Talk:Sarah Palin

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
It may be more appropriate to follow an old thread of Discussion than open a new one.

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.

Ref originally here was orphaned when full ref name was deleted, possibly by another editor The ref name cited was "APbridge"Anarchangel (talk) 23:43, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

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)

Hobartimus, I wrote the section title without your name, then thought some more and included your name, then thought some more about whether to return to my original version and decided not to. The point is that I didn't act lightly. I believe in WP:AGF but editors who display a pattern cannot trade on that assumption indefinitely. I do wish to make it personal to the extent of calling to your attention that you, personally, should display a greater readiness to discuss controversial edits on the talk page before making them. JamesMLane t c 19:35, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

If I will ever choose to edit an article in a subject in which I have an enormous openly declared bias against the subject I will certainly be very careful and display great care and readiness to discuss everything potentially controversial and toward my actions to not let the desire to defame malign and attack the subject influence my actions as an editor. Let's hope this will never be the case. Hobartimus (talk) 19:59, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I applaud your resolution that, on any article where you have a bias, you will "display great care and readiness to discuss everything potentially controversial". That is, in fact, the correct procedure even if you don't have a bias either way concerning the article subject. This is one reason that I deprecated the importance of an editor's bias. Biased and unbiased editors alike are held to the same standard.

Sometimes, even in a controversial area, an informative edit summary will suffice, especially for a comparatively unimportant change. That's not the case with regard to your most recent edits, however. When you're going against a prior consensus, and especially when you're not relying on any new information to do so, then you really have to present a proposed edit on the talk page instead of just unilaterally making a significant change. JamesMLane t c 03:21, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately Hobartimus restricted the pledge to subjects where his bias is "openly declared"; any undeclared bias he apparently considers irrelevant, regardless of how obvious it may be. I hope he will reconsider that philosophy. —KCinDC (talk) 03:30, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

It's not that it's relevant or irrelevant just that we have an opportunity here to observe someone in action with "an enormous openly declared bias" proudly presented on their user page against the subject of this very article. It seems they are not limited from influencing the article in any way, they are reverting other editors, declare if they think there was consensus, make outrageous arguments against facts that were reported by thousands of journalists around the world. If I ever get into a similar situation it seems I will have to limit myself as others are apparently not limiting these actions here at all. Hobartimus (talk) 05:00, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Hobartimus, please stop changing the subject. The question is, is there a problem with your edit(s). I would say that in both cases you went against a settled consensus. To do so twice in a row, then engage in personal attacks on the person who points it out on the talk page, is not good Wikipedian behavior. Please stop it or go away. Homunq (talk) 22:56, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Your comment above makes unsupported statements. Support your assertions with diffs or withdraw them as a personal attack, your choice. Saying "engage in personal attacks" without any supporting evidence/diffs/quotes is a personal attack on your part. I'm pointing out clearly with qoute where I think you made the personal attack, now I'm waiting for you to provide the quote or strike out your comment. Hobartimus (talk) 23:06, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Let's say someone would accept your personal opinion that you expressed with "I would say" without providing any links, even then you should be very mindful of Wikipedia:CCC#Consensus_can_change. As there is no ownership of this article everyone who is autoconfirmed is just as entitled to edit as anyone else. Hobartimus (talk) 23:26, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

I absolutely agree that consensus can change, if the facts or the arguments change. I fail to see either of those happening before or during your edit, though.

What I call "personal attacks" refers to the whole discussion above, where you repeatedly respond to charges about your own edits by focusing attention on the personal views of those who question your edits. I absolutely stand by my statement, which is focused on your behavior - breaking consensus and then focusing on motives of other editors rather than how to improve the article - and not your person. In fact, I repeat it: please change your behavior or leave. Homunq (talk) 01:03, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

So you are not willing to provide the quote and diff to back up your statement? That would make your statement a clear personal attack on me. Please provide the quote or diff or withdraw your comment, personal attacks are not acceptable. If you do not quote, do not point out what is objectionable you nobody will be able to evaluate your claims. For example I stated clearly where you made the personal attack and what part I expect to be withdrawn. If you do not point it out I cannot defend it, explain it or withdraw it after evaluation of your claim. I expect you to point to the sentence or cease your attacks. Hobartimus (talk) 11:13, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I see that this tangent is distracting us from the real issues: your edits to the bridge and email hack sections. If you would rather discuss whether my requests are justified, please add my talk page to your watch list, as you have already made one or two threats there anyway. Here, let's return to dicussing the page itself, and those edits in particular. Homunq (talk) 14:26, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

There are no threats, it's a very simple and I think reasonable request on my part. Point out what you object to, with quotes and diffs or withdraw your statement. I do not think that is much to ask. I see that you still did not struck it out our provided specifics. In light of this I still consider it an unsubstantiated personal attack on me. WP:NPA is policy and for good reason personal attacks are not acceptable. If you do not provide any support, any diffs, nobody will be able to evaluate your claims. This is also the case with your other statements as well. You claim "consensus" you offer no proof, no support, no links for that statement. You claim "consensus can change, if the facts or the arguments change." again you offer no support no proof. Indeed if we actually look up WP:CCC we find "Past decisions are open to challenge and are not binding" "new people may bring fresh ideas ... people may change their minds", intrestingly it seems very much focused on people, something you did not mention. The one thing we do NOT find in WP:CCC your statement that "consensus can change, if the facts or the arguments change", which seems to suggest that once the facts are known consensus really can't change. Did you feel that this version of WP:CCC, focused on facts better supported your argument than the actual wording of the policy? A fact is for example that a federal crime was comitted against a person on a presidential ticket in order to influence the outcome of the election and the FBI now investigates. Another fact is a federal warrant being served in the case. Another fact is that this federal warrant and subsequent FBI raid on an apartment was covered by thousands of newspapers around the world, including by the Associated Press. Hobartimus (talk) 15:29, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for returning to the topic at hand. I think that JamesMLane said it best in his last two edits directly above. Homunq (talk) 18:29, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Do I have your permission to move the discussion from my "If you would rather discuss whether my requests are justified," to your "no support no proof. Indeed", inclusive, to my talk page? Or yours, if you prefer? Homunq (talk) 18:56, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely shameful haranguings of an editor on mostly ad hominem grounds. If you don't know logically, but see intuitively, that something is wrong with an edit, declare your intuition, not infect your argument with personal attacks especially speculation about lack of good faith.
A logical, and I believe conclusive, argument against Hob's edit is that it is against WP:LIVE, particulary its section on WP:NPF; because of this policy, we must hold to a higher standard than newspapers when discussing subjects which can lead to assumptions about the guilt or innocence of people thrust into the limelight due to their involvement in criminal investigations. 01:40, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

To be clear: my main complaint was not the original edit, but Hobartimus's focus, in responding to the edit, on the personal bias of the person who complained. That is, in fact, the definition of ad hominem. On the other hand, my saying "you are doing something wrong, please stop or leave" may be correct or incorrect, but it is not ad hominem. Ad hominem would be for me to say "you were wrong last time, and you are a filthy roundhead, so you must be wrong this time" (roundhead = political category which clearly does not apply in this case, just for illustration).

I agree with your argument against the edit. As I said, that was not my main point. Homunq (talk) 01:26, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Section order

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rape kits again

I'm having some difficulty with this edit, which inserted the bolded words:

Fannon stirred controversy by requiring rape victims to pay or have their insurance companies pay for rape kits.[1]

The source doesn't seem to say that Fannon did anything other than charge the insurance companies. Fannon stated: "In the past we've charged the cost of exams to the victim's insurance company when possible. I just don't want to see any more burden put on the taxpayer....Ultimately it is the criminal who should bear the burden of the added costs."

Also, this stuff about rape kits was inserted into the article today. Should it remain? There was previous discussion about it here.Ferrylodge (talk) 00:24, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

The source states "to bill victims or victims insurance companies" so its accurate. I have not read the previous discussion. KillerChihuahua^?!? 01:00, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Ok, the "previous discussion" cited Slate, but it wasn't Slate, precisely - it was a blog on Slate. However, I checked FactCheck.org (a far more reliable source) and found this, which states that women had to pay, but that it is unclear whether Palin supported that. Read the FactCheck bit yourself, please - IMO it appears the entire rape kit mess should stay out of an article on Palin, except for the current bit which does state "Palin hired Charlie Fannon to replace Stambaugh as police chief. Fannon stirred controversy by requiring rape victims to pay or have their insurance companies pay for rape kits" - all of which is accurate per the sources. I'm open to other views tho. KillerChihuahua^?!? 01:05, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

No record of any victim paying has been found for any records still held by Wasilla (fiscal 2000 on, which started on July 1, 1999). Cite given earlier. No records prior to June 30, 1999 appear to be available for this. Collect (talk) 01:12, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

What about Insurance companies? Did they pay? If no-one (individual or corp.) paid for the kits, why are we making an issue out of something that did not happen? also, more curious than anything else...Are there alot of rapes in Wasilla?--Buster7 (talk) 01:21, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Re. KC's quote from the Frontiersman article, a fuller quote is: "The new law makes it illegal for any law enforcement agency to bill victims or victims insurance companies...." That doesn't seem to support the notion that Fannon did both of those things, and he only seems to have admitted doing the latter.Ferrylodge (talk) 01:25, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

My error, thanks - I was scanning the link which had been used, and frankly didn't pay close enough attention. The FactCheck source - again, far more reliable than the others - clearly states "he had billed women and their insurance companies for these tests". I find no source regarding what Fannin admitted or not, the current phrasing does not address that, so do we care? Are we planning to expand this to cover that? I'm not sure that's a direction we should go, as I've said before, I think the two sentences we currently have are enough weight. KillerChihuahua^?!? 01:31, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree we don't need much on this in the main Palin article, since there's no evidence she was directly involved. It's covered more thoroughly in the sub-article. Anyway, I did look at the Factcheck.org bit, and they are relying exclusively on the article from the Frontiersman, and specifically this quote: "In the past we've charged the cost of exams to the victim's insurance company when possible. I just don't want to see any more burden put on the taxpayer....Ultimately it is the criminal who should bear the burden of the added costs." Fannon only seems to be admitting that he charged women if their insurance could pay. I don't see him admitting that he charged other women.Ferrylodge (talk) 01:38, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Factcheck cites the Frontiersman, CNN and USA Today, see end of article. KillerChihuahua^?!? 01:40, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

For the fact in question, Factcheck.org is relying exclusively on the Frontiersman article. They only cite USA Today for Palin's disavowal, and they only cite CNN for remarks by a former Alaska state representative about whether Palin was involved.Ferrylodge (talk) 01:45, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

(Outdent) All three are listed as Sources, and all three state clearly that women or their insurance companies were billed. Only the Frontiersman article was quoted, which is not the same thing as cited. All three are linked from inline text within the article as well as under "Sources" at end. So we have three sources (CNN, Frontiersman, and USA Today) all saying the same thing, so the two sentences currently in our article are accurate. If someone wants to add a source or two to the statement, fine - but there is no disputing view. KillerChihuahua^?!? 01:50, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

'if possible' could mean, possibly, that he charged them if it weren't possible to collect from the insurance? Now that he is paying, he wants the criminals to pay. I would have a little more sympathy for his position if he had been motivated to come up with that inspired idea instead of making it the victim's responsibility to pay until he was stopped. Also he says, "-any- more burden put on the taxpayer" Less conclusive than 'if possible', imo, I can't believe you can even read it as the town paying when the insurance didnt. Why do you think there was a state-wide outcry and a law enacted to stop what they were doing? And you better believe there is an alternate position Anarchangel (talk) 01:59, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

(undent) KC, I'm not going to make a federal case out of it, but it's still not clear to me that women without insurance were billed. I don't think the Frontiersman article says they were billed. Also, this is really borderline stuff to include in a main BLP like this, since Palin is not really linked. But if others think it should stay in then I won't quibble about it. I would suggest including Palin's brief disavowal, except that I don't want to give any more space and attention to this weakly sourced matter than it deserves.

Anarchangel, why do I think there was a state-wide outcry and a law enacted to stop what they were doing? Please see sub-article. Municipalities like Juneau were definitely charging the victims, whether they had insurance or not. Other localities were doing likewise, according to legislative records. But neither the legislative records nor the town records show that Wasilla was billing uninsured women for this. It's all in the sub-article.Ferrylodge (talk) 02:02, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Okay, now this is getting out of hand. I see that Anarchangel has expanded the material in the main article, and I strongly object. I knew this would happen. PLEASE see the sub-article. The notion that Wasilla was the only town doing this is totally bogus. PLEASE don't quote Knowles like he is completely objective. Palin defeated him for Governor, after all.Ferrylodge (talk) 02:08, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't think we should include anything about the who pays for the rape kit controversy. It just leaves the door open for scurolous guesswork and ackward contrivances. And, really, it has almost nothing to do with Gov Palin and should not be part of her BLP.--Buster7 (talk) 02:22, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Sub-article? you mean 'mayoralty of sarah palin'? the article with "sources differ as to whether this was done by some rural police agencies[20] or only by Wasilla's[21]." ? And you see no relevance in the vote by the entire state? And how does the governor of the state become disqualified as a source? He hadn't lost to Palin when he introduced the legislation, and he is an expert on it. And you insist on removing the other 2 sources and installing only Frontiersman again? You also seem to be under a misapprehension regarding consensus: it is a preferable, not a mandatory state. It can be used as a justification of a present edit, not an injunction against a new edit. Your reversion was heavy handed and ill considered. Anarchangel (talk) 03:18, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

You more than tripled the text in this article on this subject, contrary to the consensus above that this needs to be kept to a minimum on account of the lack of any direct link to Palin. Additionally, the info you inserted was false: Wasilla was not "the only town in Alaska" doing whatever it is they were doing. You would understand that if you would look at the subarticle. Sources differ on the question, and the most authoritative sources clearly show that towns like the state capital were charging victims. The info you put in the article was clearly false, and against consensus. And now that I've got you all riled up, I'm sure you'll just go and expand it again. I'm tired of trying to be diplomatic. BTW, if anyone was charging victims for rape kits it was reprehensible. But this article is not a coatrack to hang this all on Palin.Ferrylodge (talk) 03:27, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm ok with the current version (if it hasn't changed already). I just thought some mention should be made of it, as opposed to none.Jimmuldrow (talk) 03:35, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

The rape kit stuff does not belong here at all. There is no evidence that any victim was charged, or that it had anything at all to do with Palin. The later state action had nothing to do with Wasilla, and Knowles's claims to the contrary are exposed as a convenient misrecollection. I will resist any attempt to mention it here. -- Zsero (talk) 05:46, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Team Player.......--Buster7 (talk) 06:53, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Pray tell -- what does "Team Player" mean with reference to improving the article on Sarah Palin? I am puzzled by that comment. Collect (talk) 12:00, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Team Player RE:I will resist any attempt to mention it here. Ownership of an idea, a comment, an edit, a thread, an article, etc. gets in the way of the Team aspect of Wikiediting. "We should resist............." would work better. Sorry I wasn't clear. What did you think I meant?--Buster7 (talk) 12:25, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Nothing about the "rape kit controversy" should be in this article, because it is a BLP-violating smear with serious problems.

