![]() | 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 5 | ← | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | → | Archive 15 |
Her religion is listed as non-demoninational Christian with two references. Looking at the references, this is incorrect.
Palin calls herself "Christian" in the Time interview so this is what we should list her as. We must defer to the living person what their religion is. Otherwise, people could argue that Obama is a "radical, anti-white christian" based on Jeremiah Wright. So using the term used by the person himself is the correct thing to do as long as it's a mainstream term, which Christian is. Fossett&Elvis ( talk) 19:22, 3 September 2008 (UTC) And it must to be read: "She got converted to evangelicalism when her was 12 years old". No evangelical ever batize children without a personal conversion experience. This part from section is judgmental and from build from a catholic perspective on baptism, so violates neutral point of view.
That's the paragraph but it provides little context. The truth is that Palin was accused of lying about her daughter who was accused of being the mother of Trig (who is 4 months old). To deflate the argument, Palin revealed that her daughter is FIVE months pregnant with the public figuring that you can't give birth while pregnant with another child on the way (short of having twins).
So this provides context but could be written smoother:
Fossett&Elvis ( talk) 19:31, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
I understand that some don't want to smear Palin so mentioning the internet rumors isn't wanted. OK. How about removing the whole daughter's pregnancy and include it in the daughter's biography, if it is an article? Another possibility would be to move it to the 2008 campaign article, which is more like a newspaper. Fossett&Elvis ( talk) 19:48, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
The rumors about Bristol and Trig, however unfounded and unsupportable, are key to the narrative. They were spread not only by Kos posters, but by such weighty bloggers as Andrew Sullivan. It was apparently in response to these stories (around 29-30 August) that the announcement of Bristol's pregnancy hit the news. Sallieparker ( talk) 22:05, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
This section risks being campaign literature, either for one party or the other. This is not right for an encyclopedia.
A possible compromise is to limit positions to state issues while being governor.
The political positions of a Vice Presidential candidate mirrors that of the Presidential candidate so anything should go on McCain's article. There is also a danger of changing the focus of the article. With Biden, you could mention his positions during the primary and how they conflict with Obama's. That's just tricky so the best thing to do would be to leave out the recent political positions as all positions must be the same as the presidential candidate or the Obama/McCain will punch Biden/Palin in the nose for causing trouble. Fossett&Elvis ( talk) 19:39, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
I think the family section line "Sarah Palin eloped with her high-school boyfriend, Todd Palin, on August 29, 1988, when she was 24 years old." should end with "and pregnant"
The other wiki information that follows, with Track's birthdate, shows only eight months between the wedding and her son. This is relevant to her bio, imo, as it speaks to her taking responsibility early in life, and/or her ability or inability to plan... depending on how you want to interpret it.
Remember, i am not asking to add an interpretation, just a material fact about her wedding.
It depends on the individual, some people are smarter than others. But I think that the info about her eloping and a quick marriage, and giving birth birth 8 months later, while it's suspicious, we should refrain from adding it in until major news corporations have already reported it. Lakerking04 ( talk) 20:19, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
If it should come out that she got married because she got pregnant, then it WOULD be a story because her daughter is about to do similar. It would show a family pattern of quick, pregnancy-forced marriages. But we shouldn't be doing original research. We have to wait for the major news corporations to report it before we even consider adding in such material. Lakerking04 ( talk) 20:37, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
The early life section says, "In 1984, Palin won the Miss Wasilla Scholarship Pageant..." However, I can't find any evidence of a contest with this exact name. Neither ref mentions it. Am I missing something? Zagalejo ^^^ 20:33, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
That's not the name of the pageant. The Miss Wasilla pegeant, like most pegeants awards scholorship money to the winners. The author of that specific sentence clearly violated NPOV.
