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 50 | Archive 51 | Archive 52 | Archive 53 | Archive 54 | Archive 55 | → | Archive 60 |
Looks to me like there's a few people who are interested in learning or writing a lot more about Sarah Palin than what's really appropriate for an encyclopedia article. Has anyone floated the idea about perhaps making a Wikibook about her (and her career, etc.)? There seems to be a surprising amount of interest in her, at least enough to say that she's a figure worth writing about. Notability has a different bar when it's a whole book rather than an article. -- SB_Johnny | talk 15:45, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
It has been proposed that the Knik Arm Bridge be removed entirely from the "Bridge to Nowhere" section and placed in a section of its own. (I had the KAB as only one sentence in the Bridge to Nowhere section with a footnote, but that proposal was rejected.) I have therefore written a new Bridge to Nowhere section which more accurately follows the section as it existed in the pre-Election consensus, with some modifications based on the comments made here and the wish that Knik Arm Bridge be removed from that section as much as humanly possible. Virtually all of the language I propose has been in the bio at some point in the past. I've also written a separate KAB section. Originally, I thought it best to do this one paragraph at a time, but as the first paragraph had taken more than a month without resolution, I thought I'd give one "last college try" with my suggestions for both sections. I also think, as written, this will explain why I believe that the controversy surrounding Palin's support for the KAB is important to the Palin bio, even though the KAB, like the GIB, was first proposed before she came in office. If the last paragraph of the GIB section looks familiar, you may remember it. It was a consensus paragraph agreed on in September 2008 and then moved from the bridge section to the campaign section in October 2008. Then the paragraph was deleted entirely in one fell swoop by a single editor after the Election (without any talk page discussion or warning). I'd like it back. I think the paragraph works better in the bridge section, but if people insist on it being back in the campaign section instead, I can live with that as long as there's a "see also" tag in the bridge section.
"Bridge to Nowhere"
See also: Gravina Island Bridge
In 2005, a federal omnibus spending bill included $223 million in earmarks for constructing a bridge to Gravina Island, the site of the Ketchikan airport. As Gravina Island has a population of only 50, the bridge became known as the "Bridge to Nowhere" and received nationwide attention as a symbol of pork-barrel spending. Following an outcry by the public and some members of Congress, including John McCain, Congress eliminated both this Alaska bridge earmark and a separate $230 million earmark for the proposed Alaskan Knik Arm Bridge (discussed further below), instead giving the $453 million to Alaska as part of its general transportation fund with no strings attached.
[RETURN OLD PRE-ELECTION CONSENSUS CAPTION FOR PICTURE] As a candidate in 2006, Palin said in Ketchikan that the Gravina Island Bridge was essential for prosperity, but later canceled it.
In 2006, Palin ran for governor with a "build-the-bridge" plank in her platform, supporting the use of state and federal funds to construct the Gravina Island and Knik Arm bridges. With regards to Gravina Island, Palin said she sympathized with members of a community that had been characterized by the press as "nowhere," and that she would "not allow the spinmeisters to turn this project ... into something that's so negative."[5] She also urged speedy work on building the infrastructure "while our congressional delegation is in a strong position to assist."[6]
As governor, however, Palin cancelled the Gravina Island Bridge in September 2007 saying that Congress had "little interest in spending any more money" due to what she called "inaccurate portrayals of the projects."[7] She opted not to return the $442 million in federal transportation funds.[8] Palin did maintain her support for a controversial 3-mile highway on the bridgeless Gravina Island, committing $25 million in federal funds to the project that has been derided by critics as a “Road to Nowhere” because it would have gone to the proposed bridge but now does not connect to the mainland. [Add picture] Alaska state officials said if the money were not used for the road it would have had to have been returned to the federal government.[9]
During the vice-presidential campaign, controversy erupted over differences between Sarah Palin's positions as a gubernatorial candidate and her position as a vice-presidential candidate. While campaigning for vice-president, Palin touted her stance on "the bridge to nowhere" as an example of her opposition to pork barrel spending and earmark abuses.[5] In her nomination acceptance speech and on the campaign trail, Palin has often said, "I told the Congress 'thanks, but no thanks,' on that Bridge to Nowhere."[12] Although Palin was originally a main proponent of the Gravina Island Bridge, McCain-Palin television advertisements asserted that Palin "stopped the Bridge to Nowhere."[13] These statements have been widely questioned or described as misleading or exaggerations[14] by many media groups in the U.S., with critics arguing she had repeatedly expressed support for the spending project and even kept the Federal money after the project was canceled. [11] [15] As Newsweek put it, "Now she talks as if she always opposed the funding."[16]
The Knik Arm Bridge, proposed to cross the Knik Arm of the Cook Inlet to link Anchorage to the Matanuska-Susitna Borough, received a $230 million earmark in the same controversial 2005 omnibus spending bill that included the Gravina Island Bridge. That bill dictated the Knik Arm Bridge be named "Don Young's Way" after Alaska's Congressman Don Young). As with its more famous cousin, the “Bridge to Nowhere,” the Knik Arm Earmark was eliminated along with the Gravina Earmark due to the criticism by John McCain and others. (John McCain called federal funding for the project a "monstrosity" and "terrifying in its fiscal consequences.") The Knik Arm Bridge has been derided by some commentators as a second “Bridge to Nowhere.”
Unlike the Gravina Island Bridge, which Palin canceled after changing her mind, Palin continues to support the Knik Arm Bridge and federal funding for it. Although less controversial than the Gravina Island Bridge, Palin’s support of Knik Arm has also been criticized as pork-barrel spending. Some critics have even claimed she favors the bridge because it would provide an alternate commuting route to her hometown of Wasilla, the largest city in the Mat-Su Borough. Supporters of the Knik Arm Bridge counter that the bridge is primarily useful to open land across Knik Arm for further development of Anchorage, Alaska’s largest city, and to provide easier commuting for several Alaska cities and towns. In April 2009, Palin opposed the steps by taken by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration to designate the Cook Inlet as a “critical habitat for beluga whales” under the Endangered Species Act on the grounds that, among other things, it might interrupt the development of the proposed Knik Arm Bridge.
Obviously this is just a draft. It may have typos, and I know it lacks sources and wikilinks, which will be put back in if we can come to an agreement on language. I care more about content than any specific language. Finally, I realize the first paragraph of KAB is somewhat repetitive of the first paragraph of GIB. I think that's the necessary evil of separating the two bridges. GreekParadise ( talk) 18:08, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
(outdent) To clear up any possible misunderstanding, I also support my one-paragraph summary of the affair of the "Bridge to Nowhere."-- Paul ( talk) 01:11, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
If we throw out the KAB, we get a discrepancy between the 223 million and the 453 million (that discrepancy being the KAB), but for the sake of argument, I've pared KAB down to two words "and another" to see how it reads. (The fourth paragraph was originally in the campaign section and can be returned there though I prefer it here) I've also tried to tighten the language a bit to cut unnecessary words.
In 2005, a federal omnibus spending bill included $223 million in earmarks for constructing a bridge to Gravina Island, the site of the Ketchikan airport. As Gravina Island has a population of only 50, the bridge became known as the "Bridge to Nowhere" and received nationwide attention as a symbol of pork-barrel spending. Following an outcry by the public and some members of Congress, including John McCain, Congress eliminated this and another Alaska bridge earmark, instead giving the $453 million to Alaska as part of its general transportation fund with no strings attached. [PICTURE CAPTION: As a candidate in 2006, Palin said in Ketchikan that the Gravina Island Bridge was essential for prosperity, but later canceled it.]