This is a case where the media feeding frenzy over Palin makes hash out of Wikipedia's policies of verifiability and reliable sources and makes the BLP policy of extra caution when including controversial material even more important than usual.

First, though it seems Wasilla along with many other towns in Alaska clearly had the policy of billing rape victim insurance companies for the testing, there is no reliable source showing that this policy started with Fannon which is the supposed connection to Palin.

Second, though there is no proof that Palin knew anything about the policy, there is her explicit denunciation of the policy where she says: "The entire notion of making a victim of a crime pay for anything is crazy. I do not believe, nor have I ever believed, that rape victims should have to pay for an evidence-gathering test. As governor, I worked in a variety of ways to tackle the problem of sexual assault and rape, including making domestic violence a priority of my administration."

Third, there is no proof that anyone or their insurance company was ever charged. The Wasilla finance department can find no instances; the sole "reliable source" is USA Today, but their statement "An aide to a Democratic state legislator tells USA Today that women in Wasilla did pay out of pocket for their rape kits” isn't good enough as there is no corroborating evidence, and the primary source is potentially biased.

Given the potential sensationalism of this charge, and the completely non-existent and flimsy nature of the facts backing it up, it should be removed from the article as an unsupported defamatory charge at odds with BLP policy. If Jimmuldrow doesn't remove this from the article (and I hope he does), I will remove it.--Paul (talk) 15:09, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Given the potential for edit warring on this issue, I suggest you rather discuss on the talk page and attempt to convince others, rather than state outright you plan to edit while consensus is very much undetermined. KillerChihuahua^?!? 16:20, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Rape kits, section break

Here is my thinking on the rape kits:

1. We have no sources which state that Palin knew about this
2. Palin's appointee Fannon was the party who implemented this
3. Women and/or their insurance agencies were billed
4. Some editors here are focusing on details which are irrelevant and/or complete speculation - "no proof any women ever had to pay" which is beside the point.
5. The media has been mentioning this

Conclusion: We can either leave it out of this article, as Palin was not directly involved, or keep it in, in which case we need to be clear that the Palin connection is that it was her appointee, not she herself, who did this. I'll support either position, whichever consensus settles on, but mention that as virtually everyone has heard something about this, we might want to ensure we address this in this article, altho *briefly* and *clearly*. Thoughts? KillerChihuahua^?!? 16:20, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

1. We have no sources which state that Palin knew about this Agreed
2. Palin's appointee Fannon was the party who implemented this Not necessarily; The Frontiersman article does not say Fannon instigated this policy.
3. Women and/or their insurance agencies were billed There is no proof for the first statement. The second is true for some municipalities in Alaska, but there is no proof this is true for Wasilla (which one source reports as having only a single reported case of rape during Palin's tenure).
4. Some editors here are focusing on details which are irrelevant and/or complete speculation - "no proof any women ever had to pay" which is beside the point. Again, not necessarily. If Palin didn't know about this, and no one was ever charged, it's all very theoretical, and what is it doing in an encyclopedia biography??
5. The media has been mentioning this There is a difference between the media and an encyclopedia. The media picked this up from a blog run by a Democratic strategist lawyer during their Palin frenzy period. That is why the "reliable source" standard is oatmeal mush in this case.

This is very thin gruel to be hanging such a charge on.--Paul (talk) 20:03, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

(after ec)Paul, much of your argument comes down to saying that the reporters now swarming over Wasilla weren't there ten years ago. The people in Wasilla didn't foresee that aspects of their municipal administration would one day be scrutinized in USA Today. As a result, there are definitely places where the information available isn't conclusive. In those instance, I agree that we need to be careful to present only what's known (which may in some instances mean that there's a bit of evidence pointing one way and a bit of evidence pointing the other way, neither of them dispositive).

Overall, though, you must remember that this article is not a campaign piece, pro or con. The standard for inclusion isn't whether an airtight case has been made that Palin did something good or bad. We cover lots of criticisms of politicians where the critics are lodging a charge and the politician's supporters are making responses like "This is irrelevant because ere's no definitive proof that he knew about that." We don't suppress such issues; our obligation is to present both sides fairly. For example, I believe that any discussion of paying for rape kits should include the quotation from Palin that you give, in which she denounces the idea. It should also, however, include her spokesperson's refusal to say when Palin learned of the Wasilla policy.

Per the foregoing, I agree with most of what KillerChihuahua wrote. I disagree, however, with point 4. The "no proof any women ever had to pay" point isn't completely tangential. We may consider it "speculation", but it's one argument that's made, so it merits inclusion. It should be identified as one side's argument, though; in other words, it should be reported but not adopted. JamesMLane t c 16:35, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Where has that argument been made, besides forums, blogs, this talk page, and similar venues? I haven't seen it in a RS - but it is entirely possible I missed it. KillerChihuahua^?!? 18:45, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

The records of the City of Wasilla would appear to be reliable. Do you have a problem with them as they do not support anyone being charged for any period for which the records exist? I would not call them a "blog" to be sure. Collect (talk) 18:50, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I was on the fence about this, but now think it should not go in this article. The main source on this, and the only contemporaneous news report that I'm aware of, is the Frontiersman article.[2] It seems very significant that the Frontiersman article does not mention Palin at all---not once.

Additionally, the rape kit business is covered in the sub-article Mayoralty of Sarah Palin, so it's not as though we'd be banishing this stuff from Wikipedia. It's a minor detail about Palin, and so appropriately does not need to be summarized here.

As KC mentioned, if we descibe what Fannon said or did, then we also would have to be clear that the Palin connection is that it was her appointee, not she herself, who did this --- and that she has condemned making victims pay. So this would take up even more space.

KC's best point for inclusion is that a lot of people have heard something about this. That's usually a pretty good reason for inclusion, but not always. Many people also know that SNL used the word "MILF" in reference to her, but no one's suggesting we need to include and explain that in this article.

Also, the present language that Fannon stirred controversy about this doesn't seem accurate, given that Wasilla was not mentioned during the state legislative process (see sub-article).

Finally, if we do decide to insert this, I hope we can more closely track Fannon's quote from the Frontiersman article. While some Alaska municipalities (e.g. Juneau) were clearly charging uninsured women for this, Fannon did not say that Wasilla was doing so. Maybe Wasilla was, and maybe Wasilla wasn't, according to that Fannon quote (and shame on them if they were).Ferrylodge (talk) 16:42, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

The Wasilla angle seems to be primarily that they fought (and by "they" I mean Fannon) the law which disallowed charging the victim for six months, which is in the CNN article at least. This also seems to add to the Palin angle as well - there is zero evidence she knew about it, but speculation (and there are quotes) is that she'd have had to be fairly dense, or deliberately obtuse, to have missed this, as it caused a stink at the time. KillerChihuahua^?!? 18:49, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

(undent)KC, if you knew with 100% certainty that no place in Alaska ever charged uninsured women for this, would you still feel it's sufficiently notable for inclusion in this Wikipedia article?

The reason I ask is because I did take another look at the CNN article that you've pointed to. The most cited person in the CNN article is Rep. Eric Croft, a Democrat. The Alaska legislature amazingly provides Croft's contemporaneous comments online, regarding the bill in question.[3] Here is what occurred in the legislature back in 2000:

REPRESENTATIVE CROFT said that he had heard of victims being

asked to pay for the forensic exam with his/her health insurance. [4]....While it is the ordinary police practice to pay for these evidence-gathering exams, some victims now report

that they have been asked to pay for the cost of the forensic exam through their medical insurance....He noted that the majority of police agencies do the right thing in this regard. However, some agencies do try to transfer this concern to the individual's insurance. That type action can result from tight budget times.[5]

So, I emphatically disagree that this Wikipedia article should suggest in any way that uninsured women were being charged. And given that only insurance companies were being charged, without Palin evidently knowing anything about it, I hope we can remove this stuff from the present article, and leave it for the sub-article. Some media outlets have sensationalized it by making it seem like maybe uninsured women were being charged, but Democratic Representative Croft indicated at the time that the problem only involved insured women.Ferrylodge (talk) 19:24, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Although women in Alaska were charged, even if I knew with 100% certainty none had ever been charged, it will still merit inclusion. If there had been a local ordinance or practice that people whose homes had been burglarized were to be charged up to $1,000 for fingerprinting kits, and the state had passed a law to prevent them from doing that, and local authorities had fought for six months to be able to continue to do so, rather than paying for such kits out of normal funds, and the mayor of the town seemed oblivious, then ran for VP - why yes, it would be noteworthy even if not one victim of a burglary had ever been charged. KillerChihuahua^?!? 22:04, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

And what if there had been a local ordinance or practice that people whose homes had been burglarized were to be charged up to $1,000 for fingerprinting kits, only if their insurance would cover it?Ferrylodge (talk) 22:08, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Maybe include this material in an article on Fannon, or one of the Palin sub articles. --Tom 16:57, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

It is not expressly clear, even in the sub-article citation purporting to give evidence of it, that there were instances of kit charge in places other than wasilla. Victims were from many places, but they could have all been raped in Wasilla. When I consider the vulnerability required for such an act to take place, I think immediately of hitchhiking, and travellers from out of town generally with fewer resources to rely on for aid. However, as there is as much doubt or more that all the victims came from Wasilla as there is that some didn't, and for brevity's sake, I am leaving the issue of Wasilla's purported uniqueness out of the edit.
That it was Palin's subordinate's policy is a measure of her ability to lead and oversee the policy of her subordinates. It is more important than whether "She kept a jar with the names of Wasilla residents on her desk, and once a week she pulled a name from it and picked up the phone" Try and keep some perspective. Anarchangel (talk) 19:03, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

There's no evidence that Fannon had anything to do with it either. All we know is that when the state wanted to ban the practise Fannon opposed that. For all we know, that was the first time he'd heard of it, and thought it wasn't a bad idea, and it shouldn't be banned. The only positive statement we have of his as to who should pay is that it should be the criminal, if he is caught. Other than that, all we know is that he didn't want a state law tying the cities' hands. What we do know, without any doubt, is that there was no controversy over Wasilla doing this, because its name didn't come up once at the hearings. Knowles's claim to the contrary is exposed as false, and doesn't belong anywhere except perhaps in a section on his biography about his credibility. -- Zsero (talk) 21:55, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Your claim that "For all we know, that was the first time he'd heard of it, and thought it wasn't a bad idea, and it shouldn't be banned." is proven unlikely by his statement on and that "In the past we've charged the cost of exams to the victim's insurance company when possible. I just don't want to see any more burden put on the taxpayer". Is this the answer of an incompetent pretending that he wasn't oblivious to the billing policy of his Police Dept by using "we"? Or was he aware of it, and speaking as the person in charge, whose police dept. charged?

You appear to be under a complete misapprehension, that Knowles claimed the hearings mentioned Wasilla directly. I believe you are confusing that with his claim that Wasilla was the only police dept. to charge. The evidence to the contrary of his claim on Mayoralty of Sarah Palin is only inference, not proof as described above, or to save searching, on diffs [[6]] and

[[7]]. Furthermore, should such a mistake have been made, it does not affect his considerable ability, as governor of the state at the time of the kit charges, and one leading the legislation against them, to critique the practice. Finally, please verify your claims, without verification, I have taken them too seriously already. Anarchangel (talk) 23:19, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't know what he meant by "in the past" or by "we"; maybe he was speaking of cities in general, or maybe he never bothered to check what the actual policy was, but instead gave his reaction to the proposed legislation requiring cities to pay for the kits. Or maybe, yes, Wasilla really did bill insurance companies, and he was aware of it. That still leaves no evidence that the practise had anything to do with him, let alone with Palin. What remains a complete fabrication is that the state law was prompted by outrage at Wasilla; if that were the case, it would have been mentioned at the hearings. That is the purpose for which Knowles is quoted, and it's clearly not true. If Wasilla did in fact have such a policy it provoked no outrage at all, and the state legislation was not a consequence of anything to do with it. -- Zsero (talk) 23:40, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

This is the quote from Knowles, and its usage. State governor at the time of the new law, Tony Knowles, said, "We would never bill the victim of a burglary for fingerprinting and photographing the crime scene, or for the cost of gathering other evidence. Nor should we bill rape victims just because the crime scene happens to be their bodies." I have an objection of my own to this quote, which is that it is rhetoric; I sought to get some perspective on the law and its makers vs the police chief's bland assertion that he would save taxpayer's money, but this was largely a problem of the subtext in the citation and my edit removes that in any case. The current edit is a whitewash, with even the police chief's hiring being questioned. I return my previous edit under WP:BRR since there has been no discussion, and await comments. There has been no refuting of my arguments at all since the 7th, and none on that date to convince me that, with minor distance given between Fannon and the policy, and Knowles' quote removed, the incident should not be given mention as below:
"Fannon's police dept. charged for rape kits normally given to victims. The policy was at that time legal statewide; it stirred controversy to the extent that the practice was prohibited by the State legislature. Maria Comella, a McCain-Palin campaign spokeswoman, said Palin "does not believe, nor has she ever believed, that rape victims should have to pay for an evidence-gathering test.""
Note that this goes beyond a mere 'he said, she said' confrontation between two mutually exclusive versions of what happened; the M-P spokesman did not refute that Fannon's police dept. charged for the rape kits. This goes to Palin's leadership of subordinates. Anarchangel (talk) 23:20, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Reversion

KC, I really must take issue with this revert of yours. You wrote in the edit summary: "Strong arguments exist for keeping; and most editors seem to lean this way."

Since this is basically new material in the article (inserted yesterday by Jimmuldrow), that means it should be included only with consensus. It doesn't seem right for one editor to put it in and then demand consensus to remove. See WP:BRD. You seem to instead be employing WP:BRRR.

