![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
Note several things:
Somehow, it seems that some here are not interested in this sort of thing, but in truncating to the most minimal any criticisms. That's called POV-pushing.
Booksnmore4you ( talk) 15:53, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
You placed a NPOV tag. There is nothing obvious about it. Explain yourself. Booksnmore4you ( talk) 16:59, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
You must have aimed that at another user because there's nothing wrong with my tone, I'm just stating things.
Based on what you said about the NPOV tag--which I respectfully submit is about one of the most inane things I've ever heard an admin say--I can just run around adding the tag to tons of articles, "just because I think it so", it does not matter whether it is warranted in policy.
But the tag must be backed up by specific arguments based in NPOV policy or its groundless and is just being used for political reasons, sort of like how about 100% of all Digg articles critical of McCain/Palin have been dugg down as "factually inaccurate". Yea, right, and I have something to sell you.
Booksnmore4you ( talk) 17:12, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
The Drudge Report, well known among conservatives and liberals like, has a developing story on his page stating that the New York Times is preparing to front a detailed story about Palin's baby.
I just wish to warn those of you who are editing this page - if this turns out to be for real, there will be some people here adding it to the discussing page asking for it to be added to the article. -- 165.123.227.57 ( talk) 00:54, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
Her personal choice if her daughter was raped does not equal the position she takes as a politian. Is this page meant to demonstrate what her feelings are in a pop quiz setting or is his article meant to demonstrate what her position as a candidate is? If the former then I say we delete this article as her personal feelings do not deserve undue wieght. If the latter.. well then we should be putting this on her mainpage. Eitherway, the popquiz question doesn't help expllain her official position on the matter. -- 98.243.129.181 ( talk) 01:51, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
I was attempting to add Palin's theoretical action if Roe v. Wade was overturned as the page got protected. Here is the whole paragraph for clarity.
Palin is pro-life and [1] is opposed to abortion in all cases, including rape and incest, except when necessary to save the life of the mother. [2] [3] [4] In 2006, while running for governor, Palin was asked what she would do if her own daughter were raped and became pregnant; she responded that she would "choose life". [5] When asked what she would do as governor if Roe v. Wade was overturned, she responded "it would not be up [me] to unilaterally ban anything. It would be up to the people of Alaska to discuss and decide how we would like our society to reflect our values." [6] She and her husband have stated that they have "faith that every baby is created for a good purpose." [7] Palin has been a member of Feminists for Life since 2006. [1]
If an admin could make this change, I'd appreciate it. (I believe this can be done since it is unrelated to the edit war that caused the block.) -- ThaddeusB ( talk) 04:35, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
- article is unprotected again, so I did it myself. -- ThaddeusB ( talk) 17:04, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
Can you figure out a way to input this "item" on the main page while maintaining a "summary" and not giving it undue-weight? Theosis4u ( talk) 17:26, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
Someone familiar with what is active and what is not on this talk page, archive it. Please-- Tznkai ( talk) 04:11, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
Let's hunker down and write this section right. Right now it reads like a few descriptive sentences nominally about the topic and then a soapbox for various environmental causes, that fisheries organization esp. with apparently undue weight. Baccyak4H ( Yak!) 16:57, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
(outdent) hmm, something happened, it's back to a mess. Gotta love the wiki. Baccyak4H ( Yak!) 20:22, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
Goodness, this article is horrid. This is supposed to be a political positions section, not a place to make edits you want in the main article, but can't make because it is locked. Asserting that things she has done are political positions is poor writing, at best. At very least things need rephrased to actually constitute positions. Historical actions can be used as examples, but shouldn't be used as position statements.
The "lobbyists" section is perfect example. It reads, in part, "According to Newsweek Palin has given jobs to friends and appointed lobbyists to oversee industries they used to represent." How is this a political position? Exactly what issue does it relate to? I am quite confident this section ever woudl have appeared if the main article wasn't locked. This whole section needs to go unless someone can explain how hiring lobbyists is a political position.
I'll take a stab at fixing this article up later when I have more time, but in the interim I'd like to hear what others think. Thank you. -- ThaddeusB ( talk) 18:14, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
Palin has given jobs to friends and appointed lobbyists to oversee industries they used to represent. For example, Palin appointed a fund-raiser of hers, Deborah Richter, as director of the Alaska Permanent Fund Dividend Division, and she hired Cora Crome as her fisheries-policy adviser. An industry lobbyist, Crome had worked for the United Fishermen of Alaska, and had been married to a wealthy commercial fisherman. [8] As mayor of Wasilla, she hired the town's first Washington lobbyist to direct federal earmarks to the city. The lobbyist was paid $140,000 and brought $27 million worth of projects to the small town. [9]
≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:08, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
<- (EC) I don't doubt the sourcing, and did not remove it per that, but rather object that this is simply off topic, say like info about her family. It is not about her position vis-a vis lobbying. I would imagine something like this would fit better in the main article. I brought the material there, and will let that crowd chew on it. Baccyak4H ( Yak!) 20:20, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
I think that a section on religion (which this days has a direct relation to politics) is added to this article. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:11, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
I asked thrice before on this talk page if anyone had a problem with my added well-sourced information on the Bridge to Nowhere. No one said boo. I'm more than happy to discuss any problems anyone has with the material. But please don't revert without discussion. Thanks! GreekParadise ( talk) 20:19, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
I removed a section on "support for teen mothers", which simply identified that she had vetoed a particular line of funding for a particular facility. Nothing there on a "political position", it was apparently a budget decision. Kelly hi! 16:21, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
Sounds like someone is trying to beef up her foreign policy cred by posting it in there. ANWR, while foreign-sounding, is actually in Alaska. Alaska is a U.S. State. Also, the visit with the U.S. soldier looks all too much like a photo-op and has no relevance to foreign policy positions.