In 2006, Palin campaigned for governor by supporting the use of state and federal funds to construct the Gravina Island Bridge, saying she sympathized with members of a community that had been characterized by the press as "nowhere," and would "not allow the spinmeisters to turn this project ... into something that's so negative"[5] She urged the bridge be built fast "while our congressional delegation is in a strong position to assist."[6]
A year later, Palin changed her mind. As governor, Palin cancelled the Gravina Island Bridge but did not return the $453 million in federal transportation funds.[8] Instead, $25 million of the federal funds were used to build a 3-mile highway on the bridgeless Gravina Island that has been derided by critics as a “Road to Nowhere” because, without the bridge, the usually empty road has no connection to the mainland.[10] [picture] Alaska state officials said under law, if the money had not been used for the road it would have had to have been returned to the federal government.[9]
During the campaign, both McCain and Palin frequently touted Palin for "stopping the Bridge to Nowhere" as a prime example of Palin's opposition to pork barrel spending and earmark abuses.[5] "I told the Congress "thanks, but no thanks, on that Bridge to Nowhere," Palin said in her nomination acceptance speech, and she frequently repeated this line in stump speeches and campaign advertisements. The line was widely described in the media as misleading or an exaggeration [14], with critics accusing her of flip-flopping and being very selective in her recollection of her involvement with the bridge. [11] As Newsweek put it, "Now she talks as if she always opposed the funding."[16]
I wrote this and got an Edit Conflict. Now I'm reprinting it and responding to Fcried's last comment. The trouble with excluding the "cutesy" phrase "Road to Nowhere" is that it, like the also "cutesy" "Bridge to Nowhere", is often how the the road is known and been used by media sources like CNN. You can view the CNN clip here: [ [1]]. ("Road to Nowhere" has a wikipedia entry referring to this road on its disambiguation page that I didn't put there.) I think I've put it in proper context. True, we could phrase it thus: " Instead, $26 million of the federal funds were used to build a 3-mile highway on the bridgeless Gravina Island that has been derided by critics because, without the bridge, the usually empty road has no connection to the mainland" But the wikilink would still go to "Road to Nowhere." GreekParadise ( talk) 14:16, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
I never said what I think. I said "derided by critics as a 'Road to Nowhere' ". Is that not accurate? In the section on "estate tax," wikipedia says that opponents of the estate tax call it the "death tax." Should that comment be removed because it suggests that the author of the article is against the tax? After all, there is no such thing as a "death tax" anywhere in the law. So is this mention POV? In fact, should all critiques -- and the words they use -- be removed from wikipedia? How about "pro-life" and "pro-choice"? Both terms are POV-pushing. Should both terms be removed in any article on abortion? Does it "force opinion" to tell readers what side of an opinion thinks? I think you know the answers to these questions, Fcried. I suspect only in the Sarah Palin article -- unique among biographies of controversial political figures -- do people actually argue that you should not present both sides of a question but only the non-critical side.
But it doesn't matter. You've refused compromise even with the substitute language I had put above ("a 3-mile highway on the bridgeless Gravina Island"), right? GreekParadise ( talk) 19:45, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
I’ll try to keep this as short as I can, but I wanted to call for a little perspective here. Keep in mind that this article is intended to summarize Palin’s whole life, from birth to present.
This article, and its talk page, seems frozen in the 2008 campaign, with the battles being endlessly rehashed. This has resulted in a serious lack of perspective in the article, with relatively minor issues that, as is typical in campaigns, get blown up into campaign talking points that are reflected in media coverage. Just looking at the present content, the GIB, which was never a significant issue until the campaign, has four subparagraphs. Her tenture at the AOGCC, which made her political reputation in Alaska, gets four sentences. Of her early signature accomplishments as governor, the gas pipeline gets one short subpara, while ACES and ethics reform legislation get no mention at all. For now I won’t even get into the long Troopergate section, which is of vastly undue weight.
Not only is the bridge stuff undue weight now, it will become even more insignificant as time goes on. There are new sources and developments occurring with Palin every day (though I haven’t seen it reflected in the article.) A new biography, “Trailblazer” by Lorenzo Benet, was published with a wealth of information on her early life. The head of McCain’s VP search team has come forward with details on how she was selected to run. Palin herself gave a long interview to John Ziegler about the media coverage during the campaign, and she gave a deeply personal speech in Evansville, Indiana last week about the birth of her youngest son.
Her political career is still intensely covered by the media, both at a state and national level. She’s had epic battles with her state legislature this year over the economic stimulus, her selection for Attorney General, and her appointment to a vacant Senate seat in Juneau. She’s dealt with a humanitarian crisis in the Lower Yukon. She testified on climate change before the Secretary of the Interior, and has been pushing for an in-state natural gas bullet line and consolidation of Railbelt utility corporations. She advocated parental notification/consent legislation for girls under age 17 to have an abortion, and faced controversy when she appointed a Supreme Court judge who had been a board member at Planned Parenthood. She’s racked up $500,000 in personal legal bills fighting frivolous lawsuits and ethics complaints, and has received literally thousands of invitations to speak before groups and public events.
I give the above just as a sample of events within only past couple of months that are more noteworthy than her position on the GIB, much less the KAB. People editing this article need to be thinking of summary style, putting information first into the subarticles, then bringing summaries here. Pretend you’re writing about Palin a hundred years from now and you’re picking out the most significant facts. The detailed stuff belongs in the subarticles. Kelly hi! 18:14, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
I remember the discussion on several issues which dissolved into minutia, framed away by tireless defenders of the governor to the point that I no longer felt it was worth my time to pursue them, which, I believe was ultimately the point.
Thus, to me 'the perspective' is that the person who I thought was most neutral several months ago and who was acting as 'reasonable mediator' appears quite Pro Palin in her attempts to call for perspective. I understand that it is Wikipedia policy to avoid personal attacks. This is not an attempt at a personal attack.
Rather, it is an attempt to say that I find Kelly's perspective, over the course of time, to be as skewed as those she is attempting to moderate, and therefore feel that anything as contentious as the Bristol Palin and Bridge issue should be handled by formal arbitration. Manticore55 ( talk) 04:13, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
Writegeist's beautiful comment on my talk page has given me exactly the help I was looking for: peace, validation and absolution. GreekParadise ( talk) 06:32, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
The only question left is whether to put a POV-tag on this article before I go, in honor of all of those there who believe that Palin's track star status is more important than her public policy choices.
I had been leaning toward it. But at the moment I'm leaning not, at least not by me, in order to get a clean break from the mental chains that cause me to go back and keep checking the Sarah Palin bio to decry its slow but certain slide from balanced article to Sarah Palin press release. I would welcome anyone else who wants to put such a tag up -- after all, the article is unbalanced and we're not allowed to modify it -- and it's not just the bridge section. People think I'm fixated on the bridges, but I always saw the bridges as a microcosm of the larger problem with the article. The idea was I would study one area of Palin and get to know all the sources backwards and forwards so there would be no question in my mind about the facts. That way I could argue with authority on at least one issue, while leaving most of the other issues largely to others. If I ever could past the "Bridge to Nowhere," I could then focus on other issues. But the Bridge led....with perfect irony...to (wait for it...yes it's coming...can't resist...) NOWHERE.
God has granted me the serenity to change the things I can, to accept the things I can't, and the wisdom to know the difference. I know there is no way to implement wikipedia policies of NPOV and verifiability and scholarship and banning own research and assuming good faith and balance and truthfulness in this bio in the face of a determined group of hagiographers who refuse to engage in give and take or compromise.
Luckily, Sarah Palin doesn't matter any more. When she was new to the scene, people flocked to wikipedia to find out about her. Now she's a national joke, thanks to her own ridiculous campaign interviews and the deft skewering by Tina Fey. If Sarah Palin ever starts to matter again, rest assured I'll be back and, if my fellow travelers who want a balanced bio aren't there, I will insist on formal arbitration on all disputes, particularly if they're with the same people who control the article now. If this happens, my first step will be to return all of the detailed, verifiable, and relevant content in the Election-Day Consensus which has been and will be deleted by the Sarah Palin Image-Protection Propaganda Office.
I would hope a POV tag would be left up, in recognition of the fact that this bio is rapidly transforming from Election-Day Consensus to Palin Hagiography. Just because Sarah's determined minions are able to spend more time on this bio than those of us who believe in NPOV doesn't mean anything in this article meets wikipedia standards. But I'll leave that battle for others to fight. Most everyone who believes in NPOV has left already. And I, like them, have much better things to do than hit my head against a brick wall.
