![]() | 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 10 | ← | Archive 15 | Archive 16 | Archive 17 | Archive 18 | Archive 19 | Archive 20 |
This process is obviously not working. There was a total of 1 updates in the past 16 hours to the article and this was made by a passing admin who made a change without concensus. The review process to decided who did what will take a long time as the article gets older. The editors are losing interest over having to debate over a minor update. As a result no updates are happening. Sitedown ( talk) 12:20, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
AdminPedia I have no idea what needs to be added or removed because I am not a subject matter expert on Palin and I can not imagine any of the administrators here are either. Millions of people will visit this page and a percentage of people who do are subject matter experts and have important verifiable facts that need to be added or changed. This is the whole purpose of a wiki. It is not the responsibility of the admins to make an article "perfect" before it is unlocked and since information changes by the minute on a person it would be impossible to ever make it "perfect". My understanding is the reason the article was locked was due to hacking of the page and that maybe valid for a very short period of time (although it is quicker to press undo then argue about what should or should not be included). I am disgusted by this behavior and believe it is not in the spirit of wikipedia, democracy or freedom of speech. Sitedown ( talk) 13:29, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
The right reason for the temporary use of a POV tag is to alert the reader that an article may fail to adequately reflect all points of view, with the intention of encouraging more participation in consensus building. Once consensus has been reached, the tag is removed. The wrong reason to add a POV tag is when one side in an editing dispute fails to gain consensus on their preferred version. In this case, it's difficult to argue that all points of view are not being adequately represented. That some feel their input is not sufficiently represented in the consensus version that is adopted would fall under the wrong reason to add a POV tag. Ronnotel ( talk) 15:54, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
The point is there is zero consensus on the stuff that's up here. I have tried to change it several times and I can't get consensus on my change because everyone wants to assert POV. My earlier changes were all reverted without any explanation and then the page was locked thereafter. I tried to work on the talk page several times (and many archives ago) and my suggestions were just ignored. Not responded to. Every change I've made, all duly sourced by reputable sources, has been reverted back without explanation and locked. And people have been extraordinarily uncivil. If you want me to name names, I will, but I'd rather not make it personal. This is a more systemic problem.
All I'm saying is that let's post truthful, balanced information. If you want to balance the positive with the negative or the negative with the postive, fine. But what we have here is the locked remains of Young Trigg, the probable political operative who created this puff piece to begin with.
These early changes then locking the door is kind of like someone stealing my money and then saying, "The case is closed. I won't discuss giving the money back unless you and I agree on whose money it is." And I say, "The money is mine!" And you say, "Sorry bud, no consensus. Case closed."
Right now, I'm not arguing for a particular edit. I've learned the hard way it's practically impossible. Every well-sourced edit I put in gets reverted and people refuse to dicuss why. I'm just saying there is ample disagreement that the version of this article represents anything close to neutral POV. And that disagreement should be reflected with a POV tag until we can all agree (consensus!) that the article expresses all the truthful descriptions of this woman's life, including things she's done that can be perceived in both a negative and positive light.
Once we at least acknowledge disagreement, we can work on our differences. But to pretend, in an Orwellian kind of way, that there is no disagreement, makes me think any attempt at working out our differences is hopeless. GreekParadise ( talk) 16:07, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
Palin, who portrays herself as a fiscal conservative, racked up nearly $20 million in long-term debt as mayor of the tiny town of Wasilla — that amounts to $3,000 per resident. She argues that the debt was needed to fund improvements. http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0808/12987.html
She also claimed to have balanced her budget but omitted that during her six years as Mayor, she increased general government expenditures by over 33%. During those same six years the amount of taxes collected by the City increased by 38%. She inherited a city with zero debt, but, despite the increase in taxes, left it with debt of over $22 million.
http://www.opednews.com/articles/Sarah-Palin-A-Wolf-in-Moo-by-Anthony-Wade-080904-936.html
Also did anyone mention that funds she acquired from Congress, of 27 million dollars was for a little town of 6,500 people. http://www.opednews.com/articles/Sarah-Palin-A-Wolf-in-Moo-by-Anthony-Wade-080904-936.html
There are serious details being ommitted from this article.
-- 207.232.97.13 ( talk) 02:03, 9 September 2008 (UTC)fred
I added a more reliable source to the bit about smoking marijuana, though this edit removed undid it, replacing the link with what appears to be a blog-type article rather than CBS news. Thoughts? Thanks, – Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 02:25, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
More News Associated Press http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5ici5RhMkh6-9V07yckpLBEEjzf6QD932MU100
The governor has cut back on pork-barrel project requests, but in her two years in office, Alaska has requested nearly $750 million in special federal spending, by far the largest per-capita request in the nation.
And as mayor of Wasilla, Palin hired a lobbyist and traveled to Washington annually to support earmarks for the town totaling $27 million.
-- 207.232.97.13 ( talk) 02:58, 9 September 2008 (UTC)fred
With the protection continuing and admins insisting on concensus that will never come before making edits. I propose that all but the first sentence of the article be blanked. It's the only thing that can be agreed upon:-- Rtphokie ( talk) 03:34, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
Sarah Louise Heath Palin (pronounced /ˈpeɪlɪn/; born February 11, 1964) is the governor of Alaska and the Republican vice-presidential nominee in the 2008 United States presidential election.
MOS:QUOTE says blockquotes are for quotes of four lines or more. Ferrylodge ( talk) 04:17, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
This section seems highly messed up. First of all, two sentences are not enough for a separate section. But that's the least of the problems. We are told that Palin "appointed lobbyists" but the Governor does not appoint lobbyists. We are told that Richter was a lobbyist, but she was not; she was a fundraiser for Palin. We are told that Cora Crome oversees an industry, but she does not; she's merely an adviser to the Governor. And why just focus on Richter and Crome? Newsweek says: "As her attorney general, Palin chose Talis Colberg, a friend who specializes in insurance law." The Colberg appointment seems equally as notable, which is to say not very notable at all. I will remove this section. Ferrylodge ( talk) 04:43, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
Addition Information. Mayor Sarah Palin. Term of Service. Sarah Palin was first elected to a seat on the Wasilla City Council in October of 1992 and was reelected in 1995. In 1996, she ran for and won the Office of Mayor and was reelected in 1999. She concluded her public service as Mayor in 2002 and was unable to run again due to term limits. City Council Member, Seat E, Term October 1992 - October 1995 (First Term)
October 6, 1992 Election Results
http://www.cityofwasilla.com/Modules/ShowDocument.aspx?documentid=451
City Council Member, Seat E, Term October 1995 - October 1998 (Second Term) Please note, Sarah Palin only completed one-year of this term before she was elected Mayor.
October 3, 1995 Election Results
http://www.cityofwasilla.com/Modules/ShowDocument.aspx?documentid=452
Mayor of Wasilla, Term October 1996 - October 1999 (First Term) October 1, 1996 Election Results http://www.cityofwasilla.com/Modules/ShowDocument.aspx?documentid=453
Mayor of Wasilla, Term October 1999 - October 2002 (Second Term)
October 5, 1999 Election Results
http://www.cityofwasilla.com/Modules/ShowDocument.aspx?documentid=454 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Poohwinnie11 ( talk • contribs) 09:34, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
I just restored the text to the mayor section which was moved to a new subarticle. That portion of text went through a lengthy discussion (see above). There should be a discussion on the talk page before it is moved to a subarticle. I, for one, would not support moving it off of the main page to a new article. - Classicfilms ( talk) 10:30, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
I added that Palin was a fiscal conservative to her positions section to give context and structure. I'm worried that some people might object to calling her that. Others might want to rephrase it to incude her time as Mayor. I'm on the fence on this, and am looking for a source right now that says she is a fiscal conservative. Phlegm Rooster ( talk) 12:16, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
It's been a long time since I took instruction, but I seem to recall that in RC theology, one is not baptized "as a Roman Catholic". That is to say, in RC theology, baptism is baptism regardless of who performed it, or where or when. There is by their lights no such thing as a "Roman Catholic" baptism. It would be more accurate to say that SP's parents had her baptized in an RC ceremony, or by an RC priest.
Also, Assemblies of God appear to prefer adult (or at least non-infant) baptism [3]. Also they distinguish between "water baptism" and "baptism of the Holy Spirit," as evidenced by speaking in tongues. [4]. If the AG baptism is notable, the "baptism of the Holy Spirit" is the more notable date of concern.
In my opinion, however, the baptism section is not notable, and its inclusion is a little NPOV and even a little snarky. -- nemonoman ( talk) 14:05, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
In fact, the Renkes scandal was already months old by the time Palin filed her ethics complaint against Renkes in December 2004. Gov. Murkowski had two months prior appointed his own investigator (Robert Bundy) into the matter, and a large volume of damning information had already been uncovered by public records requests from the press ( http://www.adn.com/news/government/renkes/story/42104.html). Bundy finished his report January 26, 2005. Murkowski reprimanded Renkes January 29th, 2005. And Renkes resigned February 6, 2005 ( http://www.adn.com/news/government/renkes/story/42125.html). The unfinshed ethics complaint investigation, now largely moot, was settled a month later. Joeljunk ( talk) 19:22, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
"maintained a high approval rating throughout her term.[43]" can we please be a bit more specific and include some numbers? I heard some say she had the highest of any governor, if this is true (and I don't know if it is), that certainly warrants a mention.
