going to unprotect Caribou Barbie you are naive. The woman speaks in tongues, is a beauty pageant model, and ran a town smaller than my left nut --- so yeah give her the nuke codes, what a great idea. You can DEPENDS on McCain. 72.91.113.17 (talk) 20:59, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

And here we have exactly why the protection needs to remain.--Cube lurker (talk) 21:01, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Agree with Cube lurker. Give 'em an inch and they'll take 20 miles.Zaereth (talk) 01:49, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Agree with Zaereth and Cube lurker. There have been a huge number of non-consensus changes over the past weeks, and making it "open season" for POV editors is insane. Collect (talk) 02:25, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm about to give up. My preconceived notion with WP was that articles of topical or political content fail miserably under the community model, but I thought to be fair I actually had to participate before damning it. It looks like I was right. Worse, I'm starting to think that some here may actually be getting *paid* to taint this article. I guess political "reform" is a relative thing. Fcreid (talk) 11:46, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

I love how the presence of editors with a differing point of view and an equal level of persistence somehow becomes evidence of a vast conspiracy in these discussions. Contributors cannot be expected to assume good faith in their fellow editors when they are accused of being paid shills simply for having the audacity to disagree. »S0CO^{(talk|contribs)} 16:17, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

..I agree, Fcreid. And the editors that are being paid by the Republican Party should proudly state that their sole purpose for being here is to protect the Sarah Palin article from those "braying donkeys (Democrats) at the gate". Back in late August and early September, under the guise of repeated vandalism, a protective shield was implemented to prevent any non-favorable content. Editors with too much power prevented a natural editing process from taking place. Nothing has changed. If there is any "tainting" taking place it is predominately from the pro-Palin forces that evade fact and promote censorship. If anything, the editors that you berate have brought balance and stability to what would have been an advertising campaign.--Buster7 (talk) 19:46, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Accusations that editors are being paid "being paid by the Republican Party" are reprehensible. That sort of charge is about the most heinous you can make. It does appear, moreover, that your position is highly POV against Palin, which reduces the need to grant you "good faith." Sorry that my opinion of you has hereby fallen. Collect (talk) 21:19, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Fcreid threw down the gaunlet of *paid* editors. Obviously, he meant Obama supporters since his POV has become well-known. I merely pointed out that his sword cut both ways. Those of us that have been at this since early September pretty much know where the gaggle of editors "line up". I am not anti-Palin. I am anti-hiding Palin. I am anti-pretending this article is something other than what it is. Rather than reprehensible, it's common sense that both political parties are extremely concerned and protective of what is written here and in the article. I can assure you that members of the "Campaign's to Elect" all four candidates have been envolved in the editing process from the very start. It would be reprehensible if they were NOT!!!--Buster7 (talk) 21:43, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Fcreid did not make a specific accusation. You did. And your POV does not need any exposure. And your accusation was that current editors ARE being paid. Absent any sign of understanding, I think thiis conversation is pretty much over. Collect (talk) 21:51, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

My comment about paid attacks was out-of-bounds, and I regretted making it almost immediately. I do assume good faith. As Collect correctly surmised, it was not intended at a specific person, but rather at the non-stop flow of personalities here who had obviously spent oodles of valuable time researching sources to create (mainly negative) content in this article (and, in many cases, before such stirring existed in the mainstream). When I see smart people wasting that much time on here, I get concerned. The economy's not that bad yet! Now, someone will surely note I spend a lot of time on here. Maybe I'm just not a smart person! You'll also note that I rarely (never) come up with an original reference. I'm also a pretty fast typist. :) Fcreid (talk) 22:57, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough, but with that in mind do you have any thoughts about the subject of the NYT article about this article, found at http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/01/technology/01link.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all&oref=slogin ? It details the way this article, in the 24 hours BEFORE Palin's candidacy was announced, was plastered with bubbly, glowing commentary of Palin sourced from her published-just-in-time-for-the-election biography? This editor has since admitted working for the Palin campaign and has a massive list of rationale on his talk page as to why it was ok to do this. This includes blatantly false claims like "Every single one of my edits complied with Wikipedia policies regarding reliability, verifiability, and neutral point of view." Does this concern you?

Looking through the edit history, I can also see that Ferrylodge had a burst of activity nearly coincident with YoungTrigg's, that day/night before the announcement. This included polishing the blatant POV pushing / borderline crystal-balling original research YoungTrigg was posting. It suggests the possibility that Ferry, despite having an established Wiki account and a history of working on that article, may also have been a campaign operative preparing for the big announcement. That certainly concerns me.Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 05:26, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Everyone who has contributed to this talk page "may also have been a campaign operative". If you have particular edits of mine that you think violate Wikipedia guidelines, then please provide diffs. Otherwise, please stop making frivolous accusations. I was not and am not anyone's operative, and I have not been and am not now in communication with any presidential campaign. Regarding Palin, the closest I came to contacting her campaign was to email her office to request permission to use her official photo (never heard back). Regarding McCain, the closest I came to contacting his campaign was attending a fundraiser about four months ago in Connecticut, during which I made a contribution and watched him speak. That's it, and I've been up-front about this for months. I'm interested in politics, I had no idea Palin would be selected any more than I thought Jindal would be selected, and I edited his article before the selection too.Ferrylodge (talk) 14:58, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

You and I wouldn't even be having this discussion if this weren't a campaign article. Palin was foisted upon the world as a little known public figure, and the world (and WP) scrambled to find facts. However, she was not unknown to Alaskans, so let's assume they aren't morons and have researched her qualifications and history for her role as governor. She was also not unknown to those who follow politics closely, and I understand some blogger may have played a role in spreading her notoriety for months. Finally, let's assume there are some genuinely good things to say about Palin (biographical in nature--personal, professional, etc.) If there weren't, she wouldn't be governor of Alaska and now being considered for VP. In my estimation, both the good and the bad were ferreted out very quickly by interested parties with opposing objectives in this article.

That said, here we are a month later, and we're *still* seeing people arrive with outlandish claims that she called dinosaurs "Jesus ponies", sought counsel from witch doctors and who knows what else! That should be a clue that we probably already know what's important to know about Palin, and that we should be particularly circumspect of new topics (positive or negative) being introduced that are not based on current events. We should particularly scrunitize interpretive "reliable sources", i.e. any source that takes a well-known fact, such as her religious beliefs, and derives convoluted conclusions. Finally, I'm sure you already understand human nature, but it's always much easier to praise than to criticize. Those who generally sit on the sidelines, myself included, only trigger on the bizarre claims that are clearly inappropriate or interpretive. After all is said and done, she is a fellow person and deserves that. Fcreid (talk) 10:02, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I note the specific claim or implication by Factchecker that Ferrylodge was either paid or a sockpuppet, and that he is connected to YoungTrigg. I fail to see how that is in any way shape manner or form proper usage of this Talk page. It also violated WPLAGF, and a host of other policies. Such concerns, if FactChecker believes them, should be aired as an adminstrative complaint, and not only do not belong here, they poison this page. Collect (talk) 11:54, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that is certainly a stretch. By Ferrylodge's own admission to the world, he is a "right-minded Republican" (hope I got that right), so it's no surprise that he has an interest in this page. He also obviously follows politics closely and is not a "Sunday Partisan" like others, so it's no surprise he knew of Palin well in advance of her nomination. However, to imply he was "appointed" for a role of stewardship here is ludicrous, particularly given that he actually moderated many of the early undue claims painting Palin as a saint (even when there was a bigger groundswell to support it). From what I've seen, his edits have the net effect of bringing the pendulum back towards NPOV. Fcreid (talk) 12:07, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Calling other editors reprehensible, their edits heinous and implying they do not edit in good faith poisons this page. Ferrylodge was "spring-cleaning" the Sarah Palin article 5 (FIVE) weeks before she was asked to join the ticket. A truly remarkable co-incidence!!! To pretend that operatives don't exist and to take editors to task for stating the obvious is improper behavior.--Buster7 (talk) 12:33, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure it wasn't your intent, Buster, but these selective facts lead one to an incorrect conclusion. Ferrylodge has been a constant participant on pages of notable Republicans (Reagan, McCain and others), and he has continuously participated in articles on the full range of potential VP candidates. He has edit histories on Romney, Jindal, Hutchinson and even Palin that date back further than five weeks. More importantly, he is an expert in the biographical background of these individuals, which is exactly the kind of individual we should be encouraging to contribute. Finally, and I contend his edit histories on the articles themselves support this, his edits have been very effective in "righting" the language to avoid or undo wildly POV attacks and bring them more to NPOV. Fcreid (talk) 13:20, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

By the way, if anyone actually is getting paid to waste time on here, drop me an email offline. (Doesn't matter which side... capitalism trumps all!) Fcreid (talk) 13:36, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Buster, kindly do not ascribe words to me which were first used by you, and have never been used by ne to describe ANY edits. I did state that libelling other editors does poison the Talk page, perverts the proper use of the Talk page and is errant and wrong. I would also state and aver that libeling editors is not proper behavior. Thank you most kindly. Collect (talk) 14:12, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Collect,I believe you made the following comment, about me.....

Accusations that editors are being paid "being paid by the Republican Party" are reprehensible. That sort of charge is about the most heinous you can make. It does appear, moreover, that your position is highly POV against Palin, which reduces the need to grant you "good faith." Sorry that my opinion of you has hereby fallen. Collect (talk) 21:19, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

And now I am "craven". Is that not 'poisoning the page"???

Also, I have absolutely no problem with Ferrylodge (operative or not). (And, if you would read what I said it is in no way liable or even derogatory). He is fair minded and makes every attempt to be civil. My mention of his early appearance was only to clarity my belief that BOTH political parties are here safeguarding their respective positions. I agree with Fcreid regarding Ferrylodge and appreciate Fcr's attempt to be a peacemaker. As far as I am concerned, this matter is over. I will say no more about it!--Buster7 (talk) 02:40, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I mentioned the issue of good faith only the highlight that editors who appear sympathetic to Palin have repeatedly questioned the good faith of editors who appear unsympathetic to Palin. This is merely to remind everyone of the context in which these claims are being made. Speck in neighbor's eye, boulder in own, and all that.Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 10:36, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you most kindly. Read your own posts. Collect (talk) 10:43, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I note that you still consider Ferrylodge an "operative." Such charrges have no place on Talk pages. I made no claims that people were paid here. I think you ought to understand that accusing people of being paid is improper. Thank you most kindly! Collect (talk) 10:43, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

All, it was I who introduced that snide comment about being paid, and I deeply regret it. It's not nearly as funny as I thought while I was typing it. Beat me up if you must. :-[ Fcreid (talk) 13:14, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

TY User:Freid...for your "ooopps". You penance is to compile a composite directory for the archives to these talk pages. See you in 2009. (LOL)--Buster7 (talk) 16:06, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Good thing storage is cheap nowadays! :) Fcreid (talk) 18:08, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm glad we're back to a topic that everyone agrees upon... The Bridges to Nowheres in Particular.  :) Fcreid (talk) 19:34, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Content of Palin's Convention Speech

The only thing you need to say about her speach is that she did NOT write it! It was written by the McCain camp before he even got around her (his third pick for the job)--203.192.91.4 (talk) 02:02, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

From http://dailysource.org/special/palin/175#in_her_convention_speech%2C_palin_quoted_a_racist_author_who_advocated_killing_rfk

In her convention speech, Palin quoted Westbrook Pegler:

“We grow good people in our small towns, with honesty and sincerity and dignity.”

The quote was also used in a book by Pat Buchanan, “Right From the Beginning.”

In 1965, when Senator Robert F. Kennedy considered running for president, Pegler said he hoped that “some white patriot of the Southern tier will spatter his spoonful of brains in public premises before the snow flies.”

Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., RFKs son, expressed outrage about Palin’s quoting of Pegler, calling Pegler a “Fascist writer” and an “avowed racist.”

Pegler was kicked out of the infamous John Birch Society for being too anti-semitic. He worked near the end of his career for a group of neo-Nazis and professional racists from the White Citizens Council and the Rev. Billy James Hargis’ Christian Crusade. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.202.139.195 (talk) 19:35, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

And this makes the quote less valid? Talk about ad hominem! -- Zsero (talk) 00:13, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

It's condemnation through the Six Degrees of Kevin Bacon! Fcreid (talk) 01:06, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

: : At the single biggest moment in her life, Palin invoked this quote from a person known to have publicly espoused rascist ideology. Certainly she knew the prominence of the political moment would invite analysis into the views of those she elected to quote. This reveals Palin both identifies with Pelger's ideology and wants America to know this. Adnd so America should. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.118.42.233 (talk) 22:12, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

No, this is not ad hominem at all - nor is it anything like 6 degrees - she is using a quote from a reprehensible source. If Obama had quoted Karl Marx without attribution, would you say it was irrelevant? Somehow I doubt that. Her speechwriters knew who they were quoting even if she did not - and quoting someone like Westbrook Pegler can be seen to be code, and should be exposed. Maybe she'll want to disavow herself of her own speech. Tvoz/talk 22:32, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

It's certainly ad hominem — you can't find anything wrong with the quote, so you claim she shouldn't have used it because of who first wrote it. It's a good quote, it speaks a great truth, and if the author later went nuts, well, lots of authors went nuts late in life. That doesn't retroactively turn everything they wrote into falsehood. And to read some sort of "code" into it is insane. -- Zsero (talk) 22:38, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, I'm hardly alone in that insanity - in addition to Martin Peretz and RFK, Jr., Frank Rich sees it, as does Thomas Frank in The Wall Street Journal. And who is it ad hominem against - Pegler? Tvoz/talk 23:08, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

An argumentum ad hominem is by definition one made not against a person but against something he's associated with; the argument consists of the fact that he's associated with it, and he's a bad person, QED. This attack on Palin's quote is a textbook example of this fallacy. -- Zsero (talk) 23:17, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

[ec] And here's a better citation from Martin Peretz - from The New Republic editor's online blog, which would be acceptable as a reliable source. And Robert F. Kennedy Jr.'s reaction to her use of a Pegler quote is foundhere. Something about this should be included in this biography - this was indeed her biggest life moment, and this was her speech. Tvoz/talk 22:45, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't see any facts in Peretz's piece, to support the idea that there was some sort of code here. All he adds is that his mother hated Pegler; I don't see why that's relevant. The fact remains that it's a good quote, and the only reason to object to using it is the later writings of its author. It would have been different had she referred to the author approvingly: "as that great American writer Westbrook Pegler wrote..."; but she didn't. So there's no there there, except an exercise in witch-hunting to do Muthee proud :-) -- Zsero (talk) 23:00, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

BTW, does anyone know when Pegler wrote that line? Was it while he was still a respectable writer, or in his radioactive stage? -- Zsero (talk) 23:10, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

More silliness. Does anyone have any evidence that Palin was even knowingly or unknowingly quoting him? Fcreid (talk) 11:49, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

First, some editors try to get material into this article to imply that Palin is a lightweight Bobblehead (tm) who doesn't have the intellectual heft to be VP (e.g. she doesn't know what the "Bush Doctrine" is!). Now we are supposed to believe that Palin is familiar with Westbrook Pegler, a newspaper columnist who's career started 31 years before she was born and which ended several years before she was born. Today, even those of us with gray hair need to do some research to find out anything about Pegler. The facts of the matter are 1) there is no evidence Palin put the quote into the speech, 2) there is no evidence Palin knows anything about Pegler, 3) there is no evidence that the speechwriter knows anything about Pegler, and this entire matter is an ad homiem attack by proxy three or four people and 50 years removed. The original quote was praising President Truman, and was also used in that context in the speech. Does anything about Pegler and his enemies change the clear meaning of the quote and the context in which it was used? I don't think so.--Paul (talk) 13:52, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

She's not responsible for the content of her speeches? That's an odd defense. So if someone says there's a specter haunting Europe, and that specter is Communism, no blowback will follow from the right because of the source of that statement? Tvoz/talk 21:30, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Its bad for Palin even if she did NOT know the source of her quotation... Its HER speech; at the single biggest moment of her life. She is accountable, whether or not she was aware. Surely accountability is still important in our prospective politicians.?! Right? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.202.139.195 (talk) 23:18, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

• • I also strongly agree that Palin's quotation of Pelger in that seminal speech is highly relevant because her invocation/usage (whether or not intentional; let the reader decide) implies that she has a veiled association with Pelger's views, or is a coded message intended to elicit the support of those Americans who do. Given the circumstances of the speech, this reasonable inference is highly relevant to who Palin is, who she purports to be, and what kind of political leader she would be for America. It would take a very powerful argument to deflate this one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.202.139.195 (talk) 23:26, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps so, but your comments have deflated any potential for powerful argument. However, in fairness, I'm going to examine all of her speeches using simple character substitutions to see whether we can find any further coded messages being broadcast to the minions in her global following. Fcreid (talk) 10:14, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand your parsing of "comments" from the argument I make through them, which you acknowledge is legitimate (which I very much appreciate). I also appreciate your expressed intention to examine other Palin speechs, although I deem them irrelevant to this analysis given that no speech Palin has ever made approached the weight and significance of her convention speech, through which Palin introduced herself to American voters. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.202.139.195 (talk) 15:38, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

This seems a bit silly. Any semi-sophisticated adult realizes that "small-town values" is a code phrase. That's politics, but Wikpedia isn't really the right forum to press that point. Of course it's legit to question the sources of the quotes used in Palin's speech. I mean, if I'm going to praise the benefits of a vegetarian diet or the harms of cigarette smoking, I don't quote Adolf Hitler, even if he was enthusiastic on both topics. It wouldn't be ad hominem to say: "Hey, wait a minute... did you just quote Adolf Hitler?" More to the point, this issue may have some relevance for a subarticle, perhaps about the campaign, but the level of coverage doesn't seem to warrant inclusion in this parent biographical article (my 2 cents). MastCell ^Talk 18:53, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

You're kidding, right? "Small town values" is a code-phrase for racism? That's something I hadn't heard! Fcreid (talk) 20:07, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Opinions probably differ on what, exactly, "small town values" signifies, but as used in current political discourse it's obviously a code phrase meant to evoke the culture war in a broad sense. That's all I was getting at; I don't have any reason to believe that the inhabitants of "small towns" are any more or less racist than those of big cities. MastCell ^Talk 20:26, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I thought you were lending credence to this nonsense about the quote being a "code" to bring out the fascists, like the latest al-Qaeda video or something! :) Fcreid (talk) 21:15, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

No, they use terrorist fist jabs for that. :) MastCell ^Talk 19:46, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I'll watch tonight to see if I can decode any signals and then report back! :) Fcreid (talk) 20:01, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Putin rears his head

Why was the reference to Putin rearing his head removed. I think it is becoming one of the most important quotes from the campaign. Mpondopondo (talk) 18:51, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes her extensive foreign experience she explains should be talked about

"That alaska has a very narrow maritime border between a foreign country Russia and on our other side the land boundary that we have with ah Canada itit its funny that a comment like that was s kinda made to er ummm caret er um I dont know you know"

"It certainly does because ourw our next door neighbours are foreign countries. There in the state that that I am the executive of (Have you ever been involved in any negotiations for example with the Russians? ) we have trade missionss back and force we we do. Its very important when when you consider even nation security issues with Russia as Puttin rears his head and and ah comes into a the air space of the United States of America. Were where do they go? Its its Alaska is just right over the boarder. It is a from Alaska that we sent those out to make sure an eyes being kept on this very powerful nation Russia because they are right there they are right next to ah um our state" --203.192.91.4 (talk) 01:30, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Agree. Keep. Include. Illustrative of her reasoning, and in her own words. Tautologist (talk) 00:38, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Should we also keep the "ums" and "ers" in there? Fcreid (talk) 12:09, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Clearly that is his poition. Shall we quote Obama's "ums"? I should hope this is dispositive of this side excursion! Collect (talk) 14:15, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Despite the fact that the 'ums' and 'ohs' are humorous, they're probably not noteworthy. Removing them, and fixing the grammar with the appropriate tags is likely the way to go.Trocisp (talk) 21:06, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Sarah and the Dinosaurs--Jesus Ponies and Dinogate (aka Dinosaurs and Evolution vs. Creationism and Intelligent Design)

I just added this to her Wikipedia entry.

