![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 |
Earlier entries for a separate Bristol Palin page have all been removed. Can anyone please explain why this has been the case? IMO Bristol Palin clearly deserves a separate page of her own. Rather than persisting in just removing these earlier entries and having her search results continue to redirect to Sarah Palin (a page that is widely reported to have been manipulated by people close to the GOP and/or the McCain/Palin campaign team), I think there should at least be a serious discussion as to if or if not Bristol Palin, and the recent events / news surrounding her persona (unmarried pregnancy / non-abstinence), should have a separate page of their own. Mijnlulinjouwkut ( talk) 15:16, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
Can anyone confirm the exact date of birth for Bristol Palin? Articles have stated she is either 16 or 17; however, the recent news release of her pregnancy states she is in fact 17. Given the importance of this information, accurate data on her date of birth and pregnancy should be included. 76.119.96.44 ( talk) 17:20, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
Why is it considered "a back door way to insert slander" bv stating that the McCain campaign, according to an unnamed aide quoted in the CNN report, released the information to correct slander over the governor's youngest child? To disallow this information would seem to be tailoring the news. Kitchawan ( talk) 18:31, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
Also, can the election charts be a bit smaller? They're way too chunky when space is so valuable in this article. Poggio ( talk) 23:21, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
Joe Biden doesn't have that kind of election detail in the Joe Biden article. He has more detail in a separate article, Electoral history of Joe Biden. Any reason to break out an Electoral history of Sarah Palin? Would give more space to her main article. Poggio ( talk) 23:32, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
I say remove it or move it, but it doesn't belong at the bottom of the article. Zredsox ( talk) 23:41, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
There are "no change" versions of the {{ election box}} templates, which don't have that column. I think the tables should be switched to use those unless someone can explain the purpose of having the column. — KCinDC ( talk) 23:57, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
Why do we have a line that states she obtained her first passport in 2007? Seems like trivia, and I don't see anything similar in the articles of any other politicians. Kelly hi! 00:24, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
<-- Can someone provide a reliable source that states this is valid in regards to her foreign policy experience? Believe it or not, we do have people that understand foreign policy that have not left the country. Not saying that applies necessarily applies in this case (I honestly don't know the extent of her expertise), but it seems like synthesis and/or trivia right now. Exactly why is it there? Kelly hi! 00:39, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
I just changed the sentence to "new" passport because the NYT ref didn't specify whether or not this was her first passport. Joshdboz ( talk) 01:54, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
I think this should definitely be added from the Daily News: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/republican_race/2008/09/01/2008-09-01_bristol_palins_pregnancy_was_an_open_sec.html bigware ( talk) 05:49, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
Bristol Palin is no doubt a fairly large search term at the moment, and the page just sat as a sub-stub for over 20 minutes. She's obviously not notable in her own right, but the redirect is valid. Can we have a few more people watchlisting the page in case someone else decides to expand it? J Milburn ( talk) 10:44, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
I wouldn't dream of debating merit/demerit of Bristol Palin's notability for separate article. However, the redirect is somewhat confusing. It redirects to mother's (Sarah) and automatically dumps one into middle of a section. I would have expected an interim page (not a stub...but i'm far from expert on wiki page structures) with statement "see Sarah Palin- "Personal Life and Family" much as an index to a printed encyclopedia might list Briston Palin. Conversely, wiki could just (as it seems to do) rely on the search feature as an index to the world of wikipedia).
As it currently stands, it's somewhat messy to me. 68.173.2.68 ( talk) 12:44, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
This is another blatant example of double standards and how this page has been hijacked by GOP spin doctors and their orwellian agents. This kind of practices is unacceptable. We can not have the GOP hijack and/or groom and/or censor the entries surrounding their VP candidate and/or anyone she is related to.
Bristol Palin deserves a 'Bristol Palin' page of her own indeed, if not a separate page to be called 'Bristol Palin incident' or 'Bristol Palin controversy'. Bristol Palin IS notable.
Mijnlulinjouwkut (
talk)
03:30, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
Better redirect; still not ideal. Would more expect an interstitial page (not a stub, not a disambiguation). As it is now, one still lands in the middle of an article about another person. The italic ""Bristol Palin" and "Levi Johnston" redirect here." is a start, but easily missed (at least by my eyes).-- 68.173.2.68 ( talk) 15:29, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
Is there any evidence that the 17-year-old's situation really is a campaign issue? It's been discussed a lot, but is there any evidence of impact on the polls? Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 10:32, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
Thank you, Thank you, Thank you for editing out the libelous, Non NPOV nonsense which Kos operators have been inserting and rationalizing on the thinnest of pretenses. The sections relating to the bridge to nowhere and other political references have been considerable cleared up.
I would still strongly suggest removing the last two paragraphs of the family section. (I'm not sure how the timing of her first Son 8mo's after the marraige is relevant either) Surely the details of a plane trip before the birth of Trigg, or veiled references to the "surprising" 7th mo. announcement are only important to rumor injecting partisans who want to further an unsustainable smear on Bristol. (i.e., she's an insatiable, incredibly fertile slut who gave birth to a DS child 4.5 months ago (April 18th, 2008) jumped in the Bush/Rove/Cheney/Haliburton time machine, got knocked up again in March of '08, and is currently working on inbred #2.)-- 98.221.28.244 ( talk) 15:28, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
"Palin's announcement in March 2008 that she was seven months pregnant generated publicity and surprise, as did the circumstances of Trig's birth six weeks later." Fcreid ( talk) 14:21, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
I'd like to know why the section about photographs of daughter Bristol's underage drinking were deleted. They're noteworthy and were referenced. Bricology ( talk) 22:08, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
I find the inclusion of the eight-month elapsed between marriage and the first son's birthdate to be offensive and misleading. The obvious intent is to imply the couple had premarital coitus; however, there is absolutely no evidence (and never will be) to conclude that. Can someone explain to me what that's there, please? Fcreid ( talk) 23:56, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
It seems to be going back and forth how Wasilla is actually classified. Does the state of Alaska actually consider it a "city"? In a less populated State 5,000 to 6,000 people would be a town. But it seems like Alaska refers to all of its towns as cities for administrative purposes. Khanaris ( talk) 15:34, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
Okay, the Anchorage Daily News is a reliable source, but it has exactly one line and exactly no detail on Palin's support for contraception. We also know that she has at least one anti-contraception position: she's against teaching it in schools. Does anyone know what actions Palin has taken to support contraception? Until then, I think just calling her "pro-contraception" is misleading. At most, her record is mixed. Darkfrog24 ( talk) 16:07, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
This section keeps expanding defeating the purpose of it being a SUMMARY section. Would anyone object to removing ALL specifics from this section and changing it to a couple well sourced summaries of her political ideology? (This sort of practice seems typical for other well known politicians). -- ThaddeusB ( talk) 16:28, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
I think there should be a section regarding the attractiveness of the subject as it surely played a part in being elected Governor. Faethon Ghost ( talk) 16:30, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
Isn't it sexist to note the attractiveness of a female political candidate, but not of a male candidate? Surely Obama's attractiveness is a factor in his popularity, but I don't recall reading about that on his Wikipedia entry. Catonow ( talk) 08:13, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
The current paragraph shows bias in it's framing of the Alaska Independence Party, in that it references only portion of the platform and is inconsistent in presentation with the information available elsewhere in Wikipedia about the AIP. If characterization of the AIP is to take place in the Sarah Palin article, it should be consistent with the current Wikipedia entry for the AIP. I suggest that the current opening paragraph for the AIP be used instead. Therefore:
Remove:
A portion of the party's platform "challenges the legality of the Alaskan statehood vote ... [under] international law" and calls for a referendum on whether Alaska should secede from the United States to become an independent nation, remain a state, or become a U.S. territory or commonwealth.