Many of Palin's political views are of a strong social conservative nature: she opposes abortion except when the life of the mother would otherwise be imperilled, [1] and is a member of Feminists for Life; she backs capital punishment, [2] and opposes same-sex marriage. [3] She is also a member of the National Rifle Association and is a strong supporter of the right to keep and bear arms.
Palin is known for her support of "individual freedom and independence" [4], and her endorsement for the minimal state and economic liberty of classical libertarianism: she is known in Alaska for her strong opposition to what she views as excessive government spending and corruption. [5] She has strongly supported development of oil and natural gas drilling in Alaska, including in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. [6]
Palin has described the Republican Party platform as "the right agenda for America," adding "individual freedom and independence is extremely important to me and that's why I'm a Republican." [4]
She has called herself as " pro-life as any candidate can be " [3] and would permit abortion only in cases where the mother's life is in danger, [1] and supports mandatory parental consent for abortions. [7] Palin is a member of Feminists for Life. [8] Palin has been described as supportive of contraception. [3] She backs abstinence-only education and is against "explicit sex-ed programs" in schools. [9] [10] She supports capital punishment [11] and opposes same-sex marriage [3] and supported a non-binding referendum for a constitutional amendment to deny state health benefits to same-sex couples. [12]
Palin has said she supports teaching both creationism and evolution in public schools, but not to the extent of adding creation-based alternatives to the required curriculum. [13] She has strongly promoted oil and natural gas resource development in Alaska, including in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR). [6] She has opposed federal listing of the polar bear as an endangered species warning that it would adversely affect energy development in Alaska. [14] Palin does not believe that global warming is human-caused. [15]
Palin, a long-time member of the National Rifle Association, strongly supports its interpretation of the Second Amendment as protecting individual rights to bear arms, including handguns. She also supports gun safety education for youth. [16]
Palin's foreign policy positions were unclear at the time she was picked as McCain's running mate. [17] When asked for her views about troop escalations in Iraq, she replied "…while I support our president, Condoleezza Rice and the administration, I want to know that we have an exit plan in place…" [18] [19]
This draft is very well written. QuackGuru 22:53, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
I like #1 since it is shorter than #2 and to the point. I would tighten it up bit more by:
If you would like, I can go ahead and make the above edits, or leave it to the original poster to decide which of these, if any, to incorporate in his/her proposed draft. Just let me know.-- Nowa ( talk) 01:36, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
Palin has described the Republican Party platform as "the right agenda for America," adding "individual freedom and independence is extremely important to me and that's why I'm a Republican." [4]
As governor of Alaska, Palin has been a strong supporter of reducing state government spending, including cutting $1.6 billion from the Alaskan construction budget. [20] Nonetheless, she has been strongly in favor of increased federal funding of construction programs for her state. [21]
She has called herself as " pro-life as any candidate can be " [3], would permit abortion only in cases where the mother's life is in danger, [1] and supports mandatory parental consent for abortions. [7] Palin is supportive of contraception [3] but she backs abstinence-only education and is against "explicit sex-ed programs" in schools. [22] [10] She opposes same-sex marriage [3] and supported a non-binding referendum for an Alaskan constitutional amendment to deny state health benefits to same-sex couples. [12]
Palin supports allowing the teaching of both creationism and evolution in public schools, but not to the extent of requiring the teaching of creation-based alternatives. [23]
Palin has strongly promoted oil and natural gas resource development in Alaska, including in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR). [6] She has opposed federal listing of the polar bear as an endangered species warning that it would adversely affect energy development in Alaska. [14] Palin does not believe that global warming is human-caused. [15]
Palin strongly supports an individual’s right to bear arms, including handguns. She also supports gun safety education for youth. [16]
Palin supports the Bush Administration's policies in Iraq. [18] [19]
She supports capital punishment [24].-- Nowa ( talk) 12:40, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
I added draft 1.5 to the draft article. [5] QuackGuru 19:15, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
Palin has described the Republican party platform as "the right agenda for America," adding "individual freedom and independence is extremely important to me and that's why I'm a Republican." [4]
In 2002, while running for lieutenant governor, Palin called herself as " pro-life as any candidate can be." [3] She opposes abortion in cases of rape and incest, supporting it only in cases where the mother's life is in danger, [1] and suggested that requiring parental consent for abortions be added to Alaska's constitution. [7] Palin is a member of Feminists for Life. [8] A 2006 article in the Anchorage Daily News refers to Palin as supportive of contraception but does not go into detail. [3] She is a "firm supporter of abstinence-only education in schools", saying, "explicit sex-ed programs will not find my support". [25] [10] [26]
Palin supports capital punishment for some crimes. "If the legislature passed a death penalty law, I would sign it. We have a right to know that someone who rapes and murders a child or kills an innocent person in a drive-by shooting will never be able to do that again." [27]
Palin opposes same-sex marriage [3] and supported a non-binding referendum for a constitutional amendment to deny state health benefits to same-sex couples. [12] Palin has stated that she supported the 1998 constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage. [3]
In a televised debate in 2006, Palin said she supported teaching both creationism and evolution in public schools. She clarified her position the next day, saying that if a debate of alternative views arose in class she would not want its discussion prohibited. She added that she would not push the state Board of Education to add creation-based alternatives to the state's required curriculum. [28] Palin does not believe that global warming is human-caused. [15] Palin opposed federal listing of the polar bear as an endangered species on the grounds that the "population has dramatically increased over 30 years as a result of conservation," [14] and supported a controversial predator-control program involving aerial hunting of wolves to increase moose populations for hunters. [29]
Palin, a long-time member of the National Rifle Association, strongly supports its interpretation of the Second Amendment as protecting individual rights to bear arms, including handguns. She also supports gun safety education for youth. [16]
Palin's foreign policy positions were unclear at the time she was picked as McCain's running mate. [17] When asked for her views about troop escalations in Iraq, she replied "…while I support our president, Condoleezza Rice and the administration, I want to know that we have an exit plan in place…" [18] [19]
This draft has the most detail. QuackGuru 22:53, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
Personally, I prefer a summary that doesn't address any specific positions. I would prefer the summary only deal with her political philosophy and possibly decision making process. I prefer this for two reasons: one it avoids unnecessary duplication of info and two it discourages people from adding more specifics and more specifics as is bound if the article becomes unprotected again. The section will inevitability expand until it is basically a copy of the daughter article again. (This already happened multiple times despite the hidden comment asking people not to expand it.) All of that said, I think this is a well written, reasonable, and fair summary. However, I feel it is at the very least too long and detailed. -- ThaddeusB ( talk) 01:11, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
Manticore55 ( talk) 17:58, 9 September 2008 (UTC) I think it is very relevant to her bio. It appears in many of the summaries in which people talk about her. It is also the first issue I heard about her after, "Troopergate." How exactly is it NOT relevant to her bio?
Manticore55 ( talk) 21:11, 9 September 2008 (UTC) The wolf thing, by itself is not 'excessive'. The placing of the wolf thing next to the whale thing seems....interesting to me.
Sarah Palin did not suddenly decided to make her daughter of 17 an issue. Vicious Internet rumors falsely claimed that Sarah was claiming the daughter's baby. Only to squelch those rumors was the announcement about Bristol made. While the press was putting Bristol Palin on the front page of newspapers, there was no mention whatever of any of Biden's kids when they were 17, and the press failed to investigate rumors which had persisted since October 2007 that John Edwards was having an affair. As Obama and Biden correctly noted, children are off limits. The press indeed left the children of Democrats off limits, but not the children of Republicans, thereby leaving the press wide open to charges of partisan bias. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.44.153.18 ( talk) 16:00, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
Yartett ( talk) 14:32, 8 September 2008 (UTC)First entry here folks. ;-) The pregnancy is an issue given that Sarah Palin is a so-con who is into abstinence sex-ed, and that she might not have told McCain.
now that she's in the spotlight she's trying to make Bristol's new baby seem like some kind of happy blessing to the family (that's number three for Bristol, in fact; the first one was, guess what, aborted - looks like Sarah feels her family should be exempt from her pro-life policy!) Not only that, but now that Obama went and said "children are off-limits" anyone who points out the political relevance of this pregnancy, being an extremely well-placed indicator of Sarah's inability to instill responsibility into her own child as well as the ineffectiveness of the abstinence-only sex education she advocates, will be labeled as a cruel attacker, a personal invader, etc. In other words, Obama was trying to look like a good guy, but he gave the Palins a big credibility boost and media leverage by doing so. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 157.178.2.1 ( talk) 18:16, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
The question remains as to whether Bristol Palin is actually the mother of Trig. Many questions remain particularly the fact that photos give Bristol the appearance of pregnancy and Sarah does not look pregant when Sarah was reportedly 7 mos. pregnant. Further, no evidence has been presented that Bristol is now 5 mos. pregnant; just Sarah's claim to that effect. Dstern1 ( talk) 02:02, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
1. The article currently says nothing about Palin's tangential association with the Alaskan Independence Party, but the mainstream news media has analysed the issue. Phlegm Rooster ( talk) 00:34, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
There is no controversy that Palin had links to AIP, including her husband's membership. This is different than claiming she was a member. The links are well documented and certainly relevant. This section should remain available to readers as a well-documented source of information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pulsifer ( talk • contribs) 23:28, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
Kelly, I have read the complete discussion above. It focuses primarily on her husband Todd's membership in AIP, which was in the end deemed relevant. Similarly, the section I added documents other links to the AIP. None of them were discussed above, and certainly they are all relevant. Your stated reason for deleting the section was that it had been "debunked". This is not the case. All of the items are both true and well sourced. It appears you are trying to hide behind the above discussion to prevent relevant information from being added to the entry. If you have any issue with the truth or relevance of any of the statements, please identify the specific statements. -Pulsifer
(undent)It's true that Palin had well-documented links to the AIP. However, those well-documented links are so tenuous as to not be notable here in this article, except maybe a brief mention in the campaign section that her membership was debunked by Mother Jones. I feel like the tenuous links to AIP are being used not to give a neutral description of the subject, but rather to pulverize the subject.