• Palin has also said that she believes that humans and dinosaurs coexisted on Earth 6000 years ago, that dinosaurs and humans walked the earth at the same time, and that she has seen pictures of dinosaur tracks showing human footprints within the tracks.

Reference -- Stephen Braun, 09-28-2008, http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-palinreligion28-2008sep28,0,3643718.story Palin Treads Carefully Between Fundamentalist Beliefs and Public Policy, Los Angeles Times.

The electorate should be aware of this information because it has implications for voters' perceptions of her IQ, her education, and her philosophy.WhipperSnapper (talk) 14:01, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

I removed it. It is not a political position. Also, the way it was presented did not accurately reflect the source. According to the source, one person says that Palin said this. --Elliskev 14:06, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I suppose that it isn't a political position though it does modify and elaborate on her belief in creationism and her position that perhaps creationism should be taught in the public schools. I do hope that the Dinogate story (as I'm calling it) makes national headlines and gets featured on television; the American electorate deserves to know who exactly they are voting for or against. Hopefully journalists will dig deeper and further investigate this juicy story.WhipperSnapper (talk) 14:20, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Even though this is the L.A. Times, it is not a reliable source. Philip Munger, the single source quoted in the article, runs an anti-Palin website Progressive Alaska. This is just another partisan attack.--Paul (talk) 14:21, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

It may be an attack, but do you have any reason to believe that she does not believe that? Don't you think it's consistent with her beliefs?WhipperSnapper (talk) 14:25, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Most people dop not have ESP sufficient to insert this issue into a BLP. Collect (talk) 14:29, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

I believe Kelly at one time heard a speech where she referred to dinosaurs as "Jesus ponies". I forget the source, though. See if you can dig that up, Whippersnapper. Fcreid (talk) 15:16, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a repository of speculation, WhipperSnapper. It does not matter at all if it is consistent with her beliefs (and it undoubtedly is). Really, Wikipedia should not include ANY fact that is not established beyond a reasonable doubt, let alone a fact one guy mentioned in one article on a topic that is saturated with bias in both directions. Or should I go edit Obama's page with the various attacks published by the less scrupulous neocons?

And for the record, your arguments about people judging her IQ and the like based on such weak evidence are invalid. If she is unfamiliar with evolution aside from the constant misunderstandings of it that get so much more attention from the public, then it is much more accurate to say she is simply ignorant (and as for that charge, isn't her clearly well-substantiated college record much more condemning of her education anyway?). The influence of intelligence is far more subtle than you seem to realize. -- Drlight11 (talk) 00:04, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

The article I referenced was published in the Los Angeles Times. Is one of the nation's largest newspapers not a reliable or appropriate source? As another poster mentioned, might questioning the reliability of an article published in a major newspaper constitute dreaded original research? As far as IQ goes, people will indeed judge other people's IQ's based on their philosophical beliefs and how seriously they take them. I find her beliefs on this issue to be insightful in this regard. -- WhipperSnapper (talk) 00:30, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

One of the nation's largest newspapers would NOT be a reliable source for any other encyclopedia, no. Again, judging strictly on your posts, you don't seem to recognize when a fact would be well-established. And if it's an innovative suggestion to you that an editor, who might have gotten his article published simply on reputation, MAY be biased...I have nothing to say. Just know that it is NOT "original research" - such a label applies only to insight not possessed by the community at large. -- DrLight11 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.220.30.65 (talk) 02:13, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I am under the impression that editors are not entitled to pick and choose their "favored" contributors from a reliable publication. Simply being controversial or non-sympathetic to the subject does not automatically disqualify inclusion of material produced by a writer for a reliable source. If I am wrong on this, please cite the relevant guidelines which mandate this material be excluded. As for its placement in a "political positions" category, this objection would be easily avoided by placing it in a "Religious views" or "Positions on science" section. If this BLP is going to contain anything other than dry biographical information, then such categories are completely fit for inclusion here.Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 16:37, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

This BLP should contain nothing but "dry biographical information". --Elliskev 16:44, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure of the arguments supporting that course of action, but I do not personally have the time to excise everything but dry biographical information. If anyone takes this upon themselves, they should be diligent to avoid removing only material that is critical or only removing material that is sympathetic, otherwise it will just be blatant POV pushing.Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 17:07, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

We certainly have to comply with BLP, no compromising that. But there are two issues here: first, do we have a reliable source, and second, is it notable. I believe it is notable because she made the alleged statement in her capacity as an elected official, it is she who would have chosen to make this a public issue. Is the source reliable? I dunno and agree we should wait and see. In a few days it will either be confirmed or disappear into the blogosphere. Let's wait and see if there are reliable sources for this. But if it turns out that there are, it certainly is relevant. Slrubenstein | Talk 00:03, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Seems pretty clear to me that LA Times = reliable source and therefore end of story. My understanding is that second-guessing a reliable source constitutes original research and is therefore inappropriate.Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 00:40, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

As Paul mentions down below, the entire evidence for this claim, posted in LA Times or not, is a single source, which as he points out is immediately suspect. LA Times reliability (which is already suspect) is no longer the core question - you need to look at the contributor. Don't forget, this is supposed to be an encyclopedia - do you really think Britannica would print this with such dubious support? I agree with Paul that you guys seem oddly determined to ignore fairly obvious considerations... -- Drlight11 (talk) 00:10, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, if others agree I am not objecting, just saying we can wait a couple of days to see if anyone else picks this up. Slrubenstein | Talk 00:55, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

• Include it If not, when the slow motion encyclopedias come out, Wiki will be the only ecyc w/o it. Certainly something an encyclopedia user investigating the teaching of evolution in the US would want to know about a major politician. It was the core issue from the evolution debate (before it was resolved well over a century ago). Tautologist (talk) 02:13, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Once again before the chorus of reinforcing voices takes over here, there is a single source for this claim: Philip Munger. He made the claim on September 3, 2008 on his anti-Palin activist leftist blog. Any first year journalism student knows that something is that has no corroborating sources, and which is based on a charge by a biased source is no good. All this shows is that the L.A. times is biased and, in this case, is not a reliable source. Unless there is some corroboration published in some additional sources that are reliable, this is BLP radioactive. Forget it. People that are pushing this after the problems with the source were pointed out are making it hard to assume good faith.--Paul (talk) 02:26, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that this claim of yours constitutes original research. See WP:Verifiability, specifically the primary criterion: "readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true". If we had a reliable source calling Munger a biased liar who was willing to say anything to slander Palin, that could also be included in the article as a counterpoint. But the LA Times is not a questionable source, even if Munger is (which remains to be seen). Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 03:44, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

The WP:BLP guidlines override the lax requirements of WP:Verifiability especially the part about "not being true"--Paul (talk) 04:04, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Unless there is a quote directly from Palin about the "young earth" theory, this doesn't really belong in the article. Right now what we have is a second hand claim from a biased party, and that doesn't mesh well with the BLP guidelines. AniMate 04:16, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Nothing about "not being true"... only about where you believe it's true. This article is full of things that I think are blatant falsehoods yet they must stand because somebody important is on record saying so, some paper has quoted somebody saying some bs, or else somebody has done their best to avoid answering a question, instead giving a non-answer.

Anyway, the BLP guidelines also specifically require this sort of material: "Criticism and praise of the subject should be represented if it is relevant to the subject's notability and can be sourced to reliable secondary sources, and so long as the material is written in a manner that does not overwhelm the article or appear to take sides; it needs to be presented responsibly, conservatively, and in a neutral, encyclopedic tone."

No matter how much of a liar you think that guy is, he's a critic, this is on reputable record by a publication with a factchecking department and the ability to be sued for libel, and that is the whole basis for Wikipedia's reliance on mainstream news publications. The only appropriate thing to do here is to include this with the reference and attribute it specifically to this guy with explicit mention that he is a liberal critic of Palin. (He's also a Wasilla resident, in case that means anything to you.) That's a neutral, encyclopedic tone. This is what allows readers to form their own conclusions and that is what Wikipedia is supposed to do.Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 04:38, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

We would then have to include multiple conflicting accounts (and there are many impromptu testimonials from both adversaries and friends) that state Palin does not "wear her religion on her sleeve" (to quote one I recall). Let's not degrade WP into providing a voice for everyone with either an axe to grind or a pin to polish... the blogs do plenty of that already. Fcreid (talk) 22:48, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Has Palin herself said anything and has this been broadly reported? AniMate 05:25, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

The only thing we could possibly report from this source is that some guy from Wasilla says he heard Palin make these claims. At some point, we have to ask whether the claim of any random resident of Wasilla that is mentioned in a single story (of thousands written about Palin) carries enough due weight to be included here. Even if it weren't a BLP violation, the idea that this story carries due weight is laughable. Oren0 (talk) 22:22, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Did Palin also say something to the effect, at some point, that she thought that the dinosaurs were Jesus Ponies? I know that it's possible to find t-shirts on Cafepress where she is being mocked to that effect. -- WhipperSnapper (talk) 03:07, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I apologize for sending you on a wild goose chase, Whippersnapper. Anyone who has been around this talk page for more than a few days knows I'm occasionally a wise-ass. Frankly, I was going to leave your comment as the final exclamation point to this entire topic, as I felt it illustrated your motivation and the sincerity of your academic pursuit for the truth. That said, the factoid you really want is already in the article--in Palin's own words. In there, she describes herself as a "Bible-believing Christian". Apparently, in your estimation, that simple fact means she (and the other 75% of Americans who believe similarly) is utterly unqualified to serve in public office. Fcreid (talk) 12:08, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

No apology needed; I enjoy the thrill of a quick Google hunt for incriminating information and enjoyed a chuckle at the sight of the Jesus ponies t-shirts. And, yes, as an intransigent atheist I believe that people who take religion very seriously and without a good deal of skepticism are unqualified to serve as president. From my perspective, someone's saying that Palin believes that humans and dinosaurs co-existed is tantamount to someone saying, "look at the retarded child, she really believes that the Moon is made of green cheese, isn't that cute?" I'm not a particularly big fan of Obama and I disagree with him on many issues that are important to me (foreign outsourcing, immigration, foreign work visas), but at least he possesses advanced reasoning capability. -- WhipperSnapper (talk) 21:40, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

We agree in principle on more counts than you know, but let's hope we don't usher in an age where laws don't require any book of religious belief to carry a disclaimer that it is fictional or, worse yet, be banned. We fought too hard to have those rights. Also, don't be so quick to judge that this person, in particular, lacks the skills for advanced reasoning. Fcreid (talk) 22:13, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

No, I think that if cafepress has made a T-shirt, we should include it as a notable and encyclopedic fact. OK, that was sarcasm. Look: assertions on a blog run by a political opponent are not particularly good encyclopedic material, for obvious reasons. The L.A. Times used them as an attention-grabbing lead-in, but the focus of their article is actually much more nuanced. We are not going to say in this encyclopedia that someone believes dinosaurs and humans coexisted based solely on the self-published words of a political opponent, even if those words have been mentioned in a reputable newspaper. This seems like it should be self-evident, but apparently it's not. MastCell ^Talk 16:27, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Of course it shouldn't be included on that basis alone, but I sure would like to know the exact source of the reference. -- WhipperSnapper (talk) 21:40, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

This is the exact source on Palin and dinosaurs. Certainly not a reliable source, and even a reliable source, like the LA Times, quoting the blog doesn't pass the threshold for WP:BLP. If Palin explicitly discusses her faith or clear evidence of her beliefs is presented, perhaps these kinds of details can be included. AniMate 22:18, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the link. After reading that entry, you almost get the sense that she might also believe in the Rapture. -- WhipperSnapper (talk) 23:15, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I can not believe this is still around. It is joyfully irrelevant, and has no part of being in a BLP. By the way, Joe Lieberman "believes" the world is about 5,770 years old. "La shanah tova tikatevu" to those holding that faith. Care to try adding that to his BLP? I thought not. Collect (talk) 22:38, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

The dinosaur issue isn't what's worthy of inclusion in a politicians BLP, it's the position on intelligent design. Remove the quote about man and dinos walking the earth together if you must but Palin's recommendation that intelligent design be taught in schools helps define her political position and is relevant here.--Rtphokie (talk) 22:42, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

When you add the dinosaur thing, which you know violates BLP and other policies, in the same edits as your ID additions, you can't expect people to only revert you selectively. If you want to add neutral and well sourced information regarding her stance on Intelligent Design in schools, feel free. But you're going to get reverted if you add the dinosaur BS without getting consensus. Oren0 (talk) 22:45, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't appreciate any implication of deliberate attempts to disrupt this article. This is not a violation of BLP. It is well sourced addition to this article which has been widely covered. If the quote proves to be invalid or the newspaper's source unreliable, then information can be removed from the article. Neutral point of view means doesn't mean avoiding the controversial and doesn't just apply to what's included in the article, it applies to what is excluded as well. NPV says all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. The coverage of this is significant and the subject matter is also significant given the position Palin current holds and is seeking. We aren't talking about some actor's views on religion and education, we are talking about a major political figure who's personal views may impact public policy. Also, BLP guides us to choose reliable sources, which the LA Times is. WP:V and WP:RS guide us on what is considered a reliable, verifiable sources. It is the wikipedia editor's responsiblity to present properly cited information in a nuetral form, it is the LA Time repsonsibility to vet their sources. Without some similarly reliable source challenging the validity of that article, excluding it from this article is original research.--Rtphokie (talk) 03:46, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

"The coverage of this is significant" - Is it? Link more reliable sources reporting this story and the conversation changes drastically. Regardless of that, your edit makes a huge leap that the LA Times article doesn't: supposing that the "dinosaur" thing is something Palin believes. All the LA Times says is that one individual (and known Palin critic, but that's beside the point) claims she said something about dinosaurs once. To jump from that report to saying that she "believes that 'dinosaurs and humans walked the Earth at the same time'" as a totally unqualified statement (not 'some guy says') is such an absurd leap that assuming that these edits are in good faith is difficult. And the fact that you'd make an edit like that and then accuse those who disagree with you of original research is the height of irony and shows a fundamental misunderstanding of the policy. I suggest you read the Wikipedia policy on Original research. It applies only to the content found in articles, not editorial decisions. Editors must constantly use their discretion to decide what material to exclude, how to organize it, and so on. Editorial discretion is not forbidden by Wikipedia's prohibition on original research and in fact is a necessary part of writing any article. Oren0 (talk) 07:08, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I know of no evidence that Leiberman believe the world is 5770 years old, but that is a matter of discussion for the article on Leiberman, I do not see how it is relevant here. And how exactly does the dinosaur remark violate BLP and other policies? Please no threats to remove something on sight when it is under discussion here. How does it violate BLP? It certainly is relevant to an article on a person actively campaigning for the position of vice-president, and whose public career is a matter of record. Slrubenstein | Talk 23:22, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

The answer to that is simple, and has been addressed here already. The secondhand dinosaur "quote" originated on the blog belonging to a political opponent of no particular notoriety. This demonstrates nothing about Palin's personal beliefs, since it cannot be verified that she actually said it. It is a violation of BLP to attribute a belief, statement, or action to a person which no reliable source can solidly link them to. »S0CO^{(talk|contribs)} 00:06, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I suggest you read up on Orthodox Judaism, and the dating of the Jewish Calendar (about to enter year 5770). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_views_on_evolution#Orthodox_scientists_respond_to_Darwin

"The vast majority of classical Rabbis hold that God created the world close to 6,000 years ago, and created Adam and Eve from clay. This view is based on a chronology developed in a midrash, Seder Olam, which was based on a literal reading of the book of Genesis. It is attributed to the Tanna Yose ben Halafta, and covers history from the creation of the universe to the construction of the Second Temple in Jerusalem. Although it is known that a literal approach is not always needed when interpreting the Torah, there is a split over which parts are literal."