I again thank Writegeist from the bottom of my heart for freeing me from my mental chains. If others want to bring this article, or any portion of it, to arbitration, please notify me. Use my email address newly added to my talk page. I will be happy to help in any way I can. But I hereby absolve myself of any obligation to ensure the SP bio is truthful or accurate or balanced or even makes sense. I am content to let it return, slowly but surely, to the fetid quicksand from which YoungTrig brought it forth from the very beginning of the time when Sarah Palin actually mattered.
Orwell was right. Big Brother gets to write his own bio. I love Big Brother. I love Sarah Palin. GreekParadise ( talk) 06:32, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
I do not know enough about grammar rules to be sure of this, but I think that in the "Public Safety Commissioner dismissal" section, the following "Monegan stated he learned an internal investigation..." could use the word "that" either after 'stated' or 'learned'. I do not know if it is grammatically incorrect, but I do think it would read easier with this addition. Luminite2 ( talk) 21:45, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
In case SP editors are interested. - Peregrine Fisher ( talk) ( contribs) 15:48, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
In the spirit of BRD, I reverted an edit that described the State Personnel Board as "Governor-appointed", which was added in the section regarding the fact that Board cleared her of all wrongdoing in the Troopergate investigation. The adjective seems intended to imply some kind of corruption - in fact, the majority of the Board was appointed by Palin's predecessor, Frank Murkowski, who was defeated by Palin. I'm not seeing how that would make them friendly or biased toward her. Kelly hi! 17:50, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
Would it be factual to add the following: Of the three member Personnel Board, Debra English was reappointed by Palin and Alfred Tamagni donated $400.00 to Palin for her 2006 race for governor. [1] Jimmuldrow ( talk) 19:33, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
It would be almost as concise to mention Murkowski along with the rest. A sentence or two should do it. Probably one sentence. Jimmuldrow ( talk) 15:24, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
Please edit this article as follows: "A spokesman for Alaska's Department of Transportation made a statement that it was within Palin's power to cancel the road project, but also noted that the state still had plans to complete the bridge project, and that in any case the road would open up the surrounding lands for development."
I don't think that the cited source mentions anything about the state still planning to complete the bridge project. Ferrylodge ( talk) 23:40, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
At this point both Bristol and Levi have given multiple interviews. They have been a 1/2 dozen press releases from on her status. There have been hundreds of of news articles and editorials in reliable sources regarding her. She has become a major point of reference in the abstinence debates. It is my opinion that we can't not cover this. That at this point she is notable, there is verifiable information regarding several controversies she is involved in and she is a figure of public interest. I'd like to open up a discussion regarding:
jbolden1517 Talk 04:20, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
Kristin Gore and Chelsea Clinton have articles. Near as I can tell they both have done little more than step up on the national stage to support their famous relations. Same as Bristol. Ozarkhighlands ( talk) 19:50, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
Will, look at the proposal. The problem is the article is blocked. You can't write one. jbolden1517 Talk 04:19, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
Started discussion for what should be in the article at User_talk:Jbolden1517/Bristol_Palin.
The sources exist to establish independent notability, no doubt about it. She's arguably one of the more notable young people in the world right now in terms of not only the chatter (which doesn't concern us) but more importantly mainstream media coverage. Ozarkhighlands ( talk) 03:29, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
That question is almost a kind of feedback loop. The opening couple comments in this thread from jbolden1517 lays it out pretty clearly. In normal political campaigns the children are out of bounds. This was not a normal political campaign. Gov. Palin and Sen. McCain rolled out the Palin family far into the stream of public discourse. Gov. Palin herself continues to create the notability you deny through spokespeople paid either by the office of the governor of the state of Alaska or out of Palin family funds, which are ostensibly controlled by Todd and Sarah Palin. You have said those releases were not from Gov. Palin but from Bristol. Doesn't having a spokesperson whose releases make international headlines count for notability of their subject? Furthermore, Bristol has willingly participated in this activity whose scope is the grounds for notability, giving interviews and making public appearances. Ozarkhighlands ( talk) 13:05, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
Might be a good idea to check to see if readers who reach this article through one of the the numerous redirects will find what they're looking for. -- SB_Johnny | talk 18:08, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
So you acknowledge the notability? I agree that Bristol's interview by Greta Van Sustern for Fox's "On the Record" (broadcast in two segments), and numerous other coverage in mainstream sources, seems to be kind of high profile in line with wiki's notability parameters. Thanks for acknowledging Van Sustern's interview; after your mention I looked it up. It can be found at this link: < http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,494205,00.html>. Ozarkhighlands ( talk) 17:55, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
Just thought I'd note that I've gone to the change-protection page and have requested a bump down to semi-protected Purplebackpack89 ( talk) 05:14, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
After having my edits reverted, I took a look at the edit history for the last month(ish) and in particular the edits that involved the removal of all references to Levi Johnston -
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Sarah_Palin&diff=prev&oldid=284498715
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Sarah_Palin&diff=prev&oldid=284339818
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Sarah_Palin&diff=prev&oldid=283720813
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Sarah_Palin&diff=prev&oldid=281983472
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Sarah_Palin&diff=prev&oldid=276889425
I had my edit reverted by Kelly, who claimed there is no consensus to have the name of Levi Johnston in the article.
Considering that she has had to revert five different editors who all wished to include that name, I would suggest that there is obvious consensus. There are no BLP issues as the name is available in many sources. No privacy issues. Seeing the amount of media coverage, it is obviously notable.
All I see is an editor who has made a lot of edits on the Palin article, thinking that they own the article.
カンチョーSennen Goroshi ! ( talk) 11:22, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
Yes, Sennen, you are right. A certain "XXX" in particular, who, contrary to the principles of Wikipedia, decided I was a malintentioned fringe person, "labeled" me as that, and then just edited the thing the way [XXX] wanted, withour "stooping" so low as to give a rational explanation beyond easily refuted superficialities, the labelling and bullying. Thankfully, other pages have better editors who do not resort to name calling and bullying right off the bat, and as a modus operandi, except among themselves -- rather they assume the best intentions and give a rational reason, for something as objective as my concern, which involved the way to reference a fact that has no basis at all anywhere in this whole wide world except from Palin's family and press office. Personally I think that XXX is under the employ of Palin herself. XXX gives every show of being objective and balanced, but is always editing in Palin's favor. It is blatant and obvious -- just look at the editing history. Just what you'd expect from the Palin camp. I won't stoop to naming names myself, it is not polite. But... YOU know who you are! AtomAnt ( talk) 20:05, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
There you go again, with your "fringe" labeling. Well, it just goes to show you, when people run out of ideas for rational discussion they simply revert to name calling, and think they have made an argument. Such people seem to imagine themselves as being pretty smart, but really it is a reflection of vacuity. I stand by my original suggestion, that there should be in-line running-text mention of source where there is no source other than a person's family and staff. AtomAnt ( talk) 02:26, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I just reread the Assume-Good-Faith rule, and I assure you, I have always assumed good faith, even when my first suggestion was summarily dispached by people who apparently haven't read it, who instead of reason resorted to name calling, thinking that would solve things. We assume AGF, but what about editors who constantly defy it, and then run for cover behind it? In the case in question, for example, Levi Johnson is now a household name in connection with Sarah Palin, yet Sennen's objectively written report about their relationship is not allowed, and is zealously deleted by heavy-handed editing. Not allowed? Can Napoleon's page mention Waterloo? I suppose not, if there were editors working the page for him, striving to delete any information that was "inconvenient." It is not a question of space. For example, in the question of my own suggestion, why is the birth date of Sarah Palin's grandchild even mentioned at all? If I go to pages of other politicians, are the birth dates given for their grandkids? Why only here? Answer that, in the name of AGF. Might it have to be that Sarah Palin would like this birth date to appear? There is a pattern here that makes a charade of AGF. AtomAnt ( talk) 16:55, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
Can anyone explain why we shouldn't casually mention Levi Johnston's name? He's a public figure, and whether or not he's notable enough to deserve his own article has nothing to do with whether his name is worth noting here. TruthIIPower ( talk) 18:17, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
(undent)We already have an article for Todd Palin. Why not broaden the coverage of that article to cover the immediate family of Sarah Palin? Either the Todd Palin article could be re-named, or instead the stuff about Bristol could just go in the Todd Palin article as it is currently named. In the great scheme of things, details about the daughter are relatively notable in a Todd Palin bio, and less notable in a Sarah Palin bio, because there are so many things in Sarah Palin's life that are more notable than in her husband's life. Ferrylodge ( talk) 02:59, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
-- Gebl Gebl Gebl ( talk) 19:59, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