In any event, most editors do not lean the way you say. According to the views expressed at this talk page, you, Anarchangel, Jimmuldrow, and JamesMLane support inclusion. That's four editors for inclusion. On the other hand, the following editors do not believe this merits inclusion in this summary article: Collect, Ferrylodge, Buster7, Zsero, Paul, and Tom. That's six editors. Six seems more than four, to me.Ferrylodge (talk) 22:02, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Not a vote, as you well know. What is your reason for not including? KillerChihuahua^?!? 22:09, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Collect has given no reason that I've seen for removal. Zsero seems to be arguing that unless Fannin admitted something (unclear), it should be removed. Etc. This makes no sense. Seriously, if you have a rationale, people, state it. Don't toss straw men out. KillerChihuahua^?!? 22:11, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

The material is not relevant to the article on Palin. Thanks for making me state it once more. Collect (talk) 22:51, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

As you know, I have explained my rationale above, here, here, and here. You seem to be following WP:BRRR to a tee. Well done, KC, it's just like old times.Ferrylodge (talk) 22:14, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

The first is a very long post with no clear postion, the second rambles on about Croft and whether I think the issue is worth including even if no one paid, etc. etc. Please attempt to do what you have not yet done, which is to state clearly and concisely your rationale for exclusion. Also learn to count. I've made one edit to this article today, which is my very first to this section - and my first since the only other day I edited here, Oct 1 - certainly NOT BRRR. I guess it is like old times - you miscounted then, too. KillerChihuahua^?!? 22:19, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, maybe we can avoid descending into the pit here. Obviously, you are not the only one who has revert-warred this material back into the article today, but let's let bygones be bygones. You obviously feel strongly about this, and that does count for something I suppose (even if you're trampling on wikipolicies to express your strong feelings). The way it is now in the article may be something I could live with. You've mischaracterized my comments above (e.g. my statement that "I was on the fence about this, but now think it should not go in this article" is not an unclear position), but so be it.Ferrylodge (talk) 22:31, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Oh, its a clear position - it just has no clear rationale attached. KillerChihuahua^?!? 22:38, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, I hope my reasons are clear. It does not pass WP:V, WP:RS, or WP:UNDUE, besides the fact that it a transparent tissue of lies woven into a fabric of insinuation having nothing to do with Palin.--Paul (talk) 23:03, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Definitely passes V and RS, CNN and USA Today? Puh-leeze, you must be joking. Undue you have an argument with, altho clearly I do not agree. I think it merits mention, but not a novel. KillerChihuahua^?!? 23:35, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I also oppose inclusion of this. Its intent is obvious on its face (to paint Palin as some bogeyman who sides with rapists), yet it has absolutely no merit in that implication. Even if all the "what ifs" were true about Fannon, and even if women or insurers *were* charged for the kits, there is absolutely no reliable source that says Palin did know or *should* have even known anything about this policy (to any extent more than, say, how often a policeman must test-fire a weapon, detailed booking procedures, etc.) This is pure partisan nonsense and has nothing to do with Palin. Fcreid (talk) 22:45, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm not going to repeat all of the clear rationales that I already provided.  :-)Ferrylodge (talk) 22:44, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

It quite appears we are in the substantial majority on this. Collect (talk) 22:54, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I oppose inclusion per the comment of Fcreid above as well as the rationale provided by Ferrylodge. Also support that material that was once deleted ([8]) is not undeleted or restored, until consensus is reached for inclusion, per the rules regarding the undeletion or restoration of disputed material in biographies.Hobartimus (talk) 23:05, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Three thoughts...1) someone above said there was a single rape in Wasilla during Palin's term in office. Who paid for that single rape kit?....2)-alot of mention of Insurance Companies being billed but not a single mention of the bill being PAID by the Insurance Co. What do Wasilla's books show?....3)PreMarital Sex..yes/no....Rape kits..who pays....elope to marry, elope only, marry only. Would these be issues if it was Sam Palin running for VP? Are we focussed on these female issues because the candidate is a Woman? Just asking.--Buster7 (talk) 23:01, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

http://www.disastercenter.com/alaska/crime/35.htm shows an average of perhaps one rape per annum in Wasilla ("attempted rapes" not counted, but they wouldn't relate to this issue anyway). I hope this factual information helps. Collect (talk) 23:15, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Collect, Thanks for the info, but it shows MORE than one rape per annum from 2000 to 2005. There were 10 rapes during this period. --Buster7 (talk) 05:11, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

From 2000 to 2005 No one was charged for any rape kits. As Wasilla was growing, it is likely that the 2000 number of rapes was comparable to the 1996-1999 level (AFAIK, Palin was not mayor from 2003 to 2005 in any case thus using figures after 2002 is inane). Thus the figure of about one rape per year is correct. As stated. And per cite. Collect (talk) 21:06, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

From Webster's Dictionary...inane-silly or stupid....Not a very nice thing to say to a fellow editor. Borders on incivility. Petulant would have been a better choice. But, I'll consider the source and ignore it! Are you paid to anger the opposition?--Buster7 (talk) 00:18, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

I stated that using figures after Palin's mayoralty to make statements about her mayoralty would be inane. This is not calling any editor inane at all. However, the accusation that ANY editor is being paid is abhorrent, and is a direct personal attack. Perhaos you need the definition of AGF read out again? Byt the way I am not being paid. Nor am I a sock-puppet of Kelly or anyone else as was asserted by one editor. Thank you most kindly. Collect (talk) 00:37, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Yuo may find this link interesting. It gives the response of the current mayor of Wasilla.Ferrylodge (talk) 23:08, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Folks, what do you think of the way it is now in the article? Please remember that we want to minimize drama and maximize happy campers.Ferrylodge (talk) 23:08, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Any mention is more than this merits, but given that Palin was directly asked about the policy and made an associated statement, I would say it summarizes that well. Fcreid (talk) 23:12, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I liked the older (much) version with two sentences -will find a link later if you dunno which I'm talking about - but approve the Palin sentence which has been added. KillerChihuahua^?!? 23:26, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I have no problem with including Palin's statement from the Frontiersman interview, but you'll note that she doesn't actually answer the question she was asked. The concluding language of the question was:

During your tenure as Mayor, what was the police department and city’s standard operating procedure in recovering costs of rape kits? Were any sexual assault victims ever charged for this testing while you were mayor?

Her entire answer is:

The entire notion of making a victim of a crime pay for anything is crazy. I do not believe, nor have I ever believed, that rape victims should have to pay for an evidence-gathering test. As governor, I worked in a variety of ways to tackle the problem of sexual assault and rape, including making domestic violence a priority of my administration.

Thus, she articulates a general policy view, completely ducks the question about what happened while she was Mayor, and tacks on a reference to her actions as Governor, thus bravely standing up to the pro-sexual-assault lobby.

Now, in the limited space of the bio article I don't think we can include the above analysis, although it would be enlightening to the reader. Nevertheless, our current text leaves the impression that Fannon was simply a loose cannon who was popping off about something, and then gives Palin's position, leaving a clear impression that Palin had overruled Fannon. That goes well beyond the evidence. If we're including Palin's self-serving statement about her general position, then we should also include the USA Today report that Palin's spokeswoman wouldn't go as far as the implication of our current text. This declining to comment as of September 10 isn't superseded by the Frontiersman interview because Palin still didn't comment. I'll add the USA Today information to balance the Palin quotation that is included. JamesMLane t c 05:42, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I have just a few minutes and then I'll be off at least until after the debate, possibly longer, so I'll answer just one person for now. Fcreid: Well, duh, of course its supposed to make Palin look bad. Just like her "palling around with a terrorist" was supposed to make Obama look bad, and that is in this article, and almost cerainly in Obama's as well (I don't have time to check right now.) Its how campaigning sometimes works. You say nice things about your candidate(s) and bad things about the opposing candidat(s). I fail to see how your outrage at the obvious is helping us here. The issue has received a good bit of press, very high profile press too, and this is why it should be included. It should be brief and clear, specifically making it clear that Palin's only connection is that she appointed Fnnin. Otherwise people will hear "Paln + rape kit + blah blah" and check here and find nothing. Please clarify why you feel this should be excluded, and try to find something more weighty than "oh, its not flattering, they're trying to smear Palin" because I assure you if we lave that kind of thing out half the political articles we have will be trimmed a good deal. I will post more later, thanks for your patience. KillerChihuahua^?!? 23:24, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I would suggest the following be added, just to make it clear what the source of the information is and state concisely that Palin was responsible for neither more nor less than making the hiring and firing decisions:Jimmuldrow (talk) 16:40, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

According to The Frontiersman, “the Wasilla police department does charge the victims of sexual assault for the tests.” In 2000 Palin’s appointee Fannon argued against House Bill 270, which banned the practice of billing rape victims or their insurance companies for rape kits. Palin said she didn’t know about this and disagreed with it.

I think the above is relevant to Palin because she made the hiring and firing decisions. To say she has no responsibility for results is excessive, even if it wasn't her idea.Jimmuldrow (talk) 16:44, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

My response is simple. This isn't a campaign article. It's her biography. I have no objection to throwing whatever muck you wish into the campaign articles, but I object to its inclusion here as irrelevant (whatever WP policy best serves that, perhaps notability). Fcreid (talk) 23:30, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and I do object to including her shots across Obama's bow being in here also, but at least those are things that are attributable to her. This isn't a collection basket for anything good or bad said about her, no matter how unfounded, untrue or irrelevant. Fcreid (talk) 23:34, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I object to any mention of the issue, since it has nothing to do with her. All we know is that the only reaction of hers that we know about is her rejecting the concept. Did Wasilla have such a policy while she was mayor? None of us know that. We therefore can't know what she may have thought of such a policy at the time. The whole thing is a blood libel, exactly like the Trig-is-her-grandson libel and a dozen other such libels that have been doing the rounds since her nomination. It deserves no mention whatsoever.

Oh, and did you hear the latest? She's Jewish! Because her grandparents' name was Sheeran, and some Nazi site found records of a family name Sheingen living in Lithuania, and decided that these must be the same people who changed their name! I suppose we should mention that too! -- Zsero (talk) 23:46, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the "palling around with a terrorist" shouldn't be in this article, because it's not remarkable that a VP candidate would attack the opposing presidential candidate with one of his most obvious vulnerabilities. That's her job. This is not new; Steve Diamond and Stanley Kurtz have been documenting for months how close Obama and Ayers were, and it would be strange for a VP candidate not to use this. -- Zsero (talk) 00:10, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

One reason her comment miht be significant is that it is one of a few comments that indicate that, contrary to an earlier pledge, the McCain campaign is going negative. It is also significant because she herself has palled around with terrorists. But the only really important proof that it is significant is that it has garnered considerable news coverage. We should summarize it because it has become a significant part of the campaign.

The claim that this is what veep candidates are supposed to do may be true. the claim that this is a reason not to include it is inane. We may as well say, "Since it is McCain's job to run for presidenct, the article on him should make no mention of his campaign," or "since it was Einstein's job to be a physicist, the article on him should not mention any physics." Really. Slrubenstein | Talk 00:44, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

First of all, what pledge not to go negative? When did McCain make such a pledge, and what has it got to do with Palin? Second, huh? Palin has palled around with terrorists? When, exactly? What on earth are you talking about? -- Zsero (talk) 07:30, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

To your first question, since you asked. Tvoz/talk 09:50, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

1. That's his opinion, not Palin's. 2. He can hardly be held to it after Obama ran an ad mocking him for his war injuries. Even Biden thought that was too much, and condemned it at first, but then backtracked and said he was fine with it. After that, it's hardly remarkable that the gloves should come off, even if they weren't always going to in October, which nobody really believes. -- Zsero (talk) 18:56, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

To your second question, and yes I know this is an opinion piece, and I'm not saying it should be the source used in the article but it was one that crossed my screen this morning so I thought I'd inform you - the facts are the facts and you seem unaware of them so, as a public service, here. Tvoz/talk 19:27, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Wow. That is so wrong on so many levels that I don't know quite where to start. In what I think is descending order of importance: 1. I'm not aware of any indication that she ever met Vogler, let alone "palled around" with him, whereas Obama has been very close for many years with Ayers and Dohrn, and the author's claims to the contrary are simply false. That she was associated with a mainstream political party that Vogler founded is not at all similar. 2. Ayers and Dohrn are actual terrorists, just like Tim McVeigh or Osama bin Laden, not merely firebrands talking about revolution. 3. Vogler does not seem to have called for the overthrow of the USA, or to have had any intention of attacking it; he merely wanted it to leave him alone, and was prepared to defend himself if it wouldn't. That attitude, far from being un-American, is essentially American. It's the attitude behind the whole "I love my country but I fear my government" thing. It's why the 2nd Amendment and the Posse Comitatus act exist in the first place. To call this "palling around with terrorists", or to compare it at all with the Obama/Ayers link, is preposterous, even for an opinion piece. -- Zsero (talk) 20:57, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Slrubenstein's general point, but including one particular shot at Obama doesn't convey to the reader that Palin is fulfilling the traditional "attack dog" role. It's both too much and too little information. What about removing that specific blast and replacing it with a general observation from a reliable source that Palin has been giving more emphasis to attacking Obama? JamesMLane t c 05:57, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Addendum: After writing the above, I decided to spend the extra time to find the hypothetical "general observation from a reliable source". I've written a proposed replacement passage, presented below in #Ayers, Obama, & NY Times. Let's have further discussion there, instead of in this thread about rape kits. JamesMLane t c 06:20, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

cite requested

A cite has been requested for Palin hiring Fannin. I know I've seen several in the past, but cannot locate one quickly right now. I did find this, which has several other sources linked and may be helpful to someone who wshes to go thru it. KillerChihuahua^?!? 17:48, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ferrylodge's changes to bridge article highlighted for discussion

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

6) And finally, Don Young's Way. This one FL knew I wouldn't like. This one we've been round and back several times. More than a dozen wikieditors have commented on it, on both sides. I believe more support inclusion than removal, but I recognize there are opinions on both sides. A few days ago, I asked FL for arbitration on this. He went to the BLP noticeboard and there was substantial support for including the brief parenthetical mention I wish to include.[9] FL knew this wasn't "universally acceptable" to delete. I will restore it.GreekParadise (talk) 06:17, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

genealogy

Somehow I don't think Palin's detailed family tree for umpteen generations is an important reference. The simple statement that her father was descended from English and German stock does not really require a family tree, does it? It is neither a matter of dispute nor controversy, but the family tree may be inaccurate in itself, not to mention a splendid example of "reference overkill". Is it really needed? Collect (talk) 12:41, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

This is the English language version Wikipedia, so yes, her paternal ancestry does need to be mentioned. Ottre 12:59, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

This is not Ancestry.com so complete genealogies going back many generations are not appropriate, except perhaps for political dynasties which show influential/rich/powerful ancestors in each generation of a family. Edison (talk) 13:03, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Amazingly enough, my opinion. Collect (talk) 13:04, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Collect and Edison. Ottre's comment is a non-sequito. There is no rule that in the English-language Wikipedia (as opposed to other language WIkipedias?) "paternal ancestry" is especially significant. If the story of how her family came to America or to Alaska is an important part of her political biography - if her campaign is making it an issue - then it should go int he article. Otherwise, not. Slrubenstein | Talk 13:24, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Ought just the reference be removed? I can find absolutely no campaign reference to it as an issue for sure. Collect (talk) 13:57, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't see any harm in keeping it. It's just one sentence, and some people are interested in that sort of thing. Coemgenus 14:33, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Then just the family tree reference departs this vale of tears? Ought her mother's Irish ancestry be added if the father's is noted? Collect (talk) 15:31, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Both sides ought to be noted, briefly, and the citation retained (since it's the source for that information.) Coemgenus 16:00, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