By the way, Pulsifer, are you any relation to this guy? Ferrylodge ( talk) 23:53, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
So let's get the facts. One, a party official said she was a once a member, but had to recant when proven wrong. Two, she may have attended one or two party conventions. Three, she sent a welcome video to their convention. Four, her husband appears to have been a member in the past, later re-registered as Independent. So form these 4 facts, you think a 4000 character section, attempting to tie every possible thing she has said in the last 10 years into AIP somehow is justified. Apparently, this isn't original research in any way and is based on the length is the single most important part of her entire career, regardless that it had never even come up before 2-3 days ago? Is that an accurate summary of your position? -- ThaddeusB ( talk) 00:29, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
The only argument that has been made is that these items are allegedly not relevant. But if half of the population feels they are relevant, and half of the population feels they are not, then the material should be included so that readers can decide for themselves. Unless someone can come up with an argument other than relevance, I am going to add the material back in. -Pulsifer
There is no evidence that Palin has "links" to the Alaska Independent Party. The only relevancy in trying to include this is to suggest through guilt by association that Palin is an extremist who favors succession of Alaska from the Union. This argument started when officials of the AIP claimed Governor Palin had once been a member of the party. These claims have since been withdrawn, and Sarah Palin's voter registration records showing that she has been registered as a Republican since 1982 have appeared. So editors wanting to include this material have fallen back on circumstantial facts. 1) In her capacity as Governor she sent a video to the 2008 convention where she refers to "your party" in the first sentence, 2) in her capacity as Mayor she attended the 2000 convention, and 3) her husband declared AIP preference for several years in his voter registration. Using WP:SYNTH editors claim that these three facts prove that Governor Palin has ties to the AIP. They do no such thing. This is not material that is relevant to the biography of Sarah Palin. It is an attempt to imply guilt by association when there is no association. Inclusion of this material violates WP:BLP, WP:NPOV and WP:SYNTH.-- Paul ( talk) 12:26, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
{{ editprotected}}
This is what I propose adding. It accurately describes the controversy which has received much attention in the press; it correctly describes that Palin has never been a member of AKIP, but does accurately describe her association with AKIP and is properly sourced and written from a neutral point of view. It violates none of the rules that Paul has cited. Its seems some people at intent on censoring facts, but that is a violation of wikipedia rules. -Pulsifer
The Alaskan Independence Party (AKIP) is an Alaskan political party that calls for a vote on the secession of Alaska from the United States. The motto of the AKIP is "Alaska First - Alaska Always". [30]
On September 1, ABC News reported that Sarah Palin had been a member of AKIP. [31] The sources for this story later retracted these claims, and the Alaskan Division of Elections confirmed that Palin has always been registered Republican. [32]
Palin's husband Todd however was a registered member of AKIP from 1995 to 2002, [33] and served as the Treasurer of Palin's 1999 mayoral campaign. [34] The McCain campaign admits Palin attended the 2000 AKIP convention, [35] and as governor, Palin sent a video address to the 2008 AKIP convention. [36] In addition, two AKIP members recall seeing Palin at the 1994 AKIP convention, although Palin denies attending. [37]
This paragraph contains anti-matter (the incorrect news report) and matter (finally finding the truth which is that the report was false). When you add them together they create a big bang but leave nothing behind. In the discussion of the National Enquirer rumor (below) the consensus is to wait to see if the rumor is true or not. If true, it will be added, if not it will be ignored. That is what should have happened here, but the ABC claim was inserted as soon as it came out, and the truth only came out a day or two later. It should never have been in the article when it was little more than a politically-charged hit, and now that we know it is false, it is not appropriate to add it.On September 1, ABC News reported that Sarah Palin had been a member of AKIP. The sources for this story later retracted these claims, and the Alaskan Division of Elections confirmed that Palin has always been registered Republican.
Palin's husband is not Palin, and what is the purpose of sneaking in the fact that he was her campaign finance manager in 1999 other than to insinuate that because a family member with AKIP ties was active in her campaign, she must "have ties to AKIP"? This is clearly POV-pushing and it is also clear WP:SYNTH. Next is mentioning that two AKIP members recall seeing her at the convention 18 years ago. She denies it. I don't know, maybe she was there to get some grocery money from Todd, or to go out to dinner with him. It certainly doesn't prove any "ties to AKIP" and is either trival or POV-pushing. As I said "when did you stop beating your wife?"Palin's husband Todd however was a registered member of AKIP from 1995 to 2002, and served as the Treasurer of Palin's 1999 mayoral campaign. and as governor, Palin sent a video address to the 2008 AKIP convention. In addition, two AKIP members recall seeing Palin at the 1994 AKIP convention, although Palin denies attending.
The Alaskan Independence Party (AKIP) is an Alaskan political party that calls for a vote on the secession of Alaska from the United States. The motto of the AKIP is "Alaska First - Alaska Always".
Proposal: The Alaskan Independence Party (AKIP) is an Alaskan political party that calls for a vote on the secession of Alaska from the United States. Its motto is "Alaska First - Alaska Always". [38] Palin's husband Todd was a registered member of AKIP from 1995 to 2002, [39] and served as the Treasurer of Palin's 1999 mayoral campaign. [40] Sarah Palin herself has always been registered Republican. [41] She attended the 2000 AKIP convention, [42] and as governor, sent a video address to the 2008 AKIP convention. [43]
He was also a registered member of Alaskan Independence Party (AKIP) from 1995 to 2002; while Palin has always been a registered Republican, she attended the 2000 AKIP convention, and as governor, sent a video address to the 2008 AKIP convention.
Declined It is clear that at the present time there is no consensus supporting any version of the edit proposed here. If such a consensus forms in the future, and is clearly stable, then it will be time to use the {{
edit protected}} template.
GRBerry
20:17, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
AKIP Inclusion request
{{ editprotected}} As there has been no objections raised I would suggest the following for submision. Sitedown ( talk) 02:04, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
Proposed Sarah attended the Alaskan Independence Party convention in 2006 and sent a welcome movie to the attendees of the 2008 AKIP statewide convention. [7] Sitedown ( talk) 20:57, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
The fact that there is so much controversy both for an against the exclusion or inclusion of this information then it is obviously important. I believe if there is documented evidence of Sarah Palin attending multiple events for the AIP this should be noted as this I believe is simply a documented biography of noteworthy facts. { 99.228.151.16 ( talk) 22:49, 4 September 2008 (UTC)}
This mentions Palin and AKIP and uses as a source for the correction, the same ABC source that was used for the original incorrect charge.-- Paul ( talk) 06:50, 6 September 2008 (UTC)Members of the of the Alaskan Independence Party suggested that Palin was a member at some point, [44] but have since retracted that claim. [45]
Just to keep us all up to date, what are the plans to get this page down to semiprotection? This is supposed to be a Wiki. I remember reading somewhere that we were going to give it a try on Saturday. This is Sunday and the page has been fully protected for three days. I think someone on this page seriously proposed keeping it locked until after the election, which is a laughable suggestion and diametrically opposed to Wikipedia's mission to be an encyclopedia that anyone can edit. -- Steven J. Anderson ( talk) 19:04, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
I have just finished writing this summary of the traffic and activity on this page. It remains the most visited page on Wikipedia. I plan to propose a reduction in protection once the evidence shows this page falls out of the top spot, but we aren't there yet. Dragons flight ( talk) 21:10, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
Mr. Anderson makes a wondeful point. Mrs. Palin's page may be receiving an enomorous ammount of attention and be suseptable to vandalism, but the irony is, that by receiving such focus the chance of removing slanderous and untruthful comments also proportionally increases. For Wikipedia to place this page under full protection is a basic violation of one of their basic strengths, an "open and transparent consensus." To reject the word is to reject the human search. ~Max Lerner —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aruhnka ( talk • contribs) 06:12, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
Why doesn't Obama's page get the same protection she does? Are the wiki admins being paid by the republican party or something? I've notive alot of things with this presidential election and wiki and alot of things I've observed have been pro republican themes and reverts. This needs to be put out on main stream media on how wiki has change to being evil now.-- Ron John ( talk) 11:59, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
Currently, the last line of "Energy and Environment" states:
Palin also disagrees with strengthening the protection status of the beluga whales in Cook Inlet, Alaska, where oil and gas development has been proposed.