I vote for removal of these two sections. 66.160.120.185 ( talk) 00:25, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
A general comment. There seems to be lots of work on new content, which is great to see, but overall the page content does seem to be very concentrated in one or two areas of policy. Just comparing with 'Sarah Palin: on the issues' suggests a different balance, at least in terms of her policy statements. For example I know absolutely nothing about economics so I just don't feel qualified to attempt a summary of her fiscal or tax positions. But it looks a bit light in that area. My 2 cents. T0mpr1c3 ( talk) 20:30, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
The article currently states in the "Israel" section:
Democratic Congressman Robert Wexler of Florida accused Palin of endorsing Pat Buchanan in the 2000 Presidential election. Wexler stated that Palin had “aligned herself with a leading anti-Israel voice” and that her selection for the vice-presidential running mate "is a direct affront to all Jewish Americans."[76]However, Palin denies that she ever endorsed Buchanan for President and stated that her alleged "support" of Buchanan consisted of her sporting a campaign button for him in 1999 when he visited the town of Wasilla when she was the mayor. Palin explained at the time she wore the button as a courtesy and that she was an official of the campaign of Republican presidential contender Steve Forbes.[77][78]
I removed something similar once before - why is this is the Israel policy section? Wexler thought she was a Buchanan supporter, she wasn't, end of story. Hardly a political position on Israel, or anything else. Kelly hi! 23:44, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
I've reinserted a summary of Wexler's comments but I have also included a strong rebuttal by Palin.( Hyperionsteel ( talk) 23:48, 8 September 2008 (UTC))
Keep in mind that Wexler was essentially accusing Palin of associating with anti-Israel elements. That's why this should be placed in the Israel section.( Hyperionsteel ( talk) 23:50, 8 September 2008 (UTC))
My concern is that if we don't include a mention of this and a rebuttal, it will keep being reinserted as more and more people edit this page who are not aware of both sides of the story. By having a mention of it and Palin's rebuttal, it reduces the likelyhood that this will keep coming up.( Hyperionsteel ( talk) 23:53, 8 September 2008 (UTC))
The problem is that I think people are more likely to insert it here than on her main page. Should we mention it on both?( Hyperionsteel ( talk) 00:04, 9 September 2008 (UTC))
In this case, her opponents were attempting to give the impression that Palin is anti-Israel due to her alleged support for Pat Buchanan, who holds extremely anti-Israel views. Palin has explained that she never supported Buchanan and that she is pro-Israel. I would call that a political position. ( Hyperionsteel ( talk) 03:00, 9 September 2008 (UTC))
Search as I may, I cannot find answers to the following: As best I understand his position: Senator McCain belives that: 1)global warming is for real, and, 2) Global warming is caused by alteration of the atmosphere due to human activity and causation What is Govenor Palin's stated position? All I can find is escape, evasion, and equivocation (i.e. lies & ambiguous obfuscation). Secondly, which does she believe in, creationism, or the Darwinian theory of evolution? See above ...escape, evasion...etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tonygumbrell ( talk • contribs) 01:47, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
There is no mention of Sarah Palin's stance on the Freedom of Speech and Censorship in this article despite the fact that she attempted to fire the Wasilla town librarian after the librarian made clear that she would refuse to remove books from the town library. Palin asked Wasilla librarian about censoring books. This story has been extensively reported on and I was surprised not to find it here already. I request the creation of a new section under legal issues entitled Censorship or Freedom of Speech (preferably at the top of the list since the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. I also request that this article's protection level be downgraded to semi-protected immediately before wikipedia becomes synonymous with the term prior restraint. Thanks.-- Cdogsimmons ( talk) 17:42, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
ThaddeusB, attempting to have someone fired for their defense of freedom of speech is not a "non-action". It shows intent and purpose. It delineates Sarah Palin's attitude on an issue, where little else is known. The issue appear to me to be relevant in both the main page and here. I therefore, again respectfully request an IMMEDIATE inclusion of this issue in this article. -- Cdogsimmons ( talk) 18:50, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
In case those other sources don't work for you, the New York Times wrote here that Anne Kilkenny said that Palin brought up the idea of banning some books at a city council meeting. “They were somehow morally or socially objectionable to her,” Ms. Kilkenny said.-- Cdogsimmons ( talk) 00:48, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
Another possibility is to insert the information, not in the legal issues section, but in the social views section. Although I still think that the First Amendment is implicated, the social issue of Censorship may be more predominate.-- Cdogsimmons ( talk) 14:22, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
First, the mayor she beat in the election is quoted as saying, "it was because some voters thought they had inappropriate language in them." A newly elected mayor following up on issues her constituents asked her about - the horrors! And to think, she asked the town librarian, of all people, about the issue. Second, there is censorship in public libraries. When was the last time you cheked out a Penthouse from the front counter stand? See here for more information about the policies the librarian was dealing with. The confusing part is why didn't the librarian simple tell the mayor that there was a policy in place that dealt with residents objections about materials? Theosis4u ( talk) 01:18, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
Update to this situation can also be found at Sarah_Palin#6th_draft . —Preceding unsigned comment added by Theosis4u ( talk • contribs) 02:48, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
Although Wikipedia may not have provide information regarding Palin's stance on censorship, the rest of the internet will. The following can be found at http://www.politico.com/static/PPM106_palin_doc.html under the heading Censorship:
Palin Supported Bill Letting Parents Know what Library Material Their Children Have. Palin wrote, “As a mother of four and a former mayor, I support SB 269’s allowance for public and school libraries’ consistent policies and giving municipalities liberty to address the issue. Perplexing SB 269 opposition, attributed to a public librarian, was based on fear that parents may wield an “iron glove” if given freedom to know their kids’ business.” [Anchorage Daily News (Alaska), 3/5/04]
Palin Asked City Librarian About Censoring Books, Insisted It Was “Rhetorical.” In 1996, according to the Frontiersman, Wasilla’s library director Mary Ellen “Emmons said Palin asked her outright if she could live with censorship of library books.” Emmons said, “This is different than a normal book-selection procedure or a book-challenge policy…She was asking me how I would deal with her saying a book can’t be in the library.” Palin said in response, “Many issues were discussed, both rhetorical and realistic in nature.” [Frontiersman, 12/18/96]
Why is the above allowed allowed to stay? It seems like an advert to goto an outside site for a POV article for the EXPRESSED purpose to share information that wasn't included for whatever reason on wikipedia article? Theosis4u ( talk) 04:19, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
I'm not seeing how a brief out-of-context quote from a prayer is considered part of an Iraq policy. Kelly hi! 21:03, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
What is wrong with this?
In June 2008, speaking at Wasilla Assembly of God, Palin stated that she'd work to implement God's will from the governor's office, including creating jobs by building a pipeline to bring North Slope natural gas to North American markets. [10]
Are you suggesting that this is not factually accurate? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:14, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
So let's quote much more of the context, it OBVIOUSLY is relevant to her views on Iraq. It is part of her view on Iraq, she said so. Booksnmore4you ( talk) 21:45, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
Against - The god and prayer quotes should not be in "Politics" until she makes these statements in the context of her authority and position of a political office. Put them under "religion", "personal quotes", or whatever...but there's a pov/bias being pushed by having them in the "politics" page. If we allow all the quotes that politicians might make in front of religious organizations (call it pandering if you want) to represent their "political" views the edit wars would be never ending. Theosis4u ( talk) 05:59, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
Against. As Baccyah4H says, this is not to do with her position on the gas pipeline, it's a coatrack for her religious beliefs. T0mpr1c3 ( talk) 10:47, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
ThaddeusB argues that including the population of Gravina Island (50 people) in the article on the "Bridge to Nowhere" is POV. I disagree. A population is not opinion. It is fact. And the reason it was called the "Bridge to Nowhere" is because it was a bridge to sparsely populated Gravina Island (population 50). Do people agree that I can include population figures without it being considered POV? Please vote. And if you think population is POV, I hope you won't mind me removing population figures from all the city and state websites on wikipedia. Wouldn't want POV there! :-)
Population is a fact. Not POV. It explains the controversy.
Population is POV. It is unfair POV to disclose the population of Gravina Island
(outdent) For the record, Thaddeus just rewrote the relevant part in a way that maintained the pop reference but incorporated it in a way that was much improved, not dropped in in an awkward way risking a adversarial reaction of "50? eh, WTF?" To all those claiming whitewashes or something similar, this is what we should be striving for. Not these subtle connotational jabs (or lauds for that matter). Thank you Thad. Baccyak4H ( Yak!) 04:21, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
Would like to see this [requested change on main page as well]:
"In Palin's 2006 gubernatorial campaign, she supported the building of a bridge from Ketchikan to Gravina Island which was later nicknamed the "Bridge to Nowhere" due to the island's population of 50.[36] Palin ran on a "build-the-bridge" platform, arguing that it was essential for local prosperity,[37] saying in August 2006: “We need to come to the defense of Southeast Alaska when proposals are on the table like the bridge, and not allow the spinmeisters to turn this project or any other into something that’s so negative.”[38]"
become:
In Palin's 2006 gubernatorial campaign she supported building the bridge from Ketchikan to Gravina Island. Which was later nicknamed the "Bridge to Nowhere" due to the island's population of 50.[36] She was non-specific about the details of her support, "She told local officials that money appropriated for the bridge "should remain available for a link, an access process as we continue to evaluate the scope and just how best to just get this done." Fact Check: Palin and the Bridge to Nowhere She did argue that it was essential for local prosperity,[37] saying in August 2006: “We need to come to the defense of Southeast Alaska when proposals are on the table like the bridge, and not allow the spinmeisters to turn this project or any other into something that’s so negative.”[38]"
Any objections to that? Theosis4u ( talk) 06:52, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
Population numbers are only relevant and in context with the reasoning behind the bridge - or link as Palin puts it. For the bridge in Ketchikan you'll see we have a town of 8k that is landlocked. It's only accessible from sea and air. The airport is across the water from the city, on the Gravina Island. You'll notice this in the map. The [3]] map is useful for conjecture. You'll also see way the island was also desired for more development. Remember, or investigate yourself the details, that the city is landlocked for a reason. Here's a hint. Found this as well while researching, Gravina Access Project Website. Theosis4u ( talk) 01:34, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
Palin has been described as more conservative than Republican presidential nominee John McCain. [11] Newsweek has stated that, "To the extent Palin has a governing philosophy, it was shaped by her political mentor, former governor Wally Hickel. The 89-year-old Hickel is a member of the Alaska Independence Party."
≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:18, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
THIS IS OUT-FREAKIN-RAGEOUS!!! An Army of Palin supporters have shown up here and are removing nearly every trace of material that is even slightly critical of her! What a freakin' joke Wikipedia is, with no mechanism to prevent that sort of shite.
Jossi, to answer your question, it is obvious. It was removed because it mentions the Alaskan Independent Party, and the POV-pushers consider that something for bowdlerization. Booksnmore4you ( talk) 21:41, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
Since the overwhelming preponderance of authors here appear to be Palin supporters, I've sent out a few email requests for people to come here and collaborate, if they are so inclined to deal with Wikipedia, to hopefully produce a more neutral outcome. Booksnmore4you ( talk) 00:40, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
The editor using the account Booksnmore4you, active on this article today violating WP:CIVIL is very likely the same person as the owner of Stephen Ewen, a Citizendium advocate (and Wikipedia antagonist) who also today solicited Obama supporters on the social network sponsored by the campaign (My BarackObama) to "tussle" with this page -- which I interpret to mean "vandalize". After intercepting this semi-public message and conducting a few Google searches, I posted the evidence at my personal blog. [5]
Booksnmore4you has already been noted by others on this talk page as an editor who has repeatedly added tendentious information to this article (and earlier this month, to Sarah Palin) so I figured I should mention it here. I don't think the activity necessarily rises to the level of bannable sock puppet (I personally maintain a disclosed sock puppet account), but the editor's intentions do appear less than constructive, so I recommend that his edits be watched carefully for POV. I also invite the editor to defend/explain his actions here, if he so chooses. WWB ( talk) 03:01, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
The editor who removed this, thinking it is a non-issue, was mistaken. It is a very large issue among many, including many of the same people who are concerned about gun rights. It is a litmus test for libertarians and constitutionalists, which includes many social conservatives.
This is not the place for an extended discussion of the issue of jury nullification since there is a Wikipedia article on the subject. But it is a hot issue in the legal arena, and by signing the proclamation, Palin came down on the side of the fully informed jury activists, and against the judicial establishment. If you don't think it is an issue, because the mainstream media are ignorant of it, take a tour of the Internet. Bracton ( talk) 05:03, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
Bracton ( talk) 05:09, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
Here are some sources that indicate the significance. These first two are articles in the Volokh Conspiracy, hosted by UCLA Law Professor Eugene Volokh, mainly consisting of law professors with a libertarian bent:
One can find more by just doing a web search on [Palin "Jury Rights Day"]. Here are a few:
Bracton ( talk) 03:50, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
Alaska's nearest neighbors, Canada and Russia don't seem to have any mention in this article. Japan (a traditionally huge foreign influence) is also missing. I would expect that all three countries are likely to have come up during Palin's governorship. There's a good opportunity here (off to Google!). TMLutas ( talk) 14:31, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
In other words, there's hardly any mention for a reason. MastCell Talk 19:51, 9 September 2008 (UTC)According to business leaders and academics familiar with foreign-policy issues and Palin's administration, she has demonstrated little interest in expanding the state's trade ties with Canada or Russia compared with some of her predecessors. "So far as I know, Sarah has not been involved in international affairs whatsoever," said Victor Fischer, professor emeritus at the Institute for Social and Economic Research at the University of Alaska Anchorage.
This was deleted from the capital punishment section with the Edit Summary that it is "snarky":
Yes—it was snarky–but she said it in a televised debate! To delete cited, factual, and pertinent material in a heated political atmosphere is whitewashing. Please explain to me why readers shouldn't know what kind of person she is.-- Appraiser ( talk) 16:03, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
Twice now this reference has been deleted from the Iraq section. Granted another reference exists there and may be adequate, but since when is a secondary reference objectionable? I hadn't read this whole article until now, looking for what editors might find objectionable. I can't say I learned much I hadn't read elsewhere (except for the issue related to state Senator Green), but it is a pretty scathing article about Palin. I guess I know now why some people don't want the link showing in the reference section. Please read it if you have any doubts.-- Appraiser ( talk) 16:29, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
In one of Palin's positions she said that Creationism need not be part of the curriculum. In another, she says that Intelligent Design should be taught alongside Evolution. There are at least two ways to interpret these positions:
Either way, I consider the deletion of either sourced position to be POV-pushing. Please explain which scenario applies. If she has changed her mind, which is more recent and what source do you have to support the notion that she thinks they are the same? Please explain why either should be deleted.-- Appraiser ( talk) 18:19, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
The page now contains a section on Sarah Palin's previous drug use. This seems to me somewhat inconsistence with the conclusion of the
above discussion regarding Sarah Palin's discussions with a librarian regarding book-banning. In both instances Sarah Palin's actions could be interpretted as having political significance. I advocate either the removal of the drug information or the inclusion of the book-banning issue. I actually think that the book-banning deserves to be on this page more because it was clearly an action taken by Palin in her political role as Mayor. The drug use was clearly not and probably belongs on the
Sarah Palin article more than it belongs here (where it is notably absent).--
Cdogsimmons (
talk)
18:48, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
I have removed the information about her drug use until the issue is resolved.-- Cdogsimmons ( talk) 19:43, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
Political positions of Barack Obama doesn't mention his admission of experimenting in college and high school, but Barack Obama does. Let's keep it the same. We can say she toked or inhaled or whatever in Sarah Palin, where it's applicable. rootology ( C)( T) 19:47, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
In this edit an anon added "and allies", which one might have thought she should have said. But the source cited shows that she omitted those words. We shouldn't add them for her.-- Appraiser ( talk) 18:20, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
I'd like to ask why the fact that Palin pushed for giving every Alaskan $1200 dollars for the purpose of offsetting energy costs isn't mentioned. The money was sent out with the PFDs. For those who don't know, all Alaskans receive money each year based on taxes on the oil companies. I don't have great sources, but here are a couple. http://www.ktuu.com/Global/story.asp?s=8534734 http://www.aksuperstation.com/explorepolitics/20610174.html
JedG ( talk) 01:14, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
Can anybody look at that section. Towards the end, there is a sentence that both praises her and is critical. Can this be reworked to make some sense? The sentence is:Palin has received a strong endorsement from the Republican Jewish Coalition, and has been described as a "direct affront to all Jewish Americans" by Democratic Congressman Robert Wexler of Florida, and as being "totally out of step with Jewish public opinion" by the National Jewish Democratic Council. Thanks, -- Tom 21:01, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
If supposedly experienced editors are tossing 3RR warnings at each other, you clearly have a dispute. Page protected for 24 hours. GRBerry 20:59, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
Dr. Entropy ( talk) 01:11, 10 September 2008 (UTC)Dr. Entropy Dr. Entropy ( talk) 01:11, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
Respectfully request that the page be re-protected for an indefinate period of time. Reason: http://www.blogpi.net/who-is-encouraging-obama-supporters-to-vandalize-sarah-palins-wikipedia-article Dr. Entropy ( talk) 01:11, 10 September 2008 (UTC)Dr. Entropy on 9-SEPT-2008 @21:11hrs Dr. Entropy ( talk) 01:11, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
I second that request to protect. Wikipedia is not a political venue, nor should it become one. This is a respectable informational venue, and should not be abused for any political means. Modification should be reviewed and approved in the talk page. -- Kyanwan ( talk) 08:37, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
Here goes a stab at a section which I propose to go between the lead and the Social issues heading.