Replace with:
The Alaskan Independence Party is a political party in the U.S. state of Alaska. Its best-known policy is its call for a United Nations vote, which they claim should have been offered as an option in the plebiscite on statehood under international law. Ideologically a constitutional foundation, the party also calls for increased Alaskan control of Alaskan land, gun rights, privatization, home schooling, and reduction of governmental intrusion in the private lives of its citizens with adherence to the founding documents of the United States. The party has appeared on the ballot in Alaska in all state elections since 1970.
Alternatively, the commentary on the AIP could be eliminated entirely, thus changing:
Remove:
According to officials of the Alaska Independence Party, Sarah Palin was a member in 1994. A portion of the party's platform "challenges the legality of the Alaskan statehood vote ... [under] international law" and calls for a referendum on whether Alaska should secede from the United States to become an independent nation, remain a state, or become a U.S. territory or commonwealth.
Replace with:
According to officials of the Alaska Independence Party, Sarah Palin was a member in 1994.
No new references are needed for these edits. Existing references in the Sarah Palin article, or the corresponding AIP article should be used.
We've been over this many times and the discussion goes in circles. At one point, I had a whole paragraph fully and accurately describing the AIP and it was considered too long. When it's shortened, there are conflicts, with Palin supporters wanting to downplay the fact that the AIP is a secessionist party. I don't care if the paragraph on AIP is long or short, but if you take out the word "secession", you are not being accurate as to the purpose and goals of the Alaskan Independence Party. "Independence" means independence from the United States, and that is their "ultimate goal" as stated by all its leaders, in its platform, and in its history, even though in the short term, they are simply pushing for an independence vote. If you do not include the word "secession" in any short account, I fear the edit war will continue. However, I don't mind a more complete longer account. GreekParadise ( talk) 18:24, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
Now all context has been stripped from the article against everything we have discussed here. Zredsox ( talk) 18:58, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
"Since the 1990s, Palin has been close to the Alaska Independence Party.[17][18][19]" The first reference is a blog entry which is not a reliable source and it only talks about her address to the party in 2008 as Governor. The second reference is members of the party claiming she was a member, which is hearsay, and it has been disputed; the third reference is another link to the video where she addresses the 2008 convention as Governor. There NO RELIABLE SOURCE here that backs up the claim that Palin has been close to the AIP since the 1990s. This is very shoddy work. -- Paul ( talk) 19:51, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
The Whitewash is complete. Where to next? Should we clean up the Bridge to Nowhere so that it doesn't state her initial support? Maybe we should include the countries she flew over (being she was in their airspace) as countries she has visited? Oh, I am sure we can find a place where the light from the heavens is not shining bright enough.
Zredsox (
talk)
22:02, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
I believe that the early political philosophy of a candidate for vice president IS relevant to her biography, and this includes her support for Pat Buchanan. (I also think Reagan's early ties to the Democratic Party are relevant.) See longer discussion by me above.
- Before you delete, you must either claim: Pat Buchanan is an out-and-out liar. Or that political philosophy and support of presidential candidates is irrelevant to the life of a political candidate. I know making that argument is tough. (I think it's ridiculous.) But please make the argument before deleting obviously relevant information. I have included the standard McCain denial even though it is tendentiously parsed. (She didn't "work" for the campaign, McCain says, but she still could have supported it as Buchanan claims.)
So I have cited Buchanan -- who was there -- and the counter-example, someone who wasn't there and had no reason to know. Throw out the McCain counter-assertion if you want, but when a Presidential candidate calls a political candidate a "brigader" in his campaign, it is relevant to her political life story. GreekParadise ( talk) 20:29, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
(undent)The article currently says she wore a Buchanan button in 1999. People might want to pay attention to the letter to the editor she wrote in 1999:
"As mayor of Wasilla, I am proud to welcome all presidential candidates to our city. This is true regardless of their party, or the latest odds of their winning. When presidential candidates visit our community, I am always happy to meet them. I'll even put on their button when handed one as a polite gesture of respect. Though no reporter interviewed me for the Associated Press article on the recent visit by a presidential candidate, the article may have left your readers with the perception that I am endorsing this candidate, as opposed to welcoming his visit to Wasilla. As mayor, I will welcome all the candidates in Wasilla."
Perhaps Palin's letter to the editor does not say what people want it to say? Ferrylodge ( talk) 20:46, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
Would anyone (who can) care to archive some of this Talk-page? Its growth rate is outstanding. GoodDay ( talk) 20:56, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
And for the next round of the AIP story (sigh...), it appears that husband Todd was an AIP member from 1995 to 2002. [5] The current source is pretty dodgy, but I assume the major networks will confirm or deny this shortly. Dragons flight ( talk) 21:10, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
[out] We're not the news, so we can wait until the ink is dry before posting - but if the story pans out that her husband was a member of the AIP -a secessionist party - it may indeed be correct to say so here, especially if this claim can be verified, about her attendance at an AIP convention. (Try this thought experiment: let's say Michelle Obama had been a member of a fringe party and Barack attended a convention, and people were claiming that he too was a member. Or Cindy and John.) Tvoz/ talk 22:22, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
The constant bolding must go and the positions must be incorporated into the text, we do articles, not lists here in BLPs. Hobartimus ( talk) 21:13, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
{editsemiprotected)School performance data is available for Both Sen. McCain and Sen. Obama. No specific information yet on Gov. Palin's performance in school and mental performance.
She is applying for a position that requires high mental functioning. She has admitted to not believing in confirmed scientific facts such as the theory of evolution and human contribution to global warming. She also plans to make changes regarding health education and female reproductive freedom. American citizens need objective facts to measure her background and qualifications in these matters.
Thanks so much. Komplete ( talk) 21:14, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
Justmeherenow ( ) 23:25, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
This article now says that Palin attended an AIP convention in 1994, following this recent edit. Specifically, this article now says:
While serving on the city council, Palin attended the 1994 convention of the Alaskan Independence Party, a party which argues Alaskans have a right to vote on whether to secede from the United States. Lynnette Clark, the party's current chairwoman, claimed Palin was actually a member of the party at the time. However, as mentioned above, Palin has officially been a registered Republican since 1982.