Because it draws too much attention to the scholarship aspect of the pegeant when that in fact is only a minor aspect of the pegeant, not to mention, it's inaccurate. Lakerking04 ( talk) 20:51, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
Seems we must now have an "earmarks" meme out there - mention of earmarks while she was mayor of Wasilla were in three different sections. I removed two and left the detailed account of the earmarks in the "Wasilla" section. Kelly hi! 20:39, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
The article needs to add this citation to when she fired the Chief of police and city Librarian. Apparently the people didn't like the direction that the city was going and a group of citizens organized to have her recalled. http://nl.newsbank.com/nl-search/we/Archives?p_product=AS&p_theme=as&p_action=search&p_maxdocs=200&p_topdoc=1&p_text_direct-0=0F79408854D0C20B&p_field_direct-0=document_id&p_perpage=10&p_sort=YMD_date:D&s_trackval=GooglePM
http://hatthief.blogspot.com/2008/08/vetting-sarah-palin-irl-stambaugh-walt.html
http://news.yahoo.com/s/huffpost/20080901/cm_huffpost/122769 —Preceding unsigned comment added by MPA ( talk • contribs) 21:16, 3 September 2008 (UTC) MPA 21:08, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
The article referenced for the fact that she "fired the police chief and the librarian" in fact asserts that the librarian was not fired. I'm reluctant to edit the article without some discussion. The situation appears to be that she told the librarian and the chief of police that they were both terminated, but later rescinded the termination of the librarian. The New York Times article also adds that the librarian continued to serve for "a couple of years". If there's no further information here, I'll correct the article. Lauciusa ( talk) 21:11, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
The following line in the article needs to be edited:
"Palin ran for re-election against Stein in 1999[6][28] and was returned to office by a with 74% or votes cast compared to 21% for the runner-up."
I suggest the following:
"Palin ran for re-election against Stein in 1999[6][28] and was returned to office with 74% of votes cast compared to 21% for the runner-up."
Done--
JayJasper (
talk)
22:16, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
This article is rated by high importance, but only a very small range of editors can edit this. I wouldn't call this a democratic issue, whatever you think. It is good say in east Africa, in China or in Balkans, but not in a democratic world.
If you want to write something, write it here and it will be copied to the article if someone agrees with the text. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fossett&Elvis ( talk • contribs) 22:34, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
The lead says she got 48.3% of the vote (presumably in the general election). Should we change this to a vote total (114,697) or leave it as a percentage? Whatever we decide, the article ought to be uniform in this regard. Also, maybe we should give the percentage (or vote total) of the runner-up. Ferrylodge ( talk) 22:38, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
In the introduction section of the article, should it not read 'Senator John McCain', not the abbreviated 'Sen. John McCain'? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.244.97.200 ( talk) 22:43, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
Done
Ferrylodge (
talk)
22:52, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
Why are mentions of National Enquirer affair allegations being included? Kelly hi! 22:50, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
In the case John Edwards extramarital affair, the NE was never put forth on its own as a reliable source. However, after subsequent confirmation by multiple reliable sources, the NE allegations were included (and eventually turned out to be almost entirely accurate). In this case, there is zero confirmation from reliable sources so we can quite safely, and without a hint of hypocrisy, ignore this story until it can be (if ever) confirmed. Ronnotel ( talk) 23:50, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
[ [5]]
I am having trouble including this.
I just went back to see if there were any additional comments on something I had posted here, and I couldn't find the section. I then noticed that a whole lot of stuff has been removed, but I can't even find when or by whom because there are so many edits -- and I can't see anyone noting it in their edit summaries. Here is a way to see some of what I mean: http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Talk:Sarah_Palin&offset=20080901235144&limit=1000&action=history
Is this appropriate? If not, what can be done?
Thanks, User:BTR ( User talk:BTR) 14:54, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
Despite the McCain campaign's claims, Sarah Palin is no opponent of earmarks. -- JHP ( talk) 22:07, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
I have read about Sarah Palin's admitted marijuana usage several times on Wikipedia.
The author of the thread correctly cited the incidence.
The news paper where the information was contained actually quoted this info from her own lips.
Sarah Palin admitted to using federally illegal drugs in Alaska.
So why is this information being blocked? This is supposed to be a free and honest encyclopedia.
The American people have a right to know if their prospective Vice Presidential candidate is a drug user.
If McCain dies from old age in office (which he is likely to do) Sarah Palin would be president and a drug user.