Further cites are available. And the most "liberal" Orthodox view is that Man was created 5770 years ago. Collect (talk) 12:12, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry Collect, this is a perfect example of why we have an NOR policy. Your quote is about classical rabbis. It is not about Joe Leiberman. Joe Leiberman is not a classical rabbi, and a quote about what classical rabbis believed is not a quote about what Leiberman believes. Moreover, Orthodox rabbis are not classical rabbis. There are many Orthodox rabbis who believe all the things Classical Rabbis believed. But there are also many Orthodox Rabbis who accept modern science and, like the Catholic Church, accept that the universe is about 13 billion years old and accept the theory of evolution. Conservative, Reform, and Reconstructionist Jews - like many Orthodox Jews - all go to synagogue on Rosh HaShanah to celebrate the "birthday of the world" and yet believe that the universe was created 13 billion years ago. If you have evidence that Joe Leiberman believes otherwise, present it at the Leiberman article. But the issue here is, did Leiberman ever make this claim in a speech he gave as a US Senator? The issue here is what Sarah Palin said as mayor i.e. in her capacity as holder of an elected office. Now, there may be some debate over the reliability of the source, but the source is claiming that Palin said this in a public event and in her capacity as mayor. Your bringing up Leiberman is a red herring. Slrubenstein | Talk 15:25, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

http://archives.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/stories/08/29/lieberman.religion/index.html ""As a people, we need to reaffirm our faith and renew the dedication of our nation and ourselves to God and God's purposes," the Connecticut senator said. " Joe is a scholar of Torah, and a firm believer in Orthodox Judaism. I would suggest that the beliefs of "reform" Jewish rabbis do not apply to him. Collect (talk) 22:42, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Once again you bring up an irrelevant quote. We all know Leiberman is shomrei mitzvoth but one need not believe that the earth is 6000 years old or whatever to be shomrei mitzvoth. You have yout to provide any evidence at all that Leiberman does not believe the current estimates of astronomers as to the age of the universe, or the current theory of biologists as to how species evolve. Keep blowing smoke if you want, or find a quote that actully says what you say it says. It is disingenuous to cite a quote and claim it says one thing when it doesn't. Don't srew around with quotes. Slrubenstein | Talk 01:23, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the lecture. The primary issue is whether a belief in "Creation" is a valid issue wrt Palin, and whther Orthodox Jews hold that belief. Joe attended Congregation Agudath Shalom http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2003/12/07/a_moral_drive_for_the_presidency/ , which had a very famous rabbi, Joseph Ehenkranz. http://www.sacredheart.edu/pages/12231_rabbi_ehrenkranz_attends_united_nations_peace_summit.cfm

Let us for a moment contemplate what each of the Abrahamic faiths believes and holds sacred:

There is only one God.

God created the universe, and human beings are the crown of creation.

In simple terms: Creationism. Somply stated by Lieberman's rabbi (and stated to me as well). Care to claim that this is not a "creationist" statement? Collect (talk) 10:57, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I guess you are admitting that you have no quote at all demonstrating that Leiberman believes the earth is only 6000 or so years old, and denying that he accepts the scientific theory of evolution. If you just do not have the quote, you don't have it. Since you have given up on Leiberman we can return to Palin: she is reported to have made a direct statement in her role as mayor. If we have a reliable source supporting that this actually happened, we have something to add to the article that is important, relevant, and (unlike your imitation of "research") we actually have a quote. Slrubenstein | Talk 14:00, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

You are bing deliberately obtuse. I cited Joe's rabbi on the belief in Creation. I cited Joe's strict Orthodox beliefs. The issue was whether others would have the absurd claims made about them that have surfaced about Palin. I demonstrated it in spades. The fact I knew Joe is irrelevant. The fact I knew Rabbi Ehrenkranz is irrelevant. You know neither, and that is relevant. There is absolutely no sane basis for the "dinogate" absurdity which was attempted here. That is a fact, and everyone who reads this knows it is a fact. As for your continued posts to me -- they verge on impropriety on your part, and I would encourage you to cease. Thank you most kindly. Collect (talk)

Uh, I do not like the way you are demeaning me, but since you bring it up, you are the one being obtuse. You have not cited Joe's beliefs about scientists' claims about the age of the universe or evolution. Nor have you cited his rabbi's beliefs. The statement by the rabbi is clearly tied to a moral purpose: "Our task is to partner with God who constantly improves the world through the people He created. If one country is depleting its resources and destroying the environment, then this is a global problem, and we need to come together financially and technologically to challenge and assist that country to the benefit of everyone on the planet. We are God's instruments and we have the responsibility tirelessly and lovingly to improve the world." This is the point of his claims that God reated people in His image. I know too many observant Jews, including rabbis, who are devout, who attend services regularly and praise God as creator of the universe and yes, even attend shul on Rosh HaShanah and celebrate the "birthday of the world," and yet who believe that the universe began with the bib bang about 13 billion years ago and that life evolved on earth through natural selection and genetic processes like drift, to fall for your falacious claims that because someone says they are observant Jews or that God created the universe it somehow magically therefore means they also do not believe in the claims of mainstream science. So you know Joe and his rabbi - and yet you still cannot find a quote in which they deny that the earth was created about 4 and a half billion years ago, and humans evolved more than a hundred million years after the dinosaurs? Pathetic - you claim you know them and still have no quote backing your claim. As for my relationship with the senator, you have no idea what it is and I am not going to bring it up because Wikipedia is not based on personal claims it is based on verifiability, something you clearly do not care about. Slrubenstein | Talk 14:32, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

You could also ridicule some Christians by noting that they believe they are drinking human blood and eating human flesh when they consume the Eucharist at church every week, making them Cannibals, or that they believe in a ghost. Edison (talk) 06:18, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Let's run with that one for tonight's headline! Fcreid (talk) 13:33, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

As I said before, it is worth looking for other sources for this. We need a reliable source. My point is simply that once we agree that we have a reliable source, this issue is relevant enough to the article to merit inclusion. Slrubenstein | Talk 15:26, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Concur. We need to hold true to our "extraordinary claims require extraordinary sources" principles on this one, particularly given the only attribution for the claim is from Munger, who rarely lets a day pass without maligning Palin on his blog. In addition, there are myriad other sources that indicate such a discussion is out-of-character for Palin, including sworn rivals. Fcreid (talk) 12:19, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

All - I did find an unusual prayer which was almost definitely said over Palin. Does the following sound odd?

" I adjure thee through the living true and holy God, the God who made thee for the well-being of the human race, and commanded thee to be hallowed by his servants for the use of those who come to the knowledge of her by faith."

"I adjure thee, unclean spirit, in the name of the Father and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost to depart and remain far away from this servant of God (Sarah). He commands thee now who walked dry-shod upon the waters, and when Peter would have perished in the sea stretched out to him his saving hand. And so, accursed spirit, give heed to the sentence passed upon thee."

How would you interpret such a prayer? Collect (talk) 15:48, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Really? It doesn't sound odd to me - it sounds close to the typical baptism prayer. This is a ritual that is pretty common in lots of Christian churches, I do not see how Palin's being baptized merits any more comment in the article. I know it already says she was born into a Catholic family, do we really need to add that she was baptized a Catholic? I think identifying her as a Catholic is sufficient. And I do not see how this has any bearing at all on the far-from-ordinary pronouncements she made ... no, not as a minister or priest, but as mayor and governor ... about religion and politics or religion and public education. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:18, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Yet it is very akin to the African prayer much in the news. Amazing, isn;t it, how cultural references taken out of context can create false controversy? Vide also "Thank you that I was not born a woman" as a liturgical statement ... and a host of others from all faiths. Seems to me that placing any such religious controversy in any article ill-serves WP. But that is just my own opinion, of course. Collect (talk) 19:16, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Boy, you really do not understand WIkipedia's policies at all, do you? Slrubenstein | Talk 19:59, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

"Boy"???? I would suggest that placing a question which goes to the heart of this entire section of the Talk page is exactly and precisely in line with WP policies. Thank you by the way very much for calling me "Boy" as it is quite dispositive of the "AGF" issue with regard to how you view it. Collect (talk) 20:04, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Yikes! Not here too! I believe consensus above was that the Witch Doctor, while interesting in a trivial kind of way, certainly did not reach the criteria for inclusion. Fcreid (talk) 20:13, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

First of all, Collect, I did not call you a "boy." Please find a dictionary - "boy" is a common exclamatory term, like wow or golly. And your question runs counter to WIkipedia policy. I personally have no issue with that African prayer. Apparently you do not either. But you know what? Your view on the matter is irrelevant. So is my view. Editors' views do not go into articles. You throw around words like fact and false a lot, but Wikipedia is about notability and verifiability, and not about true or false. You ropinion that the controversy is false has no place in any discussion on this article. Someone lese's view that the controversy is "true" also has no place in this discussion. The only question is, is the controversy notable and if so, are there verifiable and reliable sources for providing an account of the controversy and the various views involved in, and about, the controversy. Then it is just a matter of writing an account of these notable views from verifiable sources. There is only one ground for excluding it from Wikipedia: that it is not notable and to include it would give undue weight to a non-notable set of views. And perhaps the controversy is not notable enough for inclusion (I never heard of it and I listen to and watch the news regularly). But this is the only grounds for exluding it, not the fact that you think it is false or silly. You really need to get over this belief you seem to have that your judgement that a one view is better than another, or one topic truer than another, is simply irrelevant. Boy! Slrubenstein | Talk 20:24, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

First -- "Boy!" is an exclamation. "Boy, ..." is NOT an exclamation. Your message to me did not use "Boy," as an exclamation. Exclamation marks are not commas. A comma is used when you are addressing someone with the name you give before the comma. Yhe issue I was dealing with is the relevance of ANY statements which might inaptly deal with a subject's religion. This entire section about dinosaurs falls into that classification. Giving weight to a view which is notable only because of deliberate misinterpretation is improper. In the case at hand, I have sought to show that such wilful misinterpretation is errant. I am sorry that you only feel "notable" is your only concern. Thank you most kindly. Collect (talk) 20:35, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

if that is how you want it, that's your business. boy as an interjection, with a comma rather than an exclamation point, can still mean the same thing as boy with an exclamation point, just as boy with an expclamation point can still be vocative. Slrubenstein | Talk 23:33, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Exclamations in the form of "Boy, you ..." are quite rare. Since this seems to be degenerating into English grammar discussions, I think it has outlived its usefulness here. Rather like having a (sic) contest, or the like. Interjections generally are not followed by commas, at least not in any Manual of Style I have found. Collect (talk) 23:46, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

section uneditable

Unfortunately, a prior section is showing as being uneditable (infinite time loading) -- so I am using a new section to reply. I know that I have been on WP a full year less than KC, but I think my c.v. is more than adequate. I did not think quantity of edits was needed to get the presumption of "good faith." I have been online since 1982, and have acttively overseen as a wizop more than four million messages, and more than 50,000 files. Closer to seven million messages by now. KC avers no presence in anything related to Sarah Palin in the past. Except for Talk:Sarah Palin Archive 18. Talk: Political Positions of Sarah Palin Archives 1 and 2, and possibly other places (including User Talk pages). I am therefore claiming that I have made no improper claims about anyone, and that I endeavor to grant the presumption of good faith to everyone. Is that clear? Collect (talk) 15:47, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I have no thoughts at all about your CV, but I am disturbed by one of your recent comments in the preceeding section (about The Guardian) that shows me you misunderstand what Wikipedia's NPOV policy and policy on Reliable Sources mean. NPOV does not mean that we write articles that are completely lacking in bias, or use sources that have no bias. It means that we represent all notable views. And reliable sources ... well, just read the actual policy. The Guardian is certainly a reliable source if we are writing about news media reception. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:42, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

As you will note above, I offer a British BALANCED view as a cite. Do you have a problem with the Telegraph? I would suggest that it offers a more balanced view than the Guardian offers. Thanks!Collect (talk) 18:41, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Collect, I urge you to read our NPOV policy. According to whom is the Telegraph more balanced? You? Me? It doesn't matter! NPOV is designed because editors are going to disagree over right and wrong, fair or unfair, balanced or biased. Instead, we represent notable views. Is the Telegraph notable? That is the question, and the answer is yes. And The Guardian is just as notable. We should draw on both as sources. But none of this silliness of claiming one is more balance than another. Let's just follow our policies; in this case they represent a tremendous amount of wisdom that has been tested and proven a lot. Please, just read our NPOV policy and let's follow it. Slrubenstein | Talk 19:25, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

That would certainly be true if this were an article on a Mars landing. However, I think it is patently disingenuous of editors not to acknowledge the only thing reliable about certain press outlets is their propensity to bash whatever political bent is opposite their own. This is demonstrably true during an election cycle, and it has been incredibly so in the case of Palin. (One need not look hard to find myriad sources outlining specific unfounded criticisms and plain-old smears of Palin--on an order of magnitude not "enjoyed" by any other candidate--and with no remorse about having to recant in the fine print a few days later!) Finally, let's look at the big picture of our situation. Palin's first debate is in two days. Even people without political interests have already pre-programmed their DVR. What would you estimate will be the number of page views here between now and Friday morning? How sweet it would be for either side should this article be manipulated and tained in either direction before then? Fcreid (talk) 20:08, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Ought we include every possible newspaper? I would suggest that an article which is seen to be NPOV is suited for citing here more than one whose POV has been disputed, no matter how much you like it. As for your suggestion that I have NOT read the policies -- I assure you that I have (actually over 200 pages of policies now) and I find your statement to be demeaning in the extreme. Thank you most kindly. Collect (talk) 20:10, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

You find my statement demeaning? Look, you are the one who keeps insisting that one POV is better than another, it is you who thinks that someone we should only be using sources that are "NPOV" when in fact NPOV is a policy about how to use different sources and views. If you have read the NPOV policy, I suggest you read it again. This is not a demeaning comment or personal attack, it is a constructive suggestion. Slrubenstein | Talk 20:31, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Interesting as I can not find one place where I demeaned someone's POV. Or stated that one POV is "better" than another. BTW, as I iterated I have read the NPOV policy. Tp wit in part:

"The policy requires that where multiple or conflicting perspectives exist within a topic each should be presented fairly. None of the views should be given undue weight or asserted as being judged as "the truth", in order that the various significant published viewpoints are made accessible to the reader, not just the most popular one. It should also not be asserted that the most popular view, or some sort of intermediate view among the different views, is the correct one to the extent that other views are mentioned only pejoratively. Readers should be allowed to form their own opinions."

Thank you most kindly. Collect (talk) 20:47, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

You now deny having denigrated the view of The Guardian and having claimed that the view of The Telegraph was in some way better? You have on several occsasions stated that we should not use the Guardian as a source. You now quote our NPOV policy, and a passage that makes it very clear that views other than your own should be included. This means that just because you do not like the Guardian, this is not a good reason not to use it as a source. The NPOV passage that you quote certainly does not support your attempts to dismiss the use of the Guardian as a source. Slrubenstein | Talk 20:53, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Huh? Stating that an outside source might have a bias is denigrating or demeaning to an editor here? NPOV would imply that a point of view OTHER than the Guardian's ought reasonably be included. I fail to see why insisting on a SINGLE source is better than using a less biassed source or both sources? And I stand by my comments on the Guardian's biases in some matters. Use booth then. Just don't claim that the single source represents all points of view on the matter. Thank you most kindly. Collect (talk) 21:02, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Of course I do not think saying something is biased is demeaning. The Telegraph is biased - now, I did not say anything to demean it, and this does not mean that it is an unreliable source for notable views ... did I ever say this? But to return to what you have argued: You did not simply write that the Guardian had a bias. You wrote, "The Guardian is not a reliable source concerning anything remotely related to the Bush family (which it has repeatedly linked to Hitler). A biassed "global view" is no more valid than a biassed local view." Now, I interpreted this to mean that you were opposed to our using The Guardian as a source - if you really think it violates our WP:RS policy then we cannot use it. Did I misinterpret you? Are you actually saying that we should use The Guardian, and that the Guardian and the Telegraph are equally acceptable under our reliable sources and NPOV policy? Slrubenstein | Talk 21:11, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I was accused of demeaning people. Stating what has been averred by others -- that the Guardian has biases, does not per se disqualify using the Guardian. It does, however, imply that other sources ought be considered in order to balance statements. This is in accord with NPOV

"Assert facts, including facts about opinions—but do not assert the opinions themselves. By "fact" we mean "a piece of information about which there is no serious dispute." For example, that a survey produced a certain published result would be a fact. That there is a planet called Mars is a fact. That Plato was a philosopher is a fact. No one seriously disputes any of these things. So we can feel free to assert as many of them as we can.