The family tree does not state, other than by inference, much about Palin's lineage, and definitely is not the type of reference found inthe other articles on candidates. If it were common to have such a reference, your point might be stronger. It isn't and isn't. Collect (talk) 16:16, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Biden's article links to that very site, and McCain's and Obama's used to, until better sources were found. Coemgenus 16:30, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Then find the better source ... seems simple. The current sentence about ancestry seems ample to me. Collect (talk) 16:36, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm content to let it stand without a source, but since I'm not the one who deleted it, it's not my job to find a better one. Coemgenus 16:38, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

[unindent for new discussion] I think this sentence ought to be deleted: "Sarah Palin is also a distant cousin of Franklin D. Roosevelt and Princess Diana." I know that it is sourced and accurate, but it's truly inconsequential -- millions of Americans are ninth and tenth cousins to famous folks. It means you have a common ancestor 350 to 400 years ago. I doubt this has any effect on Palin's life or career, or that she even knew about it. I've already deleted it once, and I don't want to edit war about it. Coemgenus 11:13, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Problem is that this claim applies to somewhat over thirty million Americans. Possibly more when you consider the relationship is in the 10th generation or more back. http://www.usaweekend.com/02_issues/021124/021124mayflower.html I suppose we could list all thirty million relatives .... I agree with the deletion.Collect (talk) 11:49, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Collect and think it's mere trivia. I moved it to be with the paragraph about her family, but I really think it should go. --Evb-wiki (talk) 12:59, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Aerial Hunting

Why no mention of it ? Let your barbarism shine on through.... Abraxas72 (talk) 07:06, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

It's mentioned in the article on her governorship. It's not nearly significant enough to merit mention in the main article. Your opinion that it's barbaric is your opinion, not a generally accepted fact. The majority of Alaskans disagree with you. -- Zsero (talk) 07:30, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

The majority of wolves, not to mention wildlife groups, however, do not. Tvoz/talk 17:49, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

The majority of elk and caribou side with Palin on this issue. TheGoodLocust (talk) 18:00, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

The Alaska native population that hunt elk and caribou for sustenance side with Palin on this issue. And in reference to the question, it is in THIS article and has been for a long time. --Paul (talk) 18:41, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I didn't address whether it was or should be in the article - I was merely replying to the assertion that it's not generally accepted that aerial hunting is barbaric. Tvoz/talk 22:26, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

The Golden Flurry

...And the number of edits for day 1 of the Least Concise Editing Style / WP:BRR Competition are:

Grsz	12
Ferrylodge	11
Buster7	9
Bobblehead	5
Zsero	5
Greek Paradise	4
Anarchangel	2
Jimmuldrow	2
Hobartimus	1
Killerchihuaha	1

Number of times WP:BRR was used in edit summary or Discussion to describe another's edits: 3, all by Ferrylodge, to describe Killerchihuaha's edits. Seeing as Grsz did 5 edits in the space of 25 minutes, I think we can safely hand him at least the Least Concise Editing Style half of the award. Now we just have to figure out how to split a flurry. Anarchangel (talk) 11:27, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

You'll have to take into account that FL has a strong dislike for me, personally. He views my attempts to ensure policy is followed, in instances where that unfortunately prevents his rewriting articles to his POV, as personal. It isn't, but he personalizes it anyway. Also, he was once blocked for harassing me, which one would think would encourage him to back off on the senseless accusations, but apparently not. Meh. KillerChihuahua^?!? 15:52, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree with that last sentence only, KC.Ferrylodge (talk) 19:16, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Grins, you agree with "meh"? /humor KillerChihuahua^?!? 12:36, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. :-)Ferrylodge (talk) 17:04, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I found the page on Ice Cream first ... if you want to have fun, look at the prior weeks for the Palin article. Better yet, how about a "most number of lines in Talk" competition? One archive has nearly 700 lines from a single editor, if I recall correctly. The simple count system is not really accurate for being "least concise" as edits made in different sections pretty much have to be made separately. If you try multiple section edits, you will almost invariably hit "edit conflict" on an active page. At ehich point you need to re-enter each and every edit if you try doing them all at once. In other words, the BRRR issue was more relevant three weeks ago than it currently is. Clear? Collect (talk) 12:25, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

No. KillerChihuahua^?!? 15:53, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Clear. And I'm sure, an effective strategy to avoid Edit Conflict. Scoring low as I did, perhaps I shouldn't give myself a handicap in the Golden Flurry competition :o) but since editing from the top of the page to edit the whole page at once means fewer edits, I find it both, better for the sake of the edit page history conciseness and fewer waits for my edit to upload, albeit one slightly longer wait. Besides, I haven't ever hit an edit conflict on the main page. Maybe it is the time of day I edit. Anarchangel (talk) 01:01, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Pronunciation

This may have been mentioned somewhere in the vast and intimidating archives, but the pronunciation given for her last name seems rather strange; ɨ is a rare sound in English, and I always assumed that the "i" in her name was pronounced ɪ. Is there a source for the pronunciation? A. Parrot (talk) 02:56, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

The English Wikipedia IPA pronunciations try to represent multiple dialects (and remember that the representation is phonemic, not phonetic). The Palin pronunciation here used to have /ɪ/, but someone changed it to /ɨ/ because /ɪ/ generally doesn't exist in English in unstressed syllables. If your dialect doesn't distinguish between /ɨ/ and /ə/, then you can just consider it to be /ə/. —KCinDC (talk) 03:07, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Biography Picture

The picture of Palin at the top of the page is pixelated, and obviously not her best shot. Is there another which can be used? 68.43.91.73 (talk) 15:43, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I and several others have been trying to come up wih something better. No luck yet.Zaereth (talk) 16:22, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Good point, 68.43.91.73. Many of us, like you, would prefer a more pixelated one, and/or one taken from considerably further away by a child using a disposable camera with a smear of jam on the lens. Look on the bright side, however: this shot replaces a much sharper and closer one. (Fortunately Alaska Nell's cheerleaders objected to the sharper, closer one on grounds of clothing material, general informality, head angle (to camera right), and (the clincher) insufficient hotness. It can now be seen at the top of the Political positions of Sarah Palin article. Don't go there if you know what's good for you.) — Writegeist (talk) 19:22, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

How about a serious comment to improve this article? Collect (talk) 19:25, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

OK, shoot. Writegeist (talk) 22:56, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Seriously, what kind of bullshit is this?

There are some heavy big inaccuracies on the Gravina bridge, which I'll get to later when I have more time, but why the hell would you mix up the Knik Arm bridge in the discussion? It seems like a slimy way of linking the two projects, and anyone in Alaska can tell you that the Knik arm isn't a bridge to nowhere in any shape or form.

Essentially, the only direction for Anchorage to grow is in the direction of Wasilla, a lot of people commute from the Wasilla area, and the bulk of Alaskan population driving to Anchorage comes from the Wasilla direction. This is not a bridge to nowhere and is vital to the growth of Anchorage - linking it with the Gravina bridge is flat out dishonest. And I don't get why a "study" that apparently isn't even completed is included as some sort of accusation that the bridge will affect Beluga whales - the whales can swim around the bridge. It isn't like it is a dam or anything. TheGoodLocust (talk) 17:38, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you on point, but this topic has been discussed probably more than any other in Wikipedia, (I've been watching this from the beginning). For verifiablity, you need to find this information printed in a reliable source. Original reasearch is not allowed.Zaereth (talk) 18:04, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I guess I'll look when I have some time to do research, but a lot of this is just common knowledge to anyone whose been to Alaska for any length of time. Why would someone put something so obvious into print?TheGoodLocust (talk) 18:32, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

As I understand it, and I honestly don't think it belongs in there either, the issue is that they were attached jointly in the earmark, so the fate of was was linked to the fate of the other. Or some other such something. Aprock (talk) 21:58, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately some are very determined to link the two projects together. Hobartimus (talk) 18:05, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Without violaiting WP:AGF, it is possible that some have invested thousands upon thousands of lines in order to wear everybidy else down. My hands are up at this point. Collect (talk) 18:42, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Trust me when I say I would be more than happy for it to be clear even to the risk of redundancy that there are two separate bridges. I honestly can't see what benefit to either Republicans or Democrats there could be in conflating them that isn't weightily balanced by a drawback. If it looks like she only supported one bridge to nowhere, then it looks like she is still supporting something she said she had opposed, and vice versa.

The whales item was last inserted by Ferrylodge, which may well have been an olive branch on his part, I can't claim to know his motivation. Anarchangel (talk) 01:01, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Any research you do, TheGoodLocust, would be greatly appreciated. There are many good people here who've been defending your position, but as Collect states, this issue seems to have become a contest of who can hold out the longest. I'm from Alaska, so I know what you say to be true, but have not been able to find the time to thoroughly research the news articles. Fortunately/Unfortunately, (insert your pick here), Wikipedia is about verifiablity not the truth. I'll look too, when I can find the time, but with winter coming on and all ... Zaereth (talk) 21:30, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate the fresh insight into this topic that has percolated for weeks and routinely boiled over. Unfortunately, truth routinely rides in the backseat here. As long as some newspaper is willing to print nonsense in the attempt to grind a political axe, there are those here who will champion that nonsense. I've given up hope and no longer wasting time here. Maybe after the election is over, someone will actually straighten the record. I'm I'm not holding my breath. Fcreid (talk) 22:11, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

There has got to be a reliable source - an ALaskan newspaper, for example? - that has made these points and can be used as a basis to put them in. None of us want bullshit, and if something is common knowledge in Alaska, and is relevant to Palin's career as mayor of Governor, it should go in here. The problem is, what is common knowledge in Alaska is NOT elsewhere. And this is precisely why we have a WP:V policy. Since this article is primarily read by people who do not share in this common knowledge, we need more concrete evidence. And I have faith that if it really is common knowledge it has been published in some legitimate mainstream venue in Alaska. So I join in encouraging TheGoodLocust to find a reliable source for this point. Slrubenstein | Talk 22:58, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Ferrylodge has presented several sources on the fundamental differences between the two bridges, SLR. They were all trumped because someone (GreekParadise) found something that he felt could link the two bridges in the same debacle. That's why I never contributed to that discussion. It was nonsense from the start. I'll be honest on why I've given up, though. This article won't hesitate ten seconds to include the number of pimples on Palin's ass if someone can find a NYT or Newsweek article that prints that. Yet, it's been three days with the Obama-Ayers connection playing headlines in virtually every MSM outlet -- and the word "Ayers" doesn't appear in that article. There are two standards at play on WP here. I'll admit I feel a bit disenfranchised with this as my first exposure to WP, but I really hope I did try to make it work. I deeply appreciate there are those like yourself who are sincere and objective in building these articles. The model just doesn't work for topics like this due to a litany of forces outside of our control. Fcreid (talk) 23:06, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and so not to be one to criticize without suggestion for improvement, one main point of WP order would be to prohibit users from being editorial stakeholders in more than one candidate's article during an election cycle. Basically, force editors to stake claim as "polishers" or "tarnishers" and then prohibit them from doing the opposite on the opposition candidate's articles. I see that as the biggest problem, and one need only look on the current talk page here and contrast it with the current Obama talk page to see those who lunge at every opportunity to smear one yet rabidly defend against tarnishing on the other. I'm sure even that rule could be abused by "behind the scenes" coordination among editors, but it would obviate some of the worst offenders... because face it folks, none of us is purely objective if we're on a candidate's article. In fact, I'm not convinced it's within the human psyche to be purely objective. Fcreid (talk) 00:00, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Is it better to establish the difference between the two bridges (how would that even be done?) or take out Don Young all together? Grsz^X 00:03, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Here are some examples of articles out there which describe the sort of problem Anchorage is having with congestion on the Glenn Hwy. One article is about another project, also intended to relieve congestion, but it has good statistics on the number of cars traveling down that hwy everyday, (far more than just the population of Wasilla). I'm sure I can find a lot more, given the time. Something a lot of people don't realize, Alaska is a vast expanse of wilderness disected by two heavily populated roadways, which both converge into one just south of Wasilla. Populations between towns often excedes the populations in them. http://www.adn.com/anchorage/story/485111.html http://www.adn.com/news/alaska/story/535145.html http://matsuvalleynews.com/pr156.html Also, Wasilla gets alot of its money from its sales tax, directed at the tourist dollar. A highway which could potentionally cause tourist traffic, mainly going to Denali National Park from Anchorage, to bypass Wasilla, thus cutting 80 mile off their trip, is not necessarily in everybody's best interest there. I'll check the liabrary for more info as soon as my time allows for it.Zaereth (talk) 00:04, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I have done two things. First, I reorganized the section. My only intention was to remove redundancies and a couple of non-sequitors, and to arrange the material chonologically, and to keep the two bridge issues separate. I believe that the result accurately reflects the sources and complies with our policies, but I would very much like to know whether GreekParadise, KC and others think I am wrong. I have also added one of Zaereth's references which seemed most relevantl, and summarized the controvery at the local level. If the article is going to claim that this is controversial, we need to explain why, and I thought this article introduced by Zaereth provides a good account. I would very much like to know from Zaereth and Fcreid if they view my edits as improvements. Obviously if you do not think they are please explain why. If you feel that my changes did not go far enough, I would propose that Fcreid and Zaereth make a specific proposal on this talk page and we can see if we can work out a consensus. Fcreid, i genuinely hope you will involve yourself in this. Slrubenstein | Talk 01:12, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I have a lot of problems with these recent changes, and am inclined to revert back.

First of all, there is material here about the 2008 campaign: "Recently, a new controvery has errupted over alleged differences between Sarah Palin's positions as a gubenatorial candidate and her position as a vice-presidential candidate. In 2006, Palin ran for governor with a 'build-the-bridge' plank in her platform, supporting the use of state and federal funds to construct the two bridges." This seems redundant to the material in the campaign section of this article. This bridge section of the article begins with "See also: Use of 'Bridge to Nowhere' in 2008 campaign" so why put the material in this section also? That seems very redundant.

Also I have difficulty with launching into this whole section without mentioning that Palin had not become Governor yet, It makes this sound like she requested and supported the earmarks: "In 2005, a $442-million Senate earmark for bridge construction was passed as part of an omnibus spending bill...."

Also, a previous version of this article said that Congress rejected the earmarks and decided to give the money no-strings attached. Yet, the first sentence of this section now says that the earmark was passed, without citation.Ferrylodge (talk) 02:19, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Additionally, the following new sentences are very confusing: "She did maintain her support for the Gravina Island Highway, committing $25 million in federal funds to the project, and directed state officials to explore other ways to use federal funding to provide access to the island,[107][106] saying through her spokesperson that it would open territory for development.[108]. Nevertheless, while campaigning for vice-president Palin disavowed support for 'the bridge to nowhere' as an example of her opposition to pork barrel spending."