The article currently states:
Is there anything here more than guilt by association? A.J.A. ( talk) 04:15, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
Article says, "In that campaign, Palin received $4500 in legal campaign contributions from VECO Corporation. Four years later, the company was investigated by the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Internal Revenue Service in the Alaska political corruption probe." But the wiki article for VECO_Corporation#Alaska_Legislature_corruption_scandal gives nothing to support that she's was accused within the investigation and that the $4500 donation was the legal campaign contribution. Seems like this reference should be removed until she is accused within the investigation. She was not in the search warrants either. Theosis4u ( talk) 04:16, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
The article currenly says: "Palin registered as a member of the Republican Party in May of 1982, and has remained a Republican ever since.[16][17]"
However, it has been suggested that Sarah Palin attended the AIP's 1994 Another AIP Official Says Palin Was at 1994 Convention Members of 'Fringe' Alaskan Independence Party Say Palin Was a Member in 90s; McCain Camp and Alaska Division of Elections Deny Charge and 2000 conventions. The seperatist AIP has a plank that challenges the legality of the Alaskan statehood.
According to Lynette Clark, the chairman of the AIP, Palin and her husband Todd were members in 1994, even attending the 1994 statewide convention in Wasilla. John McCain's running mate Sarah Palin was in Alaskan independence party
She made this video in 2008: Sarah Palin and the Alaska Independence Party. Palin addresses AIP convention
I feel this controversy should be out in the open in the article since it gives additional political background on the presumptive vice presidential candidate. Kgrr ( talk) 12:07, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
The party says that she was not part of the party: http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/09/02/alaska-party-official-says-palin-was-not-a-member/?scp=2&sq=alaska%20independence&st=cse . Argo117 ( talk) 21:50, 3 September 2008 (UTC)Argo117
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/uselection2008/johnmccain/2667214/John-McCains-running-mate-Sarah-Palin-was-in-Alaskan-independence-party.html There's a summary of what the party is, mention of what Palin said, then a mention that the AIP wants to infiltrate the government and hates that Palin is with McCain now, and then they say Palin wasn't chosen properly, and move onto other issues. No direct talk of what this means. Or this. http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-aip3-2008sep03,0,6399468.story It repeats her praise for the group, and says that an official sidestepped a question, but again didn't answer whether she was a secessionist, merely said she cheered them on. We don't really have anything solid. A lot of blogs make the link- she has these links, so she must be unpatriotic, and will therefore not support America as a vice president, but favour Alaska. But news articles don't directly touch the issue. And rightly so, since at any time she could support or contradict what they say. Until there's some direct evidence that she likes or dislikes secession, it doesn't warrant a major section. Certainly not a spam of links that support various statements about vague links between her and the party that I saw before. -- Ytaker ( talk) 01:02, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
One sentence would suffice. The AIP website minimalizes the involvement of Palin and her husband, and there is nothing seditious in their views. This is a non-story. One sentence is enough. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 10:08, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
I noticed some material was deleted [8] with the edit summary "rm addition with mutliple unreliable sources cited". Most of the sources were from ABC News, another was from Talking Points Memo (a recipient of the Polk Award), a couple more from the AIP itself, and a YouTube video of Palin addressing the AIP (which, while not a V RS itself, is OK as a convenience link. Since those sources looked pretty reliable to me, I restored the section, only to have it deleted less than 5 minutes later by another editor whose edit summary offered no basis on content-guiding policy whatsoever -- the old "need consensus" excuse, as if that possibly advances discussion at all. -- Comesincolors2 ( talk) 15:33, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
Ref. 114 links to court document that shows her birthyear is 1990 where as the article here states 1980. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.249.47.11 ( talk) 12:38, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
It was mentioned on the 9aug version, but no longer on the current one. Dont get me on whether or not it is relevant; i just noticed it. I started reading the old version to get some unbiased 'data' in the first place, and this is the first difference i noticed. -- 82.170.27.104 ( talk) 17:42, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
Heads up, something to keep an eye out for. People will likely start adding this and related information before/if it gets proper sourcing. rootology ( C)( T) 13:25, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
Here is the historical list of speakers for her church. You can see David Brickner spoke only one time. http://wasillabible.org/sermons.htm So please remove this obvious political attack. MAL
I am not a Palin supporter, but it seems to me that trying to smear her by including some controversial content of a speech given by someone else while Palin was in attendance violates the spirit of BLP guidelines. If the speaker had a long-term relationship with Palin, it's possible a case could be made, but this was a guest speaker! The editor keeps re-adding the inappropriate sentence. - Exucmember ( talk) 18:40, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
<- (to Scjessey) Agreed, just trying to be realistic. You remember what hell it was around here when everyone was claiming that she wasn't really the mother of her kids. Agree on the specificity. Also, need to rephrase the "God's will" quotes from the church speech and frame it in context. Looks like the reporter took a couple of words from a much longer prayer to fit whatever he/she was trying to say.