The cited source is this ABC News article. However, the cited source says: "Rogers [a McCain-Palin spokesperson] says that Palin didn’t attend the AIP convention in 1994, 'but she visited them when they had their convention in Wasilla in 2000 as a courtesy since she was mayor.'" So, Palin is denying that she attended the convention in 1994. Our article should therefore not insist that she did. Ferrylodge ( talk) 22:38, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
WHY IS THE PART ABOUT SARAH PALEN BELONGING TO THE ALASKA INDEPENDENCE PARTY BEEN REMOVED WITH NO COMMENT. HERE IS THE REMOVED PART. THIS MUST BE PLACED BACK INTO THIS ARTICLE.--- According to officials of the Alaska Independence Party, Sarah Palin was a member in 1994.[3] A portion of the party's platform "challenges the legality of the Alaskan statehood vote ... [under] international law" and calls for a referendum on whether Alaska should secede from the United States to become an independent nation, remain a state, or become a U.S. territory or commonwealth.[3][18] The Alaskan Independence Party is Alaska's third largest party.[19][20] Palin remained on good terms with the AIP,[21][3][22] and would later give a "welcome" speech to the 2008 AIP Convention.[23] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.134.23.4 ( talk) 22:36, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
Someone better versed in Wikipedia ins and outs needs to correct this article. It's now "semi-protected," and I have no doubt this was done to make it harder to offer criticism of Palin.
Take, for instance, the short-and-sweet statement that she'd been accused of associating with the Alaskan Independence Party, followed by a misleading claim that a "Mother Jones" article had revealed that it wasn't true and that people making the claims had "backed off." That's completely false. The article actually maintains that Palin's husband is, indeed, a long-time AIP member. It also says that one of the vice chairmen of AIP, Dexter Clark, (referred to as a "key source" for the story) backed off his claims in an interview with "Mother Jones," saying that their information was based upon information provided by Mark Chryson, the regional chair for Wasilla, Palin's hometown. Chryson was not interviewed for the story, and has not backed down from his claims.
The article goes on to state:
Not being registered as an AIP member did not keep some Alaskans from being supporters of the party and its aims. Jack Coghill, the lieutenant governor of Alaska from 1990 to 1994 and a candidate for governor in 1994 on the AIP ticket, told Mother Jones that being friendly with the AIP and a registered Republican was "common" in the 1990s. Might Palin had had a similar relationship with the party? Given her husband's long-time membership in the group, Palin was likely aware of the group's tenets. And in 2008, as governor, she submitted a welcoming video to the AIP convention in Fairbanks. "Your party plays an important role in our state's politics," she said. "I've always said that competition is so good, and that applies to political parties as well… We have a great promise: to be a self-sufficient state." She closed by saying, "Good luck on a successful and inspiring convention. Keep up the good work, and God bless you."
To read the article for yourself, use this link: http://www.motherjones.com/mojoblog/archives/2008/09/9535_palin_alaskan_independence_party_connection.html
(Would have been a lot shorter, but some genius decided to blacklist ALL "tiny URL" addresses. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.4.206.143 ( talk) 03:22, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
Paul.h wrote: "There are no reliable 2nd party sources that validate a claim she was involved with AIP." This is demonstrably incorrect, since Palin sent a video to the 2008 AIP convention stating that she agreed with some of its party platform and that she wished it well. She wouldn't have done that if she hadn't been an unofficial supporter or sympathizer. Others have correctly noted that it would be ludicrous for Geo. Bush to have sent such a video to the Democratic Convention, for the Dems to have presented it, and for the Dems to prominently display it on their website. That is reason enough to consider her associated with AIP. -- Zeamays ( talk) 13:06, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
That makes it seem like she was a lot more involved with the party of Alaskan secession from the United States, especially knowing her husband has admitted to being a member of the Alaska Indepdence Party for seven years. Digitalmandolin ( talk) 19:52, 3 September 2008 (UTC)Ms. Palin attended the party’s 1994 and 2006 conventions and provided a video-taped address as governor to the 2008 convention.
This was discussed yesterday and I thought there was agreement, but it keeps being reinserted, so perhaps I was wrong. For clarity, I certainly think the detail belongs in the main article, just not the summary. Here is what I said yesterday:
"I think these detail is too trivial to include in the summary and is being included only because it potentially embarrasses Palin. I sight as evidence that it is: 1) not related to why the matter is important; 2) It is covered in one short paragragh in the main article; 3) Kopp's name is not mentioned in the vast majority of the MSM articles covering the story. (All of which are longer than our summary); Other opinions?" —Preceding unsigned comment added by ThaddeusB ( talk • contribs) 22:35, 2 September 2008
We don't get to decide which side is right, the McCain party or the AIP party. We can't take sides. We can't say the AIP is right or wrong, we can't say the McCain camp is right or wrong. rootology ( C)( T) 22:46, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
(undent)Chryson says this: [7]
Asked how Palin could have been a member, when state records did not indicate Palin ever registered as an AIP member, Chyrson, in an interview with Mother Jones, backed off his account. "What could have been the confusion—her husband was a member of the party. He was at the convention. She could have been considered—it might have been thought she was a member then." Talking Points Memo has reported that Todd Palin was a member of the AIP from 1995 to 2002, with the exception of a short period in 2000 when he was undeclared. Chyrson said he did not remember seeing Sarah Palin at the 1994 convention: "I don't, no. I was working behind the scenes. Back then I was only vaguely familiar with her. I would not have recognized her. I had just met her. I probably would not have recognized her." He added that Sarah Palin did not play "an active role in the party" or to speak out for its causes.
Ferrylodge ( talk) 01:20, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
Interesting how you left out parts of the Mother Jones story that don't make your case for you:
Not being registered as an AIP member did not keep some Alaskans from being supporters of the party and its aims. Jack Coghill, the lieutenant governor of Alaska from 1990 to 1994 and a candidate for governor in 1994 on the AIP ticket, told Mother Jones that being friendly with the AIP and a registered Republican was "common" in the 1990s. Might Palin had had a similar relationship with the party? Given her husband's long-time membership in the group, Palin was likely aware of the group's tenets. And in 2008, as governor, she submitted a welcoming video to the AIP convention in Fairbanks. "Your party plays an important role in our state's politics," she said. "I've always said that competition is so good, and that applies to political parties as well… We have a great promise: to be a self-sufficient state." She closed by saying, "Good luck on a successful and inspiring convention. Keep up the good work, and God bless you."
24.4.206.143 ( talk)
Why is this so hard? 1) Palin sent a video to the 2008 AIP convention in her role as Governor. 2) Palin attended the 2000 AIP convention in her role as Mayor. 3) Palin claims she has never been an AIP member, and produces 26 years of voter registration documents to prove it. Someone in the AIP claims that Palin was in the party 14 years ago, but has no proof. This is a non-story. Wikipedia must use reliable sources. Though it must retain a neutral point of view, it can't spread falsehoods. Folks that want to include this are saying party A can claim something which is a lie, and then party B disagrees calling it a lie and providing documentary proof but still Wikipedia must include this information? This is no better than tabloid journalism, except that they have real reporters!-- Paul ( talk) 23:43, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
The controversy should be covered under the 2008 campaign. Saying for sure she was a involved is blatant POV. Her history of being a registered Republican should be included. A.J.A. ( talk) 03:45, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
I do not see any consensus here. Please see my comments above under AIP Convention in 1994 -- Zeamays ( talk) 13:13, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
I see no BLP concerns here. People keep citing BLP, that AIP affiliation is some Bad Thing. It's the 3rd largest party in Alaska. Whats the BLP worry? rootology ( C)( T) 23:13, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
And there's no mention of her support for the aerial gunning down of wolves, presumably because they eat 'her' caribou. <<Peter Simmons>> —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.114.7.25 ( talk) 13:39, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
There is current a long section which basically says 1) Palin is in charge of AK national guard (talking point) and 2) the head general doesn't think it qualifies as national defense experience. (I removed a huge quote about the general's day-to-day duties, as completely non-relevant).