By value or opinion,[2] on the other hand, we mean "a matter which is subject to dispute." There are many propositions that very clearly express values or opinions. That stealing is wrong is a value or opinion. That The Beatles were the greatest band in history is an opinion. That the United States is the only country in the world that has used a nuclear weapon for military purposes is a fact. That the United States was right or wrong to drop the atomic bomb over Hiroshima and Nagasaki is a value or opinion. However, there are bound to be borderline cases where it is not clear if a particular dispute should be taken seriously and included.[1]"

I trust this is clear. Collect (talk) 22:08, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

You were accused of demeaning people? Who accused you of that? When? Where? About "facts" - the claim that all people agree about something is itself a view that needs a source; in any event, your claims about "facts" suggests you haven't read our V policy or do not understand the point that wikipedia is about verifiability, not truth. Slrubenstein | Talk 23:01, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I am still very curious to know who accused you of demeaning people, and when and in which section. Slrubenstein | Talk 01:25, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Check your own posts where you state that you are not demeaning me. As I stated, I never demeaned any edotor whatsoever. Zaereth below wished to end this stuff, and I was done until you decided to add "the last word." Then I would suggest this part of Talk is finis. Thank you most kindly. Collect (talk) 11:04, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

First of all, NPOV is a Wikipedia term of art and has no meaning when applied to newspapers. The Telegraph is a generally reliable news source. So is the Guardian. One is not "more reliable" than the other in any meaningful or general sense, and this line of argument seems a bit silly. More silly is the contention that the Guardian is inherently biased because of a news article about the Bush family which one editor dislikes, while the Telegraph is "BALANCED". MastCell ^Talk 20:18, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Certainly I didn't contend that. In fact, I asked nearly a month ago of editors involved in furious debate (about the infamous "bridge" as I recall) if there were a single source that both sides agreed presented information neutrally. I received zero responses. Fcreid (talk) 20:22, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I realize that; I was responding to comments by User:Collect higher up. "Neutrality" of a source is highly subjective and impossible to nail down, whereas a reputation for fact-checking, accuracy, and solid editorial oversight are somewhat less elusive qualities which are possessed by any number of sources, including the Guardian, the Telegraph, etc. MastCell ^Talk 20:28, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

This whole thing is getting out of hand. As Collect has said, this whole section is about the opinion of others. Then a debate over who "others" should be insues, which inevitably leads to a sourcing war, each claiming their source is more reliable ... and this is what we end up with. Who's to say what opinion is more valid than another. Because this section is about opinions, I think it will become a powerful magnet for POV, not just from the pushers, but even subconsciously from the most well intended individual. For an article primarily about opinion, not to bring out our own predjudices will take a lot of careful thought and discussion. I'm gonna stay away from this one, and trust that the many good editors here will be able to cease hostilities and work this out in a dignified manner. Zaereth (talk) 22:47, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks to whomever fixed the font. I thought I'd been on SP so long that my eyes started failing. Fcreid (talk) 22:54, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Personal / Religious

Hey Jossi, what specific objections do you have to Homung's recent edits? Thanks - KillerChihuahua^?!? 15:54, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I restored one edit, the deletion of a vague and unsourced statement. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:58, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that to me was very insulting and a bizarre sentence anyway - I have seen no claims her faith is fake, so why on earth would we have a sentence "countering" a non-issue? KillerChihuahua^?!? 16:05, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Ok, this is Homung's other edit, which I thought was an improvement. Not saying it was the best possible, but it seemed better written than what was there, to me. KillerChihuahua^?!? 16:07, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Here's my suggested sentence from that edit: "Palin's use of religious language in relation to non-religious subjects, such as an oil pipeline or the Iraq war, has caused comment." My intent was to have a sentence that would allow the average politically-aware reader to fill in both sides of this issue ("She says God wants us in Iraq! No, she just hopes she is doing what God wants!") without actually taking sides. I fully agree that the sentence is imperfect, but it is much better than "Some of Palin’s assertions relate her personal religious beliefs to public policy, e.g., that development of an oil pipeline for Alaska is God’s will, or that the Iraq War is part of God’s plan with the US military on a task from God in Iraq." which clearly takes sides, imputing a debatable interpretation to her quote. Jossi, as someone who felt strongly about wanting this article to be able to grow, I really think that you should try to respond to productive edits with more productive edits, not with reverts. I will not war on this but I think the article is silly as it stands. Homunq (talk) 16:19, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Give me a f#%&g break. "She has made appeals to American sensibilities in several comments relating her personal religious beliefs to public policy"????? And she likes apple pie, I hear, too, and is a mother of 5. Whoever it is _{(note: Ottre)} didn't even bother to change the reference...

Let's recap: I, an editor who personally dislikes Palin, makes an edit that takes the article from an unfair attack on Palin, to being something in the neighborhood of NPOV. I get a comment on my talk page saying "Great edit" (thanks, by the way). Jossi, another editor who dislikes Palin, reverts it. It starts a talk page discussion. Then the sentence is twisted around to be totally pro-Palin with no comment on the talk page.

This is a really pathological process here. I'd love to put my own edit back, but I promised not to edit-war on this one and I will stand by that promise. Homunq (talk) 19:29, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

For the record, I do not "dislike Palin". I am interested in a neutral presentation of this person as reported in the numerous sources available on the subject. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:01, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

That can be assumed. I was talking about your personal feelings; "dislike" may be a poor characterization, but most of the editors on this talk page, you included, have long past tipped their hands about which "side they're on". The point is not that that's bad in itself, just that NPOV means compromise on both sides - not based on who yells louder, but based on using verifiability and logic to find statements that are as unarguably true as possible. "She said God is on our side" just isn't, based on the quotes we have. Homunq (talk) 20:54, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I've cooled off now, but I really don't get where "American sensibilities" even comes from. Homunq (talk) 19:34, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Ok, here is what is there right now:

She has made appeals to American sensibilities in several comments relating her personal religious beliefs to public policy. After the Republican National Convention, the McCain campaign told CNN that Palin "doesn't consider herself Pentecostal."

- I am sure we can do better than that. KillerChihuahua^?!? 19:46, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I just tried!! Slrubenstein | Talk 19:57, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

That works. NPOV writing 101! ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:03, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

... and now the article is back to the anti-Palin slant. Please, people, if there are two redundant statements covering the same material, remove the POV one, not the NPOV one, even if the NPOV one is newer (looking at you, Grsz). Homunq (talk) 20:05, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Someone want to edit this one before I do or have some suggestions to improve it and reflect the truth? "Some of Palin’s assertions relate her personal religious beliefs to public policy, e.g., that development of an oil pipeline for Alaska is God’s will, or that the Iraq War is part of God’s plan with the US military on a task from God in Iraq. [218]" Fcreid (talk) 20:49, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

This was a perfectly good statement a day or two ago. Someone has distorted it to a completely POV shot at her. I don't like to review edit history, because I'd prefer not knowing who that was. Fcreid (talk) 20:51, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

BTW, the end result of any statement that includes either of this clauses (Iraq War and pipeline) will also include that it was provided to a group of missionary students at a commencement address in the Wasilla church. Boy, this irks me after we spent days on end making this right. Fcreid (talk) 20:53, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

It irks me, too. My suggestion is above: "Palin's use of religious language in relation to non-religious subjects, such as an oil pipeline or the Iraq war, has caused comment." I think that this issue deserves no more than one sentence. I understand your point about it having been said in a church; however, I think that adding "in church" to that specific suggested sentence would be awkward and come across as clunky POV. Homunq (talk) 21:01, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Adding the venue and the audience is absolutely critical to the context of that statement. Otherwise, it has no merit. Unless someone can cite something she said in a political forum, e.g. to the Council of Mayors or state legislature, then the statement must include that very relevant context. Fcreid (talk) 21:06, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Fcreid. It makes a huge difference that she was speaking at a religious service, rather than to the legislature or something like that.Ferrylodge (talk) 21:09, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

She was invited to speak because she was mayor, not because she is a theologian. ANd I have no idea why you think that the claim that someone links their religious views to public policy is a bias against Palin, unless you are so anti-religious you think that any claim that someone has religious beliefs is an insult. personally, I find that offensive. Slrubenstein | Talk 21:11, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

You seem to be reading into my comments something I never said.Ferrylodge (talk) 21:14, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

No one is making any statement or judgments about her personal religious beliefs here. This is purely the need that material we present is accurate. If she had made these now-renowned comments to a departing brigade of National Guard soldiers or the Wasilla High football team, they would have been wholly inappropriate. That they were made as a commencement address to a graduating class of the "Jesus Masters" program at Wasilla Assembly of God makes them absolutely appropriate. Fcreid (talk) 21:46, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Fcreid that we ought to very briefly mention that the comments were made at a church.Ferrylodge (talk) 21:54, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

And to graduating ministry students. Fcreid (talk) 21:55, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

This might precede smoothly into the campaign clarification statement: "Palin's use of religious references in a speech to graduating ministry students at Wasilla Assembly of God, specifically regarding the topics of the Alaska-Canada oil pipeline and the Iraq war, has called into question the influence of Pentacostal Christianity on her politics. Fcreid (talk) 22:04, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I think I have a somewhat improved suggestion below, in this section of the talk page.Ferrylodge (talk) 22:39, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Some background. I've been here every day for a month, and I count the edits I've made to the article on one hand. I'm a consensus-builder, here and in real life, as I've found that always brings me closer to the truth. When I first saw this quote (badly mangled at the time, claiming she said "Iraq was a task from God" and "God will bring us a pipeline", I was blown away (read into that what you will). When I peeled the onion just a single layer, I quickly learned this speech was made as a commencement address to these "Jesus Masters" graduates and given in a church (from a pulpit), it made a helluva lot more sense to me. Ironically, this quote is *all* that stands as criticism of Palin's alleged conflict between governing and religion. There is no other quote, in any other public forum, to reinforce that assessment. Therefore, it is imperative that those elements of context be included. Otherwise, the next Joe coming to the article will also be blown away. Fcreid (talk) 22:37, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and SLR, my knee-jerk response wasn't directed at you. As I said, I really don't care who made the edits today, but the end result was a clear POV-push. If you had known how many hours and days of discussion were spent on making that one idiotic quote stand on its own enough to pacify both sides, you'd appreciate my ire. Fcreid (talk) 22:40, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

• Here was my original contribution at the end of the paragraph, using NPR as source-

Some of Palin’s assertions relate her personal religious beliefs to public policy, e.g., that development of an oil pipeline for Alaska is God’s will, or that the Iraq War is part of God’s plan with the US military on a task from God in Iraq.

The idea was that it is very accurate as to what she said in her church speech, is consistent with the "spiritual warfare" teachings of the church, but does not sound like an unusual thing to say for the unbelievers, so is neutral.

Looking at the mass of words on this talk page above, apparently I missed something. Tautologist (talk) 22:13, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, you did. The current proposed wording is above. You're welcome to join in. Fcreid (talk) 22:18, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

(undent) This article currently says: "Palin's use of religious language in relation to public policy has caused some to speculate on the influence of Pentacostal Christianity on her politics." I see two problems.

Problem #1: See WP:Weasel. The phrase “has caused some to speculate” is weaselly. It seems that it refers to the following two sentences of the cited source: “Poloma says some people might hear that and say Palin believes this is a holy war, or that Pentecostals think this is a holy war….Bock, however, warns against drawing conclusions about anyone's policies from his or her faith.” So, Bock is warning people not to speculate, and Poloma only admits that some other people might speculate.

Problem #2: There’s no mention that Palin made these remarks in a church, rather than to a legislature or something. The cited source says: “Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin dropped in on the Wasilla Assembly of God, the church she and her family attended until 2002.”\

So, I'd suggest: "In a speech to graduating ministry students at Wasilla Assembly of God, Governor Palin used religious references in relation to public policy, which has led to some discussion about whether (or to what degree) her faith influences her politics."Ferrylodge (talk) 22:39, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

That works for me, FL. I suspect it won't be enough for the meat-lovers who want to see "Iraq" and "pipeline" prominently in there. Fcreid (talk) 22:42, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Currently states: "In a speech to graduating ministry students at Wasilla Assembly of God in June 2008, Governor Palin used religious references in relation to public policy, which has generated discussion about whether (or to what degree) her faith influences her politics" - which is completely acceptable to me. Are we all done trying to make it sound like she was shaking chicken bones and reading entrails now? Sorry for being short tempered about this, but honestly, people! KillerChihuahua^?!? 22:57, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

It looks great. Thanks and apologies to all. I appreciate your humoring me. Fcreid (talk) 23:00, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

It looks great to me too - I am pleased with Ferrylodge's changes. I hope this shows everyone here that whatever our personal beliefs, it is actually possible to build consensus! Slrubenstein | Talk 23:02, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Indeed - anyone who knows the history between myself and Ferrylodge will surely realize that if we can work together, virtually anyone can. KillerChihuahua^?!? 23:05, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Acknowledged. :) Fcreid (talk) 23:17, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm not quite through here. It seems the article has now implied that she may mix her religion and politics. We should also include her denial. "Palin has stated that she would not allow her personal religious beliefs to dictate her political positions," according to CNN.[2]Ferrylodge (talk) 23:11, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Her campaign says she doesn't mix her faith with government business….Palin has done little while in office to advance a social conservative agenda. She told The Associated Press in an interview in 2006 that she would not allow her personal beliefs to dictate public policy. "I've honestly answered the questions on what my personal views are on things like abortion and a lot of controversial issues," Palin told AP. "I won't hesitate to answer those questions about what my personal views are, but I am not one to be out there preaching and forcing my views on anyone else."

Yes, that was there earlier but somehow during all the editing it must have been removed. IMO we should be careful to balance the weight - concerns raised, she says no, but a sentence each should do it, you agree? KillerChihuahua^?!? 23:14, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes. Not sure what your subsequent remark (immediately below) means.Ferrylodge (talk) 23:19, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Actually, its probably best it was removed, since you're working on it - the one before said something about "the McCain campaign" rather than Palin, which sounded like McCain's crew was talking out of their hats. KillerChihuahua^?!? 23:16, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

No, darnit, it is there (apologioes all, I am sorry I'm spamming here) - this sentence: "After the Republican National Convention, the McCain campaign told CNN that Palin "doesn't consider herself Pentecostal" - does anyone feel this strikes a really lame note besides me? I don't know whether Palin considers herself Pentecostal or not, I haven't seen any press on it, but McCain's campain told??? Hrm. KillerChihuahua^?!? 23:19, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

(this is literally at least my 6th try to add this comment, I would be about 20 comments up if not for edit conflicts). Getting closer. How about: "In a speech at Wasilla Assembly of God in June 2008, Governor Palin spoke in religious terms about the Iraq War and the Alaska-Canada oil pipeline.(ref) Palin has stated that she would not allow her personal religious beliefs to dictate her political positions.(ref)" (changes: 1. choose church or ministry students - either one establishes religious context. 2. religious terms, not religious references - I think that is a totally neutral change but a little bit more accurate 3. mention specific issues 4. instead of weaseling about conclusions "some" draw, let reader draw their own. 5. Include her denial.) Homunq (talk) 23:25, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

That's fine. But are we removing or leaving the McCain-Palin statement that she doesn't consider herself Pentecostal? If it's true that she doesn't then that seems noteworthy, if we actually want to describe her religion correctly. And there doesn't seem any reason not to believe it's true; i.e. it's basically the same as her saying it herself. BTW, here's some more from her: "Faith is very important to so many of us here in America, and I would never support any government effort to stifle our freedom of religion or freedom of expression or freedom of speech….freedom of religion and freedom of expression will be things that I will fight for."[3]Ferrylodge (talk) 23:30, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

IMO, we ditch it completely. I was wavering between "ditch" and "rephrase" but the only source is a rambling CNN article which also states that she said thetroops in Iraq were sent on "task that is from God, and includes a lot of views and Palin's 20-yr membership in a Pentecostal church, but darn little which merits inclusion. If we start adding He said, she said, others disagree crap, we're writing a sub-article. I say cut bait. KillerChihuahua^?!? 23:43, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Ouch, a lot of that was my multi=posting, I'm sure, sorry about that. Yes, I think your changes are definite improvements! Especially including Palin's clear denial, which as you see FL and I both feel should be included. What is your take on the McCain's campaign sentence I pasted above? Is it clear why it bothers me, or do I need to explain? KillerChihuahua^?!? 23:30, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

As to the "not pentecostal" thing, if the only problem is that "the McCain campaign" sounds bad, how about "a spokesperson" or something? I think we can justly conclude that the McCain campaign speaks for her since there's no RS doubting that. Oh, and move it up in the paragraph to where it makes sense. Homunq (talk) 23:41, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good. KC disagrees, but maybe can be persuaded. KC, if we don't include that a spokesperson says she's not Pentecostal, then many people will think that she is Pentecostal. Do we want that?Ferrylodge (talk) 23:47, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

If the consensus is, and it seems to be, to keep, than rather than the somewhat nonsensical "campain told CNN" - I mean, how can a campaign "tell" anyone anything? and yes, that crappy phrasing is in the CNN article as well - we should rather say "A statement from the McCain campaign" or "A McCain campaign spokesperson stated" - you get the idea. A sentence which actually makes some kind of sense would be nice. KillerChihuahua^?!? 23:55, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Agreed.Ferrylodge (talk) 23:57, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I understsand KC's point but my feeling is, if we have a reliable source that says it, we should keep it. That said, I have no problem at all with either Homunq or Ferrylodge's proposed additions. And if we need to choose one of the three, well, I leave that up to you guys because any one of them is fine with me. The important thing is we are now working together - a refreshing change from last night! Slrubenstein | Talk 00:02, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I was bold and put the article to where I think this consensus is settling. Feel free to make further adjustments. Homunq (talk) 00:06, 2 October 2008 (UTC) Just a comment: I think we could have come to much the same place with a lot less "verbiage" here if people weren't so hair-triggered with their reverts. It is a lot easier to understand where someone's coming from if they propose new versions of things, even if it's essentially the same stuff, rather than just reverting.