Clearly this can be expanded per sources. Note I did not quote Hickel's party; this is because it changed (IIRC), so would be hard to discuss without bogging down the prose as currently written. But that is not to say it won't be possible later. I did not include the words "her political mentor", as I had dropped the explicit naming of the source in favor of a citation, but don't see a big objection to it if the source is clear.
It would seem this proposal would allow for both this discussion of religious influence, as well as avoiding the risk of coatracks throughout the rest of the article. Naturally, the same risk is present with this proposal, but certainly more detail can be written here without any subtle UNDUE issues. It will also be easier to integrate all material neutrally.
Finally, I copied all the relevant cites including the name tags; care should be taken when the coatracking content is removed, to make sure the tag still in somewhere, but only once.
Discuss. Baccyak4H ( Yak!) 14:59, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
We don't need multiple cute pictures of animals in a relatively small section of an article that is not about those animals specifically. Please follow Wikipedia:Photos#Pertinence_and_encyclopedicity, specifically the first sentence.
To other editors, please gimme a hand. I've done two reverts against the one anonymous user adding them, and I don't want to continue to do so. However, they still do need appropriate cleanup and that's going to require multiple people. -- Kickstart70- T- C 15:32, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
I've protected the page (again) because of 3RR violations AKA edit warring (again). To clarify policy:
The three revert rule is a brightline policy. If you make more than 3 reversions on an article in 24 hours, you invite a block upon yourself. The only exceptions, taken directly from the policy page are as follows:
Such actions may be controversial or considered edit warring. When in doubt, do not revert; instead, engage in dispute resolution or ask for administrative assistance.
(Emphasis mine.) Furthermore, abuse of process by reporting someone on
this notice board without at the very least first warning the user before their 4th reversion is unacceptable. This article will remain locked until another administrator overturns, or I get acknowledgment from the participants that they understand and will abide by policy. The alternative is blocking the lot of you for edit warring over polar bear pictures no less. --
Tznkai (
talk)
18:08, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
These sections definitely need rework to express more than the point of view of a single source. Sarah Palin#Wasilla describes her lobbyist involvement in a neutral way, and Sarah Palin#Gravina Island bridge describes the bridge story. Need some neutrality here. Kelly hi! 02:09, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
1) What specifically do you find wrong with the Newsweek article? 2) How would you change it? 3) Do you agree on reverting the non-Newsweek stuff? If not, why not? GreekParadise ( talk) 04:29, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
Look up under the discussion section "Fiscal Responsibility and Earmarks." -- 165.123.227.57 ( talk) 05:39, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
Oh, on the TALK PAGE. I thought you meant in the main article. In any case, most of your edit deals with earmarks outside the Bridge to Nowhere. I added a lot of content on the Bridge to Nowhere. I'm confident we can accommodate both sets of information. GreekParadise ( talk) 05:50, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
The "Government Spending" section has a notation for a citation needed, but I'm not touching this article with a ten foot pole. :) Anyway, the full text of Palin's speech at the convention can be found
[12].
FangedFaerie (
talk)
03:32, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
The topic of the bridge is the subject of a section in the main biography - Sarah Palin#Bridge to Nowhere. What started out here as a brief summary, given as an example of a fiscal policy, keeps growing longer here than the actual discussion of the indident at Sarah Palin. I suspect this is probably because people want to contribute on the topic, but the main Sarah Palin is currently protected. I'm proposing that we either eliminate the section here, or drastically reduce its length (to a couple of sentences). Opinions below, please. Kelly hi! 20:31, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
Palin has made it part of her stump speech. Her LIES are part of her political "maverick" image she is running for Vice President for. Include it. -- 165.123.226.77 ( talk) 05:31, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
I started to undo my revert myself, but I noticed that the long article still is not on main page. When it gets there, I'll replace a short version here. Could someone with administrative rights please put it there? If not, I'll put it there myself when the protection period ends and remove this version from this page at that time. GreekParadise ( talk) 21:00, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
I noticed someone had edited this page to source to the Huffington Post. To my knowledge, the Huffington Post does not meet the standard for WP:RS, and so I reverted the change. Biccat ( talk) 20:50, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
I added sourcing for her supporters, but admittedly the support was all in the form of blogs. I can't find a decent op-ed piece that addresses Palin and the two companies in the same article. In the meantime, I figured some kind of citation was better than none. If there is disagreement, I won't be offended if my cites are replaced with something better. Regards. FangedFaerie ( talk) 23:55, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
A added a NPOV tag to the section on equal pay, as it's sourced to the McCain camp. I better source can probably be found to reinforce the idea with neutrality. Grsz talk 22:14, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
The para on "Oil and Gas development" currently says:
In June 2008, Palin stated that she would work to create jobs by building a pipeline to bring North Slope natural gas to North American markets.[89] In her acceptance speech at the GOP in Sept, 2008 Palin stated: "I fought to bring about the largest private-sector infrastructure project in North American history," "And when that deal was struck, we began a nearly $40 billion dollar natural gas pipeline to help lead America to energy independence."[90] To date the Pipeline exists only on paper. The first section has not been laid, federal approvals may take years, which means the pipeline will not be completed for at least a decade. Yet again, the pipleine may not be built, which would result in Alaska State losing up to $500 million it committed to defray regulatory and other costs.[91][92]
I think the last two sentences are a violation of WP:NOT#CRYSTAL, in that they're total speculation. Perhaps it will not be built, perhaps it will be built and fail, perhaps it will be built and succeed beyond expectations. We don't know and shouldn't be speculating here. Kelly hi! 23:12, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
Many pieces of this article have equivalent sections under the main Sarah Palin article where consensus changes have been made to remove POV problems, and additional information is given, which, in many cases, is diametrically opposed to the claims made in this article. Someone ought to sync the articles, as having one POV article and one NPOV article might confuse users. I would suggest the main article, where the material is sufficient to cover the issues involved, should be used as the basis, rather than try placing this article in the main page. Collect ( talk) 13:36, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
I changed the second paragraph with quotes on the Sept. 12 Gibson interview, and added a citation. Regards. FangedFaerie ( Talk | Edits) 22:34, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
Shouldn't the quoting of critical opinion pieces in this section be removed? Or should we retain them and add a lot of laudatory opinion pieces? Kelly hi! 22:16, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
I read somewhere that she was a believer in young earth creationism. is that true? any sources? 84.129.136.232 ( talk) 09:52, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
This section currently mentions a couple of proclamations that Palin signed regarding Bible Week and Christian heritage. Isn't this a bit of undue weight? This archive shows that she has signed hundreds of proclamations, honoring everything from Alaskan natives' spiritual beliefs to mulitculturalism to the NAACP. Kelly hi! 18:24, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
(undent)Just thought I'd mention that "National Bible Week" began in 1941, when the first Bible Week proclamation was made by President Franklin D. Roosevelt. As of 1996, governors in 29 states declared National Bible Week. Governor Tom Ridge of Pennsylvania was in charge of the Governors' Committee for NBW. [13] Ferrylodge ( talk) 20:12, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
There is not a mention of the controversy surrounding Palin and the Alaskan Independence Party here. That has been an issue in the press.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.179.74.116 ( talk) 23:21, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)
I am pro-life. With the exception of a doctor's determination that the mother's life would end if the pregnancy continued.Cited web page was deleted on 2008-09-02. Copy of original web page as of 2007-05-01 found on Wayback Machine and archived on WebCite.
{{
cite web}}
: Text "Newsweek Politics: Campaign 2008" ignored (
help); Text "Newsweek.com" ignored (
help)
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help); Unknown parameter |coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (
help)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
Note several things:
Somehow, it seems that some here are not interested in this sort of thing, but in truncating to the most minimal any criticisms. That's called POV-pushing.