I typically steer clear of the purely politics stuff, but this bit was added in good faith today: "Palin set up a legal fund to defend herself against a dozen ethics complaints. Some charge that the fund itself is an ethics violation.[213]" First, the use of "some" doesn't jive with the source, which states this is an individual (Kim Chatman) filing suit, and the article doesn't list other plaintiffs. Thus, "one person" (or naming the individual directly) would more accurately reflect this source. Next, unless I'm missing something, there isn't yet any determination of merit on the suit itself, i.e. no legal entity has ruled there is grounds for complaint. Therefore, at this juncture, the story has no legs. Given that the story first broke today (4/28/2009), it seems we're into the WP:NOTNEWS realm until something develops. Just my thoughts... Fcreid ( talk) 19:55, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
I was thinking about this after the "State Personnel Board investigation:"
What do you think? Celestra ( talk) 21:02, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
Just curious - what external links do we typically add to biographies? Palin started a Twitter account today [20] and was already on Facebook. [21] Kelly hi! 03:53, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
See the thread at RPP. Gwen Gale ( talk) 13:10, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 May 7 KillerChihuahua ?!? 20:09, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
Now at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Levi Johnston KillerChihuahua ?!? 14:04, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
Someone has just inserted a table of poll results into the Governor section. The present article already has a lengthy summary of poll numbers: "Polls taken in 2007 early in her term showed her with a 93% and 89% popularity among all voters,[63] which led some media outlets to call her 'the most popular governor in America.'[55][63] A poll taken in late September 2008 after Palin was named to the national Republican ticket showed her popularity in Alaska at 68%.[64] A poll taken in May 2009 showed Palin's popularity among Alaskan's was at 54% positive and 41.6% negative.[65]"
Plus the Huffington Post is not a reliable source. So, I'll remove the recently-inserted table, which is redundant, cites an unreliable source, and is not a summary of the sub-article. See WP:Summary style. Ferrylodge ( talk) 03:54, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
Huffington Post is frequently called an unreliable source, but it has fewer controversies than any major newspaper I am aware of. The three "controversies" are a commentator confusing the forum and news sections, linking to an NBC article which turned out to be innacurate, and publishing anti-vaccine pieces. None of these are objections are outstanding. Beyond that, they are deemed legitimate enough for many Democratic and independent political leaders to contribute articles and are granted press passes by the White House. It is frequently attacked as unreliable despite a proven record of accuracy. O76923 ( talk) 00:30, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
The wikilink to the Levi Johnston article was edited out of the Sarah Palin article. As this individual is directly related to Palin's family life (and political life), I added it back. If any editor would like to discuss this, please state your opinions here. Thanks. Ism schism ( talk) 09:58, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
Manticore55 ( talk) 23:54, 13 May 2009 (UTC) Ah "Consensus." What, precisely does Gravity have to do with Newton exactly? How then does Mr. Johnson have anything to do with Ms. Palin?
That is fairly amusing, so I will indulge. Gravity has quite a bit to do with Newton based on the fact that he was the first to devise a decent mathamatical solution to the question that still persists today, (and greatly interests me), what is gravity? Not to mention that gravity is a highly notable subject in physics, mechanics, areonautics, astronomy, achitecture and so on, where as Newton is also highly notable in his own right for explaining the mechanics of motion and creating calculus. Levi Johnston on the other hand is some nobody who knocked up Sarah Palin's daughter and does very little to answer the question, who is Sarah Palin. To respond to TharsHammar, if such offical press releases have been made by Palin or her staff then it seems obvious that the appropriate place for such a mention about this is in an offical section and not a personal one, as Celestra also suggested. Turning to the notability of the young man, I could not really care less about him, or where and when his name is mentioned, and so will return to avoiding this topic like the plague. Zaereth ( talk) 00:33, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
Stumbled across this and don't participate in this page and don't intend to. The independent notability of johnston is completely irrelevant to whether his name is mentioned here or not. I would probably lean towards thinking that so long as the campaign and the limited controversy over the daughter's pregnancy and aftermath are mentioned it should be mentioned BUT there isn't much loss if the name is NOT mentioned. His name is mentioned and linked at the Bristol Palin article; anyone wondering "who the father is" will click on the Bristol Palin link to figure it out. If they're not that interested, reading the proper noun in this article won't add anything to their level of knowledge and understanding (nor does the absence of the proper noun limit their knowledge and understanding in any meaningful way). There are far more relevant disputes that this talk page already has trouble resolving. The presence or absence of johnston's name seems a very low-priority question for the BLP of this politician. Bali ultimate ( talk) 01:04, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
Hi Folks, I would like to open a friendly discussion on the External Links section. According to Wiki guidelines WP:EL external links should be kept to a minimum, ideally including only the link to an official site of the subject. I don't expect that we will trim the current list that far but there are 24 links currently on the page many are in violation of Wiki policy. At least one link is dead, several are redundant and others just plain inappropriate for Wiki guidelines. As a group we need to decide which ones to delete. Any opening comments or initial feedback before I give more specific proposals on what I feel should be deleted? I will not remove anything without first discussing it here.-- Kbob ( talk) 17:34, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
Alright, so let's leave the Interview Section alone for now and start with some others:
In Palin's personal life, it fails to mention that her grandson was born out of wedlock. I changed it accordingly.( Jack1755 ( talk) 20:35, 15 June 2009 (UTC))
Well, if we are to go down that route, we could end up removing chunks of the article as "irrelevant"( Jack1755 ( talk) 20:50, 15 June 2009 (UTC))
I'm wondering if anything about the David Letterman kerfuffle with Palin should appear here. I'm thinking probably not (it seems to be over and done with, and perhaps not really very notable in an encyclopedic sense). It's also worth noting that there seems to be some edit warring over at David Letterman's page over it. Mark Shaw ( talk) 20:22, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
(outdent) This is all pretty much what I was thinking - just wanted to be sure about it. Cheers! Mark Shaw ( talk) 18:31, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
reads like it was written by a fourth grader, complete with failure to understand the difference between possessive and plural and overuse of the comma. i'd clean it up, but golly gee it's funny this way. 98.232.26.116 ( talk) 17:53, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
I know there has been significant discussion about whether or not to place something in the article that specifies that Bristol Palin had a child out of wedlock. I am fairly neutral on that point. However, I do not like the fact that the current wording of the following sentence gives the reader the impression that Bristol and Levi are married. Here is the sentence: "Palin has one grandchild, a boy named Tripp Johnston, who was born to her eldest daughter Bristol and Levi Johnston in 2008." The sentence gives the wrong impression and is grammatically incorrect. Could we just say: "born to her eldest daughter Bristol and her boyfriend Levi Johnston" ? Or should we just say: "born to her eldest daughter Bristol." and not mention Levi. Comments? Discussion?-- Kbob ( talk) 18:49, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
OK, the general consensus seems to be that generally speaking information about Palin's eldest daughter's personal life does not need to be in the article. Especially since the out of wedlock point is made clear in the campaign section and also because Bristol has her own Wiki article which covers the out of wedlock topic. Bristol's personal life could be relevant to the Palin article under in some circumstances (theoretically speaking), but in this instance, common sense tells us it doesn't seem to be an important point to the article. Therefore, I suggest we amend the sentence so that it reads as follows: "Palin has one grandchild, a boy named Tripp Johnston, who was born to her eldest daughter Bristol in 2008." Is this OK? -- Kbob ( talk) 16:59, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
This might be worth citing in the article. Grundle2600 ( talk) 15:27, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
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 50 | Archive 51 | Archive 52 | Archive 53 | Archive 54 | Archive 55 | → | Archive 60 |
Looks to me like there's a few people who are interested in learning or writing a lot more about Sarah Palin than what's really appropriate for an encyclopedia article. Has anyone floated the idea about perhaps making a Wikibook about her (and her career, etc.)? There seems to be a surprising amount of interest in her, at least enough to say that she's a figure worth writing about. Notability has a different bar when it's a whole book rather than an article. -- SB_Johnny | talk 15:45, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
It has been proposed that the Knik Arm Bridge be removed entirely from the "Bridge to Nowhere" section and placed in a section of its own. (I had the KAB as only one sentence in the Bridge to Nowhere section with a footnote, but that proposal was rejected.) I have therefore written a new Bridge to Nowhere section which more accurately follows the section as it existed in the pre-Election consensus, with some modifications based on the comments made here and the wish that Knik Arm Bridge be removed from that section as much as humanly possible. Virtually all of the language I propose has been in the bio at some point in the past. I've also written a separate KAB section. Originally, I thought it best to do this one paragraph at a time, but as the first paragraph had taken more than a month without resolution, I thought I'd give one "last college try" with my suggestions for both sections. I also think, as written, this will explain why I believe that the controversy surrounding Palin's support for the KAB is important to the Palin bio, even though the KAB, like the GIB, was first proposed before she came in office. If the last paragraph of the GIB section looks familiar, you may remember it. It was a consensus paragraph agreed on in September 2008 and then moved from the bridge section to the campaign section in October 2008. Then the paragraph was deleted entirely in one fell swoop by a single editor after the Election (without any talk page discussion or warning). I'd like it back. I think the paragraph works better in the bridge section, but if people insist on it being back in the campaign section instead, I can live with that as long as there's a "see also" tag in the bridge section.