Thanks Homunq. Good job everyone. Good night John-boy. Good night KC.Ferrylodge (talk) 00:11, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Ugh. After all that, we have another overhaul of the section.[4] No, I do not agree with this. See WP:Weasel. The new phrase “leading some to question whether her politics are influenced by Pentacostal Christinaity” is weaselly. It seems to refer to the following two sentences of the cited source: “Poloma says some people might hear that and say Palin believes this is a holy war, or that Pentecostals think this is a holy war….Bock, however, warns against drawing conclusions about anyone's policies from his or her faith.” So, Bock is warning people not to speculate, and Poloma only admits that some other people "might" speculate. This new phrase is unnecessary, and it does not seem to be supported by the cited source.Ferrylodge (talk) 00:23, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, i think the added clause is necessary, indeed crucial context for understanding why the McCain spokesman and Palin would make statements about religion not influincing her politics - they were responding to the kinds of concerns that the National Public Radio story covered. And the source that we are using - the NPR story - is explicitly about people having concerns about pentacostalism influencing her politics. It is a straightforward matter of representing the source accurately. That She has made clear that religion does not influence her political acts is an important view to include. That some people have made concerns over this a campaign issue is also an important view. Adding it provides both views and complies with NPOV; and the view added is verifiable and from a reliable source. It fully complies with our policies. Slrubenstein | Talk 00:28, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Please quote what portion of the article you're relying upon.Ferrylodge (talk) 00:30, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Ferrylodge, what do you think the article, as a whole, is about? An article or news story is not just a collection of individual lines, those lines fit together to form a whole. If people didn't wonder about he religion affecting her politics, there would not be a story, period. Look, perhaps you do not follow American politics closely to know that lots of people have raised this concern. This has come up repeatedly in many news outlets, and it is something that many people opposed to her are talking about. It is easy to find sources that support this, and I will add one or perhaps more right now. Slrubenstein | Talk 00:34, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

So, you're not going to revert yourself, and you're not going to quote anything from the cited source? Please note that it's not only me that has objected. Homunq said above: "instead of weaseling about conclusions 'some' draw, let reader draw their own." Ferrylodge (talk) 00:47, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, like I just told you: I was busy adding additional citations to support the point. Didn't I say that was what I was going to do? Slrubenstein | Talk 00:48, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I think the two sources I added more than cover the point. As for the NPR story, my response, as i suggested above, is not a single sentence or paragraoh from the story - taken out of context - but the story itself, i.e. the entire context for any sentence you might select. The only reason authorities on Pentacostal Chrsitianity would be given time on NPR to warn people not to think that her religion is influencing her politics is because people are concerned about this. The story ends: "Bock says President Bush and Democratic nominee Barack Obama have already been through this sort of spiritual vetting. Now it's Palin's turn." That is, Palin's turn to be vetted. What do you think this sentence means? Clearly, it means vetted as to whether her Pentacostal religion will influence her politics. And I repeat: making it clear that this is the concern many people have is essential context so that the denial that she is penatcostal, and the denial that religion will affect her politics, makes any sense. I am puzzled as to why this is unacceptable to you. We have added material you considered essential context, and have not reverted other changes you made. I have explained at length my reasoning and I see no reason for me to revert myself or for anyone else to revert a loine that adds balance and context to the paragraph. Slrubenstein | Talk 00:56, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Look, I quoted directly from the NPR story to show you that it does not support your point. Just pointing to the article's aura, without quoting it, does not help you.

Regarding your other two sources, I haven't looked at the NY Times article yet, but will shortly. Your Huffington Post source is unacceptable.[5] The primary author of the HuffPost piece is Nico Pitney, an editor at Huffpost. He was previously Deputy Research Director at the Center for American Progress and Managing Editor of ThinkProgress, both renowned liberal institutions (the latter being a subset of the former).[6] He says in his blog post that Palin views the war in Iraq "as a messianic affair." It's not a reliable source.

Also, see here. "Further, in recent times the Internet has become a major source of information about current events. These include blogs, and sites like The Drudge Report and the Huffington Post. According to WP:RS blogs are largely not acceptable as sources.[1] However blogs that also collect news information present a unique challenge to the Wikipedia Editor. For example the Huffington Post blog also contains an extensive repository of news articles from around the country."

I'll get back to you in a moment about your NY Times source. I hope you realize that you're turning things upside down here. Editors have objected to including the kind of language that you want here. That means there is no consensus to include it, and you ought to remove it until there is such a consensus.Ferrylodge (talk) 01:11, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

OK, regarding your NY Times cite, again you have not quoted any particular language in the article that you're relying on, presumably because you think that it's enough to simply rely on the aura of the article, notwithstanding what it actually says. So, I'll quote for you the part that comes closest to supporting what you've jammed into this article against consensus: "Ms. Palin’s religious life — what she believes and how her beliefs intersect or not with her life in public office in Alaska — has become a topic of intense interest and scrutiny across the political spectrum as she has risen from relative obscurity to become Senator John McCain’s running mate." Does that really support your inserted language that some people have been led "to question whether her politics are influenced by Pentacostal Christianity"? I don't think so. See how the NY Times balanced out the matter: "how her beliefs intersect or not", acknowledging both possibilities. In any event, I agree with what Homunq said above: "instead of weaseling about conclusions 'some' draw, let reader draw their own."Ferrylodge (talk) 01:36, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

When my initial insertion, which had the clause in it, was removed the explanation given was solely that it was redundant. Then you and others faulted it for not giving information about the audience. These were the objections given when I last added this, and we have responded to them. As fr your current objections, I am not talking about aura, I am talking about the point of the articleas a whole. Also, the Huffington Post is an extremely reliable source for what people on the left think. Reliability depends on the view. In this case the viewpoint is partisan - it is the view of people who oppose Palin; thus it is precisely because it is partisan that HP is a reliable source. It is like a creationist publisher is a reliable source on what creationists think, even though it is not a reliable source on evolution. HP may not be a reliable source on what Palin thinks, but it is a reliable source on what other people think. Slrubenstein | Talk 01:40, 2 October 2008 (UTC) This quote from NYT explicitly supports the clause I added: "Ms. Palin’s religious life — what she believes and how her beliefs intersect or not with her life in public office in Alaska — has become a topic of intense interest and scrutiny across the political spectrum" Slrubenstein | Talk 01:41, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I previously quoted that passage from the NYT article above. You're right; it's the closest that the cited sources come to supporting the language you inserted. I've reworded to more closely track the NY Times: "In a speech at Wasilla Assembly of God in June 2008, Governor Palin spoke in religious terms about the Iraq war and the Alaska-Canada oil pipeline, leading some political observers to question whether her politics intersect — or not — with her religous beliefs."

Regarding the Huffblog piece, you can say about any essay that it accurately reflects what the author thinks. But that does not satisfy WP:RS.Ferrylodge (talk) 01:53, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, I have no objection to your rewording - if this satisfies you, go ahead with it. And you seem to be misunderstanding my point about the Huffington piece. My point is that reliability of a source is in part a function of the view that the source ius being used to articulate. Slrubenstein | Talk 02:01, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Statement by uninvolved editor Ottre

Not even going to bother reading this farce. You have no idea how much history you are attempting to summarize... in a single sentence, no less! The only things which need to be said in this article are: Palin is a life-long Christian, and Palin has appealed to American sensibilities in this regard. Nothing further. Ottre 23:29, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

And just in case I have underestimated some of the editors here, note: KC, that connotes the need for a separate article which makes some attempt to represent sociological opinions. Ottre 23:35, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

"Uninvolved", ottre? You put that in the article earlier today. If you can't read the talk page, I understand, but please then refrain from editing the article, as consensus is delicate. Homunq (talk) 23:41, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

So you won't bother reading, but you want us to read what you wrote. i did, and it wasn't worth the bother. Really, Ottre, not only are you uninvolved, but this idea of "American sensibilities" is meaningless and I doubt that anyone who has worked hard on this article considers it a constructive contribution. The above discussion is much more interesting (and constructive). Slrubenstein | Talk 23:43, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Ottre, I agree that a much shorter discussion of her religion would be better. However, whenever it is shortened, it reappears. This is something that people are apparently very interested in.

I disagree with your "globalize" tag. That's massive overkill, IMHO.

And there already is a separate article section titled Religion in public life.Ferrylodge (talk) 23:43, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I really hate to sound like a broken record and don't want to wear my welcome thin, but I still believe the exact context in which the comments about God, Iraq and Pipeline were made is critical to an exact understanding them. It certainly does for me. Somehow, that this speech was made to ministry students has been lost. Anyone? Fcreid (talk) 00:42, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I did not remove it. And I do not object to your putting it back in. Slrubenstein | Talk 01:33, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

The article now says, "in a speech at Wasilla Assembly of God in June 2008, Governor Palin spoke in religious terms about the Iraq war and the Alaska-Canada oil pipeline." So, it's mentioned that she made the speech at the church, which seems like enough context to me. I don't see why it matters a whole lot that the audience consisted of ministry students.Ferrylodge (talk) 00:46, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

This is the context in which she gave the speech. It is not the context in which this fact became ntoable for national news media. This involves a larger context, which is my point. Slrubenstein | Talk 01:33, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I think we're so familiar with this issue now that we don't see the entire perspective others might. Many will infer, due to the venue, that it was an audience of churchgoers. Others may not. Furthermore, knowing they were graduating ministry students versus ordinary church attendees puts the comments in an even greater context for the uninformed, like myself. :) Fcreid (talk) 00:54, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

The clause i added is so short, I see no harm in keeping it unless someone really believes it violates policy. Slrubenstein | Talk 01:33, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

"in a speech at Wasilla Assembly of God in June 2008, Governor Palin spoke in religious terms about the Iraq war and the Alaska-Canada oil pipeline." That is not factually accurate and a violation of WP:SYNTH. Why not let the sources speak for themselves? They quote Palin saying certai things and there is no need for interpreting these. Let the readers do that. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:26, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Would you please elaborate? Why do you say is it inaccurate, and why do you think it violates WP:Synth? The cited source says: "In the address at the Assembly of God Church here, Ms. Palin’s ease in talking about the intersection of faith and public life was clear. Among other things, she encouraged the group of young church leaders to pray that 'God’s will' be done in bringing about the construction of a big pipeline in the state, and suggested her work as governor would be hampered 'if the people of Alaska’s heart isn’t right with God.' She also told the group that her eldest child, Track, would soon be deployed by the Army to Iraq, and that they should pray 'that our national leaders are sending them out on a task that is from God, that’s what we have to make sure we are praying for, that there is a plan, and that plan is God’s plan.'" I think we summarize it pretty well. I might be okay with putting extended Palin quotes in the sub-article or the footnotes of this article, but we don't need to put them in the main text of this article.Ferrylodge (talk) 02:08, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

If anyone would prefer "group of young church leaders" versus "graduating class of ministry students" to track exactly to the NPR source, that would be fine too, although it looks fine now. Fcreid (talk) 09:33, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

God

It seems that Threeafterthree removed stuff about religion and political positions from the "Personal life" section.[7]

Then some of it was reinserted back in, and I think the reinserted material is very problematic and POV. We would have been better off sticking with the original material. For example, this article now says:

Some of Palin’s assertions relate her personal religious beliefs to public policy, e.g., that development of an oil pipeline for Alaska is God’s will, or that the Iraq War is part of God’s plan with the US military on a task from God in Iraq. [218]

First of all, she did not say that the Iraq War is part of God’s plan with the US military on a task from God in Iraq. According to the cited source, she said this: "Pray our military men and women who are striving to do what is right also for this country — that our national leaders are sending them 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 plan is God's plan." In other words she wanted people to pray that the Iraq War is part of God’s plan with the US military on a task from God in Iraq. There is a not-so-subtle difference between praying for something and simply asserting that something is true. The setting is also very relevant: she was speaking in a church service, rather than to the legislature or something like that. Palin has explained: "I would never presume to know what God’s will is...that's a repeat in my comments [of Abraham Lincoln's words], 'let us not pray that God is on our side, in a war, or any other time. But let us pray that we are on God’s side.'"[8] So, basically, what's in the article now is a complete distortion, and I'm removing it.Ferrylodge (talk) 20:56, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Ferrylodge, please read the section two above this one. Homunq (talk) 21:02, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Homunq, I see that you suggested the following: "Palin's use of religious language in relation to non-religious subjects, such as an oil pipeline or the Iraq war, has caused comment." The main objective of my recent edit was to remove blatantly distorted language from the article. If people want to reach consensus about something to replace it with, then I have no problem. As I said, we would have been better off sticking with the original material.

As to your particular suggestion, I'll comment about it above.Ferrylodge (talk) 21:07, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Ferrylodge, "religious beliefs" doesn't include everything in the universe, but I am pretty sure in includes beliefs about God and prayer, which your qyote illustrates perfectly. Slrubenstein | Talk 21:09, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree.Ferrylodge (talk) 21:10, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Great! I put back in a sentence thast was removed because it was redundant. Since that time, the sentence that made my edit redundant (which I agree was problematic)has been removed. I have re-added my sentence, which no longer can be faulted for being redundant. It is necessary to explain why, after bringing up her religiosity at the RNC, she later denied being a Pentacostal - she was responding to concerns that had been voiced publicly, including in a report on Americas national public radio station. The sentence I added simply reports - accurately - why people had concerns and is precise about the nature of those concerns. Now the following sentence, in which she denies being a Pentacostalist, makes more sense. Slrubenstein | Talk 21:35, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I have again removed it. Please do not add it back until we reach consensus in our discussion above. Fcreid (talk) 21:50, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

You should not have remoced it, since I addressed the objection given when it was removed. That is how consensus works: we discuss and address objections. You can't remove it without explaining exactly what policy it violates and how, and if you really believe in a consensus-building process, suggest ways that you could see it complying with policy. "Consensus" does not describe a situation where one editor has a veto over content; it describes a collaboration between editors trying to work together. The sentence expresses a notable view and has a verifiable source. If you object to the wording, how would you express this notable view that comes from this verifiable source? Slrubenstein | Talk 22:12, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Pretty simple. If it omits the venue and the audience, it's wrong and POV. Both of those elements are equally reliably sourced. Discussion continued above. Fcreid (talk) 22:20, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Deus ex machina edits serve no one well, and serve NPOV quite poorly. Collect (talk) 00:59, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Thatr's it? Really? If you knew that, why did you delete it? Why didn't you simply add the venue and audience? Or don't you care about building consensus? Slrubenstein | Talk 22:37, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Part of that was frustration and the other part just me being an idiot on how to make all the links and such work. You're right. I shouldn't have removed it, but I thought I had already conveyed my additional concerns above which were summarily ignored. My apologies. Speaking of which, I'll see you up there, okay? Fcreid (talk) 22:47, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Youp, I just commented up there - anyway, I am pleased with Ferrylodge's changes and glad to see that it really is possible to use the idea of "consensus" as something that encourages people to collaborate and not just to antagonize. Slrubenstein | Talk 23:04, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Education

Maybe it was deleted is because she never really finished any of the schools.