I don't think any of this belongs. Should we really be reporting on talking points and counter talking points?-- ThaddeusB ( talk) 23:31, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
I do not want to get involved with this back and forth BS, but I was looking at the history of this page, and came upon some of the first versions.
Compare this statement:
"Gov. Palin received widespread criticism for her handling of Matanuska Maid Dairy, a state owned business. When the State Dairy Board recommended closing the unprofitable business, Palin fired the board and appointed long-time Mat-Su Borough associates to run the board, including influential real estate businesswoman Kristan Cole.[22] The new board quickly approved raising the price of milk offered by the dairy in a vain attempt to control hemorrhaging fiscal losses, despite the fact that milk from the state of Washington was already offered in Alaska stores for much less then Mat Maid milk.[23] In the end the dairy was forced to close and the state tried to sell the assets to pay off its debts, but no bids were received.[24][25]
to this current version:
In 2007, the Alaska Creamery Board recommended closing Matanuska Maid Dairy, an unprofitable state-owned business. Palin objected, citing concern for dairy farmers and a recent infusion of $600,000 in state money. Palin subsequently replaced the entire membership of the Board of Agriculture and Conservation.[71] The new board reversed the decision to close the dairy. Later in 2007, the unprofitable business was put up for sale. No offers met the minimum bid of $3.35 million,[72][73] and the dairy was closed. In August 2008, the Anchorage plant was purchased for $1.5 million, the new minimum bid. The purchaser plans to convert it into heated storage units.[74]
Pure whitewash. Tell it like it is, people. Don't log on anonymously and edit facts with euphemisms just because of you political affiliations. People screw up all the time, some more than others, but trying to cover it up just makes you look biased and her look deceitful.
BTW: Do you think a black candidate wouldn't catch some heat for having an unmarried, minor pregnant daughter, not to mention 5 children? t1n0 23:42, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
LMAO..here's to you Ferry. But seriously, you'd think this chic has learned to walk on water in the last week. I know we are supposed to be unbiased, but that does not bar descriptive language. There's death, and then there's horrific death. They are different levels to everything, and it is obvious that this whole article has been whitewashed, no pun intended. t1n0 00:06, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
I will try to look over for bias as best I can, but I am new to this. . t1n0
I'm removing the line, "Also during her first term, state Republican leaders began grooming her for higher office." The source simply mentions she appeared in in tv ads with prominent republicans as evidence of her "grooming". I think if this statement is to be kept, it should be reworded to include what actually happened. A potential POV statement that should also be included (if any mention of appearing in the tv spots is left) for sake of completeness, is that the mayoral race is intended to be nonpartisan, but by appearing in these spots, she infused the race with partisan view points and endorsements. As is, this is clearly trying to spin this individual in a positive light. Benajnim ( talk) 17:02, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
Here's a dead link for you, concerning the sale of the plant.. http://www.matmaid.com/pages/news_letter.html but now, its gone...
Since we can't edit the page, and I hadn't touched it yet, this little fact is locked in to its current 'unimportant' stance as a minor blurb. It may seem unimportant, but to me it is far more important than her kid's pregnancy. (Her kid is doing exactly the same as her mom did...that's not news.) However, multiple instances of using her position and office for gains, is news. Troopergate, and I guess this is "Dairy-gate". The current administration has abused its power by replacing people who dissent, and selecting attorneys based on political affiliation, and here we have someone in BFE that is cut from the same cloth that they pick as a 'maverick'. I hope someone can find some more news on this before it is all swept under the carpet and off of her hometown newstation's website. t1n0
There is now a discussion of ordering of the Palins at Talk:Palin. Hobit ( talk) 23:45, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
Time Magazine, Sep 2, '08: "...I]n 2002, her [Palin's] husband Todd's stepmother Faye Palin ran for mayor. She did not, however, get Sarah Palin's endorsement. A couple of people told me that they thought abortion was the reason for Palin not supporting her family member — Faye, they say, is pro-choice, not to mention a Democrat." Justmeherenow ( ) 23:47, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
Something about this talk page keeps crashing the NVIDIA graphics card on my office mate's machine. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.4.83.52 ( talk) 00:02, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
Is 18 and will attend the Nat'l Republican Convention. [10] Justmeherenow ( ) 00:04, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
Incidentally, I've (re?) added to the short description of him the kind-of sourced fact that his MySpace page says/said "He warns, 'Ya fuck with me I'll kick [your] ass.'" This is my own interpretation of "He warns, 'Ya f - - - [sic] with me I'll kick [your] ass'", the version provided by the nervous usmagazine.com. I'm unfamiliar with usmagazine.com, and it looks like complete crap but also the kind of thing that "source" a huge percentage of mediocre WP articles about slebs. An article in the (London) Guardian, which I take a bit more seriously, tells us that "In a Myspace entry, which has now been blocked, Johnston describes himself a 'fuckin' redneck'". Clearly Mr Johnson likes the verb fuck, from which I tentatively infer that he is an utterly normal US teenager (a fact that might reassure the ever-nervous US electorate). -- Hoary ( talk) 00:22, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
This whole MySpace quote of his needs to be just removed. It has no use for us here. rootology ( C)( T) 00:44, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
I'm a little puzzled. First, I'd half-agree with Edison2 that Mr Johnston is "a nonnotable highschool student". That is, he's nonnotable. (I'm not sure about the "highschool" bit, as apparently he only goes to school for sports and skips the classes, though then again he does get education at home. Or so I'm informed by the goofy "usmagazine.com".)
But now two questions.
First, if he's not notable, is a redirect from Levi Johnston merited, and if so, why?
Secondly, we're told by some lowbrow magazine that he wrote on his MySpace page "Ya fuck with me I'll kick [your] ass." The same article has another, similar quote that's repeated in an article in the Guardian, so perhaps it's credible. It's not something he said once, but instead something that he wrote publicly and could have deleted. Of course it's utterly banal. Still, it's not the sort of thing that, oh, perhaps 40% of fellows his age would write publicly, so it gives our readers some tiny insight into him (so far as he's notable).
As it is, I'm puzzled by the combination of (i) a redirect from Levi Johnston to Sarah Palin and (ii) the vigorous deletion from Sarah Palin of anything about Johnston himself (let alone any hint that he might not be an obvious poster boy for "Focus on the Family").