"Bridge to Nowhere"
See also: Gravina Island Bridge
In 2005, a federal omnibus spending bill included $223 million in earmarks for constructing a bridge to Gravina Island, the site of the Ketchikan airport. As Gravina Island has a population of only 50, the bridge became known as the "Bridge to Nowhere" and received nationwide attention as a symbol of pork-barrel spending. Following an outcry by the public and some members of Congress, including John McCain, Congress eliminated both this Alaska bridge earmark and a separate $230 million earmark for the proposed Alaskan Knik Arm Bridge (discussed further below), instead giving the $453 million to Alaska as part of its general transportation fund with no strings attached.
[RETURN OLD PRE-ELECTION CONSENSUS CAPTION FOR PICTURE] As a candidate in 2006, Palin said in Ketchikan that the Gravina Island Bridge was essential for prosperity, but later canceled it.
In 2006, Palin ran for governor with a "build-the-bridge" plank in her platform, supporting the use of state and federal funds to construct the Gravina Island and Knik Arm bridges. With regards to Gravina Island, Palin said she sympathized with members of a community that had been characterized by the press as "nowhere," and that she would "not allow the spinmeisters to turn this project ... into something that's so negative."[5] She also urged speedy work on building the infrastructure "while our congressional delegation is in a strong position to assist."[6]
As governor, however, Palin cancelled the Gravina Island Bridge in September 2007 saying that Congress had "little interest in spending any more money" due to what she called "inaccurate portrayals of the projects."[7] She opted not to return the $442 million in federal transportation funds.[8] Palin did maintain her support for a controversial 3-mile highway on the bridgeless Gravina Island, committing $25 million in federal funds to the project that has been derided by critics as a “Road to Nowhere” because it would have gone to the proposed bridge but now does not connect to the mainland. [Add picture] Alaska state officials said if the money were not used for the road it would have had to have been returned to the federal government.[9]
During the vice-presidential campaign, controversy erupted over differences between Sarah Palin's positions as a gubernatorial candidate and her position as a vice-presidential candidate. While campaigning for vice-president, Palin touted her stance on "the bridge to nowhere" as an example of her opposition to pork barrel spending and earmark abuses.[5] In her nomination acceptance speech and on the campaign trail, Palin has often said, "I told the Congress 'thanks, but no thanks,' on that Bridge to Nowhere."[12] Although Palin was originally a main proponent of the Gravina Island Bridge, McCain-Palin television advertisements asserted that Palin "stopped the Bridge to Nowhere."[13] These statements have been widely questioned or described as misleading or exaggerations[14] by many media groups in the U.S., with critics arguing she had repeatedly expressed support for the spending project and even kept the Federal money after the project was canceled. [11] [15] As Newsweek put it, "Now she talks as if she always opposed the funding."[16]
The Knik Arm Bridge, proposed to cross the Knik Arm of the Cook Inlet to link Anchorage to the Matanuska-Susitna Borough, received a $230 million earmark in the same controversial 2005 omnibus spending bill that included the Gravina Island Bridge. That bill dictated the Knik Arm Bridge be named "Don Young's Way" after Alaska's Congressman Don Young). As with its more famous cousin, the “Bridge to Nowhere,” the Knik Arm Earmark was eliminated along with the Gravina Earmark due to the criticism by John McCain and others. (John McCain called federal funding for the project a "monstrosity" and "terrifying in its fiscal consequences.") The Knik Arm Bridge has been derided by some commentators as a second “Bridge to Nowhere.”
Unlike the Gravina Island Bridge, which Palin canceled after changing her mind, Palin continues to support the Knik Arm Bridge and federal funding for it. Although less controversial than the Gravina Island Bridge, Palin’s support of Knik Arm has also been criticized as pork-barrel spending. Some critics have even claimed she favors the bridge because it would provide an alternate commuting route to her hometown of Wasilla, the largest city in the Mat-Su Borough. Supporters of the Knik Arm Bridge counter that the bridge is primarily useful to open land across Knik Arm for further development of Anchorage, Alaska’s largest city, and to provide easier commuting for several Alaska cities and towns. In April 2009, Palin opposed the steps by taken by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration to designate the Cook Inlet as a “critical habitat for beluga whales” under the Endangered Species Act on the grounds that, among other things, it might interrupt the development of the proposed Knik Arm Bridge.
Obviously this is just a draft. It may have typos, and I know it lacks sources and wikilinks, which will be put back in if we can come to an agreement on language. I care more about content than any specific language. Finally, I realize the first paragraph of KAB is somewhat repetitive of the first paragraph of GIB. I think that's the necessary evil of separating the two bridges. GreekParadise ( talk) 18:08, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
(outdent) To clear up any possible misunderstanding, I also support my one-paragraph summary of the affair of the "Bridge to Nowhere."-- Paul ( talk) 01:11, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
If we throw out the KAB, we get a discrepancy between the 223 million and the 453 million (that discrepancy being the KAB), but for the sake of argument, I've pared KAB down to two words "and another" to see how it reads. (The fourth paragraph was originally in the campaign section and can be returned there though I prefer it here) I've also tried to tighten the language a bit to cut unnecessary words.
In 2005, a federal omnibus spending bill included $223 million in earmarks for constructing a bridge to Gravina Island, the site of the Ketchikan airport. As Gravina Island has a population of only 50, the bridge became known as the "Bridge to Nowhere" and received nationwide attention as a symbol of pork-barrel spending. Following an outcry by the public and some members of Congress, including John McCain, Congress eliminated this and another Alaska bridge earmark, instead giving the $453 million to Alaska as part of its general transportation fund with no strings attached. [PICTURE CAPTION: As a candidate in 2006, Palin said in Ketchikan that the Gravina Island Bridge was essential for prosperity, but later canceled it.]