Booksnmore4you ( talk) 15:53, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
You placed a NPOV tag. There is nothing obvious about it. Explain yourself. Booksnmore4you ( talk) 16:59, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
You must have aimed that at another user because there's nothing wrong with my tone, I'm just stating things.
Based on what you said about the NPOV tag--which I respectfully submit is about one of the most inane things I've ever heard an admin say--I can just run around adding the tag to tons of articles, "just because I think it so", it does not matter whether it is warranted in policy.
But the tag must be backed up by specific arguments based in NPOV policy or its groundless and is just being used for political reasons, sort of like how about 100% of all Digg articles critical of McCain/Palin have been dugg down as "factually inaccurate". Yea, right, and I have something to sell you.
Booksnmore4you ( talk) 17:12, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
The Drudge Report, well known among conservatives and liberals like, has a developing story on his page stating that the New York Times is preparing to front a detailed story about Palin's baby.
I just wish to warn those of you who are editing this page - if this turns out to be for real, there will be some people here adding it to the discussing page asking for it to be added to the article. -- 165.123.227.57 ( talk) 00:54, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
Her personal choice if her daughter was raped does not equal the position she takes as a politian. Is this page meant to demonstrate what her feelings are in a pop quiz setting or is his article meant to demonstrate what her position as a candidate is? If the former then I say we delete this article as her personal feelings do not deserve undue wieght. If the latter.. well then we should be putting this on her mainpage. Eitherway, the popquiz question doesn't help expllain her official position on the matter. -- 98.243.129.181 ( talk) 01:51, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
I was attempting to add Palin's theoretical action if Roe v. Wade was overturned as the page got protected. Here is the whole paragraph for clarity.
Palin is pro-life and [1] is opposed to abortion in all cases, including rape and incest, except when necessary to save the life of the mother. [2] [3] [4] In 2006, while running for governor, Palin was asked what she would do if her own daughter were raped and became pregnant; she responded that she would "choose life". [5] When asked what she would do as governor if Roe v. Wade was overturned, she responded "it would not be up [me] to unilaterally ban anything. It would be up to the people of Alaska to discuss and decide how we would like our society to reflect our values." [6] She and her husband have stated that they have "faith that every baby is created for a good purpose." [7] Palin has been a member of Feminists for Life since 2006. [1]
If an admin could make this change, I'd appreciate it. (I believe this can be done since it is unrelated to the edit war that caused the block.) -- ThaddeusB ( talk) 04:35, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
- article is unprotected again, so I did it myself. -- ThaddeusB ( talk) 17:04, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
Can you figure out a way to input this "item" on the main page while maintaining a "summary" and not giving it undue-weight? Theosis4u ( talk) 17:26, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
Someone familiar with what is active and what is not on this talk page, archive it. Please-- Tznkai ( talk) 04:11, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
Let's hunker down and write this section right. Right now it reads like a few descriptive sentences nominally about the topic and then a soapbox for various environmental causes, that fisheries organization esp. with apparently undue weight. Baccyak4H ( Yak!) 16:57, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
(outdent) hmm, something happened, it's back to a mess. Gotta love the wiki. Baccyak4H ( Yak!) 20:22, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
Goodness, this article is horrid. This is supposed to be a political positions section, not a place to make edits you want in the main article, but can't make because it is locked. Asserting that things she has done are political positions is poor writing, at best. At very least things need rephrased to actually constitute positions. Historical actions can be used as examples, but shouldn't be used as position statements.
The "lobbyists" section is perfect example. It reads, in part, "According to Newsweek Palin has given jobs to friends and appointed lobbyists to oversee industries they used to represent." How is this a political position? Exactly what issue does it relate to? I am quite confident this section ever woudl have appeared if the main article wasn't locked. This whole section needs to go unless someone can explain how hiring lobbyists is a political position.
I'll take a stab at fixing this article up later when I have more time, but in the interim I'd like to hear what others think. Thank you. -- ThaddeusB ( talk) 18:14, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
Palin has given jobs to friends and appointed lobbyists to oversee industries they used to represent. For example, Palin appointed a fund-raiser of hers, Deborah Richter, as director of the Alaska Permanent Fund Dividend Division, and she hired Cora Crome as her fisheries-policy adviser. An industry lobbyist, Crome had worked for the United Fishermen of Alaska, and had been married to a wealthy commercial fisherman. [8] As mayor of Wasilla, she hired the town's first Washington lobbyist to direct federal earmarks to the city. The lobbyist was paid $140,000 and brought $27 million worth of projects to the small town. [9]
≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:08, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
<- (EC) I don't doubt the sourcing, and did not remove it per that, but rather object that this is simply off topic, say like info about her family. It is not about her position vis-a vis lobbying. I would imagine something like this would fit better in the main article. I brought the material there, and will let that crowd chew on it. Baccyak4H ( Yak!) 20:20, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
I think that a section on religion (which this days has a direct relation to politics) is added to this article. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:11, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
I asked thrice before on this talk page if anyone had a problem with my added well-sourced information on the Bridge to Nowhere. No one said boo. I'm more than happy to discuss any problems anyone has with the material. But please don't revert without discussion. Thanks! GreekParadise ( talk) 20:19, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
I removed a section on "support for teen mothers", which simply identified that she had vetoed a particular line of funding for a particular facility. Nothing there on a "political position", it was apparently a budget decision. Kelly hi! 16:21, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
Sounds like someone is trying to beef up her foreign policy cred by posting it in there. ANWR, while foreign-sounding, is actually in Alaska. Alaska is a U.S. State. Also, the visit with the U.S. soldier looks all too much like a photo-op and has no relevance to foreign policy positions.