My own suggestion is that virtually all mention of the kiddies (let alone their "partners") of both candidates for veep and both candidates for prez should be zapped (unless any are notable in their own right), and that all redirects from their names should be deleted and salted. How does that grab you? -- Hoary ( talk) 01:55, 3 September 2008 (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 1 | ← | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 |
Earlier entries for a separate Bristol Palin page have all been removed. Can anyone please explain why this has been the case? IMO Bristol Palin clearly deserves a separate page of her own. Rather than persisting in just removing these earlier entries and having her search results continue to redirect to Sarah Palin (a page that is widely reported to have been manipulated by people close to the GOP and/or the McCain/Palin campaign team), I think there should at least be a serious discussion as to if or if not Bristol Palin, and the recent events / news surrounding her persona (unmarried pregnancy / non-abstinence), should have a separate page of their own. Mijnlulinjouwkut ( talk) 15:16, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
Can anyone confirm the exact date of birth for Bristol Palin? Articles have stated she is either 16 or 17; however, the recent news release of her pregnancy states she is in fact 17. Given the importance of this information, accurate data on her date of birth and pregnancy should be included. 76.119.96.44 ( talk) 17:20, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
Why is it considered "a back door way to insert slander" bv stating that the McCain campaign, according to an unnamed aide quoted in the CNN report, released the information to correct slander over the governor's youngest child? To disallow this information would seem to be tailoring the news. Kitchawan ( talk) 18:31, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
Also, can the election charts be a bit smaller? They're way too chunky when space is so valuable in this article. Poggio ( talk) 23:21, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
Joe Biden doesn't have that kind of election detail in the Joe Biden article. He has more detail in a separate article, Electoral history of Joe Biden. Any reason to break out an Electoral history of Sarah Palin? Would give more space to her main article. Poggio ( talk) 23:32, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
I say remove it or move it, but it doesn't belong at the bottom of the article. Zredsox ( talk) 23:41, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
There are "no change" versions of the {{ election box}} templates, which don't have that column. I think the tables should be switched to use those unless someone can explain the purpose of having the column. — KCinDC ( talk) 23:57, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
Why do we have a line that states she obtained her first passport in 2007? Seems like trivia, and I don't see anything similar in the articles of any other politicians. Kelly hi! 00:24, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
<-- Can someone provide a reliable source that states this is valid in regards to her foreign policy experience? Believe it or not, we do have people that understand foreign policy that have not left the country. Not saying that applies necessarily applies in this case (I honestly don't know the extent of her expertise), but it seems like synthesis and/or trivia right now. Exactly why is it there? Kelly hi! 00:39, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
I just changed the sentence to "new" passport because the NYT ref didn't specify whether or not this was her first passport. Joshdboz ( talk) 01:54, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
I think this should definitely be added from the Daily News: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/republican_race/2008/09/01/2008-09-01_bristol_palins_pregnancy_was_an_open_sec.html bigware ( talk) 05:49, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
Bristol Palin is no doubt a fairly large search term at the moment, and the page just sat as a sub-stub for over 20 minutes. She's obviously not notable in her own right, but the redirect is valid. Can we have a few more people watchlisting the page in case someone else decides to expand it? J Milburn ( talk) 10:44, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
I wouldn't dream of debating merit/demerit of Bristol Palin's notability for separate article. However, the redirect is somewhat confusing. It redirects to mother's (Sarah) and automatically dumps one into middle of a section. I would have expected an interim page (not a stub...but i'm far from expert on wiki page structures) with statement "see Sarah Palin- "Personal Life and Family" much as an index to a printed encyclopedia might list Briston Palin. Conversely, wiki could just (as it seems to do) rely on the search feature as an index to the world of wikipedia).
As it currently stands, it's somewhat messy to me. 68.173.2.68 ( talk) 12:44, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
This is another blatant example of double standards and how this page has been hijacked by GOP spin doctors and their orwellian agents. This kind of practices is unacceptable. We can not have the GOP hijack and/or groom and/or censor the entries surrounding their VP candidate and/or anyone she is related to.
Bristol Palin deserves a 'Bristol Palin' page of her own indeed, if not a separate page to be called 'Bristol Palin incident' or 'Bristol Palin controversy'. Bristol Palin IS notable.
Mijnlulinjouwkut (
talk)
03:30, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
Better redirect; still not ideal. Would more expect an interstitial page (not a stub, not a disambiguation). As it is now, one still lands in the middle of an article about another person. The italic ""Bristol Palin" and "Levi Johnston" redirect here." is a start, but easily missed (at least by my eyes).-- 68.173.2.68 ( talk) 15:29, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
Is there any evidence that the 17-year-old's situation really is a campaign issue? It's been discussed a lot, but is there any evidence of impact on the polls? Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 10:32, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
Thank you, Thank you, Thank you for editing out the libelous, Non NPOV nonsense which Kos operators have been inserting and rationalizing on the thinnest of pretenses. The sections relating to the bridge to nowhere and other political references have been considerable cleared up.
I would still strongly suggest removing the last two paragraphs of the family section. (I'm not sure how the timing of her first Son 8mo's after the marraige is relevant either) Surely the details of a plane trip before the birth of Trigg, or veiled references to the "surprising" 7th mo. announcement are only important to rumor injecting partisans who want to further an unsustainable smear on Bristol. (i.e., she's an insatiable, incredibly fertile slut who gave birth to a DS child 4.5 months ago (April 18th, 2008) jumped in the Bush/Rove/Cheney/Haliburton time machine, got knocked up again in March of '08, and is currently working on inbred #2.)-- 98.221.28.244 ( talk) 15:28, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
"Palin's announcement in March 2008 that she was seven months pregnant generated publicity and surprise, as did the circumstances of Trig's birth six weeks later." Fcreid ( talk) 14:21, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
I'd like to know why the section about photographs of daughter Bristol's underage drinking were deleted. They're noteworthy and were referenced. Bricology ( talk) 22:08, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
I find the inclusion of the eight-month elapsed between marriage and the first son's birthdate to be offensive and misleading. The obvious intent is to imply the couple had premarital coitus; however, there is absolutely no evidence (and never will be) to conclude that. Can someone explain to me what that's there, please? Fcreid ( talk) 23:56, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
It seems to be going back and forth how Wasilla is actually classified. Does the state of Alaska actually consider it a "city"? In a less populated State 5,000 to 6,000 people would be a town. But it seems like Alaska refers to all of its towns as cities for administrative purposes. Khanaris ( talk) 15:34, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
Okay, the Anchorage Daily News is a reliable source, but it has exactly one line and exactly no detail on Palin's support for contraception. We also know that she has at least one anti-contraception position: she's against teaching it in schools. Does anyone know what actions Palin has taken to support contraception? Until then, I think just calling her "pro-contraception" is misleading. At most, her record is mixed. Darkfrog24 ( talk) 16:07, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
This section keeps expanding defeating the purpose of it being a SUMMARY section. Would anyone object to removing ALL specifics from this section and changing it to a couple well sourced summaries of her political ideology? (This sort of practice seems typical for other well known politicians). -- ThaddeusB ( talk) 16:28, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
I think there should be a section regarding the attractiveness of the subject as it surely played a part in being elected Governor. Faethon Ghost ( talk) 16:30, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
Isn't it sexist to note the attractiveness of a female political candidate, but not of a male candidate? Surely Obama's attractiveness is a factor in his popularity, but I don't recall reading about that on his Wikipedia entry. Catonow ( talk) 08:13, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
The current paragraph shows bias in it's framing of the Alaska Independence Party, in that it references only portion of the platform and is inconsistent in presentation with the information available elsewhere in Wikipedia about the AIP. If characterization of the AIP is to take place in the Sarah Palin article, it should be consistent with the current Wikipedia entry for the AIP. I suggest that the current opening paragraph for the AIP be used instead. Therefore:
Remove:
A portion of the party's platform "challenges the legality of the Alaskan statehood vote ... [under] international law" and calls for a referendum on whether Alaska should secede from the United States to become an independent nation, remain a state, or become a U.S. territory or commonwealth.