In 2006, Palin campaigned for governor by supporting the use of state and federal funds to construct the Gravina Island Bridge, saying she sympathized with members of a community that had been characterized by the press as "nowhere," and would "not allow the spinmeisters to turn this project ... into something that's so negative"[5] She urged the bridge be built fast "while our congressional delegation is in a strong position to assist."[6]
A year later, Palin changed her mind. As governor, Palin cancelled the Gravina Island Bridge but did not return the $453 million in federal transportation funds.[8] Instead, $25 million of the federal funds were used to build a 3-mile highway on the bridgeless Gravina Island that has been derided by critics as a “Road to Nowhere” because, without the bridge, the usually empty road has no connection to the mainland.[10] [picture] Alaska state officials said under law, if the money had not been used for the road it would have had to have been returned to the federal government.[9]
During the campaign, both McCain and Palin frequently touted Palin for "stopping the Bridge to Nowhere" as a prime example of Palin's opposition to pork barrel spending and earmark abuses.[5] "I told the Congress "thanks, but no thanks, on that Bridge to Nowhere," Palin said in her nomination acceptance speech, and she frequently repeated this line in stump speeches and campaign advertisements. The line was widely described in the media as misleading or an exaggeration [14], with critics accusing her of flip-flopping and being very selective in her recollection of her involvement with the bridge. [11] As Newsweek put it, "Now she talks as if she always opposed the funding."[16]
I wrote this and got an Edit Conflict. Now I'm reprinting it and responding to Fcried's last comment. The trouble with excluding the "cutesy" phrase "Road to Nowhere" is that it, like the also "cutesy" "Bridge to Nowhere", is often how the the road is known and been used by media sources like CNN. You can view the CNN clip here: [ [1]]. ("Road to Nowhere" has a wikipedia entry referring to this road on its disambiguation page that I didn't put there.) I think I've put it in proper context. True, we could phrase it thus: " Instead, $26 million of the federal funds were used to build a 3-mile highway on the bridgeless Gravina Island that has been derided by critics because, without the bridge, the usually empty road has no connection to the mainland" But the wikilink would still go to "Road to Nowhere." GreekParadise ( talk) 14:16, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
I never said what I think. I said "derided by critics as a 'Road to Nowhere' ". Is that not accurate? In the section on "estate tax," wikipedia says that opponents of the estate tax call it the "death tax." Should that comment be removed because it suggests that the author of the article is against the tax? After all, there is no such thing as a "death tax" anywhere in the law. So is this mention POV? In fact, should all critiques -- and the words they use -- be removed from wikipedia? How about "pro-life" and "pro-choice"? Both terms are POV-pushing. Should both terms be removed in any article on abortion? Does it "force opinion" to tell readers what side of an opinion thinks? I think you know the answers to these questions, Fcried. I suspect only in the Sarah Palin article -- unique among biographies of controversial political figures -- do people actually argue that you should not present both sides of a question but only the non-critical side.
But it doesn't matter. You've refused compromise even with the substitute language I had put above ("a 3-mile highway on the bridgeless Gravina Island"), right? GreekParadise ( talk) 19:45, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
I’ll try to keep this as short as I can, but I wanted to call for a little perspective here. Keep in mind that this article is intended to summarize Palin’s whole life, from birth to present.
This article, and its talk page, seems frozen in the 2008 campaign, with the battles being endlessly rehashed. This has resulted in a serious lack of perspective in the article, with relatively minor issues that, as is typical in campaigns, get blown up into campaign talking points that are reflected in media coverage. Just looking at the present content, the GIB, which was never a significant issue until the campaign, has four subparagraphs. Her tenture at the AOGCC, which made her political reputation in Alaska, gets four sentences. Of her early signature accomplishments as governor, the gas pipeline gets one short subpara, while ACES and ethics reform legislation get no mention at all. For now I won’t even get into the long Troopergate section, which is of vastly undue weight.
Not only is the bridge stuff undue weight now, it will become even more insignificant as time goes on. There are new sources and developments occurring with Palin every day (though I haven’t seen it reflected in the article.) A new biography, “Trailblazer” by Lorenzo Benet, was published with a wealth of information on her early life. The head of McCain’s VP search team has come forward with details on how she was selected to run. Palin herself gave a long interview to John Ziegler about the media coverage during the campaign, and she gave a deeply personal speech in Evansville, Indiana last week about the birth of her youngest son.
Her political career is still intensely covered by the media, both at a state and national level. She’s had epic battles with her state legislature this year over the economic stimulus, her selection for Attorney General, and her appointment to a vacant Senate seat in Juneau. She’s dealt with a humanitarian crisis in the Lower Yukon. She testified on climate change before the Secretary of the Interior, and has been pushing for an in-state natural gas bullet line and consolidation of Railbelt utility corporations. She advocated parental notification/consent legislation for girls under age 17 to have an abortion, and faced controversy when she appointed a Supreme Court judge who had been a board member at Planned Parenthood. She’s racked up $500,000 in personal legal bills fighting frivolous lawsuits and ethics complaints, and has received literally thousands of invitations to speak before groups and public events.
I give the above just as a sample of events within only past couple of months that are more noteworthy than her position on the GIB, much less the KAB. People editing this article need to be thinking of summary style, putting information first into the subarticles, then bringing summaries here. Pretend you’re writing about Palin a hundred years from now and you’re picking out the most significant facts. The detailed stuff belongs in the subarticles. Kelly hi! 18:14, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
I remember the discussion on several issues which dissolved into minutia, framed away by tireless defenders of the governor to the point that I no longer felt it was worth my time to pursue them, which, I believe was ultimately the point.
Thus, to me 'the perspective' is that the person who I thought was most neutral several months ago and who was acting as 'reasonable mediator' appears quite Pro Palin in her attempts to call for perspective. I understand that it is Wikipedia policy to avoid personal attacks. This is not an attempt at a personal attack.
Rather, it is an attempt to say that I find Kelly's perspective, over the course of time, to be as skewed as those she is attempting to moderate, and therefore feel that anything as contentious as the Bristol Palin and Bridge issue should be handled by formal arbitration. Manticore55 ( talk) 04:13, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
Writegeist's beautiful comment on my talk page has given me exactly the help I was looking for: peace, validation and absolution. GreekParadise ( talk) 06:32, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
The only question left is whether to put a POV-tag on this article before I go, in honor of all of those there who believe that Palin's track star status is more important than her public policy choices.
I had been leaning toward it. But at the moment I'm leaning not, at least not by me, in order to get a clean break from the mental chains that cause me to go back and keep checking the Sarah Palin bio to decry its slow but certain slide from balanced article to Sarah Palin press release. I would welcome anyone else who wants to put such a tag up -- after all, the article is unbalanced and we're not allowed to modify it -- and it's not just the bridge section. People think I'm fixated on the bridges, but I always saw the bridges as a microcosm of the larger problem with the article. The idea was I would study one area of Palin and get to know all the sources backwards and forwards so there would be no question in my mind about the facts. That way I could argue with authority on at least one issue, while leaving most of the other issues largely to others. If I ever could past the "Bridge to Nowhere," I could then focus on other issues. But the Bridge led....with perfect irony...to (wait for it...yes it's coming...can't resist...) NOWHERE.
God has granted me the serenity to change the things I can, to accept the things I can't, and the wisdom to know the difference. I know there is no way to implement wikipedia policies of NPOV and verifiability and scholarship and banning own research and assuming good faith and balance and truthfulness in this bio in the face of a determined group of hagiographers who refuse to engage in give and take or compromise.
Luckily, Sarah Palin doesn't matter any more. When she was new to the scene, people flocked to wikipedia to find out about her. Now she's a national joke, thanks to her own ridiculous campaign interviews and the deft skewering by Tina Fey. If Sarah Palin ever starts to matter again, rest assured I'll be back and, if my fellow travelers who want a balanced bio aren't there, I will insist on formal arbitration on all disputes, particularly if they're with the same people who control the article now. If this happens, my first step will be to return all of the detailed, verifiable, and relevant content in the Election-Day Consensus which has been and will be deleted by the Sarah Palin Image-Protection Propaganda Office.
I would hope a POV tag would be left up, in recognition of the fact that this bio is rapidly transforming from Election-Day Consensus to Palin Hagiography. Just because Sarah's determined minions are able to spend more time on this bio than those of us who believe in NPOV doesn't mean anything in this article meets wikipedia standards. But I'll leave that battle for others to fight. Most everyone who believes in NPOV has left already. And I, like them, have much better things to do than hit my head against a brick wall.