I am puzzled why my addition of an explanation that two of Ms Palin's colleges were two-year schools has been deleted, without adequate explanation. I do not live in the U.S., and didn't understand they were community colleges, and I believe many others wouldn't either. I also added in the nature of her major and a brief summary statement of her diversified career. To my understanding, after 2500 edits on 100s of articles, my edits were terse, informative and NPOV. And deleting them violates NPOV. Bellagio99 (talk) 21:19, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't see any big problem mentioning that two of the colleges were community colleges, although I don't really think it's necessary. I don't think we'd mention that a graduate of Harvard had attended an "ivy league" school or a "top-ten" school, and we wouldn't say that a graduate of Rutgers went to a "state school" or a "government-run" school. What I do think was excessive was mentioning that she attended five schools in six years; people can do the math for themselves, and I don't think this needs to be part of our summary of the succeeding sentences.Ferrylodge (talk) 21:25, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I think you're comparing apples to oranges here. Community college is a type of school distinct from a normal college. In particular, community colleges typically offer two year degrees, but do not offer four year degrees. Ivy League, top ten, and state, all refer to the same type of school, a college. Similarly, a university offers graduate degrees, whereas a college offers four year degrees. If the schools in question offer four year degrees (particularly in the field she was studying), I don't think they should labeled community colleges. Aprock (talk) 21:31, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

The fact that you're adding (Community) to every mention is POV and not needed. If it was in the college name that's one thing, but there is absolutely no reason to hide North Idaho College as the actual name. Grsz^talk 21:34, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I certainly think this is the case. There doesn't seem to be any great reason to mention that fact given that it's clear that she transferred more than once. For most people, listing the institution which issued the terminal degree is sufficient. Aprock (talk) 21:38, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Grsz, I added the word (Community) twice (i.e., "every mention = 2") once to each college where it is pertinent. As a non-resident of the U.S., I found some of the colleges unknown, so went to their website to understand. When I did, I added it to disambiguate. I do not understand, why you have deleted this. It is a pertinent to understanding her post-secondary life. Wikipedia must be understandable to those who don't understand American institutions. This is not Ivy League vs Slippery Rock; it is a basically different school. Indeed, I am under 3RR now, but this exchange has suggested that I add a bit more later discussing the various and diverse kinds of schools she attended in an important part of her life. I believe it behooves those who have not allowed this change to explain why they want to obscure this part of her life. Cheers,Bellagio99 (talk) 22:17, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

If someone really wants to know, all they have to do is click on the link. Grsz^talk 22:21, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Grsz11 here, although I don't feel very strongly about it. Bellagio99, the important factor for me is that the credits from the Community College are accepted at the regular university. That's the way a Community College works. They do a great job at teaching introductory-level stuff, and simply don't teach the advanced stuff. So, really, I think you could spend your first two years at a community college getting just as good an education as at a big university.Ferrylodge (talk) 00:08, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I also agree w/ Grz, Aprock, Ferrylodge. Many times attending a Community College is a financial decision. The normal ascent is to then attend a "regular" 4 year institution. And, as Aprock states, the terminal school is considered most important.--Buster7 (talk) 11:56, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Not sure what the hub bub is, but the family section doesn't need to be 80% about religion and politics. Take that material to a sub article and dump it there. The section as is, is already pretty silly looking with the amount of space weight given to her religion. Anyways, --Tom 15:31, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

You're a bigger optimist than I if you think the "Iraq Crusaders" story will stay out of there for very long! Fcreid (talk) 22:47, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

discuss here if you insist a June 2008 article is present tense for a position

Someone keeps insisting Palin "continues" to support the Knik bridge even thought the feasibility reports etc. are in. The article cited is from June, when she ordered the study. Later articles still refer to her position as of June. There is no reason to insinst on the present tense when no cite is used to support the present tense in the article. This has, in fact, been rehashed here in the past. If you want to revert it again, then at least post here first. Thanks! Collect (talk) 01:09, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Collect, unless you have evidence that suggests she stopped supporting the bridge at some point after June, then the default is that she continues to support the bridge. That is how it works with all politicians political opinions. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 02:00, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Bobblehead, I agree with your statement of the general principle. We should not, however, give the reader a misleading picture of the chronology. The language with "until" was wrong because it implied that she'd changed her position based on the study, and we have no source for that assertion. On the other hand, we shouldn't say something like the phrasing at the beginning of Collect's comment, because we shouldn't imply that she has expressed support for the bridge after commissioning the study (or after seeing its results) . Your latest version is "As of June 2008, Palin continued to support the Knik Arm Bridge idea but she has ordered a funding and feasibility review." That seems correct to me in terms of the chronology -- no false implications -- but I think "idea" is a little vague and I'll change it to "proposal". JamesMLane t c 07:06, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for noting my osition that an article which is dated in the past, and which states that something was ordered which would affect the "present tense" at the start of the article has been undertaken, should have the initial statement placed in the past tense. My mom taught Latin, and using the correct tense is important. I sought to make the precise correct phrasing, as I understand it to be. Thanks. Collect (talk) 11:10, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Changed "as of" to "in" as "as of" has a specific meaning of "starting at" and "in" is precisely correct. "Until" is still more accurate than "as of" due to the idiomatic meaning. Thanks! Collect (talk) 13:17, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

The AP article cited in the article (http://community.adn.com/node/131399) notes her continued support. It's dated September 16, 2008. GreekParadise (talk) 14:31, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Read the dates in the article before upsetting an agreed-upon compromise. Thank you most kindly. Collect (talk) 15:34, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Collect has reverted the time from September to June on the grounds, as he wrote in the history that "neither cite remotely supports September -- the date was June". Here's what the article, dated September 16, 2008, says (emphasis added by me):

"A $600 million bridge and highway project to link Alaska's largest city to Palin's town of 7,000 residents is moving full speed ahead"

"A Democratic council member in Anchorage will try Tuesday to spike the city's sponsorship of the project, which Palin supports with some reservations."

"Palin still supports the second bridge, officially named Don Young's Way in honor of the congressman"

"She called for a review of the bridge's financing plans and raised concerns about its financial risks for the state. Still, the planning process is marching forward."

"The bridge is popular with property developers - including a group comprised of Young's son-in-law, the former legislative director for indicted Republican Sen. Ted Stevens and three others - who own land across from Anchorage on the inlet's western side."

Collect contends that even though the September article says twice "Palin supports the bridge" and describes the process as "marching forward" "full speed ahead" that actually the article doesn't "remotely" suggest that as of September (two weeks ago), she supports the bridge. I contend that the aricle, which says "Palin supports the bridge" actually means "Palin supports the bridge" and request permission to revert back.GreekParadise (talk) 15:47, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

(On a separate issue, "less frequently" is better than "rarely" for use of both bridges as "bridge to nowhere", because the mention of both bridges has 50,000 hits on Google. While this is less frequent than the 400,000 hits the Gravina Bridge has, I don't know that 50,000 is rare. It is just "less frequent.")GreekParadise (talk) 15:47, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

"Bridges to nowhere" has 233 News mentions today. "Bridge to nowhere" has over ten thousand. I consider a ration of over forty to one to justify "rarely." Your search includes tons of non-news relatred blogs etc. Collect (talk) 15:55, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

The NYT article says she supports, and does it more than once. Now you're trying to censor that... Grsz^X 15:50, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Of the two cites given (currently 101 and 114) NEITHER is reasonably citable as stating a current position. And one of them still claims the purpose of the Knik brdge was to serve Wasilla! Clims by opponents as to one's opinions are not valid -- find any statement by Palin after June that she specifically supports the Knik Arm Bridge as proposed, and then change the tense. Absent that, stick with the agreement reached here. Thanks! Collect (talk) 16:00, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure why I have to find a statement by Palin, three months after her statement in June 2008, to note that she continues to support the bridge when a September article states her continued support twice and shows the process moving forward. Would it be wrong to say Bush supports social security private accounts, even though he hasn't give a speech on it for more than three months? If she didn't support the bridge, would it continue to be moving full speed ahead? If she didn't support the bridge, wouldn't someone issue a correction to a widely reported Associated Press which stated her support twice? If she didn't support the bridge, why would some council member have to move to "spike" the project?

In sum, we can reasonably assume that when a politician says she/he supports something and moves "full speed ahead" with it, that that support continues unless and until that politician says she/he no longer supports it, right?GreekParadise (talk) 16:09, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Precisely and 180 degrees from what is right. Palin asked for a review. That means that she wanted further information. That is what "review" means. Collect (talk) 16:12, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I fully agree that the June review should be in the section and am not seeking to remove it. Maybe I'm missing your point here. We have a verified source, Associate Press, that says she supports it. Do you have some contrary source that says she does not?GreekParadise (talk) 16:18, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Journalists don't always include a verbatim quotation when reporting a politician's position on an issue. If we accept the publication as a reliable source, then that means that we trust the reporter and the publication to be giving us an accurate statement as to a matter of fact. We can report it as a fact unless there's some evidence to create a good-faith doubt on the point. Here, it's not just an AP story, it's an AP story datelined in Anchorage, so the reporter was on the scene; it was published in the Anchorage Daily News [9], the newspaper most likely to have some editor who'd say, "Wait, Palin changed her position on that in a speech last month"; and it was picked up by Fox News [10], which is totally in the tank for the Republican Party and would have had every incentive to ferret out any inaccuracy in this report. Under these circumstances, there's absolutely no basis for dismissing this information just because the reporter didn't choose to include a verbatim quotation. Furthermore, Collect, there is no basis for your insistence on sticking to an alleged prior agreement. When I agreed with using the past tense, I had not read this AP story. It's a reliable source, it says "supports", so our article should say "supports".

After "supports", though, the source says "with some reservations". That qualifier apparently refers to this passage: "She called for a review of the bridge's financing plans and raised concerns about its financial risks for the state." That should be reflected in our article so as not to oversimplify her position. I suggest the following wording:

In June 2008, she ordered a funding and feasibility review concerning the Knik Arm Bridge, because of concerns about its financial impact, but as of September 2008 she continues to support it.

We could just say "with some reservations" but I think the fuller exposition of her view is worth including. JamesMLane t c 17:04, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Collect, the burden of proof is upon you to provide us with reliable sources that says Palin no longer approves of the bridge. Just because she has requested that a review be run on the project does not mean she no longer approves of the project, particularly when the sources that say she is ordering the review also say that she still supports the project. Considering how the bridge is behind schedule, over budget, and the top two people heading the project of resigned, I'd be seriously worried if she hadn't ordered a review of the project. That being said, I approve JamesMLane's wording. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 18:03, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Nope. Unless, of course, you want me to take Dunninger pills, there is no way to say that a claim must be shown to be false. Rather WP requires the positive of a claim to be shown. And the date of the claim was, and remains, June 2008. Thank you most kindly. Collect (talk) 20:06, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Did you not see the September 16, AP article that has "Palin supports $600 million 'other' bridge project" as the summary and "which Palin supports with some reservations" and "Palin still supports the second bridge, officially named Don Young's Way in honor of the congressman." in the body. Hate to break it to you, but unless you have a reliable source, that counters the AP article, sounds like it is a current position to me.. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 20:31, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I also support JamesMLanes' sentence. As he states, the sources are right on the scene and, I'm sure, they are well aware of the National interest the bridge(s) have created. If Gov. Palin had changed her stance, even the slightest, they would be on it like flies on _____!--Buster7 (talk) 22:44, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I will put JamesMLane's sentence in the article with one (hopefully non-controversial) addition, the quote from the article that the project is "moving full speed ahead."GreekParadise (talk) 00:14, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with your repeated denial of an agreed upon version. Your unilateral changes are contrary to all accepted WP practices. You have repeatedly reverted a consensus version to your own version. Your past reversion violations seem to be ignored. Will someone kindly change the wording back to what everyone else accepted as a compromise? Thanks! Collect (talk) 00:18, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Collect, on this segment, I count Bobblehead, JamesMLane, Grsz, Buster7, and GreekParadise (five of us) as in agreement. And you alone -- with no allies -- in disagreement. I realize we shouldn't do wikivoting, but I fervently submit that "support" really does mean "support" and thus far, you have found no sources or allies who believe to the contrary. Right now, you are the only person outside the consensus. But show me a single article from a neutral source saying she has abandoned her support and I promise I will change my mind. Indeed, find me such an article and I will revert it myself.GreekParadise (talk) 00:28, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Oh? James: "we shouldn't imply that she has expressed support for the bridge after commissioning the study (or after seeing its results)" Bobble: "Collect, the burden of proof is upon you to provide us with reliable sources that says Palin no longer approves of the bridge" which is an absurd position. It is the requirement to show something is true that is the burden, not a requirement to prove a negative. GP, your September cite names Democratic opponents as saying she still supports the bridge. I don't care if you have a thousand allies --- saying something that ain't so does not belong in WP. In short -- all you are doing is fomenting still more unproven political claims into a page which I have done my damndest to make NPOV and actually a legitimate article. Care to explain that to the world when you also explain why you stove mightily to have the AIP in the article, strove to claim Palin was a Buchanan supporter, that Palin "flew annually to Washington to get earmrks", that Palin supports secession, that she has extreme religious beliefs and so on ad nauseam? At some point, I trust you have realized all those were wrong to push for. Collect (talk) 00:49, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Collect, your quotation from my comments is disingenuous. I subsequently wrote, "When I agreed with using the past tense, I had not read this AP story." What's proper for the article depends on what the reliable sources say, and if there's new information, or old information that was previously overlooked, that will often affect the article.

Your understanding of "burden of proof" is also incorrect and you are applying it quite selectively. This article recounts many political positions of Sarah Palin, not all of which were reiterated by her yesterday in a speech that was quoted verbatim by a reliable source. That doesn't mean we remove the statements until someone can find such a quotation. If you're going to make such a deal about burden of proof, you should read our Burden of proof article, and in particular this passage:

An "evidentiary burden" or "burden of leading evidence" is an obligation that shifts between parties over the course of the hearing or trial. A party may submit evidence that the court will consider prima facie proof of some state of affairs. This creates an evidentiary burden upon the opposing party to present evidence to refute the presumption.

In this instance, evidence that Palin took a particular position as of June 2008 fulfills the burden of including that position in the article. The burden shifts to anyone who wants to contend that her prior statement is "inoperative" because of a subsequent change of position. Such a change of position is always possible, but we don't assume it. It must be established.

My point about the tense was that we should not falsely imply that she had specifically reaffirmed her position after seeing a particular report. On the state of the evidence I then relied on, it was improper to say "She supports the bridge and continued to do so after receiving a report about financing" but it was proper to say "She has supported the bridge but in June she ordered a study". (I'm paraphrasing for conciseness.) Now, the fairly recent AP story justifies "she supports it" -- unless, of course, you and anyone else who wants to remove it can meet your burden of proof.

Finally, I must say that you seem to have a tendency to discover consensus in favor of your personal position where others do not see such consensus. I respectfully request that you be a bit more cautious in asserting the existence of consensus. You should also bear in mind that, on Wikipedia, no consensus is carved in stone, and the resolution of an issue may change even if at one point there really was consensus. JamesMLane t c 06:15, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Source does not say Democratic opponents say she supports. It says she supports. Collect, please stop saying the source says what it does not. Please give direct quotations from now on, as I have. People won't be fooled. All they have to do is read the source to know if quotations are accurate.GreekParadise (talk) 05:38, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

College

Hawaii Pacific University was actually "Hawaii Pacific College" until 1990, so I'll adjust article accordinglyFerrylodge (talk) 03:49, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

It looks like North Idaho and the college in Alaska both awarded nothing higher than an associates, but I think "colleges and universities" is ok. "Undergraduate institutions" is really used for places that award BAs or BSs, so that wouldn't have cut it. Jd2718 (talk) 04:09, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

American usage allowes "college" for two-year institutions. "Undergraduate" refers to any program before a person receives a degree. Thus "community colleges" are "undergraduate (that is, before the students get a first level degree in a subject) institutions." It is not restricted to four-year programs. Collect (talk) 13:08, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Yankee Division Highway

An "official name" for the Connecticut Turnpike is "Yankee Division Highway." It has the same relevance as insisting on adding "Don Young's Way" to every mention of the Knik bridge. Collect (talk) 15:33, 2 October 2008 (UTC) NY Thruway: "Thomas E. Dewey." Triborough Bridge "Robert F. Kennedy." What would you suppose the average New Yorker would tell you if you asked directions to the "Robert F. Kennedy Bridge"? Finger counts do not apply! Collect (talk) 15:41, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't insist on adding Don Young's Way to every mention of the bridge, but I do insist on at least a single mention. Don Young's Way matters because it is a symbol of pork barrel spending and because Young's family has property interests in the bridge. While we include benefits of both bridges in the article, we also should say why both are considered pork barrel.

I should also note that I had heard of "Don Young's Way" years ago and only recently heard of Knik Arm. While my own experience is certainly no grounds for a wikipedia entry, Google gives "Don Young's Way" about 4,000 hits and "Knik Arm Bridge" about 16,000. For NEWS entries, "Knik Arm Bridge" has 33 cites and "Don Young's Way" has 76 cites, or more than twice as much.

I suspect that's because Don Young's Way is a symbol of the pork barrel spending, and his name on the bridge is one of the things that made the bridge famous. The other roads mentioned by Collect have not been widely criticized as pork barrel, so perhaps that's why we don't know their name, but I do know there are a huge number of roads named for Senator Robert Byrd of West Virginia, even though I have no idea what their "local names" are. And, in fact, the wikipedia entry on Robert Byrd mentions the "Robert C. Byrd Biotechnology Science Center" without mentioning the science center's original or local name at all.GreekParadise (talk) 15:58, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Alas -- phobes tous etc. Bridges generally do not get referred to as their "official name" by anyone who is not into bronze plaques. I can furnish you several HUNDRED more cites that calling it "Don Young's Way" is not typical of anyone other than those involved in politics. As such, it does not belong in a BLP. Unless, of course, her name were Don Young. Is it? Collect (talk) 16:10, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with BLP. It simply explains why a bridge has been considered pork barrel. That's why we included the Gravina population of 50, along with the benefits of that bridge. On each bridge, we should give both pork barrel negatives and development positives.GreekParadise (talk) 16:20, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm from Alaska. I've been hearing about the Knik Arm Bridge all of my life. Never once, until reading these talk pages, have I heard anyone call it Don Young's Way. Anyone who lives here knows that the largest city in Alaska has only two roads leading in and out, and the huge amount of traffic pouring down these freeways everyday on snowy, icy roads is a major source of accidents. Attaching a senator's name to a project for the sole purposes of labling it Pork-Barrel seems a bit one sided. I say use the name that everybody will call it if it ever gets made. Don Young's Way, sounds like it's Don Young's Philosophy or something like that.Zaereth (talk) 16:23, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

The proper discussion of "Don Young's Way" under Don Young is fine. Under Palin, the title should be "Knik Arm" as that is its descriptive name. Personally, I think the Gravina population is "excess trivia" somewhat akin to listing maternal grandmothers. I would not delete it on other than trivia grounds. In the case of using a name which is not one in genuine use ("Dewey Thruway"?), I would regard the local name as attested above by a "local" to be far superior in any article. Good luck on the cabbie taking you to the Robert F. Kennedy Bridge, by the way! Collect (talk) 16:30, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I strongly suspect that in Alaska, where the bridge is known by its location, the bridge is primarily known as "Knik Arm Bridge" while in the Lower 48, where the bridge is primarily known as a symbol of pork barrel spending, the bridge is primarily known as "Don Young's Way." I think we should include both names in the article, and I'm willing to limit "Don Young's Way" to a single mention.GreekParadise (talk) 16:32, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Finally, I think we should look both at full Google and Google News for cites, but in section on the "bridge" v. "bridges", Collect felt that Google News was far more justified than Google proper. Given that Google News mentions "Don Young's Way" more than twice as often as "Knik Arm Bridge", Collect's preference for the News would suggest that Don Young's Way should be the primary title with Knik Arm Bridge secondary. But I'm not arguing for that. I'm merely arguing that Don Young's Way should be mentioned in the article. And by Collect's own criteria -- how well it's known based on Google News -- Don Young's Way is more well known than "Knik Arm Bridge."