Replace with:
The Alaskan Independence Party is a political party in the U.S. state of Alaska. Its best-known policy is its call for a United Nations vote, which they claim should have been offered as an option in the plebiscite on statehood under international law. Ideologically a constitutional foundation, the party also calls for increased Alaskan control of Alaskan land, gun rights, privatization, home schooling, and reduction of governmental intrusion in the private lives of its citizens with adherence to the founding documents of the United States. The party has appeared on the ballot in Alaska in all state elections since 1970.
Alternatively, the commentary on the AIP could be eliminated entirely, thus changing:
Remove:
According to officials of the Alaska Independence Party, Sarah Palin was a member in 1994. A portion of the party's platform "challenges the legality of the Alaskan statehood vote ... [under] international law" and calls for a referendum on whether Alaska should secede from the United States to become an independent nation, remain a state, or become a U.S. territory or commonwealth.
Replace with:
According to officials of the Alaska Independence Party, Sarah Palin was a member in 1994.
No new references are needed for these edits. Existing references in the Sarah Palin article, or the corresponding AIP article should be used.
We've been over this many times and the discussion goes in circles. At one point, I had a whole paragraph fully and accurately describing the AIP and it was considered too long. When it's shortened, there are conflicts, with Palin supporters wanting to downplay the fact that the AIP is a secessionist party. I don't care if the paragraph on AIP is long or short, but if you take out the word "secession", you are not being accurate as to the purpose and goals of the Alaskan Independence Party. "Independence" means independence from the United States, and that is their "ultimate goal" as stated by all its leaders, in its platform, and in its history, even though in the short term, they are simply pushing for an independence vote. If you do not include the word "secession" in any short account, I fear the edit war will continue. However, I don't mind a more complete longer account. GreekParadise ( talk) 18:24, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
Now all context has been stripped from the article against everything we have discussed here. Zredsox ( talk) 18:58, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
"Since the 1990s, Palin has been close to the Alaska Independence Party.[17][18][19]" The first reference is a blog entry which is not a reliable source and it only talks about her address to the party in 2008 as Governor. The second reference is members of the party claiming she was a member, which is hearsay, and it has been disputed; the third reference is another link to the video where she addresses the 2008 convention as Governor. There NO RELIABLE SOURCE here that backs up the claim that Palin has been close to the AIP since the 1990s. This is very shoddy work. -- Paul ( talk) 19:51, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
The Whitewash is complete. Where to next? Should we clean up the Bridge to Nowhere so that it doesn't state her initial support? Maybe we should include the countries she flew over (being she was in their airspace) as countries she has visited? Oh, I am sure we can find a place where the light from the heavens is not shining bright enough.
Zredsox (
talk)
22:02, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
I believe that the early political philosophy of a candidate for vice president IS relevant to her biography, and this includes her support for Pat Buchanan. (I also think Reagan's early ties to the Democratic Party are relevant.) See longer discussion by me above.
- Before you delete, you must either claim: Pat Buchanan is an out-and-out liar. Or that political philosophy and support of presidential candidates is irrelevant to the life of a political candidate. I know making that argument is tough. (I think it's ridiculous.) But please make the argument before deleting obviously relevant information. I have included the standard McCain denial even though it is tendentiously parsed. (She didn't "work" for the campaign, McCain says, but she still could have supported it as Buchanan claims.)
So I have cited Buchanan -- who was there -- and the counter-example, someone who wasn't there and had no reason to know. Throw out the McCain counter-assertion if you want, but when a Presidential candidate calls a political candidate a "brigader" in his campaign, it is relevant to her political life story. GreekParadise ( talk) 20:29, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
(undent)The article currently says she wore a Buchanan button in 1999. People might want to pay attention to the letter to the editor she wrote in 1999:
"As mayor of Wasilla, I am proud to welcome all presidential candidates to our city. This is true regardless of their party, or the latest odds of their winning. When presidential candidates visit our community, I am always happy to meet them. I'll even put on their button when handed one as a polite gesture of respect. Though no reporter interviewed me for the Associated Press article on the recent visit by a presidential candidate, the article may have left your readers with the perception that I am endorsing this candidate, as opposed to welcoming his visit to Wasilla. As mayor, I will welcome all the candidates in Wasilla."
Perhaps Palin's letter to the editor does not say what people want it to say? Ferrylodge ( talk) 20:46, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
Would anyone (who can) care to archive some of this Talk-page? Its growth rate is outstanding. GoodDay ( talk) 20:56, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
And for the next round of the AIP story (sigh...), it appears that husband Todd was an AIP member from 1995 to 2002. [5] The current source is pretty dodgy, but I assume the major networks will confirm or deny this shortly. Dragons flight ( talk) 21:10, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
[out] We're not the news, so we can wait until the ink is dry before posting - but if the story pans out that her husband was a member of the AIP -a secessionist party - it may indeed be correct to say so here, especially if this claim can be verified, about her attendance at an AIP convention. (Try this thought experiment: let's say Michelle Obama had been a member of a fringe party and Barack attended a convention, and people were claiming that he too was a member. Or Cindy and John.) Tvoz/ talk 22:22, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
The constant bolding must go and the positions must be incorporated into the text, we do articles, not lists here in BLPs. Hobartimus ( talk) 21:13, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
{editsemiprotected)School performance data is available for Both Sen. McCain and Sen. Obama. No specific information yet on Gov. Palin's performance in school and mental performance.
She is applying for a position that requires high mental functioning. She has admitted to not believing in confirmed scientific facts such as the theory of evolution and human contribution to global warming. She also plans to make changes regarding health education and female reproductive freedom. American citizens need objective facts to measure her background and qualifications in these matters.
Thanks so much. Komplete ( talk) 21:14, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
Justmeherenow ( ) 23:25, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
This article now says that Palin attended an AIP convention in 1994, following this recent edit. Specifically, this article now says:
While serving on the city council, Palin attended the 1994 convention of the Alaskan Independence Party, a party which argues Alaskans have a right to vote on whether to secede from the United States. Lynnette Clark, the party's current chairwoman, claimed Palin was actually a member of the party at the time. However, as mentioned above, Palin has officially been a registered Republican since 1982.