I again thank Writegeist from the bottom of my heart for freeing me from my mental chains. If others want to bring this article, or any portion of it, to arbitration, please notify me. Use my email address newly added to my talk page. I will be happy to help in any way I can. But I hereby absolve myself of any obligation to ensure the SP bio is truthful or accurate or balanced or even makes sense. I am content to let it return, slowly but surely, to the fetid quicksand from which YoungTrig brought it forth from the very beginning of the time when Sarah Palin actually mattered.
Orwell was right. Big Brother gets to write his own bio. I love Big Brother. I love Sarah Palin. GreekParadise ( talk) 06:32, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
I do not know enough about grammar rules to be sure of this, but I think that in the "Public Safety Commissioner dismissal" section, the following "Monegan stated he learned an internal investigation..." could use the word "that" either after 'stated' or 'learned'. I do not know if it is grammatically incorrect, but I do think it would read easier with this addition. Luminite2 ( talk) 21:45, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
In case SP editors are interested. - Peregrine Fisher ( talk) ( contribs) 15:48, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
In the spirit of BRD, I reverted an edit that described the State Personnel Board as "Governor-appointed", which was added in the section regarding the fact that Board cleared her of all wrongdoing in the Troopergate investigation. The adjective seems intended to imply some kind of corruption - in fact, the majority of the Board was appointed by Palin's predecessor, Frank Murkowski, who was defeated by Palin. I'm not seeing how that would make them friendly or biased toward her. Kelly hi! 17:50, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
Would it be factual to add the following: Of the three member Personnel Board, Debra English was reappointed by Palin and Alfred Tamagni donated $400.00 to Palin for her 2006 race for governor. [1] Jimmuldrow ( talk) 19:33, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
It would be almost as concise to mention Murkowski along with the rest. A sentence or two should do it. Probably one sentence. Jimmuldrow ( talk) 15:24, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
Please edit this article as follows: "A spokesman for Alaska's Department of Transportation made a statement that it was within Palin's power to cancel the road project, but also noted that the state still had plans to complete the bridge project, and that in any case the road would open up the surrounding lands for development."
I don't think that the cited source mentions anything about the state still planning to complete the bridge project. Ferrylodge ( talk) 23:40, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
At this point both Bristol and Levi have given multiple interviews. They have been a 1/2 dozen press releases from on her status. There have been hundreds of of news articles and editorials in reliable sources regarding her. She has become a major point of reference in the abstinence debates. It is my opinion that we can't not cover this. That at this point she is notable, there is verifiable information regarding several controversies she is involved in and she is a figure of public interest. I'd like to open up a discussion regarding:
jbolden1517 Talk 04:20, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
Kristin Gore and Chelsea Clinton have articles. Near as I can tell they both have done little more than step up on the national stage to support their famous relations. Same as Bristol. Ozarkhighlands ( talk) 19:50, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
Will, look at the proposal. The problem is the article is blocked. You can't write one. jbolden1517 Talk 04:19, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
Started discussion for what should be in the article at User_talk:Jbolden1517/Bristol_Palin.
The sources exist to establish independent notability, no doubt about it. She's arguably one of the more notable young people in the world right now in terms of not only the chatter (which doesn't concern us) but more importantly mainstream media coverage. Ozarkhighlands ( talk) 03:29, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
That question is almost a kind of feedback loop. The opening couple comments in this thread from jbolden1517 lays it out pretty clearly. In normal political campaigns the children are out of bounds. This was not a normal political campaign. Gov. Palin and Sen. McCain rolled out the Palin family far into the stream of public discourse. Gov. Palin herself continues to create the notability you deny through spokespeople paid either by the office of the governor of the state of Alaska or out of Palin family funds, which are ostensibly controlled by Todd and Sarah Palin. You have said those releases were not from Gov. Palin but from Bristol. Doesn't having a spokesperson whose releases make international headlines count for notability of their subject? Furthermore, Bristol has willingly participated in this activity whose scope is the grounds for notability, giving interviews and making public appearances. Ozarkhighlands ( talk) 13:05, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
Might be a good idea to check to see if readers who reach this article through one of the the numerous redirects will find what they're looking for. -- SB_Johnny | talk 18:08, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
So you acknowledge the notability? I agree that Bristol's interview by Greta Van Sustern for Fox's "On the Record" (broadcast in two segments), and numerous other coverage in mainstream sources, seems to be kind of high profile in line with wiki's notability parameters. Thanks for acknowledging Van Sustern's interview; after your mention I looked it up. It can be found at this link: < http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,494205,00.html>. Ozarkhighlands ( talk) 17:55, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
Just thought I'd note that I've gone to the change-protection page and have requested a bump down to semi-protected Purplebackpack89 ( talk) 05:14, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
After having my edits reverted, I took a look at the edit history for the last month(ish) and in particular the edits that involved the removal of all references to Levi Johnston -
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Sarah_Palin&diff=prev&oldid=284498715
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Sarah_Palin&diff=prev&oldid=284339818
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Sarah_Palin&diff=prev&oldid=283720813
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Sarah_Palin&diff=prev&oldid=281983472
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Sarah_Palin&diff=prev&oldid=276889425
I had my edit reverted by Kelly, who claimed there is no consensus to have the name of Levi Johnston in the article.
Considering that she has had to revert five different editors who all wished to include that name, I would suggest that there is obvious consensus. There are no BLP issues as the name is available in many sources. No privacy issues. Seeing the amount of media coverage, it is obviously notable.
All I see is an editor who has made a lot of edits on the Palin article, thinking that they own the article.
カンチョーSennen Goroshi ! ( talk) 11:22, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
Yes, Sennen, you are right. A certain "XXX" in particular, who, contrary to the principles of Wikipedia, decided I was a malintentioned fringe person, "labeled" me as that, and then just edited the thing the way [XXX] wanted, withour "stooping" so low as to give a rational explanation beyond easily refuted superficialities, the labelling and bullying. Thankfully, other pages have better editors who do not resort to name calling and bullying right off the bat, and as a modus operandi, except among themselves -- rather they assume the best intentions and give a rational reason, for something as objective as my concern, which involved the way to reference a fact that has no basis at all anywhere in this whole wide world except from Palin's family and press office. Personally I think that XXX is under the employ of Palin herself. XXX gives every show of being objective and balanced, but is always editing in Palin's favor. It is blatant and obvious -- just look at the editing history. Just what you'd expect from the Palin camp. I won't stoop to naming names myself, it is not polite. But... YOU know who you are! AtomAnt ( talk) 20:05, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
There you go again, with your "fringe" labeling. Well, it just goes to show you, when people run out of ideas for rational discussion they simply revert to name calling, and think they have made an argument. Such people seem to imagine themselves as being pretty smart, but really it is a reflection of vacuity. I stand by my original suggestion, that there should be in-line running-text mention of source where there is no source other than a person's family and staff. AtomAnt ( talk) 02:26, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I just reread the Assume-Good-Faith rule, and I assure you, I have always assumed good faith, even when my first suggestion was summarily dispached by people who apparently haven't read it, who instead of reason resorted to name calling, thinking that would solve things. We assume AGF, but what about editors who constantly defy it, and then run for cover behind it? In the case in question, for example, Levi Johnson is now a household name in connection with Sarah Palin, yet Sennen's objectively written report about their relationship is not allowed, and is zealously deleted by heavy-handed editing. Not allowed? Can Napoleon's page mention Waterloo? I suppose not, if there were editors working the page for him, striving to delete any information that was "inconvenient." It is not a question of space. For example, in the question of my own suggestion, why is the birth date of Sarah Palin's grandchild even mentioned at all? If I go to pages of other politicians, are the birth dates given for their grandkids? Why only here? Answer that, in the name of AGF. Might it have to be that Sarah Palin would like this birth date to appear? There is a pattern here that makes a charade of AGF. AtomAnt ( talk) 16:55, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