This is very confusing because she only maintained her support for a road on the Island, not an entire highway that would connect the island to the mainland, and this is now very unclear. Moreover, it's now very unclear what "would open territory for development." Correct answer: the road on the island. Additionally, the word "Nevertheless" indicates some contradiction, whereas there is no contradiction between supporting the road on the island and opposing the bridge.Ferrylodge (talk) 02:36, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Of course I read the talk page. The only concern I have with the new wording is the use of "nevertheless". ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:50, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Well thanks for explaining your reasoning, I really appreciate that you addressed the various points I mentioned.</sarcasm>Ferrylodge (talk) 02:52, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Ferrylodge, Sarcasm is not a sign of good faith. I do not understand you ropposition to the changes I made. It seems as if you use "consensus" as a disguised way to indicate your failure to WP:AGF. I made changtes in good faith. As I explaine most of my changtes did not afect content, but rather eliminated redundancies and clarified matters by distinguishing between the two bridges and by arranging material more chornologically. I took pains to keep material you considered important. I added material others considered material. Now tell me, do you thihk any of the material i added violates Wikipedia policy? Do you think any of my edits violate Wikipedia policy? If so by all means explain them here. But please do not abuse the concept of consensus. Consensus is a spirit fo collaboration, not a demand that edits require unanimity, there is NO Wikipedia policty demanding this. I am convinced my revision is better than the previous version. Can we make it even better? Let's try! But while we are trying, let's not restore an inferior version. Let's just discuss ways to keep improving it ... like we do with other Wikipedia articles. You make specific suggestions for improving it. I do not see why these suggestiond call for a revert, it seems pretty simple to me to improve the article based on your discussions. I really have no idea why, when you see simple ways to improve the article, you simply revert. It is as if you reject collaborative editing. Slrubenstein | Talk 02:58, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Like Jossi, you have not responded to the specific points I addressed. If you want to make this about personal attacks and that sort of thing, I would rather not participate in the discussion. How about responding to the specific points I addressed?Ferrylodge (talk) 03:00, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

That is because I went back to the article to actually implement some of your suggestions. My response was explicit: improve rather than revert.

But now I will respond to you so-called objections many of which are disingenuous and misleading.

Also, a previous version of this article said that Congress rejected the earmarks and decided to give the money no-strings attached. Yet, the first sentence of this section now says that the earmark was passed, without citation.Ferrylodge (talk) 02:19, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Really? When you reverted, you added the very sentence you now criticize: "In 2005, a $442-million Senate earmark for bridge construction was passed as part of an omnibus spending bill." The fact is, the first sentence of the revision came directly from the previous version, and is in the verion you reverted to. My revision did not add this content. The sentence you claim is missing now ends the paragraph. Why? it makes sense to explain what the earmarked legislation was for, before explaining that the earmark was later removed.

Additionally, the following new sentences are very confusing: "She did maintain her support for the Gravina Island Highway, committing $25 million in federal funds to the project, and directed state officials to explore other ways to use federal funding to provide access to the island,[107][106] saying through her spokesperson that it would open territory for development.[108]. Nevertheless, while campaigning for vice-president Palin disavowed support for 'the bridge to nowhere' as an example of her opposition to pork barrel spending."

Nothing confusing since the point of the paragraph is that the sources cited point to a difference between her position when campaigning for governor and her position when campaining for veep.

This is very confusing because she only maintained her support for a road on the Island, not an entire highway that would connect the island to the mainland, and this is now very unclear. Moreover, it's now very unclear what "would open territory for development." Correct answer: the road on the island. Additionally, the word "Nevertheless" indicates some contradiction, whereas there is no contradiction between supporting the road on the island and opposing the bridge.

This is what you added when you reverted me "She also went ahead with spending $25 million in federal funds to build a controversial Gravina Island Highway." So you see, the claim that she only maintained her support for the road, not the highway, was in the previous version and the version you reverted to. My version did not add this content.

These are my responses to your so-called points. I grant that you may still have constructive ideas about how to improve the article. But if you want to participate in the consensus process, you need to be willing to make constructive suggestions and be willing to work with others to improve the article. Slrubenstein | Talk 03:11, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Did you also want to respond to the following, or not?

First of all, there is material here about the 2008 campaign: "Recently, a new controvery has errupted over alleged differences between Sarah Palin's positions as a gubenatorial candidate and her position as a vice-presidential candidate. In 2006, Palin ran for governor with a 'build-the-bridge' plank in her platform, supporting the use of state and federal funds to construct the two bridges." This seems redundant to the material in the campaign section of this article. This bridge section of the article begins with "See also: Use of 'Bridge to Nowhere' in 2008 campaign" so why put the material in this section also? That seems very redundant.

Ferrylodge (talk) 03:18, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

sure: links are ... links. I added contexnt so that readers would clearly see the context. greece requested somnething like this; it makes the text clearer, and serves our audience better. It does not violate NPOV. It does not violate V. it does not violate NOR. This article includes content YOU like. But you do not WP:OWN the article. You have to get used to accepting content other people like, as long as it doesn't violate policy. Slrubenstein | Talk 03:23, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

The link is to another section of the very same article. Why do you think it's a good idea to cover the 2008 campaign in two different sections redundantly? Repeating material twice seems to be a clear case of WP:Undue weight. Either all the bridge material should go in the bridge section, or the 2008 campaign material should be broken out into the separate section. Repeating it both places is very bad editing, if you will permit me to say so.Ferrylodge (talk) 03:27, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

In response to the question at the top of the thread, "why the hell would you mix up the Knik Arm bridge in the discussion?" (asked by TheGoodLocust), the answer, as Aprock pointed out, is that they were discussed together in connection with the federal earmark dispute. See, for example, the story "Two 'Bridges to Nowhere' Tumble Down in Congress" in the New York Times. What we've done is to explain that the Gravina Island Bridge would go to a lightly populated island, that the Knik Arm Bridge would be related to access to Anchorage, and that the term "Bridge to Nowhere" is generally applied to the former and only rarely to the latter. What revision do you think should be made? Are you suggesting that the Knik Arm Bridge must be omitted from this article altogether? It should be in here and it makes sense to address it in the same section as the other bridge. Comprehensive discussion of the pro-and-con arguments for each bridge is inappropriate for the Palin bio, but can be found in the wikilinked daughter articles. JamesMLane t c 03:29, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

The problem with the federl earmark dispute is: it provides important context for the controversy concerning Palin. But it is not about Palin herself. I think that linked article should be fully explicated in another article, but here, the focus should be on palin's positions, and, as I said, refer to other debates (in congress, in Anchorage0 insofar as it provides context readers need to know to follow the issues. Slrubenstein | Talk 03:43, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm not saying that the pros and cons of the federal earmark dispute in 2005 should be covered in depth in this article. I'm just answering the question about why the Knik Arm Bridge became a significant matter of controversy, such that this article should cover Palin's record with regard to that proposal. It's important because of the dispute that preceded her election as Governor. I agree that the details about whether the Knik Arm Bridge deserved federal funding should be left to the daughter article. JamesMLane t c 21:35, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Ferrylodge, your most recent edits are I think very constructive, thanks. Slrubenstein | Talk 03:46, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Please respond to my comment above: "The link is to another section of the very same article. Why do you think it's a good idea to cover the 2008 campaign in two different sections redundantly? Repeating material twice seems to be a clear case of WP:Undue weight. Either all the bridge material should go in the bridge section, or the 2008 campaign material should be broken out into the separate section. Repeating it both places is very bad editing, if you will permit me to say so."Ferrylodge (talk) 03:52, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I just made a change. if i understnad you corrently it respolves this issu. i might add you could have done this yourself. My principle was simple and i think obvious: I moved material from the section that had the lesser amount of content, and moved it to the section that had the most content. In any event I think all bridge-related contact is now together. honestly, you could have done this yourself. Why revert to a version you yourself didn't believe in, when you could simply have fixed the problems you saw? What pleadure do you get from reverting others, that you do not get from making your own improvements to the article? Slrubenstein | Talk 03:56, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I see that you've gone ahead and removed the bridge material from the section on her 2008 campaign, and you've removed the seealso at the top of the bridge section. Has it occurred to you that perhaps other editors (such as myself) preferred having the seealso in the article? After all, someone put it there, so perhaps there was an editor who has a different opinion from your own. Why do you insist on doing all this without discussion? Do you understand why it's helpful to discuss major changes before you make them? I have not tried to WP:OWN this article. If you'll read the edit summary when I first reverted you this evening, I appealed for some discussion at the talk page. I was not insisting on everything being done my way, but merely was appealing for some duiscussion before you unilaterally make major changes. As for your suggestion that I could have done myself what you just did, I did not do it for two reasons: (1) I disagree with it, and (2) it had not been proposed at the talk page. If you would like to know why, please revert yourself, and I'd be glad to discuss why.

I think it's much better to keep the 2008 campaign bridge material in the 2008 campaign section.Ferrylodge (talk) 04:01, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Ferrylodge, if you want to keep the 2008 Campaign material in the 2008 Campaign section, that is fine with me. But please, stop playing games. Please stop making antagonistic comments when others try to improve the article. You Worte - thise are your own words "Either all the bridge material should go in the bridge section, or the 2008 campaign material should be broken out into the separate section." That means you considered two options acceptable, and either one better than the previous version. I picked one of your two suggestions and acted on it. Then you got upset because I chose one of your suggestions. You could have avoided all of this if you said "I prefer to keep the 2008 campaign material in the 2008 section." But you did not state that, in fact, you suggested the alternative. So do not get bitchy when another editor in the spirit of compromise picks one of your suggestions and makes and edit. If you think I misunderstood you then be WP:CIVIL and assume my good faith and say "SR, I see you misunderstood me. I did not express my preference clearly. This is my preference and I am making the appropriate edit." You have mentioned consensus several times yet you have not acted like someone who has any interest in working in a consensus process, which requires assuming good faith. I assumed you were acting in good faith when you wrote "Either all the bridge material should go in the bridge section, or the 2008 campaign material should be broken out into the separate section." Even if I misunderstood you and another edit was required, well, that is how consensus building editing works. But you have to be willing to assume good faith as well. Slrubenstein | Talk 12:59, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

You're not going to get very far accusing me of bad faith in one breath and calling me bitchy in the next. If you would discuss and explain your massive edits at the talk page, instead of making them without discussion (and instead of then edit-warring those massive changes back into the article befrore addressing objections at the talk page), then things would go more smoothly for you.

I stated: "This bridge section of the article begins with 'See also: Use of Bridge to Nowhere in 2008 campaign", so why put the material in this section also?" I obviously never suggested getting rid of the seealso.Ferrylodge (talk) 17:11, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

"Bridges to Nowhere?"

I understand that this is wikipedia and changes will be made, but I and many others strongly believe the title of the sectio should include the term "Bridge to Nowhere" or "Bridges to Nohwere". This was the subject of a very very very long discussion and request for comment some weeks back and the general consensus was that the term should be in the title of the section as it has been for all of 2 months, absent a day here or there, since the day Young Trigg created it. Ferrylodge and I and many many others had a long discussion about it. Since "Bridge to Nowhere" is so famous, many people coming to this article will be looking for the term. I recognize the term is pejorative but since Palin and McCain use it, along with Democrats, I think it should remain. I'm thinking perhaps of putting a question mark in the title so as to make clear that we editors are not making any judgments about whether these bridges go "nowhere." After all, there are good reasons to build both bridges as well as good reasons against them.GreekParadise (talk) 13:27, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I tried the ? and it didn't look right in preview. I put in "so-called" to hopefully address the concerns of bridge supporters who don't think they go to "nowhere." I also put the term in quotations to emphasize that this is only one view. In other words, I've tried to decrease the POV of "bridges to nowhere" as much as possible while still including the term which is far more well-known nationwide than either "Gravina Island" or "Knik Arm."GreekParadise (talk) 13:33, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Saw KillerChi's change to title and like it.GreekParadise (talk) 13:43, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

As long as several Alaskan reliable sources used the term "bridge to nowhere" before or while Palin was Governor, I agree that the phrase should be in the title. If people used the phrase only after she was nominated for veep, then it should not be in the title. Slrubenstein | Talk 14:21, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

For what it's worth, here in British Columbia, I heard them talking about "Bridge to Nowhere" during and before the Alaskan governor campaign. Of course this is WP:OR, but I'm sure there must be some news article with appropriate dates. --Kickstart70-T-C 14:26, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

And here one is, from April 2006, months before she was elected governor. More can be found at this time-limited Google News search. --Kickstart70-T-C 14:31, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

There are many, many sources that used "bridge to nowhere" long before Palin was governor. And McCain himself used the term in condemning the project before she was nominated for veep. Let me know if you need sources.GreekParadise (talk) 14:42, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

(undent)I shortened the heading to what existed for quite a while after considerable discussion among myself, GreekParadise, and others: "'Bridge to Nowhere' and Knik Arm Bridge". The heading should not imply that the Knik Arm Bridge is often known as a "Bridge to Nowhere" (the term "Bridge to Nowhere" is often used for the Gravina proposal but is not often used for the Knik Arm proposal).Ferrylodge (talk) 17:22, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Ferrylodge's restoration of the heading "'Bridge to Nowhere' and Knik Arm Bridge". Putting the term in quotation marks correctly conveys that we're not asserting it's a bridge to nowhere, which would be POV. Instead, we're asserting only that it's often called that, which is undeniable fact. JamesMLane t c 21:40, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

My preference remains: "Bridge to Nowhere": Gravina Island Bridge and Knik Arm Bridge. I find htis term helpfully ambiguous. It is phrased in the singular, so perhaps it's just referring to the first bridge mentioned (Gravina Island), or maybe it's referring to both bridges. And that's an accurate portrayal of the situation. According to Google, "Knik Arm Bridge" is mentioned 15,600 times, of which an astounding 12,200 (or 78%) mention "Bridge to Nowhere." Now it's true that some of these mentions might be referring to Gravina, but as I review them, most of them refer to Knik Arm also as a "bridge to nowhere". The problem with "Bridge to Nowhere" and Knik Arm Bridge is it appears to take the (incorrect) POV that the Knik Arm Bridge is never called "Bridge to Nowhere," when Knik Arm Bridge, fairly or not, is referred to that way a solid majority of the time. Nevertheless, I won't change it back. Some time ago, Ferrylodge pressed me extremely hard to agree with him about the title, and even though I thought it inaccurate then and think so even more so now, I agreed then that I wouldn't be the one that changed it. But I do put out the Google numbers and argument for others to review and change it if enough editors are so inclined. (FYI, the text is accurate that even though Knik Arm is often called "bridge to nowhere", Gravina Island is far more famous and far more often referred to with that moniker. So it's just a question of the title.)GreekParadise (talk) 03:41, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

What about the controversy with the birth of Trig Palin?