Recommend replacing with:
Palin also opposed the placement of beluga whales in Alaska's Cook Inlet on the engangered species list, on economic grounds. Palin cited state scientists who claimed that hunting was the only factor causing the whales' decline, and that the hunting has been effectively controlled through cooperative agreements with Alaska Native organizations. [46] [47]
I believe it's more neutral and specific. This is the additional source being cited for the info, in addition to the source already on the sentence. Kelly hi! 09:12, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
In 2007 Palin urged against a proposal by the National Marine Fisheries Service to place beluga whales in Alaska's Cook Inlet on the engangered species list. Such a listing entails vetting of all actions under the scope of federal agencies. Palin argued that there was evidence that the whale population was on the increase, and warned against damage to the local economy by the costs of added delays in process. [48] [49]
? 86.44.29.35 ( talk) 10:00, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
I'd say this discussion really needs to take place on the "Political positions" page where we can maybe do some proper wiki editing on an unlocked page, and then when we have consensus we can summarize it here. The version currently up there has already benefited from a bit of back and forth between Kelly and myself.
Here is the version as it currently stands on "Political positions":
As an intermediate step, I propose the first sentence of the above for this page, sourced to the Time article which is the ony secondary source we have at the moment:
This avoids mentioning oil & gas which are not the main economic considerations (it's really about fishing) and is generally a bit more neutral. T0mpr1c3 ( talk) 12:30, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
Pending any further suggestions: I propose Palin also opposed the placement of beluga whales in Alaska's Cook Inlet on the endangered species list, on economic grounds in place of the current sentence. 79.74.252.173 ( talk) 23:07, 7 September 2008 (UTC) I support the sentence change since it is more accurate than the current one. -- ThaddeusB ( talk) 00:02, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
{{ editprotected}}
(in place of Palin also disagrees with strengthening the protection status of the beluga whales in Cook Inlet, Alaska, where oil and gas development has been proposed.) T0mpr1c3 ( talk) 14:31, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
Approve. Could maybe wikilink beluga whales. T0mpr1c3 ( talk) 08:18, 8 September 2008 (UTC) Approve This is definitely an improvement (more neutral and more accurate). -- ThaddeusB ( talk) 17:00, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
Approve Manticore55 ( talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 21:20, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
<de>
--Proposed edit until consensus is reached for reasons stated above. Otherwise, people who go to this encyclopedia will think that consensus has been reached when it clearly has not.--
![]() |
GreekParadise ( talk) 16:22, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
I withdraw my original request. Now that wikipedians are fully able to edit article, I think we're resolving conflicts nicely. (Knock on wood!). GreekParadise ( talk) 19:35, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
Oppose:Disagree for now, can you be more specific? Kelly hi! 16:26, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
Oppose: As above, I think this is a poor reason to insert a POV tag on this article. Ronnotel ( talk) 16:44, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
Oppose I don't like most of her politics, but the article is neutral in regard to the facts. The debate about adding additional content that doesn't favor her is a separate issue. While the article isn't as up to date as it could be (and Wikipedia policy is clear that it is better to be out of date than to try to be a news source) doesn't make the article POV. Again, I am not a fan of hers, but there does seem to be a fair amount of people determined to turn the article into a political tool, which is NOT the purpose of Wikipedia. PHARMBOY ( TALK) 16:54, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
Oppose The typical wikipedian: a white male under 35, who favors legalizing pot, is a tekkie, leans socialist, is pro-obama, despises conservatism....of COURSE you think its POV. You want to shove more controversy in it...like talking about speaking in tongues, etc. Funny how the words "black liberation theology" is no where to be found on Obama's article. But Palin/McCain now have a 10 pt lead in the polls, and I understand how desperate you are. You have to save Obama! You got to get that controversy stuffed in this article.....these are desperate times!! 17:09, 8 September 2008 24.18.108.5 (Talk)
Oppose, for the time being .... someone should condense what the issues are and then the validity of a tag can be weighed. CENSEI ( talk) 17:26, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
Oppose no valid reasons have been given for the adding the tag - this seems to a request based on frustration that the article is locked rather than actual material problems -- ThaddeusB ( talk) 17:34, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
Oppose -- I don't see how this would help resolve anything, and I'm not sure what particular POV you're suggesting exists. Coemgenus 17:39, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
Oppose -- Seems to be lacking a lot of substance, but it sure doesn't seem biased to me. Manticore55 ( talk) 17:34, 9 September 2008 (UTC) Oppose with caveat While small portions here and there are subtly unbalanced (in either direction!), I don't see any overall problem with neutrality. The disjointedness present here is very common with a high interest article with polarized perspectives. I would revisit this if someone was more specific. Baccyak4H ( Yak!) 19:05, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
Oppose - NPOV icons are an admission of defeat, that we can't work out how to edit an article. Page protection more or less says as much. The very idea of consensus on a POV tag is baffling, and asking for an NPOV tag to go in under page protection seems doubly odd. POV tags are usually added only after one fails to gain consensus for something. If we had consensus together to say that the article has a POV violation we might as well get consensus together to make a protected edit to fix it? Wikidemon ( talk) 19:17, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
Oppose on the basis of what is being proposed as POV problems below. Kaisershatner ( talk) 20:34, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
Oppose I do not see what the proposal states as being a POV bias in the article. It seems we've removed the major POV problems are are chipping away at minor problems now. -- 98.243.129.181 ( talk) 20:43, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
Oppose any tags on one of our highest trafficked articles, but more on principle than anything else (I think tags are evil and unprofessional, and are too self-referential). Of course the neutrality is disputed. It always will be, from one side of the aisle to the other, depending on who's editing. Political articles are pendulums, which by laws of physics, eventually will settle into a very nice article with smaller and smaller undulations. With or without a POV tag. I will always "vote" without, for any tag, especially for a highly visited article. Keeper ǀ 76 22:14, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
Oppose The only complaint I see is that some editors want to lard up the article with every single Dem talking point about her. Sorry, that's not what Wikipedia is for. A.J.A. ( talk) 04:03, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
Agree I would prefer the article was unlocked but if we can't get that then this is a good start. Sitedown ( talk) 16:49, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
Agree Wholeheartedly. Spiff1959 ( talk) 17:06, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
Agree The objectively of the article is in dispute even though the majority might think it is fair. In reading though the talk page archives it is clear that many of the changes made were based on democracy rather than clear consensus. It would be best at this time to denote the article does not represent a neutral point of view and begin working to achieve it. Neutralis ( talk) 17:13, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
Agree -- A POV tag would not be unreasonable, considering the ongoing discussion here. On the other hand if people want to help get either Senator Obama or Senator McCain elected they will probably do much better to volunteer at their local campaign office rather than fooling around on WP. :-) Steve Dufour ( talk) 17:14, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
Agree -- Just putting in a vote for my own proposal. Now it's 7-5.
GreekParadise (
talk) 19:02, 8 September 2008 (UTC) See above note.
GreekParadise (
talk)
19:35, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
Agree, and in a case like this, it shouldn't be a vote, but an indication. The current situation is that enough people are concerned about POV for it to be POV-tagged. Our concerns should not be dismissed. Phlegm Rooster ( talk) 22:03, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
Agree only if equal treatment This article deserves a POV tag only if Barack Obama and John McCain also get one. 3 or 4 articles have POV. Only Joe Biden's article is decent. Even that has POV but it's not nearly as bad.
903M (
talk) 01:22, 9 September 2008 (UTC) The end result will be that this will get a POV tag and the other POV articles won't have it as others will cite "other crap exists". This article is not more POV than Obama and McCain.
903M (
talk)
04:32, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
Agree LamaLoLeshLa ( talk) 15:51, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
Agree The continued lock on the door would indicate we are either not worthy or not welcome. Is there another choice?-- Buster7 ( talk) 09:01, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
Comment Can you provide some specific examples of POV within this article? Just because there is a content dispute it doesn't mean that the article itself is POV. Heck, the content dispute could be over things that make a NPOV article POV... -- Bobblehead (rants) 17:15, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
Certainly, Bobblehead. My problem is I'm trying not to get into any specific content war but simply get people to admit that a dispute exists. Right now we have a 7 - 5 vote saying that no controversy exists. But I don't think majority rules. If 5 say a controversy exists, a controversy exists!
Here are some of the things I would change if allowed. They are all well-sourced facts. They are admittedly not a very positive portrayal of Sarah Palin, but as postive portrayals have been included, the more nuanced truth (including negatives) should be included as well. Warning: I am not now trying to argue for this or that point. Only to note that these are points on which consensus has not been reached. While this list is far from complete, there is no mention currently of the following indsiputable facts in the article.
There was never consensus for Jossi's change to the small padlock icon. Please restore the large notice. Previous discussion here, here, here and here. Mike R ( talk) 17:32, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
A suggested link under "External Links" to a new biography about Palin, scheduled to release October 10, according to the press release.
New biography: Sarah Palin: A New Kind of Leader by Joe Hilley
Finz7 ( talk) 17:03, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
Good point. When I see that content is available, I'll write back.