So Collect, which Google source do you trust? I say trust both and use both. But I don't think you can't argue to use "news" for one and "general" for the other. Or I could make the exact same arguments in reverse.GreekParadise (talk) 16:32, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I think what we need to ask ourselves is this: If the election were over, would the name Don Young's Way being in this article matter to you? Ten years from now, let's say the bridge gets built, would we still be calling it that, or would we by then change the article to reflect common usage. I think any decision should be made with these thoughts in mind. I would like to hear from some other editors on this matter Zaereth (talk) 16:44, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

GP, you are confusing epithets ("Bridge to nowhere") with the names used by local people with regard to a bridge. I demonstrated that of the two epithets you used with regard to the projects, that "bridges to nowhere" is much more rarely used than "bridge to nowhere." I did not remove the plural, just noted that "less frequently" is used to mean "less, but reasonably often." On the other hand when one usage is only 2% as often, I consider that usage "rare." Note than I did not remove your rare usage. On the other hand, the local usage of DYW is probably well under 2% of the rational usage. Just as your cabbie probably gave you a salute for asking for the "Robert F. Kennedy Bridge"! Collect (talk) 16:50, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

(undent) I'd rather leave "Don Young's Bridge" out of this. That name is much less common for the Knik Arm Bridge, and can be mentioned in the subarticle. I mean, do we also want to mention in this article that Alaska is known as "Seward's Folly" or "Seward's Ice Box" or "Last Frontier" or "Land of the Midnight Sun" or "Icebergia" or "Polaria" or "Walrussia"?

This bridge material is going to be confusing enough already without introducing another synonym. We're already using two names for the Gravina bridge, and we say that the Knik Arm Bridge is rarely known as a bridge to nowhere, so Don Young would be the third name for this bridge, and the fifth bridge name overall in this section. Enough already. Thanks.Ferrylodge (talk) 17:06, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

"CITIZEN"..."Step away from the Bridge!!!"....--Buster7 (talk) 17:20, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

It's precisely because there are multiple terms floating around that we should clarify the situation for the reader. Some readers will come to this article having heard of Don Young's Way as a controversial bridge. If that term is omitted from the article, they'll say, "OK, now I've read about the Gravina Island Bridge and the Knik Arm Bridge, but what's Palin's stance and record on Don Young's Way?" Tossing in one parenthetical reference, and thereafter using only the "Knik Arm" name, is completely appropriate. (In a Yahoo! search for "Don Young's Way" without "Knik", there were 19,600 hits, from the 2005 debate on the bill [11] and from this year [12]. Let's throw a lifeline to the people who read those articles, or who saw the two terms explained somewhere but who aren't so completely immersed in Palin-tology as we sad cases are, and so have forgotten the linkage.)

The analogies don't hold water (or bear traffic). No one will come to this article who's heard of "Seward's Folly" but hasn't heard of "Alaska". As for the bridge here in NYC, the bill to rename it for Robert F. Kennedy was passed less than four months ago [13], and our article on the Triborough Bridge says the Governor didn't even sign the bill until less than two months ago. Furthermore, renaming a bridge for someone who died forty years ago raises different issues from using the name of a living person who's still a powerful legislator. The latter scenario will generate more criticism and is therefore more noteworthy. JamesMLane t c 17:29, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

First, we should use whichever - or however many - names people who read Wikipedia (which means, mostly people who are not from Alaska) will have heard, simply for the sake of clarity (although once given, we do not have to keep repeating every name). Second, if there is any controversy over the name that is related to Palin's political career, we should summarize it, as concisely as possible, while providing all notable views from verifiable sources. This can't be too hard to do. Slrubenstein | Talk 18:13, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

There are 40,000 Google hits for "Bridge" and “Knik Arm." In contrast, there are only 1500 Google hits for "Bridge" and “Don Young’s Way” without “Knik Arm”. That's less than 4% so I don't think we should use the suggested third name for this particular bridge in this article.Ferrylodge (talk) 18:19, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't see the relevance of this ratio. If we were somehow constrained to use only one name, then, yes, we'd look at the ratio and decide to use "Knik Arm". For the current purpose, though, the issue isn't how much more often that name is used. The issue is whether the "Don Young's Way" name is used often enough that a significant number of readers will be familiar with it. What's the problem with inserting one little parenthetical to explain the nomenclature the first time it occurs? I agree with not using both names throughout. JamesMLane t c 18:56, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

"One little parenthetical" is not the issue if you have been following the revision history of this section for the past three weeks. This has been an ongoing issue, with excessive reversions causing editors to be blocked, etc. It is cleaner to simply keep the rare usage of DYW out, than to open the floodgates to the prior arguments. Thanks! Collect (talk) 19:07, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I have no problem with one reference to DYW in parenthesis, except that it seems like extra clutter. I'm sure a reader that comes here looking for DYW but finds the unknown, (to them), KAB will have no problem clicking on the link to find out more about it. It seems to me that we should stick to one common name in this article, and leave alternate names in the main KAB article.Zaereth (talk) 19:25, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

And since the title of that article is Knik Arm Bridge, I especially think that's the name we should use here.Zaereth (talk) 19:33, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Originally the title was "Knik Arm Bridge (Don Young's Way)" and I would support that change back.GreekParadise (talk) 05:11, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. Nothing is ever settled with you, is it GreekParadise? Every dispute must be extended indefinitely, it seems. Previously you said that the present heading is "great" after endless negotiations. Please stop recycling every possible controversy. It's a waste of your energy, and the energy of your fellow editors. Thanks.Ferrylodge (talk) 05:23, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Based on the discussion here, I will add the brief parenthetical reference. I note that "Don Young's Way" is used twice as often as "Knik Arm Bridge" in Google News, which Collect believes, on another point, is more relevant than Google general.GreekParadise (talk) 23:54, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Kindly do not misstate what I said. I did not state that "Google news ... is more relevant than Google general". It makes for ill feelings. The prior choice was between two almost identical epithets primarily of interest only to political junkies -- and I said BOTH epithets would be ok, but that where one was used less than 2% as often as the other, that the usage should be described as "rare" and not just "less frequent." Thus the issues at hand are vastly different. But then again -- feel free to ask a cabbie to drive you to the Robert F. Kennedy Bridge. Collect (talk) 00:06, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

It's 2% on Google News but more than 10% on Google general (50,000+ vs. less than 500,000). I don't think 50,000 mentions is "rare", do you? I would agree with "more rare" if you prefer that term instead of "less frequently." But "rare" is subjective whereas "more rare" is objective. I don't think we can say 50,000 hits is rare. I do think it's unequivocally true that 50,000 is more rare than 500,000 and that 2% is more rare than 100%. Are you OK with changing the subjective "rarely" to the objective "more rarely"?GreekParadise (talk) 00:17, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

In the fervent hope that Collect and I can agree on at least one thing ( :-) ), I've added the word "more" before "rarely" on the two bridges.GreekParadise (talk) 00:23, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

You are pushing AGF. I would like to point out that "Don Young's Way" applies only to the original earmark legislation. I can find no sign that it would be the name for any Knik Arm Bridge in the future. Sorry to burst that bubble! Do "DYW" applies only to the earmark, not to any future bridge! Isn;t that neat? All of a sudden, the name is joyfully irrelevant! BTW, "rarely" is quite objective -- and applies to the choice between two virtually identical epithets at a ratio of fifty to one -- how you can continue to distinguish between commonness of two nearly identical terms and the difference between a local name for a bridge and a name which may never be actually attached to the bridge is amazing! Collect (talk) 00:25, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

The current Google (general) references to "bridge to nowhere"+Alaska and "bridges to nowhere"+Alaska have increased since I last checked. They are 926,000 to 53,000 or about 17 to 1. It is my position that 53,000 references is not "rare". That is subjective. But it clearly is "more rare" than 926,000.GreekParadise (talk) 00:33, 3 October 2008 (UTC)GreekParadise (talk) 00:37, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Please give your source for your claim that Don Young's Way would NOT be the name of the Knik Arm Bridge if it is ever built. This source (http://www.adn.com/news/alaska/ap_alaska/v-printer/story/527524.html) doesn't mention that the DYW name is restricted to the earmark legislation, but it does mention the name Don Young's Way as the "official name" of the proposed bridge.GreekParadise (talk) 00:43, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

From your own cite:

"Anchorage Assembly members Patrick Flynn and Matt Claman, both Democrats, plan to introduce a proposal to kill the bridge on Tuesday. They argue the money would be better used to set up commuter van pools and fix Alaska's existing highways, some of which are so rutted that cars go skidding off the road.

"She clearly hasn't said 'no thanks' to this particular bridge," Claman said. "If money were not an issue and we had no limits, maybe we'd build a bridge. But this is not a pragmatic or efficient way to spend scarce resources."

Thus all you have is what two Democrats have said. Not her words. As for DYW, the ONLY place I have found designating it as the name is in the original federal legislation. Alaska is under zero obligation to ever use that name. Congrats on proving yourself wrong again! Collect (talk) 00:54, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Read my source. It's there with no mention of the original federal legislation.GreekParadise (talk) 05:11, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

"Someone" has gone into the "multiple reversion game" again. The fact is the statement about Palin "continuing" support is from two Democrats, not from Palin. I added that uncontrovertible fact found in the cite given, and had it reverted without any notice or comment. OK -- GP revert a thousand times to play games. You win -- the article is, in my point of view, now trashed by those who play revert wars rather than compromise. Collect (talk) 01:12, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I didn't revert that.GreekParadise (talk) 05:11, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

GreekParadise, do you believe that you have consensus to insert "Don Young's Way" into this article? If not, then why do you insist on doing so?[14] Do you think that you have a right to insert whatever stuff into this article that you want to?Ferrylodge (talk) 03:18, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I believe I have consensus. I realize you and Collect disagree. But JamesMLane and Slrubenstein and even our resident Alaskan Zareth believe a brief mention is appropriate. And you have made no effort to respond to the very powerful arguments of the four of us. Ferrylodge, what's the harm in telling wikipedians -- some of which, like me, heard of Don Young's Way years before we heard about Knik Arm, that it's the same bridge? You can't dispute the truth, or the relevance, or the briefness. And I'm not even sure it hurts Palin, if that's your concern. It's just a fact.GreekParadise (talk) 04:12, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Zaereth also disagrees: "It seems to me that we should stick to one common name in this article, and leave alternate names in the main KAB article." So that's three who disagree with putting it in: Ferrylodge, Collect, and Zaereth. And three agree with putting it in: GreekParadise, JamesMLane, and Slrubenstein. You obviously do not have a consensus to put it in.Ferrylodge (talk) 04:16, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Zaereth said he has no problem with the parenthetical. Please state clearly, Ferrylodge, WHY you would exclude a fact that you agree is true, verified, notable, relevant, and takes up very little space. Don't just tell me you oppose it. Tell me why you oppose it. Why not let wikipedians who know the phrase know it applies to this bridge? I think far more Americans have heard of "Don Young" than "Knik Arm."GreekParadise (talk) 05:11, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Please don't pretend that I've simply opposed without giving any reasons. You know very well that I gave not only reasons but also links. And please stop quoting other editors such as Zaereth out of context. Yes, he said that he has no problem with the parenthetical, with an exception: "I have no problem with one reference to DYW in parenthesis, except that it seems like extra clutter." So he does have a problem with it, and he adds: "It seems to me that we should stick to one common name in this article, and leave alternate names in the main KAB article."

I don't see why I should bother trying to explain myself further. Your position is that you can do whatever you damn well please, regardless of consensus, and I have no taste for endless, futile arguments. Whether your motives are sincere, or whether you are instead motivated by a desire to use an uncommon name of this bridge to insinuate that Palin is supporting a vain and pork-laden project, I do not know. And it is irrelevant, because you do not have consensus to insert this material, which places undue weight on an uncommon name for the bridge, thus making the bridge (and Palin's support for it) appear to be a slimy thing. It may well be a slimy thing, but its official name has very little bearing on its sliminess. I do not think your stated reason is plausible (i.e. inserting the third name --- Don Young's Way --- accommodates the small percentage of people who never heard of the other two names for this bridge), but even if you're sincere using a third name for the bridge is still overkill, it still slimes Palin with the notion that she is merely catering to Don Young's vanity, and it is still not supported by consensus.Ferrylodge (talk) 05:29, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I am persuaded by GreekParadise's arguments. Not to mention his or her commendable patience in putting them forward. Oh darn it (as Mrs. Palin would say), I mentioned it. — Writegeist (talk) 05:48, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

If your goal, Ferrylodge, is to prevent information you consider to be anti-bridge in POV ("slimy" in your words) then I must insist we remove pro-bridge material as well. Why is wrong to include both sides? In this case, no one's arguing that Palin's catering to Young's vanity and certainly not me. But the name is one reason why the bridge was a symbol for pork barrel spending. It is one reason this bridge was called the "bridge to nowhere." You would have us give 100 words supporting this bridge but none to show why it was criticized as pork barrel? Do you agree that outside of Alaska, few have heard of Knik Arm but some have heard of Don Young?GreekParadise (talk) 05:45, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

This article does include information that makes the bridge look bad. The goal here is be as neutral and informative as possible, providing info that may make the bridge look bad, as well as info that may make the bridge look good. The way we do this is by a process called CONSENSUS. Consensus does not mean that Greek Paradise shall be the final arbiter. It means that info comes out of the BLP if there is not consensus to include it. This is the most fundamental principle of Wikipedia, and I hope to live to see the day when you finally recognize, acknowledge and abide by it.Ferrylodge (talk) 05:50, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

In response to my support for "one little parenthetical to explain the nomenclature", Collect argued: "'One little parenthetical' is not the issue if you have been following the revision history of this section for the past three weeks." Well, actually, I wasn't trying to do a thorough historical analysis of the dispute. I was responding to what GreekParadise wrote, at the top of this particular thread, in response to Collect's denunciation of "adding 'Don Young's Way' to every mention" of the bridge. I was agreeing with GreekParadise's call for "at least a single mention".

Assuming solely for the sake of the argument that the phrase "Don Young's Way" was used formally only in connection with the federal earmark, the fact is that many people have heard that term, and sources even into 2008 continue to use it. Therefore, our bridge discussion will be clearer to many readers if there's a parenthetical. Perhaps, instead of "Knik Arm Bridge (Don Young's Way)", the initial reference should be "Knik Arm Bridge (formerly Don Young's Way)" or "Knik Arm Bridge (designated in at least one bill as 'Don Young's Way')" or some such. If Ferrylodge is insistent that any mention of Young must be segregated from Palin, then we would have to get more elaborate: "Knik Arm Bridge. (In at least one federal bill voted on before Palin became governor, this bridge was designated as 'Don Young's Way'.)" I think that's more trouble than it's worth, even if the sources support so narrowly limiting the reference, which I'm not convinced they do.

Ferrylodge gives this interpretation of consensus policy: "It means that info comes out of the BLP if there is not consensus to include it." That's not my understanding. The BLP policy states: "In order to ensure that biographical material of living people is always policy-compliant, written neutrally to a high standard, and based on good quality reliable sources, the burden of proof is on those who wish to retain, restore, or undelete disputed material." In the present case, there's no dispute that the term "Don Young's Way" has indeed been applied to this particular bridge. There's an editorial decision about whether to include it, but the process for making that decision is no different just because this is a BLP. The process is that editors are supposed to try to reach consensus. If we can't do so, I suppose we'll have to go to RfC on the point. The alternative interpretation would mean that anything in this article could be removed by one editor, or by whatever small number of editors is necessary to show the absence of consensus for inclusion, and the removal would be nonnegotiable and unappealable as long as Palin is alive. I don't think that's what BLP means. JamesMLane t c 06:49, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

We're having a discussion about it at the BLP noticeboard.[15].Ferrylodge (talk) 06:57, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up. I have flamed you commented there. JamesMLane t c 09:10, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Good God, is this still going on. To clear things up for those who misrepresent my previous statements, I do believe I said "I have no problem, except... I do not think the name hurts or helps Palin in any way. I simply think its not necessary.Zaereth (talk) 18:33, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Altering sources

I've never looked at this article before, but I was curious about it's history once I did. I'm comparing versions between the current one and from early Sep. '08, and found that between then and now someone has been tampering with the citations. It seems that access dates have been stripped, as well as some alterations to the URLs linking to articles so they point nowhere in the domain. Clearly someone is either trying to hide these from being viewed by the uninformed public, or is an asshole. So which is it and what do we do about it? I'm willing to fix all the links...

If you're right, that's a pretty serious problem. Could you provide some examples of citations which have been changed, and where they are in the article? Do the links still function, or are they dead? »S0CO^{(talk|contribs)} 21:25, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I was mistakenly comparing to old articles. It seems those issues were already resolved. Sorry to have caused any confusion. DKqwerty (talk) 21:54, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I think you were referring to this edit, which messed up a lot of references. I reverted it a bit later. -- Zsero (talk) 22:02, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

article

How do you edit this article? I want to add information about her. I want to edit this article! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.95.233.200 (talk) 00:50, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Create a user account, wait four days, and you will be able to edit the article. In the meantime, if you have suggestions for improving it that can't wait, please post them here on talk, and they'll be considered and implemented if they are neutral, well-sourced, notable and appropriate. Thanks for your interest. Tvoz/talk 00:54, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Scare quotes

"'Quotation marks' for emphasis of a single word or phrase, or scare quotes, are discouraged."[16] Therefore, I'll remove the scare quotes.Ferrylodge (talk) 03:10, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Ferrylodge...I noticed that you removed the word access along with the quote marks. Was this in error? ty--Buster7 (talk) 04:16, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Please correct FALSE last sentence in bridge section. Source 97 says exactly the opposite from what it is claimed to say

As noted above in section entitled "discuss here if you insist a June 2008 article is present tense for a position", the Associated Press and the Anchorage Daily News in this article dated September 16:

http://community.adn.com/node/131399

states TWICE that Palin currently supports the Knik Arm bridge and state TWICE that the bridge is going forward full speed ahead. Here are the quotes

$600 million bridge and highway project to link Alaska's largest city to Palin's town of 7,000 residents is moving full speed ahead"

"A Democratic council member in Anchorage will try Tuesday to spike the city's sponsorship of the project, which Palin supports with some reservations."