Shouldn't it be mentioned? MSM is now noting the well-documented, strange trip home to give birth. At the very least it seems it should be documented as a controversy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.199.155.210 (talk) 20:57, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

This has been discussed to death, and the consensus was against inclusion since most of it was disproven or pure conjecture. You may review the archives of past discussion to see how this came about. »S0CO^{(talk|contribs)} 20:59, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I am for including it since we can discuss how despite there being video tape of Sarah Palin being pregnant at the time and despite the fact that the odds of having a Down's kid are about 1 in 20 for Sarah and 1 in 2000 for Bristol the left-wing blogosphere and media have a scandalous feeding frenzy of unsubstantiated and obviously false rumors while not vetting Barack Obama. So again, yes, let's include the "controversy." TheGoodLocust (talk) 21:39, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

--66.69.114.203 (talk) 21:41, 9 October 2008 (UTC)AdelaZusind

TheGoodLocust, perhaps you are new to Wikipedia. I urge you to read WP:BLP and WP:NOR, key policies relevant to your wish. NOR is a core content policy that forbids original research, meaning, in this case, drawing conclusions from primary sources that those sources themselves do not make ... which seems to be precisely what you are doing. BLP makes clear that if we want to add ANY biographical information to an article that may be inflammatory or sensationalist, we MUST have verifiable, reliable sources that support that material. The sources you mention do not count, because they are what NOR calls "primary sources." We need an authoritative statement from a respected source for this, or it just cannot go in. Yes, we should cover controversies - but controversies that are significant in the context of this article, which is notable because of Palin's political career and campaign. I do not see that Obama or Biden have made this controversy a campaign issue, so I fail to see how this kind of controversy is significant enough to justify including in this article, while complying with our policy about biographical material. Slrubenstein | Talk 23:03, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Believe his suggestion was sarcasm in response to the IP's request. Fcreid (talk) 23:15, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

A specific suggestion

There was consensus that the speculation as to Trig's parentage was not worth including. There was no consensus on the much different proposition that the unusual circumstances of his birth were not worth including. The latter got swept up in the former. Now that the speculation has gone away, however, perhaps we can restore the information that was prominently reported in the media at the time. A version that was in our article at one point read as follows:

Palin's announcement in March 2008 that she was seven months pregnant generated publicity and surprise, as did the circumstances of Trig's birth. More than a month before the baby was due, she was in Texas to deliver the keynote address at a conference. At about 4:00 a.m. local time, she began leaking amniotic fluid. She remained in Texas to deliver the speech before taking the eight-hour flight back to Alaska. She landed in Anchorage at 10:30 p.m. and arrived at the Mat-Su Valley Regional Medical Center an hour later. She gave birth at 6:30 a.m. the next day after her physician induced labor. Palin returned to work three days later.

That could doubtless be improved in many ways, but it's basically sound; it conveys, in NPOV fashion, a significant event in her life, all grounded on reliable sources. I gave up on the whole issue when any mention of Trig brought out the posse hunting for anything related to speculative stuff. Perhaps now we can revisit the issue more calmly? JamesMLane t c 03:38, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I continue to hear this discussed on the news, so it seems significant enough to include. Slrubenstein | Talk 03:48, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. There's no explanation in your proposed text why this is notabale enough for this article. Leaking amniotic fluid doesn't seem like something that the internet users of the world would need or want to know about, any more than they would want the details about the events that occurred in bed nine months earlier.Ferrylodge (talk) 04:05, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

The standard is this: the article has to include all significant points of view that come from verifiable sources (WP:NPOV). It is not for us editors to decide whether these claims about Palin are significant. It is however up to us to decide whether the view (made by others in the public sphere) is significant. One measure of significance is persistent coverage in national news media. JamesMLane, I have a suggestion for improvement: we need to be clearer that the significance of this is debate over the way Palin has balanced the needs of her baby with her professional life. In order to do this, we need to show that this debate or discussion has in fact been a part of, or the object of, significant media coverage. I think we need more reliable sources to show that this discussion has occurred in more news outlets over a longer period of time. If we have sources to support this, it is therefore significant enough to include. If we do not find sources to support this, then it is not significant. Either way, the significance is determined by the sources, nbot our own political beliefs. Slrubenstein | Talk 13:06, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Everyone seems to have their own definition of consensus, but the last time this was discussed one editor wanted to insert it and six editors were opposed. And as to the news, a quick look at Google News shows no significant discussion of this matter for the last three weeks. It seems that editors want to prove the point recently made on this page: "This article won't hesitate ten seconds to include the number of pimples on Palin's ass if someone can find a NYT or Newsweek article that prints that." I was opposed to including the information on Trig's birth as insignificant tabloidism unworthy of encyclopedic notice and I haven't changed my mind.--Paul (talk) 13:28, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

If there has been no significant discussion of this in the news for the past three weeks, I would agree with you that the information does not meet the standard for inclusion. Slrubenstein | Talk 14:24, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

In other words, this material won't get in for the same reason it was removed before -- that everyone persists in seeing this bio article as a campaign document. The issue isn't the debate that arose because some people (including at least one expert) were critical of "the way Palin has balanced the needs of her baby with her professional life." I don't think that debate, at least as to her flight from Texas, is all that major. No, the reason to include it is that it was a significant event in her life and was reported in the Anchorage Daily News (not commonly considered a tabloid) back when no one was paying attention to her possible national candidacy. Leaking amniotic fluid is common; giving birth thousands of miles away from where that happens is not common. Her flight under these conditions is interesting along the same lines as her juvenile moose-hunting forays. No one has a problem about leaving the hunting in. The only reason this is treated differently is that it got wrapped up in attacks on Palin and so people are determined to exclude it. The version I seek to restore doesn't include the observations of the prominent ob/gyn who criticized Palin's decision, it doesn't include the way she was praised (from the podium at the RNC and on Meet the Press) as "one tough lady" for traveling under these conditions, and it certainly doesn't include the speculation about whether Trig is her son. It's just a straightforward factual report. For that reason, "discussion of this in the news for the past three weeks" is not the relevant test. The cited sources show that it was discussed when it happened. If there were a consensus to go through this article and purge all material not discussed in the news in the last three weeks, the article would shrink considerably. This item is still being treated differently because of a misguided ardor to protect Palin from attack. It isn't an attack, but apparently the emotion is still so strong that giving our readers this information will have to wait until after the election. JamesMLane t c 21:54, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I think your argument is quite right, James. The last three weeks news should not be at all relevant - the only determinant about whether something should be included in the article is its relative weight and importance in her whole life. Not its relevance to her candidacy. The circumstances surrounding the baby's birth of course are relevant to her life - flying thousands of miles once amniotic fluid is leaking is extraordinary, and inferences from it that are properly sourced are reasonable to include in her biography. They reveal something about her, and yes, in another month we'll be able to have a more reasonable discussion about it. Tvoz/talk 22:19, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I never meant to suggest this is only an article about a politician campaigning. Far from it! It is the omnibus article on Palin, the one most people will go to when they google her, and it should reflect the richness of her personal and public life. That said, when adding biographical information to this article if there is any chance people will see the material as sensationalist or a serious violation of privacy or assault on someone's dignity, we have to have a convincing argument that it (1) meets NPOV's significance standard and (2) meets the strictest RS standards. If you can make these arguments, you have my support, and ought to have the support of others. Slrubenstein | Talk 22:56, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

A sad farewell

I'm removing the content of this section per WP:Talk, as it is "material not relevant to improving the article." Writegeist (talk) 05:49, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations. It is easier than an apology, I suppose. And removing the kind words of others is an interesting concept. Collect (talk) 05:50, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Beluga suit?

The claim was made that Palin sued to take the Beluga Whale off the Endangered Species List. The cite given was from the Independent. Alas, the cite does not make the claim ascribed to it. Using a cite to back a statement not found in the cite does not work, alas. Collect (talk) 04:50, 10 October 2008 (UTC) Two new cites for belugas. Neither back the claims made. Collect (talk) 14:59, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Correct, but there's an additional problem that the passage now refers to "listing" of the polar bears without further explanation. The fact is that she opposed listing under the ESA of the polar bears and of the whales; the Department of the Interior listed the polar bears, so she brought suit to set aside that listing, but the whales haven't yet been listed, so all she did was submit a statement in opposition. I'll try to clean this up. JamesMLane t c 22:05, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

This made three times that claims have been made for cites which are not borne out by the cites. It appears the word "beluga" is important for some even though there appears to be no issue regarding Palin and beluga. Collect (talk) 22:53, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

"Opposed strengthening protection for" is about as far as you can stretch the cites given now. The whales are protected by the Dept. of Fish and Game under Alaska law, and there is essentially no harvest done, unlike the early 1990s. http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2004/07/22/1090089254352.html?from=storylhs Collect (talk) 23:05, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

This made ___ times (I can't fill in the number because I've lost count) that ardent Palin supporters criticized something without troubling to read it. The Time piece is an overview. In the edit that I actually made, I supplemented that citation with a citation to this press release by Palin's office. I'll copy the first sentence from the Palin press release in the hope of increasing the chance that someone will actually read the source before denouncing the edit as unsupported: "Governor Sarah Palin has told the federal government that the state is extremely concerned about a proposal to list Cook Inlet beluga whales as an endangered species under the federal Endangered Species Act, and urged the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) not to list the species."

So, no, Collect, my edit wasn't made because, as you speculate, "the word 'beluga' is important for some even though there appears to be no issue regarding Palin and beluga." My edit was made because it conforms exactly to the source that I cited. She opposed the listing. There is no need for this vague "opposed strengthening protection for" language. I will restore the original, correct language. JamesMLane t c 02:36, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

OK -- compare "and also opposed listing the beluga whales in Alaska’s Cook Inlet.[219][220]" with the exact wording in the Time cite: "She opposes strengthening protections for beluga whales in Alaska's Cook Inlet, " and the wording of the Alaska cite: "Governor Sarah Palin has told the federal government that the state is extremely concerned about a proposal to list Cook Inlet beluga whales as an endangered species ... 'We are all doing everything we can to help protect these important marine mammals.'... in 2000, NMFS ruled that listing the Cook Inlet belugas as endangered was not warranted because hunting was the only factor causing their decline, and hunting has since been effectively regulated through cooperative agreements with Alaska Native organizations. " Your wording implies she does not think the beluga whales should be protected. The Time wording, the wording I used, is that she opposes "strengthening protections." Thus I quoted one of your cites exactly, and you quote neither cite correctly. I submit that this represents a real difference, and in such a case, a precise quote is better than an inaccurate and misleading inference that she opposes protection for the beluga whales. Clear? Do you really think my exact quote is misleading about the Time cite? Or that your implication that she wants no protection is correct? I would hope not. Collect (talk) 02:48, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

I now use the EXACT quote from the Alaska cite since you did not like the Time quote. I submit an exact quote is better than an inaccurate and misleading summary which is not borne out by the cites, don't you? Collect (talk) 02:58, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

You write, "Your wording implies she does not think the beluga whales should be protected." I didn't say she said they shouldn't be protected in any way, shape, or form. My wording was simply that she "opposed listing". Her office's press release said that she "urged the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) not to list the species." Obviously, my paraphrase is completely accurate. In fact, the headline of her own press release was, "Palin Urges Feds to not list as Endangered".

Now, if we think the issue is important enough, we could add to that point by including her other statements from the press release. I think that's a level of detail that can be left to the daughter article. Nevertheless, at this point I'll content myself with making sure that our article reports the undisputed information (she opposed listing) that her own office put in the headline but that you keep trying to expunge. If you feel compelled to add more detail from the press release, I'll consider it excessive but I won't revert unless other editors agree with me. JamesMLane t c 04:31, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Huh? You are deliberately issuing and promulgating your own "interpretation" instead of stating what your cites state. That is intellectually dishonest. What is wrong with the actual quotation? Or is misstating the facts about the beluga issue important enough for you to ignore the concept of seeking compromise at all costs? IK consider your claims abysmally inaccurate and misleading and POV. Keep it if you need to, but keeping misleading material in an article speaks very poorly of any thought of WP as a repository of facts at all. As for your lie that I am expunging anything -- I regard that as a personal attack of the first water. My sole aim has been that ANY claims must be solidly based in cites, and not be "interpretations" of them. In that I am trying to uphold the legitimate interests of WP. Thank you most kindly. Collect (talk) 04:39, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Poulation #'s for Wasilla

The 2006 US Census estimates show Wasilla is the fourth in population rather than the fifth as stated in the article. But, the info in the article is referenced. What to do?? If I change it, and reword the sentence a bit, do I remove the reference since it will be contrary to what the article will state?.--Buster7 (talk) 04:56, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Done........--Buster7 (talk) 12:41, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Cite the ref which says fourth is all that was needed. Collect (talk) 15:00, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I just deleted the ranking. While it may very well be true that Wasilla is currently the fourth largest city in Alaska, this little bit of trivia is not applicable to Palin's history as mayor. The applicable information is the population of Wasilla during her tenure. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 16:25, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

No problem. I'm not one to remove unless it is an obvious error. With all the archives, one is never sure if "it" (whatever "it" is at the moment)is not something that has been agreed on previously. Better to bring it here first. Thanks.--Buster7 (talk) 23:28, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Do we need these details in bridge section?

I make it a point never to delete verified content. I only delete redundancies. But I question whether we need this long addition to the bridge section:

According to news reports, local residents and officials of Anchorage and Matanuska-Susitna Borough, which would be connected by the bridge and causeway, are divided over the matter. Many residents feel a strong need for a more direct and less congested route linking the two areas, but many local officials have recently expressed concern that the bridge and causeway may be too expensive. Officials have discussed a ferry as an alternative, although Anchorage and Matanuska-Susitna Borough have disagreed as to the appropriate site for ferry landings

As I said, I won't delete it. But if other folks start complaining about the length of the article, I would ask that you consider deleting this part before any other content, as I think it uses a lot of words and does not add much. Most people can figure out from the words already in the article that some support the bridge as a way to stop traffic congestion while others think it's too expensive, and the idea that a ferry may or may not be used is IMHO not that interesting or unusual.GreekParadise (talk) 14:48, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, I do not think the article is too long (yet!) - Wikipedia is not paper. As to figuring out, well, some people can infer a lot from a few words ... and sometimes they are wrong. This content is a summary of the source and explains the nature of the controversy among Alaskans. My fear is that without it people some people will think, from Wikipedia's account, that Palins varying statements on this issue are all just political posturing, which would be unfair when it is at least as likely she is responding to local debates. Unless the added content somehow violates one of our content policies, I feel strongly it should stay. Slrubenstein | Talk 18:09, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

It appears most positions are in response to debates. In which case, almost all of this section is trying to assign positions to Palin which are inaccurate at best, and false at worst. Is it possible that this section ought to be reduced to just a few sentences? "Alaska's congressional delegation has sought federal funds for Alaskan projects. Palin also has sought to get federal funds for her constituency. Two bridges got lots of notoriety, even though their aim was to help Alaska and its constituents. Faced with opposition from people outside Alaska, the Congress reversed itself on earmarks for these bridges, while continuing to allocate funds for Alaska. Palin saw no reason to reject federal funds. Debate on the bridges was and remains active in Alaska." Is this not what this whole section finally boils down to? Collect (talk) 18:19, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

That would be OR and, in my opinion, an attempt to eliminate negative factual details from the article without cause.Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 18:29, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Factual? This section is rife with opinion, as all well know. And this summary is in line with another article. Note that it is normal and correct to summarize in a parent article. Such summaries are not OR under WP rules. Facts, by the way, are neither positive nor negative. It is how they are presented which makes them so. So let's leave POV to the summarized article, and make as neutral a presentation as possible here. Collect (talk) 18:40, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I misspoke. I should have said "facts which would frequently or perhaps naturally lead to a negative conclusion about Palin." At that, I would say that your "summary" is non-neutral in that it implicitly dismisses criticisms that are apparently discussed in another article which is summarized here. So yes, I would say these details are necessary unless we can come up with a neutral summary. I doubt we will.Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 19:35, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Eight month Track

I note under Personal life information on date of marriage and comment that Track was born eight months later. How relevant is this in an overlong article to start with? Collect (talk) 15:22, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely, remove. This has been done to death. It is undue. This is V only through primary sources - it has not been covered in any secondary sources without a serious axe to grind because it is just common decency to give someone a basic amount of privacy in that kind of situation, especially when there is every legitimate doubt about the implications. 216.106.170.195 (talk) 16:40, 10 October 2008 (UTC) ps. I am not pro-Palin myself, and think that the rape kit thing should get a brief mention - Policy existed, unclear if women were affected, her appointee supported policy, she opposed it after the fact. But the 8-month Track thing is just silly.