Finz7 ( talk) 14:07, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
Please be advised that Sarah Palin eloped with Todd Palin as a result of pregnancy, rather than financial concern, as noted in this article:
[9]--
Barclay080808 (
talk)
03:55, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
same-sex-unions
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).TimeInt
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).ANWR
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).{{
cite news}}
: Unknown parameter |coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (
help)
{{
cite news}}
: Unknown parameter |coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (
help)
{{
cite news}}
: |access-date=
requires |url=
(
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 10 | ← | Archive 15 | Archive 16 | Archive 17 | Archive 18 | Archive 19 | Archive 20 |
This process is obviously not working. There was a total of 1 updates in the past 16 hours to the article and this was made by a passing admin who made a change without concensus. The review process to decided who did what will take a long time as the article gets older. The editors are losing interest over having to debate over a minor update. As a result no updates are happening. Sitedown ( talk) 12:20, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
AdminPedia I have no idea what needs to be added or removed because I am not a subject matter expert on Palin and I can not imagine any of the administrators here are either. Millions of people will visit this page and a percentage of people who do are subject matter experts and have important verifiable facts that need to be added or changed. This is the whole purpose of a wiki. It is not the responsibility of the admins to make an article "perfect" before it is unlocked and since information changes by the minute on a person it would be impossible to ever make it "perfect". My understanding is the reason the article was locked was due to hacking of the page and that maybe valid for a very short period of time (although it is quicker to press undo then argue about what should or should not be included). I am disgusted by this behavior and believe it is not in the spirit of wikipedia, democracy or freedom of speech. Sitedown ( talk) 13:29, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
The right reason for the temporary use of a POV tag is to alert the reader that an article may fail to adequately reflect all points of view, with the intention of encouraging more participation in consensus building. Once consensus has been reached, the tag is removed. The wrong reason to add a POV tag is when one side in an editing dispute fails to gain consensus on their preferred version. In this case, it's difficult to argue that all points of view are not being adequately represented. That some feel their input is not sufficiently represented in the consensus version that is adopted would fall under the wrong reason to add a POV tag. Ronnotel ( talk) 15:54, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
The point is there is zero consensus on the stuff that's up here. I have tried to change it several times and I can't get consensus on my change because everyone wants to assert POV. My earlier changes were all reverted without any explanation and then the page was locked thereafter. I tried to work on the talk page several times (and many archives ago) and my suggestions were just ignored. Not responded to. Every change I've made, all duly sourced by reputable sources, has been reverted back without explanation and locked. And people have been extraordinarily uncivil. If you want me to name names, I will, but I'd rather not make it personal. This is a more systemic problem.
All I'm saying is that let's post truthful, balanced information. If you want to balance the positive with the negative or the negative with the postive, fine. But what we have here is the locked remains of Young Trigg, the probable political operative who created this puff piece to begin with.
These early changes then locking the door is kind of like someone stealing my money and then saying, "The case is closed. I won't discuss giving the money back unless you and I agree on whose money it is." And I say, "The money is mine!" And you say, "Sorry bud, no consensus. Case closed."
Right now, I'm not arguing for a particular edit. I've learned the hard way it's practically impossible. Every well-sourced edit I put in gets reverted and people refuse to dicuss why. I'm just saying there is ample disagreement that the version of this article represents anything close to neutral POV. And that disagreement should be reflected with a POV tag until we can all agree (consensus!) that the article expresses all the truthful descriptions of this woman's life, including things she's done that can be perceived in both a negative and positive light.
Once we at least acknowledge disagreement, we can work on our differences. But to pretend, in an Orwellian kind of way, that there is no disagreement, makes me think any attempt at working out our differences is hopeless. GreekParadise ( talk) 16:07, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
Palin, who portrays herself as a fiscal conservative, racked up nearly $20 million in long-term debt as mayor of the tiny town of Wasilla — that amounts to $3,000 per resident. She argues that the debt was needed to fund improvements. http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0808/12987.html
She also claimed to have balanced her budget but omitted that during her six years as Mayor, she increased general government expenditures by over 33%. During those same six years the amount of taxes collected by the City increased by 38%. She inherited a city with zero debt, but, despite the increase in taxes, left it with debt of over $22 million.
http://www.opednews.com/articles/Sarah-Palin-A-Wolf-in-Moo-by-Anthony-Wade-080904-936.html
Also did anyone mention that funds she acquired from Congress, of 27 million dollars was for a little town of 6,500 people. http://www.opednews.com/articles/Sarah-Palin-A-Wolf-in-Moo-by-Anthony-Wade-080904-936.html
There are serious details being ommitted from this article.
-- 207.232.97.13 ( talk) 02:03, 9 September 2008 (UTC)fred
I added a more reliable source to the bit about smoking marijuana, though this edit removed undid it, replacing the link with what appears to be a blog-type article rather than CBS news. Thoughts? Thanks, – Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 02:25, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
More News Associated Press http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5ici5RhMkh6-9V07yckpLBEEjzf6QD932MU100
The governor has cut back on pork-barrel project requests, but in her two years in office, Alaska has requested nearly $750 million in special federal spending, by far the largest per-capita request in the nation.
And as mayor of Wasilla, Palin hired a lobbyist and traveled to Washington annually to support earmarks for the town totaling $27 million.
-- 207.232.97.13 ( talk) 02:58, 9 September 2008 (UTC)fred
With the protection continuing and admins insisting on concensus that will never come before making edits. I propose that all but the first sentence of the article be blanked. It's the only thing that can be agreed upon:-- Rtphokie ( talk) 03:34, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
Sarah Louise Heath Palin (pronounced /ˈpeɪlɪn/; born February 11, 1964) is the governor of Alaska and the Republican vice-presidential nominee in the 2008 United States presidential election.
MOS:QUOTE says blockquotes are for quotes of four lines or more. Ferrylodge ( talk) 04:17, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
This section seems highly messed up. First of all, two sentences are not enough for a separate section. But that's the least of the problems. We are told that Palin "appointed lobbyists" but the Governor does not appoint lobbyists. We are told that Richter was a lobbyist, but she was not; she was a fundraiser for Palin. We are told that Cora Crome oversees an industry, but she does not; she's merely an adviser to the Governor. And why just focus on Richter and Crome? Newsweek says: "As her attorney general, Palin chose Talis Colberg, a friend who specializes in insurance law." The Colberg appointment seems equally as notable, which is to say not very notable at all. I will remove this section. Ferrylodge ( talk) 04:43, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
Addition Information. Mayor Sarah Palin. Term of Service. Sarah Palin was first elected to a seat on the Wasilla City Council in October of 1992 and was reelected in 1995. In 1996, she ran for and won the Office of Mayor and was reelected in 1999. She concluded her public service as Mayor in 2002 and was unable to run again due to term limits. City Council Member, Seat E, Term October 1992 - October 1995 (First Term)
October 6, 1992 Election Results
http://www.cityofwasilla.com/Modules/ShowDocument.aspx?documentid=451
City Council Member, Seat E, Term October 1995 - October 1998 (Second Term) Please note, Sarah Palin only completed one-year of this term before she was elected Mayor.
October 3, 1995 Election Results
http://www.cityofwasilla.com/Modules/ShowDocument.aspx?documentid=452
Mayor of Wasilla, Term October 1996 - October 1999 (First Term) October 1, 1996 Election Results http://www.cityofwasilla.com/Modules/ShowDocument.aspx?documentid=453
Mayor of Wasilla, Term October 1999 - October 2002 (Second Term)
October 5, 1999 Election Results
http://www.cityofwasilla.com/Modules/ShowDocument.aspx?documentid=454 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Poohwinnie11 ( talk • contribs) 09:34, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
I just restored the text to the mayor section which was moved to a new subarticle. That portion of text went through a lengthy discussion (see above). There should be a discussion on the talk page before it is moved to a subarticle. I, for one, would not support moving it off of the main page to a new article. - Classicfilms ( talk) 10:30, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
I added that Palin was a fiscal conservative to her positions section to give context and structure. I'm worried that some people might object to calling her that. Others might want to rephrase it to incude her time as Mayor. I'm on the fence on this, and am looking for a source right now that says she is a fiscal conservative. Phlegm Rooster ( talk) 12:16, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
It's been a long time since I took instruction, but I seem to recall that in RC theology, one is not baptized "as a Roman Catholic". That is to say, in RC theology, baptism is baptism regardless of who performed it, or where or when. There is by their lights no such thing as a "Roman Catholic" baptism. It would be more accurate to say that SP's parents had her baptized in an RC ceremony, or by an RC priest.
Also, Assemblies of God appear to prefer adult (or at least non-infant) baptism [3]. Also they distinguish between "water baptism" and "baptism of the Holy Spirit," as evidenced by speaking in tongues. [4]. If the AG baptism is notable, the "baptism of the Holy Spirit" is the more notable date of concern.
In my opinion, however, the baptism section is not notable, and its inclusion is a little NPOV and even a little snarky. -- nemonoman ( talk) 14:05, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
In fact, the Renkes scandal was already months old by the time Palin filed her ethics complaint against Renkes in December 2004. Gov. Murkowski had two months prior appointed his own investigator (Robert Bundy) into the matter, and a large volume of damning information had already been uncovered by public records requests from the press ( http://www.adn.com/news/government/renkes/story/42104.html). Bundy finished his report January 26, 2005. Murkowski reprimanded Renkes January 29th, 2005. And Renkes resigned February 6, 2005 ( http://www.adn.com/news/government/renkes/story/42125.html). The unfinshed ethics complaint investigation, now largely moot, was settled a month later. Joeljunk ( talk) 19:22, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
"maintained a high approval rating throughout her term.[43]" can we please be a bit more specific and include some numbers? I heard some say she had the highest of any governor, if this is true (and I don't know if it is), that certainly warrants a mention.