"Palin still supports the second bridge, officially named Don Young's Way in honor of the congressman"

"She called for a review of the bridge's financing plans and raised concerns about its financial risks for the state. Still, the planning process is marching forward."

NOWHERE IN THE ARTICLE is there a suggestion that Palin's position is unclear.

Yet a single wikipedia editor, for the third time, has written a FALSE statement and attributed it to this article. This editor wrote "her opinion of the bridge since being nominated as the 2008 Republican vice presidential candidate is unclear.[97] 97 is the very source that says exactly the opposite above!

Bobblehead, JamesMLane, Grsz, Buster7, and I all agree that when the source says Palin supports the bridge, it means Palin supports the bridge. A single editor (Collect) believes that "still supports the bridge" and "supports with some reservations" actually means "her opinion . . . is unclear." Collect believes this so strongly that even though not a single wikipedia editor agrees with him, he has reverted to the false statement three separate times.

I have reverted it back once and would like to stick to 1RR. Could someone else please undo the patently false statement and return it to the version that is based on the source? Collect can't revert it back again, because if he did that would be 4RR.

The last sentence of the bridge section should read as follows:

In June 2008, Palin ordered a funding and feasibility review concerning the Knik Arm Bridge, because of concerns about its financial impact, but as of September 2008 she continues to support the Knik Arm Bridge and the project "is moving full speed ahead." GreekParadise (talk) 04:12, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

While I support this change and salute your continued effort, GP, to maintain a truthful balance regarding the Bridge(s), I cannot bring myself to cross them again. I know they have been your personal focus for a few weeks now. But, I think you would be better served to move on.--Buster7 (talk) 04:27, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I can't move on, Buster. The article they're citing to says TWICE that Palin supports the bridge. The article as edited by Collect, cites to this source and claims it doesn't say "support" when it says so twice. I can't sit back and allow a wikipeida article to cite to a source that clearly says the opposite of what the article claims it says. I won't give up. And I would ask you politely to please revert it back so that the text matches the source. Only one editor believes in actively using a source to say the opposite of what it says, to claim "support" does not mean "support." And I'm confident I can convince even pro-Palin supporters to use the source accurately. I have asked this editor to find a single source that supports the view he expresses in the article. He cannot. And every other editor who has looked at this (so far five) think the source should be quoted accuratedly. If we can't trust a wikipedia article to be backed up by its sources, then there's no point to wikipedia at all.GreekParadise (talk) 05:07, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

What he said. With brass knobs on. — Writegeist (talk) 05:43, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, Ferrylodge, for fixing this.GreekParadise (talk) 06:09, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome.Ferrylodge (talk) 06:10, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks FL, I hope these endless 'bridge discussions to nowhere' will stop. They have become very disruptive. IP75 75.25.28.167 (talk) 06:39, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I wish we could all just agree to leave in BOTH sides of the controversy. Now a single editor has once again for the umpteenth time deleted all explanation of why the bridges were criticized as "to nowhere" while leaving in pro-bridge arguments. Readers will know the bridges were "criticized" but have no idea why, given that all the anti-bridge arguments have once again been removed.GreekParadise (talk) 14:32, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

mistaken party affiliation dates

This is a complaint.

sarah palin has NOT been a republican since 1982. Up until recently (about 2000) she was 'Alaskan Liberation party' or something very similar, a group of Alaskans who wanted to secede the state from the US government. I'll look for some sources to show you, I think it's at least worth checking out. Dave/Sly/Slydawg (talk) 08:48, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Please review the archives of this talk page. The matter has been discussed in some detail. There do not appear to be any reliable sources for this, just someone from the party making that claim plus a few sources reporting that the claim was made. I may be mistaken and I'm just trying to give you a pointer, but I think she never actually registered for the party, just attended a few events.Wikidemon (talk) 08:52, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Palin has been a registered Republican since 1982. Read the entry at factcheck.org: [[17]] IP75 75.25.28.167 (talk) 09:53, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

It will get back in the article for sure. Check the archives, it was removed by an old consensus, and a new consensus will appear. Collect (talk) 12:12, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

reasons for criticism should be included

I hate to add anything to the can of worms that I'm sure this article has been (and kudos to those of you who have dared to write and edit!), but I notice that, while mention is made that Palin's performance in recent interviews has been "widely criticized," there's no explanation of the actual substance of these criticisms.

This strikes me as a highly pertinent and important piece of information, and one that is hardly under debate, since the vast majority of Palin's critics in BOTH parties are citing EXACTLY the same reasons for their dissatisfaction - avoidance of certain questions by subject-changing or retreat into generalities, consistent failure to provide facts or examples, etc.

Without agreeing or disagreeing with those criticisms (i.e., without offering an opinion, since that would be inappropriate here), it should be possible to at least state them clearly, perhaps providing a single example of one of the most criticized responses and/or a link to an official transcript such as the ones at the CBS news website, or a direct quote from a reasonably articulate and respected critic in either party (or, better yet, both).

Good luck, all!

24.62.163.33 (talk) 09:35, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

ALL Explanation of Why Bridges to Nowhere Were Criticized Has Once Again Been Deleted.

Here we go again. For the umpteenth time, a single editor has deleted a a large portion of the bridge article with NO discussion on the talk page. Here's the process on this section, which I've been involved in for weeks:

Palin supporter puts in strongly pro-bridge material

Palin opponent puts in anti-bridge for balance.

Fierce argument, reversion, and edit wars ensue, with the argument that "consensus" does not support showing both sides of a controversy in BLP, so only the pro-bridge stuff should be there and not any criticism of the bridge. It is insisted that nowhere in the article is it ever explained WHY they're called "bridges to nowhere"

After strong argument and long discussions, it is finally agreed that all sides of a controversy be represented. It will be explained why they're called bridges to nowhere along with ample (and twice as long) citations of why these bridges are good ideas This makes the article longer, of course.

Hobartimus without any discussion on the talk page wipes out any mention of why the bridges are bad ideas or called "to nowhere."

Rinse and repeat. It's happening again.

Hobartimus has made a substantial deletion. All of the sections below were removed from the article with no discussion:

The Gravina Island Bridge proposal became nicknamed the "Bridge to Nowhere" because of the island's population of 50. More rarely, the term "bridges to nowhere" has been used to refer to both bridge proposals.

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

The deletion makes the article entirely one-sided. Now there's no indication anywhere in the article of why the bridges were criticized, why they were symbols of pork barrel spending, or why they were even called "to nowhere", or that Knik Arm provides a link to Palin's hometown of Wasilla. But there's still mention of the airport and Knik Arm inlet, as if the bridges were completely non-controversial building project. Could someone please undo the Hobartimus deletion without discussion? I firmly believe BOTH sides of the controversy should be represented, as they have been on this page for more than a month now.

P.S. I have no problem with deleting

"The goal of the Gravina project, according to the Alaska Department of Transportation & Public Facilities, was to "provide better service [than the existing ferry] to the airport" which serves 350,000 passengers per year,[3] and "allow for development of large tracts of land on the island."[4]

which is repetitive since both the airport and development are already mentioned in the article. Because I don't delete pro-bridge information, even when it's repetitive, I had left in this redundancy. But we agreed long ago that it is improper to include only pro-bridge comments while deleting all the anti-bridge comments.

I would also ask that in the future, folks don't delete two paragraphs in one fell swoop without at least noting what you've done and why on the talk page. This has been done a large number of times by the same editor over the last month and it's getting very frustrating. Is it really that painful to leave in BOTH sides of the controversy? To explain to wikipedians what the controversy was? I don't think so. In fact, I think it's precisely what wikipedia should do.GreekParadise (talk) 14:07, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I completely agree with GreekParadise on the substance of this particular edit and on the procedure by which Hobartimus made it. JamesMLane t c 15:18, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

IMO GreekParadise has repeatedly made a convincing case for inclusion of his edit. As it is key to understanding the common nomenclature, it warrants inclusion in this overview. Therefore I don't think Hobartimus's contention that readers can go to the detailed article sufficiently justifies the deletion. I ask Hobartimus to restore it in the interests of balance, truth and courtesy. — Writegeist (talk) 15:48, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Hobartimus need not restore it, as I have already done so. JamesMLane t c 16:16, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

And more of the same from Hobartimus re the email hack

Coverage of the hacking of Palin's email account has been previously discussed at Talk:Sarah Palin/Archive 26#Suspect Nabbed in Palin E-mail Hack and Talk:Sarah Palin/Archive 27#Serious WP:BLP issue with hacking section. Hobartimus eagerly reported the tangential reference to the son of a Democratic politician from Tennessee, but there was no reason to include that information in the Palin bio. Therefore, in this version of the article, edited by Hobartimus himself, the hacking was covered as follows:

In September 2008, a hacker accessed a Yahoo! email account Palin uses, hoping to "derail her campaign," and precipitating an investigation by the FBI and Secret Service.

I think the matter rested there for a week. Now, without further discussion, Hobartimus has by this edit inserted the name of the Tennessee poltician's son, as a wikilink, and has piped the link to lead to the article about the politician.

I have the same two issues here: substance and procedure.

First, as to substance, the issue is whether the reader of the Palin bio is enlightened about her life by learning details of the FBI investigation of a fairly minor incident. The FBI searched a particular apartment. The FBI probably also had some software expert interface with some Yahoo! software expert, and tried to back-trace the published information about Palin's emails, and so forth. Recounting such specifics doesn't tell anything about Palin. The only reason to include this is POV-pushing: the FBI searched David Kernell's apartment, David Kernell is the son of Mike Kernell, Mike Kernell is supporting Obama, therefore Obama is evil. I don't think this "information" would belong in the Palin bio even if David Kernell were arrested, charged, indicted, tried, and convicted, none of which have actually happened. (Even including it in the Mike Kernell bio is dubious on BLP grounds, but for the Palin bio its irrelevance is the more obvious objection.) Second, as to procedure, it is very disruptive for Hobartimus to unilaterally add material that was thoroughly discussed, when there was apparent consensus on a particular version, when there is no indication of any new information that has surfaced (the reference cited by Hobartimus was published on September 22), and when there was no further discussion on the talk page. Hobartimus, this is simply not how Wikipedia works, particularly on articles of such a controversial nature. You've been here long enough that you should understand this. I am reverting. JamesMLane t c

I think your comment above speaks for itself, contains some pretty extreme agenda. I hardly need to make a case here in light of the above but to accuse an organization on the level of the Associated Press and several thousand other news outlets who reported on this particular news of trying to argue that "David Kernell is the son of Mike Kernell, Mike Kernell is supporting Obama, therefore Obama is evil." is really extraordinary. You do realize that this small piece information that you removed to prevent any imagined conclusion that "Obama is evil" was reported on by thousands of journalist all over the world right? I shouldn't even point to other parts of your comment such as "FBI investigation of a fairly minor incident", surely the FBI gets involved in minor incidents and they leave the investigation of federal crimes to the local police to sort out. Their involvement is a clear sign that the incident was minor, right? I mean I just don't know what to say after reading such comments. Hobartimus (talk) 17:06, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

We should not be including Kernell's name in this article (whether it's appropriate for the subarticle is a separate issue). This has been dead in the water for a few weeks now. That could mean that the FBI is just about to arrest him, or it could mean that the evidence has pointed elsewhere. WP:BLP suggests we should err on the side of being conservative (NPI), since the person in question is a private individual who has been charged with no crime. He could be guilty, or he could just as easily be the next Steven Hatfill or Richard Jewell. Let's let it play out before we jump in to spread this around. Furhter, this issue has been discussed extensively and I think, as JamesMLane mentioned, consensus has favored the shorter version. MastCell ^Talk 17:28, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't know if you looked at what was reverted but both versions were a single sentence, so I think they can both be fairly described as short. I'll look at the articles I have to say I have no idea who these people that you mention are. Hobartimus (talk) 17:50, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Hobartimus, you ignore my point about relevance to the Palin bio. If Barack Obama were caught on camera murdering someone, it would be widely reported and it would be widely taken as proof that he was evil, but it still wouldn't belong in this article. I am, of course, not making any such accusation against AP as the one you falsely impute to me. The POV-pushing that I identified is the insertion of Kernell's name into Palin's Wikipedia bio. AP hasn't done that. And, yes, unfortunately for the much-put-upon FBI agents, they do sometimes have to spend time investigating fairly minor incidents. This email hack isn't Watergate, or even Troopergate. JamesMLane t c 17:45, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

The AP reported the whole case in connection with Palin in a story about the Palin hack, the same nice line of reasoning that you shared with us also applies to the AP "the FBI searched David Kernell's apartment, David Kernell is the son of Mike Kernell, Mike Kernell is supporting Obama, therefore Obama is evil." the AP reported all of it. I repeat all of it. Let me say that again the AP reported the FBI search, the AP not only reported but it's main description was that David was Mike's son, they mentioned that Mike is a democratic politician the only, the only thing they left out is your "Obama is evil" conclusion. They reported all of it. It is them who you really accuse, as editors we simply follow what reliable sources say. Hobartimus (talk) 17:55, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

To clarify, JamesMLane I don't mind that you disagree on whether to include or not even with your user page statement. I only struggle with some parts of your original comment and a little with your section title by making it personal. Hobartimus (talk) 18:00, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

The email hacking incident is similar to the passport access incident of multiple canditates. It should be noted that the passport incident is not included in any of the other candidates bio articles due to lack of relevance. IP75 75.25.28.167 (talk) 18:18, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

More "Reception" Interpretation

"Palin debated Vice-Presidential candidate Joe Biden on October 2, 2008. [158] a month before the election on November 4. Her performance was widely deemed to have adhered to general principles, in contrast to Biden's detailed responses. Palin made several points without regard to the questions being asked by the moderator, at one point declaring that she was taking her case "directly to the American people," and thereby seizing an opportunity to state her positions free of the "filter" of news media."

Borderline laughable. I believe the above belongs in the upcoming site: "Wikipundit".. It has no place here, that's for sure. Wikiport (talk) 18:56, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't believe the above should have been added without consensus and certainly not without proper sourcing. It kind of sounds like someone's opinion. That said, I didn't watch the debate, so I don't know whether I agree with this person's opinion. However, as with most opinion, it is subjective and quite likely countered by differing opinion. Suggest we try to avoid expressing our own or other's opinions, particularly as they arrive hot-off-the-press.Fcreid (talk) 14:15, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

theres weasel wording with "widely deemed" ... by who??? she "seized the opportunity" sounds like peacock language. in other words, totally unsourced npov violation... a cnn poll and a cbs poll of uncommitted voters offers a more accurate assessment of the debate... 99.251.171.248 (talk) 16:22, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

As I have already stated, I think this entire section is a POV magnet. It's about the opinion of others. "Opinion" is just another way of saying "Point of View", and since there is no such thing as a wrong opinion, people are free to source whatever opinion matches their own. I say quote everybody who has an opinion on the subject, or none at all. Quote the National Enquirer for all it matters ... it's not like we're looking for facts here. I don't see how this section serves any encyclopedic purpose. Give the people facts, not opinions, and let them decide.Zaereth (talk) 17:00, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the article could be improved by boiling down this entire section to only mentioning that Palin appeared on the national scene out of nowhere and has been the subject of tremendous curiosity (the comment elsewhere on this page of Palin apparently being the most Googled person of all time would be a good reference). Anything going beyond that just gets into dueling political spinning which has no place in a biographical article.--Paul (talk) 17:18, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Agreed.Ferrylodge (talk) 17:22, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I can live with that. But, as long as the title remains "Reception", that still seems imply this is a nesting ground for opinion. (ie: how is she being received by the media).Zaereth (talk) 17:49, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Or we can just handle it in a more encyclopedic manner and remove the reception header and then interleave it into the rest of the VP section. Breaking out her "reception" into a separate section can end up being a POV magnet, but there is quite a bit of good information in the section that should probably be retained in the VP section. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 18:53, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

i agree "reception" is a POV magnet... include one pundit and you have to include them all including the hacks... we should cut the reception down alot... the only reception that matters is reliable polls of actual voters. here's another one. 99.251.171.248 (talk) 18:13, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I removed the reception heading last night because it didn't seem descriptive of the content.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 18:50, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Personal life section addition

Should we add that Palin doesn't know what an achilles heel is? Grsz^X 16:36, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I couldn't care less if she is not as well versed in mythology as I am. But, I guess that's my Sigurd's Shoulder.Zaereth (talk) 17:21, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure she knows what an Achilles heel is. That she (and, to some extent, Biden) evaded the question doesn't necessarily mean that she misunderstood it. MastCell ^Talk 17:23, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure why moderators of these debates always have a "mea culpa" question, e.g. "tell me something bad about yourself." No one should be surprised when the debate participants sidestep such questions.--Paul (talk) 17:38, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Ah, assumptions that she knows what an Achilles' heel is and that her evasion doesn't indicate ignorance. Occam's razor? — Writegeist (talk) 17:57, 3 October 2008 (UTC)