Sarah Palin Aerial Hunting

Editors can bring out the delete hatchet all they want but this is a relevant area of her biography that needs addressing.

No mention of it all seems like a glaring omission to me.

Here comes the hatchet. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Abraxas72 (talk • contribs) 16:56, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Why do so many folks think this isn't mentioned? They clearly aren't reading the article. Maybe it's because www.democraticunderground.com says that:

"Wikipedia did not allow animal rights additions to their 'democratically edited' page. Instead Wikipedia's Palin page is full of warmongers' articles."

My question is why should it be mentioned in her biography? She isn't known for this policy, it sort of comes with the territory as an Alaskan politician and is mentioned in the Governor article.--Paul (talk) 17:13, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Wolves are, indeed, predators. The Alaskan boards dealing with predators do not like wolves. A bounty aimed at deferring costs for hunters of predators operating under control of these boards was offered by one board. A court ruled that it was the other board which had the right to offer such a bounty. Clearly quite joyfully irrelevant to this article in the first place. Collect (talk) 18:22, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

A decision she made as Governor is irrelevant to her bio article? Hardly. The serious issue is which of her actions are significant enough to be mentioned here. This one attracted a lot of attention so it should be reported. As for how to report it, highlighting one side's argument (wolves are predators) is POV. We shouldn't talk about "predator control" or "slaughter of beautiful wild animals". The simple "Aerial hunting of wolves" is a good title. Reference to the detailed pros and cons of the policy can be in the text here but is probably better elsewhere. JamesMLane t c 22:33, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Hashed out long ago. And the precise court decision is referenced. I doubt you can alter the opinion of the court. Collect (talk) 02:50, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

What does this mean?

"Later, as vice-presidential candidate, she would disavow any support for the bridge."

She cancelled the bridge in September 2007. Why do we want to say that she disavowed the bridge later than that? I will modify this trillionth attempt to distort the facts.Ferrylodge (talk) 17:34, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

She said she told Congress "thanks but no thanks" to the bridge. Is this somehow not a complete disavowal? Which facts are being distorted? By whom? A trillion attempts to distort facts sounds like a massive conspiracy. Reverted your reversion pending some further explanation.Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 17:49, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

This is easy "She said (in 2008) she told Congress (in 2007) 'thanks but no thanks'" to the bridge. It isn't a biographical relevant fact that she said something today about something she did yesterday. The relevant fact is what she did.--Paul (talk) 17:57, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

(undent)She disavowed support for the bridge in September 2007. Why do people insist on saying that she did not disavow it until 2008? She cancelled the damn thing in 2007, before she ever became a national candidate. I also suggest we leave discussion of the 2008 campaign to the section on the 2008 campaign.Ferrylodge (talk) 18:13, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Unless I am missing something, she canceled the project in 2007, and in 2008 she disavowed support for it, implying that she had never supported it. This is a highly relevant expression of her support (or nonsupport) of a controversial political issue. I also see nothing indicated she disavowed her support for it in 2007.Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 18:19, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

If you want the article to say that she alleged in 2008 that she had never supported the Gravina Bridge, then say so in the article. Don't say in the article that she did not disavow the bridge until 2008, which is false. And please include a ref, if you're going to allege that in 2008 she said she never supported the Gravina Bridge. And please move this to the 2008 campaiugn section where it belongs.

And here is the September 2007 press release in which she disavowed support for the Gravina Bridge.Ferrylodge (talk) 18:23, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I didn't make the edit in question. The statement in question does NOT say that she never disavowed support for the bridge until 2008... it merely says that she did so in 2008. If she also did so previously, this should be sourced and put into the article. I don't have a source for that claim nor do I know it to be true so I can't proceed on that. Finally, the statement belongs in the bridge discussion because it is directly and obviously relevant. Perhaps it should also be mentioned in the 2008 campaign section?Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 18:27, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Uhm, that article substantiates the fact that she ceased her support for the bridge in 2007. In 2008 she disavowed support for the bridge, implying (contrary to fact) that she had never supported the bridge. Ceased support in 2007, disavowed support in 2008. Two different words with different meanings. Ok?Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 18:31, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

So it isn't a "biographical relevant fact," whatever that means, according to PaulH. Big deal. What a politician says is highly relevant politics. Since this article is about a politician campaigning for vice-president, it is highly relevant. As for reliable sources, the article is filled with sources indicated that she has disavowed the bridge. She said so ar the RNC, most of the country actually heard her say so, and it was widely reported. SO I fail to see how this could be at all controversial. Slrubenstein | Talk 18:34, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

(undent)The edit in question was made here by an editor without any talk page discussion, and without any footnote. There is no consensus for what that editor did, so I don't understand why things should have to be reverted back to what that editor did.

As far as the suggestion to repeat material about the bridge in both sections, I'm against that because it obviously gives the material WP:Undue weight. Also, it's poor form to write an encylopedia article that redundantly states the same info twice. Material about the 2008 campaign ought to go in that section of the article, including bridge material, and many editors have discussed this many times.

To say that she disavowed support for the bridge in 2008 implies that she did no do so earlier. This is false and misleading. Here is the September 2007 press release in which she disavowed support for the Gravina Bridge.

There is a difference between disavowing support for something, versus disavowing that she had ever supported it.Ferrylodge (talk) 18:36, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I think what we have here is a difference in vocabulary rather than in opinion. Ferrylodge seems to understand the word "disavow" to mean much the same as "renounce". She used to support the bridge, then she changed her mind and renounced, or disavowed it. But this dictionary definition seems to support the atyourservice's understanding. In 2007 Palin reversed her previous support for the bridge, but she didn't disavow it; that is, she acknowledged that she used to support it, but no longer did. In 2008 she is alleged to have disavowed her support, that is to have claimed that she never supported it in the first place. We can argue whether this is in fact the case, but at least let's agree on what the word means. -- Zsero (talk) 18:41, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

To disavow means to repudiate. She repudiated her support for the bridge in 2007. Anyway, I've rephrased in the article for clarity.Ferrylodge (talk) 18:46, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

(ec) That is absurd. To say that the Yankees won the World Series in 2000 does not "imply" that they did not win the World Series in 1999. To say that "I ate breakfast this morning" does not imply I did not eat it yesterday. We have a link from this section to another. To add one sentence explaining the link does not give it undue weight. It simply explains the connection between these events and later events. And in Sarah Palin's political career, this is precisely the point: what she said or did as governor is highly significant to her campaign for higher office. To indicate that is not giving anything undue weight.

Also, please stop making up rules. Wikipedia articles have never been written by editors discussing things on the talk page before editing the article. I made an edit that improved the article. That is what is important.

By the way, "redundantly states the same info twice" is redundant.

And, thanks Zsero for making a useful point. Slrubenstein | Talk 18:47, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I fear you missed the exact reason why "redundantly states the same info twice" was worded as it was. The issue at times here is that some people will try to place the exact same material in, over and over, despite not having a cite which backs their claims. This is "gaming the system" and sometimes they even leave their spoor in other articles. As for deciding that major edits should be made and then require long discussions before they are removed, that is actually not backed up by best practice. Collect (talk) 18:53, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

This is a controversial article. It's standard practice to discuss major changes at the talk page before making those changes. And to say that "the Yankees gave up playing baseball in 2008 and switched to being football players" does kind of suggest that they had not already done so in 2007.Ferrylodge (talk) 18:50, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Regardless of what usage of what word is settled on, it seems manifestly clear to me that this belongs in the Bridge section, not the Campaign 2008 section. It's about the bridge. The statement better goes in a "what is this statement about?" category than a "in what year was this statement made?" category.Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 18:52, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Are you aware that there is material in the 2008 campaign section about the bridge?Ferrylodge (talk) 18:54, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I do not object to having bridge material in the campaign section, as long as there is a sentence in the bridge section drawing the connection. Ferrylodge recently edited what I wrote, and I am happy to accept his version if it ends this trivial argument. I too do not like redundancies, indeed, the rewrite I made yesterday was principally to eliminate redundancies within the section. I explained my edit on this talk page, and when Ferrylodge reverted and raised objections to my edit, it turned out that the content he objected to in my edit was in his own reversion. And when I saw he objected, I made further edits - which he could have made, but I don't mind having made them. This is how a consensus version evolves. To return to redundancies, I agree they should be minimal but all good writing has some repetition in order to introduce, summarize, make transitions, or draw connections between different parts. What we now have in this article is minimal, and effective. Slrubenstein | Talk 19:01, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

This article currently says, "Later, as vice-presidential candidate, she claimed that she had never supported the Gravina bridge." If you are happy with this, then please provide a reliable source. Otherwise, it should be deleted.

Additionally, assuming you can find a reliable source, the statement "she claimed that she had never supported the Gravina bridge" ought to be moved to the 2008 campaign section. In either event, we could rephrase the sentence in the bridge section: "Later, as vice-presidential candidate, her speeches would include various controversial statements about the Gravina bridge proposal. See Use of "Bridge to Nowhere" in 2008 campaign."Ferrylodge (talk) 19:11, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Removed the paraphrasing that we are never going to agree on. Substituted a direct quote and attributed it to a source. This statement should not be moved out of this section. FWIW, the common usage of "disavow" is as I stated, not as Ferrylodge stated.Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 19:21, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

(undent) So, you're going to insist that the "Thanks but no thanks" quote should continue to occur in this article at least three different times? Would it be okay with you if we include a fourth and a fifth?

The bridge section presently says: "Later, as vice-presidential candidate, she claimed that she had told Congress 'thanks, but no thanks, on that bridge to nowhere,' angering many Alaskans who said that the claim was false and a betrayal of Palin's previous support for their community."

This is weaselly. See WP:Weasel. Who are the "many Alaskans"? The cited source says that they are "In the city of Ketchikan...political leaders of both parties." The only other person who the article says is angry with Palin is Gail Phillips "who supported Palin's opponent, Democrat Tony Knowles, in the 2006 gubernatorial race."

Therefore, it would be better for the sentence in this artuicle to say: "Later, as a vice-presidential candidate, she claimed that she had told Congress 'thanks, but no thanks, on that bridge to nowhere,' angering political leaders in Ketchikan who said that the claim was false and a betrayal of Palin's previous support for their community." I don't think that the remark of one other person, Gail Phillips who opposed Palin for Governor, is notable (also, Philips didn't call the statement by Palin a "betrayal", and instead criticized Palin's reversal on the bridge rather than criticizing Palin's later statement about it).

And, again, this belongs in the 2008 campaign section, if it belongs anywhere in this article.Ferrylodge (talk) 19:31, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Repudiating statements of a reliable source based on your own beliefs and opinions is OR.Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 19:38, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

And what do you think I've repudiated?Ferrylodge (talk) 19:39, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

The article says, in both the headline and the opening paragraph, that the statement has angered many Alaskans. The article cites multiple politicians in support of this claim. End of story. Editors are not allowed to second guess reliable sources. That is original research.Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 19:43, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Factchecker please do not insert WP:Weasel into the article anywhere. And do not try to create abusive redundancy in the article. Hobartimus (talk) 19:45, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Bullshit. The article says that the "many Alaskans" who accused Palin of betrayal are politicians in Ketchikan. The cited source says: "In the city Ketchikan, the planned site of the so-called 'Bridge to Nowhere,' political leaders of both parties said the claim was false and a betrayal of their community...."Ferrylodge (talk) 19:45, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't know how many ways I can say this. No Wikipedia policy allows editors to accuse Reuters or AP or whatever of using "weasel words". "Weasel words" refers to the particular wording of a paraphrased statement so the statement creates an unsourced analysis. When the SOURCE says "many Alaskans were angered", you take it at face value. To do otherwise is OR. Period. The whole point of RELIABLE SOURCES is that they can make a generalization like this and we accept their factchecking and judgment instead of requiring that the article list the individual names of thousands of people who share the view that is being references as being held by "many Alaskans".

PS, Civility please.Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 19:49, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Why don't you read WP:Weasel words instead of inventing your own policies and guidelines? Do you expect us to use your words above instead of the actual WP:Weasel or what? Hobartimus (talk) 19:56, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

The cited source does not use weasel words. They say "many Alaskans" and then they specify who they mean. You picked out the former, and omitted the latter, which is weaselly. You took the sentence "In the city Ketchikan, the planned site of the so-called 'Bridge to Nowhere,' political leaders of both parties said the claim was false and a betrayal of their community...." and you replaced the first part of the sentence with "many Alaskans."Ferrylodge (talk) 19:55, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

As a way out of the weasel dilemma, how about "Source says 'many Alaskans' think..."?GreekParadise (talk) 19:58, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

How about we don't mislead readers, and don't give the false impression that the cited source attributes to people statewide the accusation that Palin betrayed them? And how about we don't use the "Thanks, but no thanks" quote three times in this single article? And how about if we put 2008 campaign material in the 2008 campaiogn section?Ferrylodge (talk) 20:02, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Er, wow. The overuse of quotes seems necessary as editors usually cannot agree on what a reasonable characterization of her words is, for some reason. I don't want to use the quote any more than anyone else. But, I guess "disavowed her support for the bridge in 2008", which is THE accurate, grammatically clear, NPOV eight word summary of the statement, is patently unacceptable. Due to policy we must achieve WP:Consensus. What would suffice? "In 2008, speaking of her plans to rein in corrupt Congressional spending practices, Palin triumphantly pointed out that in 2007 she had canceled plans for a massive transportation earmark after supporting it for over a year despite not having authored it herself." Is that OK? I still don't see what's wrong with "disavowed her support". It meant what it said.