The cited source is this ABC News article. However, the cited source says: "Rogers [a McCain-Palin spokesperson] says that Palin didn’t attend the AIP convention in 1994, 'but she visited them when they had their convention in Wasilla in 2000 as a courtesy since she was mayor.'" So, Palin is denying that she attended the convention in 1994. Our article should therefore not insist that she did. Ferrylodge ( talk) 22:38, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
WHY IS THE PART ABOUT SARAH PALEN BELONGING TO THE ALASKA INDEPENDENCE PARTY BEEN REMOVED WITH NO COMMENT. HERE IS THE REMOVED PART. THIS MUST BE PLACED BACK INTO THIS ARTICLE.--- According to officials of the Alaska Independence Party, Sarah Palin was a member in 1994.[3] A portion of the party's platform "challenges the legality of the Alaskan statehood vote ... [under] international law" and calls for a referendum on whether Alaska should secede from the United States to become an independent nation, remain a state, or become a U.S. territory or commonwealth.[3][18] The Alaskan Independence Party is Alaska's third largest party.[19][20] Palin remained on good terms with the AIP,[21][3][22] and would later give a "welcome" speech to the 2008 AIP Convention.[23] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.134.23.4 ( talk) 22:36, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
Someone better versed in Wikipedia ins and outs needs to correct this article. It's now "semi-protected," and I have no doubt this was done to make it harder to offer criticism of Palin.
Take, for instance, the short-and-sweet statement that she'd been accused of associating with the Alaskan Independence Party, followed by a misleading claim that a "Mother Jones" article had revealed that it wasn't true and that people making the claims had "backed off." That's completely false. The article actually maintains that Palin's husband is, indeed, a long-time AIP member. It also says that one of the vice chairmen of AIP, Dexter Clark, (referred to as a "key source" for the story) backed off his claims in an interview with "Mother Jones," saying that their information was based upon information provided by Mark Chryson, the regional chair for Wasilla, Palin's hometown. Chryson was not interviewed for the story, and has not backed down from his claims.
The article goes on to state:
Not being registered as an AIP member did not keep some Alaskans from being supporters of the party and its aims. Jack Coghill, the lieutenant governor of Alaska from 1990 to 1994 and a candidate for governor in 1994 on the AIP ticket, told Mother Jones that being friendly with the AIP and a registered Republican was "common" in the 1990s. Might Palin had had a similar relationship with the party? Given her husband's long-time membership in the group, Palin was likely aware of the group's tenets. And in 2008, as governor, she submitted a welcoming video to the AIP convention in Fairbanks. "Your party plays an important role in our state's politics," she said. "I've always said that competition is so good, and that applies to political parties as well… We have a great promise: to be a self-sufficient state." She closed by saying, "Good luck on a successful and inspiring convention. Keep up the good work, and God bless you."
To read the article for yourself, use this link: http://www.motherjones.com/mojoblog/archives/2008/09/9535_palin_alaskan_independence_party_connection.html
(Would have been a lot shorter, but some genius decided to blacklist ALL "tiny URL" addresses. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.4.206.143 ( talk) 03:22, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
Paul.h wrote: "There are no reliable 2nd party sources that validate a claim she was involved with AIP." This is demonstrably incorrect, since Palin sent a video to the 2008 AIP convention stating that she agreed with some of its party platform and that she wished it well. She wouldn't have done that if she hadn't been an unofficial supporter or sympathizer. Others have correctly noted that it would be ludicrous for Geo. Bush to have sent such a video to the Democratic Convention, for the Dems to have presented it, and for the Dems to prominently display it on their website. That is reason enough to consider her associated with AIP. -- Zeamays ( talk) 13:06, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
That makes it seem like she was a lot more involved with the party of Alaskan secession from the United States, especially knowing her husband has admitted to being a member of the Alaska Indepdence Party for seven years. Digitalmandolin ( talk) 19:52, 3 September 2008 (UTC)Ms. Palin attended the party’s 1994 and 2006 conventions and provided a video-taped address as governor to the 2008 convention.
This was discussed yesterday and I thought there was agreement, but it keeps being reinserted, so perhaps I was wrong. For clarity, I certainly think the detail belongs in the main article, just not the summary. Here is what I said yesterday:
"I think these detail is too trivial to include in the summary and is being included only because it potentially embarrasses Palin. I sight as evidence that it is: 1) not related to why the matter is important; 2) It is covered in one short paragragh in the main article; 3) Kopp's name is not mentioned in the vast majority of the MSM articles covering the story. (All of which are longer than our summary); Other opinions?" —Preceding unsigned comment added by ThaddeusB ( talk • contribs) 22:35, 2 September 2008
We don't get to decide which side is right, the McCain party or the AIP party. We can't take sides. We can't say the AIP is right or wrong, we can't say the McCain camp is right or wrong. rootology ( C)( T) 22:46, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
(undent)Chryson says this: [7]
Asked how Palin could have been a member, when state records did not indicate Palin ever registered as an AIP member, Chyrson, in an interview with Mother Jones, backed off his account. "What could have been the confusion—her husband was a member of the party. He was at the convention. She could have been considered—it might have been thought she was a member then." Talking Points Memo has reported that Todd Palin was a member of the AIP from 1995 to 2002, with the exception of a short period in 2000 when he was undeclared. Chyrson said he did not remember seeing Sarah Palin at the 1994 convention: "I don't, no. I was working behind the scenes. Back then I was only vaguely familiar with her. I would not have recognized her. I had just met her. I probably would not have recognized her." He added that Sarah Palin did not play "an active role in the party" or to speak out for its causes.
Ferrylodge ( talk) 01:20, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
Interesting how you left out parts of the Mother Jones story that don't make your case for you:
Not being registered as an AIP member did not keep some Alaskans from being supporters of the party and its aims. Jack Coghill, the lieutenant governor of Alaska from 1990 to 1994 and a candidate for governor in 1994 on the AIP ticket, told Mother Jones that being friendly with the AIP and a registered Republican was "common" in the 1990s. Might Palin had had a similar relationship with the party? Given her husband's long-time membership in the group, Palin was likely aware of the group's tenets. And in 2008, as governor, she submitted a welcoming video to the AIP convention in Fairbanks. "Your party plays an important role in our state's politics," she said. "I've always said that competition is so good, and that applies to political parties as well… We have a great promise: to be a self-sufficient state." She closed by saying, "Good luck on a successful and inspiring convention. Keep up the good work, and God bless you."
24.4.206.143 ( talk)
Why is this so hard? 1) Palin sent a video to the 2008 AIP convention in her role as Governor. 2) Palin attended the 2000 AIP convention in her role as Mayor. 3) Palin claims she has never been an AIP member, and produces 26 years of voter registration documents to prove it. Someone in the AIP claims that Palin was in the party 14 years ago, but has no proof. This is a non-story. Wikipedia must use reliable sources. Though it must retain a neutral point of view, it can't spread falsehoods. Folks that want to include this are saying party A can claim something which is a lie, and then party B disagrees calling it a lie and providing documentary proof but still Wikipedia must include this information? This is no better than tabloid journalism, except that they have real reporters!-- Paul ( talk) 23:43, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
The controversy should be covered under the 2008 campaign. Saying for sure she was a involved is blatant POV. Her history of being a registered Republican should be included. A.J.A. ( talk) 03:45, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
I do not see any consensus here. Please see my comments above under AIP Convention in 1994 -- Zeamays ( talk) 13:13, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
I see no BLP concerns here. People keep citing BLP, that AIP affiliation is some Bad Thing. It's the 3rd largest party in Alaska. Whats the BLP worry? rootology ( C)( T) 23:13, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
And there's no mention of her support for the aerial gunning down of wolves, presumably because they eat 'her' caribou. <<Peter Simmons>> —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.114.7.25 ( talk) 13:39, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
There is current a long section which basically says 1) Palin is in charge of AK national guard (talking point) and 2) the head general doesn't think it qualifies as national defense experience. (I removed a huge quote about the general's day-to-day duties, as completely non-relevant).