Many of Palin's political views are of a strong social conservative nature: she opposes abortion except when the life of the mother would otherwise be imperilled, [1] and is a member of Feminists for Life; she backs capital punishment, [2] and opposes same-sex marriage. [3] She is also a member of the National Rifle Association and is a strong supporter of the right to keep and bear arms.
Palin is known for her support of "individual freedom and independence" [4], and her endorsement for the minimal state and economic liberty of classical libertarianism: she is known in Alaska for her strong opposition to what she views as excessive government spending and corruption. [5] She has strongly supported development of oil and natural gas drilling in Alaska, including in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. [6]
Palin has described the Republican Party platform as "the right agenda for America," adding "individual freedom and independence is extremely important to me and that's why I'm a Republican." [4]
She has called herself as " pro-life as any candidate can be " [3] and would permit abortion only in cases where the mother's life is in danger, [1] and supports mandatory parental consent for abortions. [7] Palin is a member of Feminists for Life. [8] Palin has been described as supportive of contraception. [3] She backs abstinence-only education and is against "explicit sex-ed programs" in schools. [9] [10] She supports capital punishment [11] and opposes same-sex marriage [3] and supported a non-binding referendum for a constitutional amendment to deny state health benefits to same-sex couples. [12]
Palin has said she supports teaching both creationism and evolution in public schools, but not to the extent of adding creation-based alternatives to the required curriculum. [13] She has strongly promoted oil and natural gas resource development in Alaska, including in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR). [6] She has opposed federal listing of the polar bear as an endangered species warning that it would adversely affect energy development in Alaska. [14] Palin does not believe that global warming is human-caused. [15]
Palin, a long-time member of the National Rifle Association, strongly supports its interpretation of the Second Amendment as protecting individual rights to bear arms, including handguns. She also supports gun safety education for youth. [16]
Palin's foreign policy positions were unclear at the time she was picked as McCain's running mate. [17] When asked for her views about troop escalations in Iraq, she replied "…while I support our president, Condoleezza Rice and the administration, I want to know that we have an exit plan in place…" [18] [19]
This draft is very well written. QuackGuru 22:53, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
I like #1 since it is shorter than #2 and to the point. I would tighten it up bit more by:
If you would like, I can go ahead and make the above edits, or leave it to the original poster to decide which of these, if any, to incorporate in his/her proposed draft. Just let me know.-- Nowa ( talk) 01:36, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
Palin has described the Republican Party platform as "the right agenda for America," adding "individual freedom and independence is extremely important to me and that's why I'm a Republican." [4]
As governor of Alaska, Palin has been a strong supporter of reducing state government spending, including cutting $1.6 billion from the Alaskan construction budget. [20] Nonetheless, she has been strongly in favor of increased federal funding of construction programs for her state. [21]
She has called herself as " pro-life as any candidate can be " [3], would permit abortion only in cases where the mother's life is in danger, [1] and supports mandatory parental consent for abortions. [7] Palin is supportive of contraception [3] but she backs abstinence-only education and is against "explicit sex-ed programs" in schools. [22] [10] She opposes same-sex marriage [3] and supported a non-binding referendum for an Alaskan constitutional amendment to deny state health benefits to same-sex couples. [12]
Palin supports allowing the teaching of both creationism and evolution in public schools, but not to the extent of requiring the teaching of creation-based alternatives. [23]
Palin has strongly promoted oil and natural gas resource development in Alaska, including in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR). [6] She has opposed federal listing of the polar bear as an endangered species warning that it would adversely affect energy development in Alaska. [14] Palin does not believe that global warming is human-caused. [15]
Palin strongly supports an individual’s right to bear arms, including handguns. She also supports gun safety education for youth. [16]
Palin supports the Bush Administration's policies in Iraq. [18] [19]
She supports capital punishment [24].-- Nowa ( talk) 12:40, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
I added draft 1.5 to the draft article. [5] QuackGuru 19:15, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
Palin has described the Republican party platform as "the right agenda for America," adding "individual freedom and independence is extremely important to me and that's why I'm a Republican." [4]
In 2002, while running for lieutenant governor, Palin called herself as " pro-life as any candidate can be." [3] She opposes abortion in cases of rape and incest, supporting it only in cases where the mother's life is in danger, [1] and suggested that requiring parental consent for abortions be added to Alaska's constitution. [7] Palin is a member of Feminists for Life. [8] A 2006 article in the Anchorage Daily News refers to Palin as supportive of contraception but does not go into detail. [3] She is a "firm supporter of abstinence-only education in schools", saying, "explicit sex-ed programs will not find my support". [25] [10] [26]
Palin supports capital punishment for some crimes. "If the legislature passed a death penalty law, I would sign it. We have a right to know that someone who rapes and murders a child or kills an innocent person in a drive-by shooting will never be able to do that again." [27]
Palin opposes same-sex marriage [3] and supported a non-binding referendum for a constitutional amendment to deny state health benefits to same-sex couples. [12] Palin has stated that she supported the 1998 constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage. [3]
In a televised debate in 2006, Palin said she supported teaching both creationism and evolution in public schools. She clarified her position the next day, saying that if a debate of alternative views arose in class she would not want its discussion prohibited. She added that she would not push the state Board of Education to add creation-based alternatives to the state's required curriculum. [28] Palin does not believe that global warming is human-caused. [15] Palin opposed federal listing of the polar bear as an endangered species on the grounds that the "population has dramatically increased over 30 years as a result of conservation," [14] and supported a controversial predator-control program involving aerial hunting of wolves to increase moose populations for hunters. [29]
Palin, a long-time member of the National Rifle Association, strongly supports its interpretation of the Second Amendment as protecting individual rights to bear arms, including handguns. She also supports gun safety education for youth. [16]
Palin's foreign policy positions were unclear at the time she was picked as McCain's running mate. [17] When asked for her views about troop escalations in Iraq, she replied "…while I support our president, Condoleezza Rice and the administration, I want to know that we have an exit plan in place…" [18] [19]
This draft has the most detail. QuackGuru 22:53, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
Personally, I prefer a summary that doesn't address any specific positions. I would prefer the summary only deal with her political philosophy and possibly decision making process. I prefer this for two reasons: one it avoids unnecessary duplication of info and two it discourages people from adding more specifics and more specifics as is bound if the article becomes unprotected again. The section will inevitability expand until it is basically a copy of the daughter article again. (This already happened multiple times despite the hidden comment asking people not to expand it.) All of that said, I think this is a well written, reasonable, and fair summary. However, I feel it is at the very least too long and detailed. -- ThaddeusB ( talk) 01:11, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
Manticore55 ( talk) 17:58, 9 September 2008 (UTC) I think it is very relevant to her bio. It appears in many of the summaries in which people talk about her. It is also the first issue I heard about her after, "Troopergate." How exactly is it NOT relevant to her bio?
Manticore55 ( talk) 21:11, 9 September 2008 (UTC) The wolf thing, by itself is not 'excessive'. The placing of the wolf thing next to the whale thing seems....interesting to me.
Sarah Palin did not suddenly decided to make her daughter of 17 an issue. Vicious Internet rumors falsely claimed that Sarah was claiming the daughter's baby. Only to squelch those rumors was the announcement about Bristol made. While the press was putting Bristol Palin on the front page of newspapers, there was no mention whatever of any of Biden's kids when they were 17, and the press failed to investigate rumors which had persisted since October 2007 that John Edwards was having an affair. As Obama and Biden correctly noted, children are off limits. The press indeed left the children of Democrats off limits, but not the children of Republicans, thereby leaving the press wide open to charges of partisan bias. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.44.153.18 ( talk) 16:00, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
Yartett ( talk) 14:32, 8 September 2008 (UTC)First entry here folks. ;-) The pregnancy is an issue given that Sarah Palin is a so-con who is into abstinence sex-ed, and that she might not have told McCain.
now that she's in the spotlight she's trying to make Bristol's new baby seem like some kind of happy blessing to the family (that's number three for Bristol, in fact; the first one was, guess what, aborted - looks like Sarah feels her family should be exempt from her pro-life policy!) Not only that, but now that Obama went and said "children are off-limits" anyone who points out the political relevance of this pregnancy, being an extremely well-placed indicator of Sarah's inability to instill responsibility into her own child as well as the ineffectiveness of the abstinence-only sex education she advocates, will be labeled as a cruel attacker, a personal invader, etc. In other words, Obama was trying to look like a good guy, but he gave the Palins a big credibility boost and media leverage by doing so. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 157.178.2.1 ( talk) 18:16, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
The question remains as to whether Bristol Palin is actually the mother of Trig. Many questions remain particularly the fact that photos give Bristol the appearance of pregnancy and Sarah does not look pregant when Sarah was reportedly 7 mos. pregnant. Further, no evidence has been presented that Bristol is now 5 mos. pregnant; just Sarah's claim to that effect. Dstern1 ( talk) 02:02, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
1. The article currently says nothing about Palin's tangential association with the Alaskan Independence Party, but the mainstream news media has analysed the issue. Phlegm Rooster ( talk) 00:34, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
There is no controversy that Palin had links to AIP, including her husband's membership. This is different than claiming she was a member. The links are well documented and certainly relevant. This section should remain available to readers as a well-documented source of information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pulsifer ( talk • contribs) 23:28, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
Kelly, I have read the complete discussion above. It focuses primarily on her husband Todd's membership in AIP, which was in the end deemed relevant. Similarly, the section I added documents other links to the AIP. None of them were discussed above, and certainly they are all relevant. Your stated reason for deleting the section was that it had been "debunked". This is not the case. All of the items are both true and well sourced. It appears you are trying to hide behind the above discussion to prevent relevant information from being added to the entry. If you have any issue with the truth or relevance of any of the statements, please identify the specific statements. -Pulsifer
(undent)It's true that Palin had well-documented links to the AIP. However, those well-documented links are so tenuous as to not be notable here in this article, except maybe a brief mention in the campaign section that her membership was debunked by Mother Jones. I feel like the tenuous links to AIP are being used not to give a neutral description of the subject, but rather to pulverize the subject.