I vote for removal of these two sections. 66.160.120.185 ( talk) 00:25, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
A general comment. There seems to be lots of work on new content, which is great to see, but overall the page content does seem to be very concentrated in one or two areas of policy. Just comparing with 'Sarah Palin: on the issues' suggests a different balance, at least in terms of her policy statements. For example I know absolutely nothing about economics so I just don't feel qualified to attempt a summary of her fiscal or tax positions. But it looks a bit light in that area. My 2 cents. T0mpr1c3 ( talk) 20:30, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
The article currently states in the "Israel" section:
Democratic Congressman Robert Wexler of Florida accused Palin of endorsing Pat Buchanan in the 2000 Presidential election. Wexler stated that Palin had “aligned herself with a leading anti-Israel voice” and that her selection for the vice-presidential running mate "is a direct affront to all Jewish Americans."[76]However, Palin denies that she ever endorsed Buchanan for President and stated that her alleged "support" of Buchanan consisted of her sporting a campaign button for him in 1999 when he visited the town of Wasilla when she was the mayor. Palin explained at the time she wore the button as a courtesy and that she was an official of the campaign of Republican presidential contender Steve Forbes.[77][78]
I removed something similar once before - why is this is the Israel policy section? Wexler thought she was a Buchanan supporter, she wasn't, end of story. Hardly a political position on Israel, or anything else. Kelly hi! 23:44, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
I've reinserted a summary of Wexler's comments but I have also included a strong rebuttal by Palin.( Hyperionsteel ( talk) 23:48, 8 September 2008 (UTC))
Keep in mind that Wexler was essentially accusing Palin of associating with anti-Israel elements. That's why this should be placed in the Israel section.( Hyperionsteel ( talk) 23:50, 8 September 2008 (UTC))
My concern is that if we don't include a mention of this and a rebuttal, it will keep being reinserted as more and more people edit this page who are not aware of both sides of the story. By having a mention of it and Palin's rebuttal, it reduces the likelyhood that this will keep coming up.( Hyperionsteel ( talk) 23:53, 8 September 2008 (UTC))
The problem is that I think people are more likely to insert it here than on her main page. Should we mention it on both?( Hyperionsteel ( talk) 00:04, 9 September 2008 (UTC))
In this case, her opponents were attempting to give the impression that Palin is anti-Israel due to her alleged support for Pat Buchanan, who holds extremely anti-Israel views. Palin has explained that she never supported Buchanan and that she is pro-Israel. I would call that a political position. ( Hyperionsteel ( talk) 03:00, 9 September 2008 (UTC))
Search as I may, I cannot find answers to the following: As best I understand his position: Senator McCain belives that: 1)global warming is for real, and, 2) Global warming is caused by alteration of the atmosphere due to human activity and causation What is Govenor Palin's stated position? All I can find is escape, evasion, and equivocation (i.e. lies & ambiguous obfuscation). Secondly, which does she believe in, creationism, or the Darwinian theory of evolution? See above ...escape, evasion...etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tonygumbrell ( talk • contribs) 01:47, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
There is no mention of Sarah Palin's stance on the Freedom of Speech and Censorship in this article despite the fact that she attempted to fire the Wasilla town librarian after the librarian made clear that she would refuse to remove books from the town library. Palin asked Wasilla librarian about censoring books. This story has been extensively reported on and I was surprised not to find it here already. I request the creation of a new section under legal issues entitled Censorship or Freedom of Speech (preferably at the top of the list since the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. I also request that this article's protection level be downgraded to semi-protected immediately before wikipedia becomes synonymous with the term prior restraint. Thanks.-- Cdogsimmons ( talk) 17:42, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
ThaddeusB, attempting to have someone fired for their defense of freedom of speech is not a "non-action". It shows intent and purpose. It delineates Sarah Palin's attitude on an issue, where little else is known. The issue appear to me to be relevant in both the main page and here. I therefore, again respectfully request an IMMEDIATE inclusion of this issue in this article. -- Cdogsimmons ( talk) 18:50, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
In case those other sources don't work for you, the New York Times wrote here that Anne Kilkenny said that Palin brought up the idea of banning some books at a city council meeting. “They were somehow morally or socially objectionable to her,” Ms. Kilkenny said.-- Cdogsimmons ( talk) 00:48, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
Another possibility is to insert the information, not in the legal issues section, but in the social views section. Although I still think that the First Amendment is implicated, the social issue of Censorship may be more predominate.-- Cdogsimmons ( talk) 14:22, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
First, the mayor she beat in the election is quoted as saying, "it was because some voters thought they had inappropriate language in them." A newly elected mayor following up on issues her constituents asked her about - the horrors! And to think, she asked the town librarian, of all people, about the issue. Second, there is censorship in public libraries. When was the last time you cheked out a Penthouse from the front counter stand? See here for more information about the policies the librarian was dealing with. The confusing part is why didn't the librarian simple tell the mayor that there was a policy in place that dealt with residents objections about materials? Theosis4u ( talk) 01:18, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
Update to this situation can also be found at Sarah_Palin#6th_draft . —Preceding unsigned comment added by Theosis4u ( talk • contribs) 02:48, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
Although Wikipedia may not have provide information regarding Palin's stance on censorship, the rest of the internet will. The following can be found at http://www.politico.com/static/PPM106_palin_doc.html under the heading Censorship:
Palin Supported Bill Letting Parents Know what Library Material Their Children Have. Palin wrote, “As a mother of four and a former mayor, I support SB 269’s allowance for public and school libraries’ consistent policies and giving municipalities liberty to address the issue. Perplexing SB 269 opposition, attributed to a public librarian, was based on fear that parents may wield an “iron glove” if given freedom to know their kids’ business.” [Anchorage Daily News (Alaska), 3/5/04]
Palin Asked City Librarian About Censoring Books, Insisted It Was “Rhetorical.” In 1996, according to the Frontiersman, Wasilla’s library director Mary Ellen “Emmons said Palin asked her outright if she could live with censorship of library books.” Emmons said, “This is different than a normal book-selection procedure or a book-challenge policy…She was asking me how I would deal with her saying a book can’t be in the library.” Palin said in response, “Many issues were discussed, both rhetorical and realistic in nature.” [Frontiersman, 12/18/96]
Why is the above allowed allowed to stay? It seems like an advert to goto an outside site for a POV article for the EXPRESSED purpose to share information that wasn't included for whatever reason on wikipedia article? Theosis4u ( talk) 04:19, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
I'm not seeing how a brief out-of-context quote from a prayer is considered part of an Iraq policy. Kelly hi! 21:03, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
What is wrong with this?
In June 2008, speaking at Wasilla Assembly of God, Palin stated that she'd work to implement God's will from the governor's office, including creating jobs by building a pipeline to bring North Slope natural gas to North American markets. [10]
Are you suggesting that this is not factually accurate? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:14, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
So let's quote much more of the context, it OBVIOUSLY is relevant to her views on Iraq. It is part of her view on Iraq, she said so. Booksnmore4you ( talk) 21:45, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
Against - The god and prayer quotes should not be in "Politics" until she makes these statements in the context of her authority and position of a political office. Put them under "religion", "personal quotes", or whatever...but there's a pov/bias being pushed by having them in the "politics" page. If we allow all the quotes that politicians might make in front of religious organizations (call it pandering if you want) to represent their "political" views the edit wars would be never ending. Theosis4u ( talk) 05:59, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
Against. As Baccyah4H says, this is not to do with her position on the gas pipeline, it's a coatrack for her religious beliefs. T0mpr1c3 ( talk) 10:47, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
ThaddeusB argues that including the population of Gravina Island (50 people) in the article on the "Bridge to Nowhere" is POV. I disagree. A population is not opinion. It is fact. And the reason it was called the "Bridge to Nowhere" is because it was a bridge to sparsely populated Gravina Island (population 50). Do people agree that I can include population figures without it being considered POV? Please vote. And if you think population is POV, I hope you won't mind me removing population figures from all the city and state websites on wikipedia. Wouldn't want POV there! :-)
Population is a fact. Not POV. It explains the controversy.
Population is POV. It is unfair POV to disclose the population of Gravina Island
(outdent) For the record, Thaddeus just rewrote the relevant part in a way that maintained the pop reference but incorporated it in a way that was much improved, not dropped in in an awkward way risking a adversarial reaction of "50? eh, WTF?" To all those claiming whitewashes or something similar, this is what we should be striving for. Not these subtle connotational jabs (or lauds for that matter). Thank you Thad. Baccyak4H ( Yak!) 04:21, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
Would like to see this [requested change on main page as well]:
"In Palin's 2006 gubernatorial campaign, she supported the building of a bridge from Ketchikan to Gravina Island which was later nicknamed the "Bridge to Nowhere" due to the island's population of 50.[36] Palin ran on a "build-the-bridge" platform, arguing that it was essential for local prosperity,[37] saying in August 2006: “We need to come to the defense of Southeast Alaska when proposals are on the table like the bridge, and not allow the spinmeisters to turn this project or any other into something that’s so negative.”[38]"
become:
In Palin's 2006 gubernatorial campaign she supported building the bridge from Ketchikan to Gravina Island. Which was later nicknamed the "Bridge to Nowhere" due to the island's population of 50.[36] She was non-specific about the details of her support, "She told local officials that money appropriated for the bridge "should remain available for a link, an access process as we continue to evaluate the scope and just how best to just get this done." Fact Check: Palin and the Bridge to Nowhere She did argue that it was essential for local prosperity,[37] saying in August 2006: “We need to come to the defense of Southeast Alaska when proposals are on the table like the bridge, and not allow the spinmeisters to turn this project or any other into something that’s so negative.”[38]"
Any objections to that? Theosis4u ( talk) 06:52, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
Population numbers are only relevant and in context with the reasoning behind the bridge - or link as Palin puts it. For the bridge in Ketchikan you'll see we have a town of 8k that is landlocked. It's only accessible from sea and air. The airport is across the water from the city, on the Gravina Island. You'll notice this in the map. The [3]] map is useful for conjecture. You'll also see way the island was also desired for more development. Remember, or investigate yourself the details, that the city is landlocked for a reason. Here's a hint. Found this as well while researching, Gravina Access Project Website. Theosis4u ( talk) 01:34, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
Palin has been described as more conservative than Republican presidential nominee John McCain. [11] Newsweek has stated that, "To the extent Palin has a governing philosophy, it was shaped by her political mentor, former governor Wally Hickel. The 89-year-old Hickel is a member of the Alaska Independence Party."
≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:18, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
THIS IS OUT-FREAKIN-RAGEOUS!!! An Army of Palin supporters have shown up here and are removing nearly every trace of material that is even slightly critical of her! What a freakin' joke Wikipedia is, with no mechanism to prevent that sort of shite.
Jossi, to answer your question, it is obvious. It was removed because it mentions the Alaskan Independent Party, and the POV-pushers consider that something for bowdlerization. Booksnmore4you ( talk) 21:41, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
Since the overwhelming preponderance of authors here appear to be Palin supporters, I've sent out a few email requests for people to come here and collaborate, if they are so inclined to deal with Wikipedia, to hopefully produce a more neutral outcome. Booksnmore4you ( talk) 00:40, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
The editor using the account Booksnmore4you, active on this article today violating WP:CIVIL is very likely the same person as the owner of Stephen Ewen, a Citizendium advocate (and Wikipedia antagonist) who also today solicited Obama supporters on the social network sponsored by the campaign (My BarackObama) to "tussle" with this page -- which I interpret to mean "vandalize". After intercepting this semi-public message and conducting a few Google searches, I posted the evidence at my personal blog. [5]
Booksnmore4you has already been noted by others on this talk page as an editor who has repeatedly added tendentious information to this article (and earlier this month, to Sarah Palin) so I figured I should mention it here. I don't think the activity necessarily rises to the level of bannable sock puppet (I personally maintain a disclosed sock puppet account), but the editor's intentions do appear less than constructive, so I recommend that his edits be watched carefully for POV. I also invite the editor to defend/explain his actions here, if he so chooses. WWB ( talk) 03:01, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
The editor who removed this, thinking it is a non-issue, was mistaken. It is a very large issue among many, including many of the same people who are concerned about gun rights. It is a litmus test for libertarians and constitutionalists, which includes many social conservatives.
This is not the place for an extended discussion of the issue of jury nullification since there is a Wikipedia article on the subject. But it is a hot issue in the legal arena, and by signing the proclamation, Palin came down on the side of the fully informed jury activists, and against the judicial establishment. If you don't think it is an issue, because the mainstream media are ignorant of it, take a tour of the Internet. Bracton ( talk) 05:03, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
Bracton ( talk) 05:09, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
Here are some sources that indicate the significance. These first two are articles in the Volokh Conspiracy, hosted by UCLA Law Professor Eugene Volokh, mainly consisting of law professors with a libertarian bent:
One can find more by just doing a web search on [Palin "Jury Rights Day"]. Here are a few:
Bracton ( talk) 03:50, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
Alaska's nearest neighbors, Canada and Russia don't seem to have any mention in this article. Japan (a traditionally huge foreign influence) is also missing. I would expect that all three countries are likely to have come up during Palin's governorship. There's a good opportunity here (off to Google!). TMLutas ( talk) 14:31, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
In other words, there's hardly any mention for a reason. MastCell Talk 19:51, 9 September 2008 (UTC)According to business leaders and academics familiar with foreign-policy issues and Palin's administration, she has demonstrated little interest in expanding the state's trade ties with Canada or Russia compared with some of her predecessors. "So far as I know, Sarah has not been involved in international affairs whatsoever," said Victor Fischer, professor emeritus at the Institute for Social and Economic Research at the University of Alaska Anchorage.
This was deleted from the capital punishment section with the Edit Summary that it is "snarky":
Yes—it was snarky–but she said it in a televised debate! To delete cited, factual, and pertinent material in a heated political atmosphere is whitewashing. Please explain to me why readers shouldn't know what kind of person she is.-- Appraiser ( talk) 16:03, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
Twice now this reference has been deleted from the Iraq section. Granted another reference exists there and may be adequate, but since when is a secondary reference objectionable? I hadn't read this whole article until now, looking for what editors might find objectionable. I can't say I learned much I hadn't read elsewhere (except for the issue related to state Senator Green), but it is a pretty scathing article about Palin. I guess I know now why some people don't want the link showing in the reference section. Please read it if you have any doubts.-- Appraiser ( talk) 16:29, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
In one of Palin's positions she said that Creationism need not be part of the curriculum. In another, she says that Intelligent Design should be taught alongside Evolution. There are at least two ways to interpret these positions:
Either way, I consider the deletion of either sourced position to be POV-pushing. Please explain which scenario applies. If she has changed her mind, which is more recent and what source do you have to support the notion that she thinks they are the same? Please explain why either should be deleted.-- Appraiser ( talk) 18:19, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
The page now contains a section on Sarah Palin's previous drug use. This seems to me somewhat inconsistence with the conclusion of the
above discussion regarding Sarah Palin's discussions with a librarian regarding book-banning. In both instances Sarah Palin's actions could be interpretted as having political significance. I advocate either the removal of the drug information or the inclusion of the book-banning issue. I actually think that the book-banning deserves to be on this page more because it was clearly an action taken by Palin in her political role as Mayor. The drug use was clearly not and probably belongs on the
Sarah Palin article more than it belongs here (where it is notably absent).--
Cdogsimmons (
talk)
18:48, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
I have removed the information about her drug use until the issue is resolved.-- Cdogsimmons ( talk) 19:43, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
Political positions of Barack Obama doesn't mention his admission of experimenting in college and high school, but Barack Obama does. Let's keep it the same. We can say she toked or inhaled or whatever in Sarah Palin, where it's applicable. rootology ( C)( T) 19:47, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
In this edit an anon added "and allies", which one might have thought she should have said. But the source cited shows that she omitted those words. We shouldn't add them for her.-- Appraiser ( talk) 18:20, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
I'd like to ask why the fact that Palin pushed for giving every Alaskan $1200 dollars for the purpose of offsetting energy costs isn't mentioned. The money was sent out with the PFDs. For those who don't know, all Alaskans receive money each year based on taxes on the oil companies. I don't have great sources, but here are a couple. http://www.ktuu.com/Global/story.asp?s=8534734 http://www.aksuperstation.com/explorepolitics/20610174.html
JedG ( talk) 01:14, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
Can anybody look at that section. Towards the end, there is a sentence that both praises her and is critical. Can this be reworked to make some sense? The sentence is:Palin has received a strong endorsement from the Republican Jewish Coalition, and has been described as a "direct affront to all Jewish Americans" by Democratic Congressman Robert Wexler of Florida, and as being "totally out of step with Jewish public opinion" by the National Jewish Democratic Council. Thanks, -- Tom 21:01, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
If supposedly experienced editors are tossing 3RR warnings at each other, you clearly have a dispute. Page protected for 24 hours. GRBerry 20:59, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
Dr. Entropy ( talk) 01:11, 10 September 2008 (UTC)Dr. Entropy Dr. Entropy ( talk) 01:11, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
Respectfully request that the page be re-protected for an indefinate period of time. Reason: http://www.blogpi.net/who-is-encouraging-obama-supporters-to-vandalize-sarah-palins-wikipedia-article Dr. Entropy ( talk) 01:11, 10 September 2008 (UTC)Dr. Entropy on 9-SEPT-2008 @21:11hrs Dr. Entropy ( talk) 01:11, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
I second that request to protect. Wikipedia is not a political venue, nor should it become one. This is a respectable informational venue, and should not be abused for any political means. Modification should be reviewed and approved in the talk page. -- Kyanwan ( talk) 08:37, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
Here goes a stab at a section which I propose to go between the lead and the Social issues heading.