Anyway, yes, she said this in 2008. Yes, while campaigning for VPOTUS. It is also currently the final resolution of Palin's involvement on the subject, so far as I understand. To omit a brief mention of it from the section specifically addressing the bridge is highly disruptive. To justify this based on the need to keep 2008 statements confined to a chronological organization scheme is ... unjustified. To repeatedly appeal to summary status of this article in order to exclude only material which is critical and which is included in order to balance the rest presented here in order to prevent the article from taking an overwhelmingly supportive or promotional tone is also unjustified. And to try to disqualify the whole thing based on overuse of that quote which only becomes necessary because you dispute a brief, dry and correctly worded NPOV paraphrase is just pure straw-man tactics.

As for anti-weaselification of the source attribution, would you be happy with "According to Reuters, many Alaskans, such as blah blah blah, were angry blah blah blah?" That way, everyone will know that a specific news organization thinks exactly three politicians and nobody else was angry? I mean, seriously. What is acceptable to you? The use of "many" in the article didn't imply a majority, or even thousands statewide. Neither did the use of "many" in the article. That word ought to be included. So how shall we qualify it? "According to Reuters, many Alaskans angry, such as politicians XYZ?" Plus that unwieldy statement in my first paragraph, because the 8 word one is unacceptable?Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 20:43, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

The "Thanks but no thanks" quote is now in the article three times. Isn't once enough?Ferrylodge (talk) 20:56, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

As I just said, we can do without the quote if you'll drop your objection to the paraphrasing based on your misunderstanding of what "disavow" means. You're insisting on using the dictionary definition of a synonym instead of the dictionary definition of the word (to wit... 1  : to deny responsibility for : repudiate 2  : to refuse to acknowledge or accept). Neither of these things is by any stretch of the imagination the same thing as simply changing her position on the bridge, which is what she did in 2007. Changing your mind from "for" to "against" is not what "disavow" means. She literally, in 2008, dictionary-definition disavowed it... denied responsibility.. refused to acknowledge or accept .. her involvement in supporting the spending. That is what made people mad, because they wanted the bridge, and that is what the article is about.Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 21:15, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I think "She disavowed her support" is just fine. She did support it, then she denied that she supported it. There are countless sources (many cited) for this. What is the problem? Manticore55 (talk) 21:21, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Question is, did she actually do that? I recall a lot of polemics about it, but I don't recall her actually claiming or implying that she had never supported the Gravina bridge. -- Zsero (talk) 21:38, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Factchecker atyourservice, this is what the article said earlier today: "Later, as vice-presidential candidate, she claimed that she had never supported the Gravina bridge." Is that the meaning that you want this article to convey? If so, then why did you insert a quote instead?[10] If you want to reinsert this language I've just quoted, then you will have to get a reliable source for it, Is that asking so much? And like I said, material about the 2008 campaign belongs in the 2008 campaign section.Ferrylodge (talk) 22:34, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

If you want to include that statement you quoted, but change "claimed" to "implied" and leave the Reuters article as a source, then that's fine with me. As for the question of whether she did imply that she didn't support the bridge, allow me to explain the point of view that "obviously, yes she did". Palin was talking in the context of reining in Congressional spending. By saying she said "thanks but no thanks to that bridge to nowhere", this directly implies that she was offered federal funding for the bridge, but refused it. In fact, she supported the effort to get the federal funding, argued in defense of the project after it became controversial, and only canceled the project after it was clear that there was not enough federal money, as evidenced by her statement at some point to the effect of "it's clear the federal government is not interested in providing more funding".

Hence, by directly implying that she refused federal money for the bridge, she also indirectly implies that she never sought it. Thus the thanks but no thanks line amounted to a disavowal. But, whatever.. I'm fine with the current revision. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 22:50, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Quoting her directly is better than bickering over whether "disavowed" is an accurate summation. As the foregoing discussion demonstrates, the word "disavowed" has different connotations for different people, so we do best to avoid it. I don't consider it undue weight to use the quotation in two different sections in text, given that it's relevant to each and given the heavy emphasis she and the campaign placed on this aspect of her record.

Also, we shouldn't say that she "claims" to have opposed it. See WP:WTA. I've reworded such instances, except where the word occurs in a direct quotation. JamesMLane t c 22:45, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Um -- so cutting funds for something might mean she still supported the spending? An interesting sort of logic, that. And if she states she cut the funds, that means she might only "claim" to not want to spend the funds? Collect (talk) 22:57, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Did you get that out of one of my comments? How?72.91.198.209 (talk) 22:59, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I support disavowed or direct quotes ("thanks but not thanks"). Since it's her most famous quote, I think it bears repeating. If there's an alternative that opponents want, I'm all ears.GreekParadise (talk) 03:49, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

I support "disavowed" because we have lots of reliable sources that this is exactly what she did at the RNC. However, Ferrylodge objected to that language and instead changed it to "Later, as vice-presidential candidate, she claimed that she had never supported the Gravina bridge. See Use of "Bridge to Nowhere" in 2008 campaign." He didn't discuss his reasoning on the talk-page for this specific wording, and I don't know what sources he was using, but I assume he was acting in good faith, and I do not challenge the verifiability of his edit. He made the edit, that is good enough for me. All I want is one sentence showing how this section is connected to the other section for which we provide a link. I would rather compromise and defer to Ferrylodge's version than prolong this.Slrubenstein | Talk 04:05, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

AGF and FL don't go well together. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;^dissera! 14:44, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Support for Alaskan independence

Why no mention of this American Patriot's (sic) previous support for Alaskan secession from the United States? She attacks Obama for being unpatriotic for the most oblique reasons. What can be more unpatriotic than trying to leave the Union? 86.17.211.191 (talk) 00:40, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Maybe when Obama starts a "guilty by association" smear campaign, we can add a comment about her association with her husband and the AIP to Obama's article. --Evb-wiki (talk) 00:49, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

I believe that was debunked a few weeks ago. There was some claim by a member of the Alaskan Independence Party that Palin had been a member, but it turned out to be a false or mistaken statement. You might search the talk page archives for that, or just google. Wikidemon (talk) 00:56, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Also got a rare New York Times retraction, to boot. Collect (talk) 02:52, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't know what "retraction" you're thinking of. The NYT routinely corrects articles when mistakes are found, which is one reason they are considered so reliable. They issued a correction about the AIP article here: [11]. The paper recently issued a correction to a 40-year old theatrical review, which listed the wrong actor in a part. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:07, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

I usually think of corrections as fixing spellings, correcting picture captions. The "correction" on Palin reads:

"Correction: September 5, 2008

An article on Tuesday about concerns over Senator John McCain’s background check of Gov. Sarah Palin of Alaska, his choice of running mate, misstated the history of her political party affiliation. As The Times has since reported, she has been a registered Republican since 1982; she was not for a couple of years in the 1990s a member of the Alaskan Independence Party, which advocates a vote on whether her state should secede. " Collect (talk) 04:33, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

I believe that a "retraction" is when they take back an entire article. Retractions are rare, but corrections are common. IIRC, the NYT corrections section has 5-10 items a day. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:48, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Most people would regard "a disavowal or taking back of a previous assertion " as being a "retraction" and not just a "correction" in normal English usage. Almost all NYT corrections are of trivial importance. Vide "An article on Friday about the stock market’s plunge misstated the number of shares that were traded on the New York Stock Exchange on Thursday. It was nearly 8.3 billion — not million" which, I posit, most people would consider a typo. Collect (talk) 04:54, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Right. Not. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;^dissera! 14:42, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Here's some information on how the Alaskan Independence Party helped Sarah Palin come to power: http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2008/10/10/palin_chryson/ I don't know if folks trust salon as a source but perhaps you can find some well-sourced information in the article you can use. Interestingly, this same Mark Chryson was quoted by the Anchorage Daily News after the Palin-Biden debate, praising her performance.GreekParadise (talk) 15:29, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Hell, this lady is palling around with Todd Palin. From 1995 to 2002, he was a registered member of the Alaskan Independence Party. [12]. I wonder how close they really are. --Evb-wiki (talk) 15:48, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Which means what? Sorry -- trying to pile Ossa on Pelion is not logical. Unless you can find a quote of Palin in favor of secession, there is no way that putting such a claim in here is proper. Being praised by a person whome you think has a position on something does not make you have the same position. Really. And last I looked, no one has found Todd Palin speaking for secession either. Collect (talk) 15:50, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Todd Palin was registered member of the Alaskan Independence Party. See http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26524024/ :

"ST. PAUL, Minnesota - Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin's husband, Todd, twice registered as a member of the Alaskan Independence Party, a fierce states' rights group that wants to turn all federal lands in Alaska back to the state. Sarah Palin herself was never a member of the party, according to state officials."

Regards.Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 16:44, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Redirect

We need a redirect to this page, Joe Biden has one, so, ni fairness, we need a redirest to this page. There are no other Palins of particular importance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.186.32.139 (talk) 00:59, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

No, that is not true. This has been discussed at length at Talk:Palin and consensus is that Palin should be the disambiguation page. In fact the unrelated Michael Palin has been well-known much longer than Sarah. Biden redirects to Joe because the disambiguation page is for other members of his family. Tvoz/talk 03:30, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

== Dismissal of Public Safety Commissioner

There are some references in this part that don't seem to belong here in this article:

1 1st para, last sentence. It doesn't seem relevant to this article why Monegan's replacement resigned.

2 3rd para, last sentence. The text doesn't say why Sarah and Todd Palin didn't testify in the end after the subpoenas were found valid. Were the subpoenas withdrawn? An explanation of Sarah Palin's conduct in this context seems important to the article.

3 4th para, last sentence. What the finding was re Colberg seems irrelevant to the article on Sarah Palin. Obviously it needs to be mentioned in the context of the articles on the Monegan dismissal and the Branchflower Report, but I'm not seeing how it belongs in this article.Corlyon (talk) 15:56, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Citations

This template is used by the page code to display editor's citations. Please Edit ^^above this section^^ Using the "New Section" tab will ensure that your text is entered above this section.

This template is used by the page code to display editor's citations. Please Edit ^^above this section^^ Using the "New Section" tab will ensure that your text is entered above this section.

Large scale weasel hunt in "Public safety commissioner dismissal" section

It seems as though the wording of this section is carefully chosen to distort its cited references and undermine the apparent credibility of the investigative probe while upholding Palin's actions. I am taking measures to eliminate some instances of this, as detailed below:

1st paragraph ORIGINAL: "Monegan told the Palins that there was nothing he could do because the matter was closed.[117] "

This is weaselly in multiple ways. The wording implies that Monegan thought something should have been done but his hands were tied. This is not supported by the reference. Also, BLP guidelines make it HIGHLY questionable to include apparently damning material about this investigation into Wooten without including the actual results of the investigation conducted by the trooper's office.

CHANGING TO "Monegan told the Palins that the department had already conducted its own investigation into the matter. This investigation had found all but two of the allegations to be unsubstantiated and had subjected Wooten to disciplinary measures for the others." (Providing http://www.adn.com/politics/story/469135.html as a reference to this latter statement.)

1st paragraph ORIGINAL: "Monegan initially said he was not certain why he was dismissed but that his refusal to fire Wooten could have been connected,[119]"

This is weaselly because the wording is chosen to make it appear that Wooten "flip flopped" and only later attributed his firing to the Wooten incident. In fact, and as substantiated by the source, Wooten had noted the pressure to fire Wooten from the very beginning. While he does say in the first article that he isn't certain his refusal to bow to pressure was behind his firing, most of the article is spent detailing this pressure. Thus the pressure should be mentioned alongside the statement of his uncertainty to avoid giving the impression that he was not aware of the pressure at that point.

CHANGING TO: "Initially, Monegan acknowledged the pressure to fire Wooten but said that he could not be certain that his own firing was connected to that issue; he later asserted that his refusal to fire Wooten was a major reason for his own firing."

2nd paragraph ORIGINAL: "After ordering her own internal investigation, Palin acknowledged on August 13 that 'pressure could have been perceived to exist, although I have only now become aware of it.'"

This is weaselly because the word "acknowledged" implies, contrary to any possible substantiation, that what was acknowledged is factual. Changing to:

CHANGE TO: "After ordering her own internal investigation, Palin stated on August 13 that 'pressure could have been perceived to exist, although I have only now become aware of it.'"

2nd paragraph ORIGINAL: "She placed an aide on paid leave due to one tape-recorded contact that she deemed improper."

Needs some kind of context or detail other than that it was "one contact which Palin deemed improper". Providing context, changing to:

CHANGE TO: "She placed an aide on paid leave due to one tape-recorded phone conversation that she deemed improper, in which the aide appeared to be acting on her behalf and complained that Wooten had not been fired."

3rd paragraph

ORIGINAL: "Then, an opponent of hers in the legislature speculated about damage to her administration, subpoenas were issued, and Palin stopped cooperating."

This is highly weaselly in multiple ways. First, the sentence structure implies, without basis, that this "opponent's speculation" directly caused Palin to cease cooperating. Without a citation, this is OR.

Next, one at a time:

ORIGINAL: "Then, an opponent of hers in the legislature speculated about damage to her administration," The source refers to Sen. Hollis as "The Alaska state senator running an investigation of Gov. Palin" ... the editor making this edit paraphrased this as "an opponent of hers in the legislature" ... terminology not used in either of the attributed sources and not supported by either source. Without a source, it's OR.

ORIGINAL: "subpoenas were issued and Palin stopped cooperating." ... This is nonsensically vague, along the lines of "fists were flying and Palin got out of Dodge". CHANGE TO "subpoenas were issued to Palin, her husband, and her employees, and Palin stopped cooperating with the investigation."

Overall, the wording of "Then, an opponent of hers in the legislature speculated about damage to her administration" is just plainly designed to make the whole thing seem like a biased partisan attack. The total changes result in:

CHANGE TO: "In a news story published September 2nd, the Senator running the investigation complained that Palin's hiring of private lawyers hampered their efforts, and suggested that the results of the investigation were 'likely to be damaging to the Governor's administration.' After subpoenas were issued to Palin, her husband, and several employees, Palin stopped cooperating with the probe."

3rd paragraph ORIGINAL: On September 1, Palin asked the legislature to drop its investigation, saying that the state Personnel Board had jurisdiction over ethics issues.

This is misleading unless it includes the crucial detail that the members of Personnel Board were appointed by Palin. Changing to:

CHANGE TO: "On September 1, Palin asked the legislature to drop its investigation, saying that the state Personnel Board, a three-member panel whose members she had appointed, had jurisdiction over ethics issues."

That's all for now.Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 18:37, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Well done. Without casting aspersions or suggesting anything other than good faith all around... I support your changes. Tvoz/talk 18:57, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Too long entirely still. Collect (talk) 19:04, 11 October 2008 (UTC)