Kelly
hi!
19:11, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
<- I agree with Kelly. Need to fix "God's Will" quote. Does not accurately reflect what Palin was saying. Check the source.
75.11.191.123 (
talk)
20:47, 3 September 2008 (UTC)John
<- This is a blatant guilt-by-association attempt. However, if the article makes clear that Palin rejects the speaker's views, it's not as bad as it could be. Kelly hi! 23:13, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
I've removed a statement a couple of times that the Jews for Jesus guy was "warmly welcomed by her pastor". Not sure why that would be relevant to her biography, unless it's a guilt-by-secondhand-association attempt. Kelly hi! 22:55, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
I'm placing a neutrality tag on the article as a first step. If we have certain editors who seriously believe that it is relevant that Palin once listened to someone whom she probably doesn't even know and that somehow reflects on her deeply-held religious beliefs, then we have an egregious neutrality problem.
This is an example what some of these same editors call a wp:coatrack when it happens to their candidate. This is a transparent attempt to scare Jews from voting; whether she once listened to someone is obviously irrelevant to her religious beliefs. Also irrelevant is whether people in her campaign once responded to some bogus concern. These same editors would recoil at using the same standard for relevancy when it comes to say, Barack Obama's bio, from which the entire religion section was erased.
Simply put: This text tells us absolutely nothing about Sarah Palin's religious beliefs.
This text violates WP:Relevant and fails to meet the high bar of neutrality necessary for inclusion of material about living persons in a Wikipedia article [WP:BLP]]. Accordingly, I believe it qualifies for speedy deletion as required under Wikipedia policy. Freedom Fan ( talk) 23:26, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
{{ editprotected}}
I am requesting deletion of the irrelevant, POV inclusion of the statement about Palin's having listened to someone and then implying that it has something to do with her religious beliefs. This text has no consensus for relevancy and appears to be a textbook candidate for speedy deletion as required by WP:BLP.
Specifically, under the religion section this part needs to go:
Thank you. Freedom Fan ( talk) 23:57, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
This sentence seems fairly inflammatory. Can someone provide a good reason why sitting in a pew and listening to someone rattle on is worth mentioning on a bio page? Seems like WP:UNDUE to me.
{{
editsemiprotected}}
"in teh theory of evolution" needs to be fixed in the first paragraph of the Personal Life:Religion section.
Anyone have any idea why all the images seem to be busted? None of them are loading for me. Ferrylodge ( talk) 22:12, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
I just added a FAQ section (see the top of this talk page), based on the section in the Barack Obama article. It's meant to guide editors new to the page, and also be a stable place to note perennial proposals that have firmly been rejected and that are no longer under active discussion. That way, instead of re-starting a finished discussion every time someone new comes to the page and doesn't find it (because it's been archived or the talk page is too long) you can just point them to the FAQ. It's best to only include completely uncontroversial things there. For now I just populated it with a few process points, not any actual issues. Hope this helps. Wikidemon ( talk) 22:46, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
Throughout the article it refers to SP as either Sarah or Palin (except in the opening section) Why then, when we get to the section 'Family' and the potentially damaging revelations about her daughter's pregnancy is she suddenly refered to as "Governor Palin announced on September 1, 2008, that her daughter Bristol was five months pregnant and intended to keep the baby and marry the father of her child, 17-year-old Levi Johnston."? Surely, Palin OR Sarah (if you wanted to distinguish her from her daughter) would suffice. It seems to me that the introduction of "Governor" in this sentence is contrived.