I don't think any of this belongs. Should we really be reporting on talking points and counter talking points?-- ThaddeusB ( talk) 23:31, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
I do not want to get involved with this back and forth BS, but I was looking at the history of this page, and came upon some of the first versions.
Compare this statement:
"Gov. Palin received widespread criticism for her handling of Matanuska Maid Dairy, a state owned business. When the State Dairy Board recommended closing the unprofitable business, Palin fired the board and appointed long-time Mat-Su Borough associates to run the board, including influential real estate businesswoman Kristan Cole.[22] The new board quickly approved raising the price of milk offered by the dairy in a vain attempt to control hemorrhaging fiscal losses, despite the fact that milk from the state of Washington was already offered in Alaska stores for much less then Mat Maid milk.[23] In the end the dairy was forced to close and the state tried to sell the assets to pay off its debts, but no bids were received.[24][25]
to this current version:
In 2007, the Alaska Creamery Board recommended closing Matanuska Maid Dairy, an unprofitable state-owned business. Palin objected, citing concern for dairy farmers and a recent infusion of $600,000 in state money. Palin subsequently replaced the entire membership of the Board of Agriculture and Conservation.[71] The new board reversed the decision to close the dairy. Later in 2007, the unprofitable business was put up for sale. No offers met the minimum bid of $3.35 million,[72][73] and the dairy was closed. In August 2008, the Anchorage plant was purchased for $1.5 million, the new minimum bid. The purchaser plans to convert it into heated storage units.[74]
Pure whitewash. Tell it like it is, people. Don't log on anonymously and edit facts with euphemisms just because of you political affiliations. People screw up all the time, some more than others, but trying to cover it up just makes you look biased and her look deceitful.
BTW: Do you think a black candidate wouldn't catch some heat for having an unmarried, minor pregnant daughter, not to mention 5 children? t1n0 23:42, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
LMAO..here's to you Ferry. But seriously, you'd think this chic has learned to walk on water in the last week. I know we are supposed to be unbiased, but that does not bar descriptive language. There's death, and then there's horrific death. They are different levels to everything, and it is obvious that this whole article has been whitewashed, no pun intended. t1n0 00:06, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
I will try to look over for bias as best I can, but I am new to this. . t1n0
I'm removing the line, "Also during her first term, state Republican leaders began grooming her for higher office." The source simply mentions she appeared in in tv ads with prominent republicans as evidence of her "grooming". I think if this statement is to be kept, it should be reworded to include what actually happened. A potential POV statement that should also be included (if any mention of appearing in the tv spots is left) for sake of completeness, is that the mayoral race is intended to be nonpartisan, but by appearing in these spots, she infused the race with partisan view points and endorsements. As is, this is clearly trying to spin this individual in a positive light. Benajnim ( talk) 17:02, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
Here's a dead link for you, concerning the sale of the plant.. http://www.matmaid.com/pages/news_letter.html but now, its gone...
Since we can't edit the page, and I hadn't touched it yet, this little fact is locked in to its current 'unimportant' stance as a minor blurb. It may seem unimportant, but to me it is far more important than her kid's pregnancy. (Her kid is doing exactly the same as her mom did...that's not news.) However, multiple instances of using her position and office for gains, is news. Troopergate, and I guess this is "Dairy-gate". The current administration has abused its power by replacing people who dissent, and selecting attorneys based on political affiliation, and here we have someone in BFE that is cut from the same cloth that they pick as a 'maverick'. I hope someone can find some more news on this before it is all swept under the carpet and off of her hometown newstation's website. t1n0
There is now a discussion of ordering of the Palins at Talk:Palin. Hobit ( talk) 23:45, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
Time Magazine, Sep 2, '08: "...I]n 2002, her [Palin's] husband Todd's stepmother Faye Palin ran for mayor. She did not, however, get Sarah Palin's endorsement. A couple of people told me that they thought abortion was the reason for Palin not supporting her family member — Faye, they say, is pro-choice, not to mention a Democrat." Justmeherenow ( ) 23:47, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
Something about this talk page keeps crashing the NVIDIA graphics card on my office mate's machine. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.4.83.52 ( talk) 00:02, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
Is 18 and will attend the Nat'l Republican Convention. [10] Justmeherenow ( ) 00:04, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
Incidentally, I've (re?) added to the short description of him the kind-of sourced fact that his MySpace page says/said "He warns, 'Ya fuck with me I'll kick [your] ass.'" This is my own interpretation of "He warns, 'Ya f - - - [sic] with me I'll kick [your] ass'", the version provided by the nervous usmagazine.com. I'm unfamiliar with usmagazine.com, and it looks like complete crap but also the kind of thing that "source" a huge percentage of mediocre WP articles about slebs. An article in the (London) Guardian, which I take a bit more seriously, tells us that "In a Myspace entry, which has now been blocked, Johnston describes himself a 'fuckin' redneck'". Clearly Mr Johnson likes the verb fuck, from which I tentatively infer that he is an utterly normal US teenager (a fact that might reassure the ever-nervous US electorate). -- Hoary ( talk) 00:22, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
This whole MySpace quote of his needs to be just removed. It has no use for us here. rootology ( C)( T) 00:44, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
I'm a little puzzled. First, I'd half-agree with Edison2 that Mr Johnston is "a nonnotable highschool student". That is, he's nonnotable. (I'm not sure about the "highschool" bit, as apparently he only goes to school for sports and skips the classes, though then again he does get education at home. Or so I'm informed by the goofy "usmagazine.com".)
But now two questions.
First, if he's not notable, is a redirect from Levi Johnston merited, and if so, why?
Secondly, we're told by some lowbrow magazine that he wrote on his MySpace page "Ya fuck with me I'll kick [your] ass." The same article has another, similar quote that's repeated in an article in the Guardian, so perhaps it's credible. It's not something he said once, but instead something that he wrote publicly and could have deleted. Of course it's utterly banal. Still, it's not the sort of thing that, oh, perhaps 40% of fellows his age would write publicly, so it gives our readers some tiny insight into him (so far as he's notable).
As it is, I'm puzzled by the combination of (i) a redirect from Levi Johnston to Sarah Palin and (ii) the vigorous deletion from Sarah Palin of anything about Johnston himself (let alone any hint that he might not be an obvious poster boy for "Focus on the Family").
My own suggestion is that virtually all mention of the kiddies (let alone their "partners") of both candidates for veep and both candidates for prez should be zapped (unless any are notable in their own right), and that all redirects from their names should be deleted and salted. How does that grab you? -- Hoary ( talk) 01:55, 3 September 2008 (UTC)