By the way, Pulsifer, are you any relation to this guy? Ferrylodge ( talk) 23:53, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
So let's get the facts. One, a party official said she was a once a member, but had to recant when proven wrong. Two, she may have attended one or two party conventions. Three, she sent a welcome video to their convention. Four, her husband appears to have been a member in the past, later re-registered as Independent. So form these 4 facts, you think a 4000 character section, attempting to tie every possible thing she has said in the last 10 years into AIP somehow is justified. Apparently, this isn't original research in any way and is based on the length is the single most important part of her entire career, regardless that it had never even come up before 2-3 days ago? Is that an accurate summary of your position? -- ThaddeusB ( talk) 00:29, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
The only argument that has been made is that these items are allegedly not relevant. But if half of the population feels they are relevant, and half of the population feels they are not, then the material should be included so that readers can decide for themselves. Unless someone can come up with an argument other than relevance, I am going to add the material back in. -Pulsifer
There is no evidence that Palin has "links" to the Alaska Independent Party. The only relevancy in trying to include this is to suggest through guilt by association that Palin is an extremist who favors succession of Alaska from the Union. This argument started when officials of the AIP claimed Governor Palin had once been a member of the party. These claims have since been withdrawn, and Sarah Palin's voter registration records showing that she has been registered as a Republican since 1982 have appeared. So editors wanting to include this material have fallen back on circumstantial facts. 1) In her capacity as Governor she sent a video to the 2008 convention where she refers to "your party" in the first sentence, 2) in her capacity as Mayor she attended the 2000 convention, and 3) her husband declared AIP preference for several years in his voter registration. Using WP:SYNTH editors claim that these three facts prove that Governor Palin has ties to the AIP. They do no such thing. This is not material that is relevant to the biography of Sarah Palin. It is an attempt to imply guilt by association when there is no association. Inclusion of this material violates WP:BLP, WP:NPOV and WP:SYNTH.-- Paul ( talk) 12:26, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
{{ editprotected}}
This is what I propose adding. It accurately describes the controversy which has received much attention in the press; it correctly describes that Palin has never been a member of AKIP, but does accurately describe her association with AKIP and is properly sourced and written from a neutral point of view. It violates none of the rules that Paul has cited. Its seems some people at intent on censoring facts, but that is a violation of wikipedia rules. -Pulsifer
The Alaskan Independence Party (AKIP) is an Alaskan political party that calls for a vote on the secession of Alaska from the United States. The motto of the AKIP is "Alaska First - Alaska Always". [30]
On September 1, ABC News reported that Sarah Palin had been a member of AKIP. [31] The sources for this story later retracted these claims, and the Alaskan Division of Elections confirmed that Palin has always been registered Republican. [32]
Palin's husband Todd however was a registered member of AKIP from 1995 to 2002, [33] and served as the Treasurer of Palin's 1999 mayoral campaign. [34] The McCain campaign admits Palin attended the 2000 AKIP convention, [35] and as governor, Palin sent a video address to the 2008 AKIP convention. [36] In addition, two AKIP members recall seeing Palin at the 1994 AKIP convention, although Palin denies attending. [37]
This paragraph contains anti-matter (the incorrect news report) and matter (finally finding the truth which is that the report was false). When you add them together they create a big bang but leave nothing behind. In the discussion of the National Enquirer rumor (below) the consensus is to wait to see if the rumor is true or not. If true, it will be added, if not it will be ignored. That is what should have happened here, but the ABC claim was inserted as soon as it came out, and the truth only came out a day or two later. It should never have been in the article when it was little more than a politically-charged hit, and now that we know it is false, it is not appropriate to add it.On September 1, ABC News reported that Sarah Palin had been a member of AKIP. The sources for this story later retracted these claims, and the Alaskan Division of Elections confirmed that Palin has always been registered Republican.
Palin's husband is not Palin, and what is the purpose of sneaking in the fact that he was her campaign finance manager in 1999 other than to insinuate that because a family member with AKIP ties was active in her campaign, she must "have ties to AKIP"? This is clearly POV-pushing and it is also clear WP:SYNTH. Next is mentioning that two AKIP members recall seeing her at the convention 18 years ago. She denies it. I don't know, maybe she was there to get some grocery money from Todd, or to go out to dinner with him. It certainly doesn't prove any "ties to AKIP" and is either trival or POV-pushing. As I said "when did you stop beating your wife?"Palin's husband Todd however was a registered member of AKIP from 1995 to 2002, and served as the Treasurer of Palin's 1999 mayoral campaign. and as governor, Palin sent a video address to the 2008 AKIP convention. In addition, two AKIP members recall seeing Palin at the 1994 AKIP convention, although Palin denies attending.
The Alaskan Independence Party (AKIP) is an Alaskan political party that calls for a vote on the secession of Alaska from the United States. The motto of the AKIP is "Alaska First - Alaska Always".
Proposal: The Alaskan Independence Party (AKIP) is an Alaskan political party that calls for a vote on the secession of Alaska from the United States. Its motto is "Alaska First - Alaska Always". [38] Palin's husband Todd was a registered member of AKIP from 1995 to 2002, [39] and served as the Treasurer of Palin's 1999 mayoral campaign. [40] Sarah Palin herself has always been registered Republican. [41] She attended the 2000 AKIP convention, [42] and as governor, sent a video address to the 2008 AKIP convention. [43]
He was also a registered member of Alaskan Independence Party (AKIP) from 1995 to 2002; while Palin has always been a registered Republican, she attended the 2000 AKIP convention, and as governor, sent a video address to the 2008 AKIP convention.
Declined It is clear that at the present time there is no consensus supporting any version of the edit proposed here. If such a consensus forms in the future, and is clearly stable, then it will be time to use the {{
edit protected}} template.
GRBerry
20:17, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
AKIP Inclusion request
{{ editprotected}} As there has been no objections raised I would suggest the following for submision. Sitedown ( talk) 02:04, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
Proposed Sarah attended the Alaskan Independence Party convention in 2006 and sent a welcome movie to the attendees of the 2008 AKIP statewide convention. [7] Sitedown ( talk) 20:57, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
The fact that there is so much controversy both for an against the exclusion or inclusion of this information then it is obviously important. I believe if there is documented evidence of Sarah Palin attending multiple events for the AIP this should be noted as this I believe is simply a documented biography of noteworthy facts. { 99.228.151.16 ( talk) 22:49, 4 September 2008 (UTC)}
This mentions Palin and AKIP and uses as a source for the correction, the same ABC source that was used for the original incorrect charge.-- Paul ( talk) 06:50, 6 September 2008 (UTC)Members of the of the Alaskan Independence Party suggested that Palin was a member at some point, [44] but have since retracted that claim. [45]
Just to keep us all up to date, what are the plans to get this page down to semiprotection? This is supposed to be a Wiki. I remember reading somewhere that we were going to give it a try on Saturday. This is Sunday and the page has been fully protected for three days. I think someone on this page seriously proposed keeping it locked until after the election, which is a laughable suggestion and diametrically opposed to Wikipedia's mission to be an encyclopedia that anyone can edit. -- Steven J. Anderson ( talk) 19:04, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
I have just finished writing this summary of the traffic and activity on this page. It remains the most visited page on Wikipedia. I plan to propose a reduction in protection once the evidence shows this page falls out of the top spot, but we aren't there yet. Dragons flight ( talk) 21:10, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
Mr. Anderson makes a wondeful point. Mrs. Palin's page may be receiving an enomorous ammount of attention and be suseptable to vandalism, but the irony is, that by receiving such focus the chance of removing slanderous and untruthful comments also proportionally increases. For Wikipedia to place this page under full protection is a basic violation of one of their basic strengths, an "open and transparent consensus." To reject the word is to reject the human search. ~Max Lerner —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aruhnka ( talk • contribs) 06:12, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
Why doesn't Obama's page get the same protection she does? Are the wiki admins being paid by the republican party or something? I've notive alot of things with this presidential election and wiki and alot of things I've observed have been pro republican themes and reverts. This needs to be put out on main stream media on how wiki has change to being evil now.-- Ron John ( talk) 11:59, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
Currently, the last line of "Energy and Environment" states:
Palin also disagrees with strengthening the protection status of the beluga whales in Cook Inlet, Alaska, where oil and gas development has been proposed.