Clearly this can be expanded per sources. Note I did not quote Hickel's party; this is because it changed (IIRC), so would be hard to discuss without bogging down the prose as currently written. But that is not to say it won't be possible later. I did not include the words "her political mentor", as I had dropped the explicit naming of the source in favor of a citation, but don't see a big objection to it if the source is clear.
It would seem this proposal would allow for both this discussion of religious influence, as well as avoiding the risk of coatracks throughout the rest of the article. Naturally, the same risk is present with this proposal, but certainly more detail can be written here without any subtle UNDUE issues. It will also be easier to integrate all material neutrally.
Finally, I copied all the relevant cites including the name tags; care should be taken when the coatracking content is removed, to make sure the tag still in somewhere, but only once.
Discuss. Baccyak4H ( Yak!) 14:59, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
We don't need multiple cute pictures of animals in a relatively small section of an article that is not about those animals specifically. Please follow Wikipedia:Photos#Pertinence_and_encyclopedicity, specifically the first sentence.
To other editors, please gimme a hand. I've done two reverts against the one anonymous user adding them, and I don't want to continue to do so. However, they still do need appropriate cleanup and that's going to require multiple people. -- Kickstart70- T- C 15:32, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
I've protected the page (again) because of 3RR violations AKA edit warring (again). To clarify policy:
The three revert rule is a brightline policy. If you make more than 3 reversions on an article in 24 hours, you invite a block upon yourself. The only exceptions, taken directly from the policy page are as follows:
Such actions may be controversial or considered edit warring. When in doubt, do not revert; instead, engage in dispute resolution or ask for administrative assistance.
(Emphasis mine.) Furthermore, abuse of process by reporting someone on
this notice board without at the very least first warning the user before their 4th reversion is unacceptable. This article will remain locked until another administrator overturns, or I get acknowledgment from the participants that they understand and will abide by policy. The alternative is blocking the lot of you for edit warring over polar bear pictures no less. --
Tznkai (
talk)
18:08, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
These sections definitely need rework to express more than the point of view of a single source. Sarah Palin#Wasilla describes her lobbyist involvement in a neutral way, and Sarah Palin#Gravina Island bridge describes the bridge story. Need some neutrality here. Kelly hi! 02:09, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
1) What specifically do you find wrong with the Newsweek article? 2) How would you change it? 3) Do you agree on reverting the non-Newsweek stuff? If not, why not? GreekParadise ( talk) 04:29, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
Look up under the discussion section "Fiscal Responsibility and Earmarks." -- 165.123.227.57 ( talk) 05:39, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
Oh, on the TALK PAGE. I thought you meant in the main article. In any case, most of your edit deals with earmarks outside the Bridge to Nowhere. I added a lot of content on the Bridge to Nowhere. I'm confident we can accommodate both sets of information. GreekParadise ( talk) 05:50, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
The "Government Spending" section has a notation for a citation needed, but I'm not touching this article with a ten foot pole. :) Anyway, the full text of Palin's speech at the convention can be found
[12].
FangedFaerie (
talk)
03:32, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
The topic of the bridge is the subject of a section in the main biography - Sarah Palin#Bridge to Nowhere. What started out here as a brief summary, given as an example of a fiscal policy, keeps growing longer here than the actual discussion of the indident at Sarah Palin. I suspect this is probably because people want to contribute on the topic, but the main Sarah Palin is currently protected. I'm proposing that we either eliminate the section here, or drastically reduce its length (to a couple of sentences). Opinions below, please. Kelly hi! 20:31, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
Palin has made it part of her stump speech. Her LIES are part of her political "maverick" image she is running for Vice President for. Include it. -- 165.123.226.77 ( talk) 05:31, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
I started to undo my revert myself, but I noticed that the long article still is not on main page. When it gets there, I'll replace a short version here. Could someone with administrative rights please put it there? If not, I'll put it there myself when the protection period ends and remove this version from this page at that time. GreekParadise ( talk) 21:00, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
I noticed someone had edited this page to source to the Huffington Post. To my knowledge, the Huffington Post does not meet the standard for WP:RS, and so I reverted the change. Biccat ( talk) 20:50, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
I added sourcing for her supporters, but admittedly the support was all in the form of blogs. I can't find a decent op-ed piece that addresses Palin and the two companies in the same article. In the meantime, I figured some kind of citation was better than none. If there is disagreement, I won't be offended if my cites are replaced with something better. Regards. FangedFaerie ( talk) 23:55, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
A added a NPOV tag to the section on equal pay, as it's sourced to the McCain camp. I better source can probably be found to reinforce the idea with neutrality. Grsz talk 22:14, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
The para on "Oil and Gas development" currently says:
In June 2008, Palin stated that she would work to create jobs by building a pipeline to bring North Slope natural gas to North American markets.[89] In her acceptance speech at the GOP in Sept, 2008 Palin stated: "I fought to bring about the largest private-sector infrastructure project in North American history," "And when that deal was struck, we began a nearly $40 billion dollar natural gas pipeline to help lead America to energy independence."[90] To date the Pipeline exists only on paper. The first section has not been laid, federal approvals may take years, which means the pipeline will not be completed for at least a decade. Yet again, the pipleine may not be built, which would result in Alaska State losing up to $500 million it committed to defray regulatory and other costs.[91][92]
I think the last two sentences are a violation of WP:NOT#CRYSTAL, in that they're total speculation. Perhaps it will not be built, perhaps it will be built and fail, perhaps it will be built and succeed beyond expectations. We don't know and shouldn't be speculating here. Kelly hi! 23:12, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
Many pieces of this article have equivalent sections under the main Sarah Palin article where consensus changes have been made to remove POV problems, and additional information is given, which, in many cases, is diametrically opposed to the claims made in this article. Someone ought to sync the articles, as having one POV article and one NPOV article might confuse users. I would suggest the main article, where the material is sufficient to cover the issues involved, should be used as the basis, rather than try placing this article in the main page. Collect ( talk) 13:36, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
I changed the second paragraph with quotes on the Sept. 12 Gibson interview, and added a citation. Regards. FangedFaerie ( Talk | Edits) 22:34, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
Shouldn't the quoting of critical opinion pieces in this section be removed? Or should we retain them and add a lot of laudatory opinion pieces? Kelly hi! 22:16, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
I read somewhere that she was a believer in young earth creationism. is that true? any sources? 84.129.136.232 ( talk) 09:52, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
This section currently mentions a couple of proclamations that Palin signed regarding Bible Week and Christian heritage. Isn't this a bit of undue weight? This archive shows that she has signed hundreds of proclamations, honoring everything from Alaskan natives' spiritual beliefs to mulitculturalism to the NAACP. Kelly hi! 18:24, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
(undent)Just thought I'd mention that "National Bible Week" began in 1941, when the first Bible Week proclamation was made by President Franklin D. Roosevelt. As of 1996, governors in 29 states declared National Bible Week. Governor Tom Ridge of Pennsylvania was in charge of the Governors' Committee for NBW. [13] Ferrylodge ( talk) 20:12, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
There is not a mention of the controversy surrounding Palin and the Alaskan Independence Party here. That has been an issue in the press.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.179.74.116 ( talk) 23:21, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)
I am pro-life. With the exception of a doctor's determination that the mother's life would end if the pregnancy continued.Cited web page was deleted on 2008-09-02. Copy of original web page as of 2007-05-01 found on Wayback Machine and archived on WebCite.
{{
cite web}}
: Text "Newsweek Politics: Campaign 2008" ignored (
help); Text "Newsweek.com" ignored (
help)
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help); Unknown parameter |coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (
help)