Can anyone explain why we shouldn't casually mention Levi Johnston's name? He's a public figure, and whether or not he's notable enough to deserve his own article has nothing to do with whether his name is worth noting here. TruthIIPower ( talk) 18:17, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
(undent)We already have an article for Todd Palin. Why not broaden the coverage of that article to cover the immediate family of Sarah Palin? Either the Todd Palin article could be re-named, or instead the stuff about Bristol could just go in the Todd Palin article as it is currently named. In the great scheme of things, details about the daughter are relatively notable in a Todd Palin bio, and less notable in a Sarah Palin bio, because there are so many things in Sarah Palin's life that are more notable than in her husband's life. Ferrylodge ( talk) 02:59, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
-- Gebl Gebl Gebl ( talk) 19:59, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
I typically steer clear of the purely politics stuff, but this bit was added in good faith today: "Palin set up a legal fund to defend herself against a dozen ethics complaints. Some charge that the fund itself is an ethics violation.[213]" First, the use of "some" doesn't jive with the source, which states this is an individual (Kim Chatman) filing suit, and the article doesn't list other plaintiffs. Thus, "one person" (or naming the individual directly) would more accurately reflect this source. Next, unless I'm missing something, there isn't yet any determination of merit on the suit itself, i.e. no legal entity has ruled there is grounds for complaint. Therefore, at this juncture, the story has no legs. Given that the story first broke today (4/28/2009), it seems we're into the WP:NOTNEWS realm until something develops. Just my thoughts... Fcreid ( talk) 19:55, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
I was thinking about this after the "State Personnel Board investigation:"
What do you think? Celestra ( talk) 21:02, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
Just curious - what external links do we typically add to biographies? Palin started a Twitter account today [20] and was already on Facebook. [21] Kelly hi! 03:53, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
See the thread at RPP. Gwen Gale ( talk) 13:10, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 May 7 KillerChihuahua ?!? 20:09, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
Now at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Levi Johnston KillerChihuahua ?!? 14:04, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
Someone has just inserted a table of poll results into the Governor section. The present article already has a lengthy summary of poll numbers: "Polls taken in 2007 early in her term showed her with a 93% and 89% popularity among all voters,[63] which led some media outlets to call her 'the most popular governor in America.'[55][63] A poll taken in late September 2008 after Palin was named to the national Republican ticket showed her popularity in Alaska at 68%.[64] A poll taken in May 2009 showed Palin's popularity among Alaskan's was at 54% positive and 41.6% negative.[65]"
Plus the Huffington Post is not a reliable source. So, I'll remove the recently-inserted table, which is redundant, cites an unreliable source, and is not a summary of the sub-article. See WP:Summary style. Ferrylodge ( talk) 03:54, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
Huffington Post is frequently called an unreliable source, but it has fewer controversies than any major newspaper I am aware of. The three "controversies" are a commentator confusing the forum and news sections, linking to an NBC article which turned out to be innacurate, and publishing anti-vaccine pieces. None of these are objections are outstanding. Beyond that, they are deemed legitimate enough for many Democratic and independent political leaders to contribute articles and are granted press passes by the White House. It is frequently attacked as unreliable despite a proven record of accuracy. O76923 ( talk) 00:30, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
The wikilink to the Levi Johnston article was edited out of the Sarah Palin article. As this individual is directly related to Palin's family life (and political life), I added it back. If any editor would like to discuss this, please state your opinions here. Thanks. Ism schism ( talk) 09:58, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
Manticore55 ( talk) 23:54, 13 May 2009 (UTC) Ah "Consensus." What, precisely does Gravity have to do with Newton exactly? How then does Mr. Johnson have anything to do with Ms. Palin?
That is fairly amusing, so I will indulge. Gravity has quite a bit to do with Newton based on the fact that he was the first to devise a decent mathamatical solution to the question that still persists today, (and greatly interests me), what is gravity? Not to mention that gravity is a highly notable subject in physics, mechanics, areonautics, astronomy, achitecture and so on, where as Newton is also highly notable in his own right for explaining the mechanics of motion and creating calculus. Levi Johnston on the other hand is some nobody who knocked up Sarah Palin's daughter and does very little to answer the question, who is Sarah Palin. To respond to TharsHammar, if such offical press releases have been made by Palin or her staff then it seems obvious that the appropriate place for such a mention about this is in an offical section and not a personal one, as Celestra also suggested. Turning to the notability of the young man, I could not really care less about him, or where and when his name is mentioned, and so will return to avoiding this topic like the plague. Zaereth ( talk) 00:33, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
Stumbled across this and don't participate in this page and don't intend to. The independent notability of johnston is completely irrelevant to whether his name is mentioned here or not. I would probably lean towards thinking that so long as the campaign and the limited controversy over the daughter's pregnancy and aftermath are mentioned it should be mentioned BUT there isn't much loss if the name is NOT mentioned. His name is mentioned and linked at the Bristol Palin article; anyone wondering "who the father is" will click on the Bristol Palin link to figure it out. If they're not that interested, reading the proper noun in this article won't add anything to their level of knowledge and understanding (nor does the absence of the proper noun limit their knowledge and understanding in any meaningful way). There are far more relevant disputes that this talk page already has trouble resolving. The presence or absence of johnston's name seems a very low-priority question for the BLP of this politician. Bali ultimate ( talk) 01:04, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
Hi Folks, I would like to open a friendly discussion on the External Links section. According to Wiki guidelines WP:EL external links should be kept to a minimum, ideally including only the link to an official site of the subject. I don't expect that we will trim the current list that far but there are 24 links currently on the page many are in violation of Wiki policy. At least one link is dead, several are redundant and others just plain inappropriate for Wiki guidelines. As a group we need to decide which ones to delete. Any opening comments or initial feedback before I give more specific proposals on what I feel should be deleted? I will not remove anything without first discussing it here.-- Kbob ( talk) 17:34, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
Alright, so let's leave the Interview Section alone for now and start with some others:
In Palin's personal life, it fails to mention that her grandson was born out of wedlock. I changed it accordingly.( Jack1755 ( talk) 20:35, 15 June 2009 (UTC))
Well, if we are to go down that route, we could end up removing chunks of the article as "irrelevant"( Jack1755 ( talk) 20:50, 15 June 2009 (UTC))
I'm wondering if anything about the David Letterman kerfuffle with Palin should appear here. I'm thinking probably not (it seems to be over and done with, and perhaps not really very notable in an encyclopedic sense). It's also worth noting that there seems to be some edit warring over at David Letterman's page over it. Mark Shaw ( talk) 20:22, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
(outdent) This is all pretty much what I was thinking - just wanted to be sure about it. Cheers! Mark Shaw ( talk) 18:31, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
reads like it was written by a fourth grader, complete with failure to understand the difference between possessive and plural and overuse of the comma. i'd clean it up, but golly gee it's funny this way. 98.232.26.116 ( talk) 17:53, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
I know there has been significant discussion about whether or not to place something in the article that specifies that Bristol Palin had a child out of wedlock. I am fairly neutral on that point. However, I do not like the fact that the current wording of the following sentence gives the reader the impression that Bristol and Levi are married. Here is the sentence: "Palin has one grandchild, a boy named Tripp Johnston, who was born to her eldest daughter Bristol and Levi Johnston in 2008." The sentence gives the wrong impression and is grammatically incorrect. Could we just say: "born to her eldest daughter Bristol and her boyfriend Levi Johnston" ? Or should we just say: "born to her eldest daughter Bristol." and not mention Levi. Comments? Discussion?-- Kbob ( talk) 18:49, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
OK, the general consensus seems to be that generally speaking information about Palin's eldest daughter's personal life does not need to be in the article. Especially since the out of wedlock point is made clear in the campaign section and also because Bristol has her own Wiki article which covers the out of wedlock topic. Bristol's personal life could be relevant to the Palin article under in some circumstances (theoretically speaking), but in this instance, common sense tells us it doesn't seem to be an important point to the article. Therefore, I suggest we amend the sentence so that it reads as follows: "Palin has one grandchild, a boy named Tripp Johnston, who was born to her eldest daughter Bristol in 2008." Is this OK? -- Kbob ( talk) 16:59, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
This might be worth citing in the article. Grundle2600 ( talk) 15:27, 25 June 2009 (UTC)