Recommend replacing with:
Palin also opposed the placement of beluga whales in Alaska's Cook Inlet on the engangered species list, on economic grounds. Palin cited state scientists who claimed that hunting was the only factor causing the whales' decline, and that the hunting has been effectively controlled through cooperative agreements with Alaska Native organizations. [46] [47]
I believe it's more neutral and specific. This is the additional source being cited for the info, in addition to the source already on the sentence. Kelly hi! 09:12, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
In 2007 Palin urged against a proposal by the National Marine Fisheries Service to place beluga whales in Alaska's Cook Inlet on the engangered species list. Such a listing entails vetting of all actions under the scope of federal agencies. Palin argued that there was evidence that the whale population was on the increase, and warned against damage to the local economy by the costs of added delays in process. [48] [49]
? 86.44.29.35 ( talk) 10:00, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
I'd say this discussion really needs to take place on the "Political positions" page where we can maybe do some proper wiki editing on an unlocked page, and then when we have consensus we can summarize it here. The version currently up there has already benefited from a bit of back and forth between Kelly and myself.
Here is the version as it currently stands on "Political positions":
As an intermediate step, I propose the first sentence of the above for this page, sourced to the Time article which is the ony secondary source we have at the moment:
This avoids mentioning oil & gas which are not the main economic considerations (it's really about fishing) and is generally a bit more neutral. T0mpr1c3 ( talk) 12:30, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
Pending any further suggestions: I propose Palin also opposed the placement of beluga whales in Alaska's Cook Inlet on the endangered species list, on economic grounds in place of the current sentence. 79.74.252.173 ( talk) 23:07, 7 September 2008 (UTC) I support the sentence change since it is more accurate than the current one. -- ThaddeusB ( talk) 00:02, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
{{ editprotected}}
(in place of Palin also disagrees with strengthening the protection status of the beluga whales in Cook Inlet, Alaska, where oil and gas development has been proposed.) T0mpr1c3 ( talk) 14:31, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
Approve. Could maybe wikilink beluga whales. T0mpr1c3 ( talk) 08:18, 8 September 2008 (UTC) Approve This is definitely an improvement (more neutral and more accurate). -- ThaddeusB ( talk) 17:00, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
Approve Manticore55 ( talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 21:20, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
<de>
--Proposed edit until consensus is reached for reasons stated above. Otherwise, people who go to this encyclopedia will think that consensus has been reached when it clearly has not.--
![]() |
GreekParadise ( talk) 16:22, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
I withdraw my original request. Now that wikipedians are fully able to edit article, I think we're resolving conflicts nicely. (Knock on wood!). GreekParadise ( talk) 19:35, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
Oppose:Disagree for now, can you be more specific? Kelly hi! 16:26, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
Oppose: As above, I think this is a poor reason to insert a POV tag on this article. Ronnotel ( talk) 16:44, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
Oppose I don't like most of her politics, but the article is neutral in regard to the facts. The debate about adding additional content that doesn't favor her is a separate issue. While the article isn't as up to date as it could be (and Wikipedia policy is clear that it is better to be out of date than to try to be a news source) doesn't make the article POV. Again, I am not a fan of hers, but there does seem to be a fair amount of people determined to turn the article into a political tool, which is NOT the purpose of Wikipedia. PHARMBOY ( TALK) 16:54, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
Oppose The typical wikipedian: a white male under 35, who favors legalizing pot, is a tekkie, leans socialist, is pro-obama, despises conservatism....of COURSE you think its POV. You want to shove more controversy in it...like talking about speaking in tongues, etc. Funny how the words "black liberation theology" is no where to be found on Obama's article. But Palin/McCain now have a 10 pt lead in the polls, and I understand how desperate you are. You have to save Obama! You got to get that controversy stuffed in this article.....these are desperate times!! 17:09, 8 September 2008 24.18.108.5 (Talk)
Oppose, for the time being .... someone should condense what the issues are and then the validity of a tag can be weighed. CENSEI ( talk) 17:26, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
Oppose no valid reasons have been given for the adding the tag - this seems to a request based on frustration that the article is locked rather than actual material problems -- ThaddeusB ( talk) 17:34, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
Oppose -- I don't see how this would help resolve anything, and I'm not sure what particular POV you're suggesting exists. Coemgenus 17:39, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
Oppose -- Seems to be lacking a lot of substance, but it sure doesn't seem biased to me. Manticore55 ( talk) 17:34, 9 September 2008 (UTC) Oppose with caveat While small portions here and there are subtly unbalanced (in either direction!), I don't see any overall problem with neutrality. The disjointedness present here is very common with a high interest article with polarized perspectives. I would revisit this if someone was more specific. Baccyak4H ( Yak!) 19:05, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
Oppose - NPOV icons are an admission of defeat, that we can't work out how to edit an article. Page protection more or less says as much. The very idea of consensus on a POV tag is baffling, and asking for an NPOV tag to go in under page protection seems doubly odd. POV tags are usually added only after one fails to gain consensus for something. If we had consensus together to say that the article has a POV violation we might as well get consensus together to make a protected edit to fix it? Wikidemon ( talk) 19:17, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
Oppose on the basis of what is being proposed as POV problems below. Kaisershatner ( talk) 20:34, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
Oppose I do not see what the proposal states as being a POV bias in the article. It seems we've removed the major POV problems are are chipping away at minor problems now. -- 98.243.129.181 ( talk) 20:43, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
Oppose any tags on one of our highest trafficked articles, but more on principle than anything else (I think tags are evil and unprofessional, and are too self-referential). Of course the neutrality is disputed. It always will be, from one side of the aisle to the other, depending on who's editing. Political articles are pendulums, which by laws of physics, eventually will settle into a very nice article with smaller and smaller undulations. With or without a POV tag. I will always "vote" without, for any tag, especially for a highly visited article. Keeper ǀ 76 22:14, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
Oppose The only complaint I see is that some editors want to lard up the article with every single Dem talking point about her. Sorry, that's not what Wikipedia is for. A.J.A. ( talk) 04:03, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
Agree I would prefer the article was unlocked but if we can't get that then this is a good start. Sitedown ( talk) 16:49, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
Agree Wholeheartedly. Spiff1959 ( talk) 17:06, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
Agree The objectively of the article is in dispute even though the majority might think it is fair. In reading though the talk page archives it is clear that many of the changes made were based on democracy rather than clear consensus. It would be best at this time to denote the article does not represent a neutral point of view and begin working to achieve it. Neutralis ( talk) 17:13, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
Agree -- A POV tag would not be unreasonable, considering the ongoing discussion here. On the other hand if people want to help get either Senator Obama or Senator McCain elected they will probably do much better to volunteer at their local campaign office rather than fooling around on WP. :-) Steve Dufour ( talk) 17:14, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
Agree -- Just putting in a vote for my own proposal. Now it's 7-5.
GreekParadise (
talk) 19:02, 8 September 2008 (UTC) See above note.
GreekParadise (
talk)
19:35, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
Agree, and in a case like this, it shouldn't be a vote, but an indication. The current situation is that enough people are concerned about POV for it to be POV-tagged. Our concerns should not be dismissed. Phlegm Rooster ( talk) 22:03, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
Agree only if equal treatment This article deserves a POV tag only if Barack Obama and John McCain also get one. 3 or 4 articles have POV. Only Joe Biden's article is decent. Even that has POV but it's not nearly as bad.
903M (
talk) 01:22, 9 September 2008 (UTC) The end result will be that this will get a POV tag and the other POV articles won't have it as others will cite "other crap exists". This article is not more POV than Obama and McCain.
903M (
talk)
04:32, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
Agree LamaLoLeshLa ( talk) 15:51, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
Agree The continued lock on the door would indicate we are either not worthy or not welcome. Is there another choice?-- Buster7 ( talk) 09:01, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
Comment Can you provide some specific examples of POV within this article? Just because there is a content dispute it doesn't mean that the article itself is POV. Heck, the content dispute could be over things that make a NPOV article POV... -- Bobblehead (rants) 17:15, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
Certainly, Bobblehead. My problem is I'm trying not to get into any specific content war but simply get people to admit that a dispute exists. Right now we have a 7 - 5 vote saying that no controversy exists. But I don't think majority rules. If 5 say a controversy exists, a controversy exists!
Here are some of the things I would change if allowed. They are all well-sourced facts. They are admittedly not a very positive portrayal of Sarah Palin, but as postive portrayals have been included, the more nuanced truth (including negatives) should be included as well. Warning: I am not now trying to argue for this or that point. Only to note that these are points on which consensus has not been reached. While this list is far from complete, there is no mention currently of the following indsiputable facts in the article.
There was never consensus for Jossi's change to the small padlock icon. Please restore the large notice. Previous discussion here, here, here and here. Mike R ( talk) 17:32, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
A suggested link under "External Links" to a new biography about Palin, scheduled to release October 10, according to the press release.
New biography: Sarah Palin: A New Kind of Leader by Joe Hilley
Finz7 ( talk) 17:03, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
Good point. When I see that content is available, I'll write back.
Finz7 ( talk) 14:07, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
Please be advised that Sarah Palin eloped with Todd Palin as a result of pregnancy, rather than financial concern, as noted in this article:
[9]--
Barclay080808 (
talk)
03:55, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
same-sex-unions
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).TimeInt
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).ANWR
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).{{
cite news}}
: Unknown parameter |coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (
help)
{{
cite news}}
: Unknown parameter |coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (
help)
{{
cite news}}
: |access-date=
requires |url=
(
help)