An admin has protected the article page. Probably a good idea. We have other things we could be doing! Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 23:46, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
Did anyone else notice the page was protected in a state were all the McCain campaign talking points were included and anything controversial yet well documented and sourced (such as AIP which was being discussed above with a consensus to include) was completely wiped? How convenient since she is speaking tonight and this page will see heavy traffic. It is quite apparent what is going on here. zredsox ( talk) 00:42, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
I find it admirable that Wikipedia editors try to uphold their own concepts of journalistic decency. However, that is not how Wikipedia works; if reliable ( WP:RS) sources exist, then it doesn't matter what exulted admins think.
As it is, The Washington Post deal with the issue, so there is no reason why we shouldn't. Here's a suggested text that is NPOV and sourced:
Rumours that Governor Palin had an extramarital affair with a business associate of her husband were forcefully denied by the McCain campaign.<ref name="Kurtz">{{cite news|url=http://voices.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/09/03/mccain_aide_rips_tabloid_repor.html|title=McCain Aide Rips Tabloid Report|last=Kurtz|first=Howard|date=2008-09-03|publisher=[[Washington Post]]|accessdate=2008-09-03}}</ref>
The admins are right and you are wrong. This is just a back door attempt to get the allegations into the article. Trying to sneak unfounded allegations into the article by the means you are suggesting is inappropriate. I hope the allegations turn out to be true and Palin is given a one way ticket back to Alaska, but it does not belong in the article unless the allegations are actually true. -- JHP ( talk) 00:24, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
This part of the policy exists specifically to keep unsubstantiated and potentially slanderous rumors from appearing in biographies of living persons. This prohibition exists expressly to override the lower bars of WP:V and WP:RS. Without this prohibition anyone could make a false and defaming charge and if the charge was reported in mainstream media somewhere it would have to appear in the biography. Thankfully WP:BLP exists to keep this from happening.-- Paul ( talk) 11:54, 4 September 2008 (UTC)Biographies of living persons (BLPs) must be written conservatively, with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid paper; it is not our job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives. The possibility of harm to living subjects is one of the important factors to be considered when exercising editorial judgment.
There is a lot of public interest in the birthdates of at least some of the children, and it would be helpful to have them in the article just so we could see when their ages change. There is no immediate need to draw inferences from those ages (e.g., as to how long the Palins were married before the birth of their first child), but the birthdates themselves should, I think, be included, as should the full names of the children, to the extent available. Could a moderator please add the following information?
>> BLP violation deleted for the protection of the children <<
I realize that the speeding tickets are not of public interest, but they are public records that show Track's and Bristol's birthdates. John M Baker ( talk) 00:24, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
I didn't realize that the guidelines were so restrictive. I disagree on principle (as to birthdates, not the rest of them), but this probably isn't a good test case. I note that the birthdates of the two youngest children are readily available online in reliable sources. I also think it would be useful to provide the fuller versions of the children's names. John M Baker ( talk) 04:31, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
1. The article currently says nothing about Palin's tangential association with the Alaskan Independence Party, but the mainstream news media has analysed the issue. Phlegm Rooster ( talk) 00:34, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
There is no controversy that Palin had links to AIP, including her husband's membership. This is different than claiming she was a member. The links are well documented and certainly relevant. This section should remain available to readers as a well-documented source of information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pulsifer ( talk • contribs) 23:28, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
Kelly, I have read the complete discussion above. It focuses primarily on her husband Todd's membership in AIP, which was in the end deemed relevant. Similarly, the section I added documents other links to the AIP. None of them were discussed above, and certainly they are all relevant. Your stated reason for deleting the section was that it had been "debunked". This is not the case. All of the items are both true and well sourced. It appears you are trying to hide behind the above discussion to prevent relevant information from being added to the entry. If you have any issue with the truth or relevance of any of the statements, please identify the specific statements. -Pulsifer
(undent)It's true that Palin had well-documented links to the AIP. However, those well-documented links are so tenuous as to not be notable here in this article, except maybe a brief mention in the campaign section that her membership was debunked by Mother Jones. I feel like the tenuous links to AIP are being used not to give a neutral description of the subject, but rather to pulverize the subject.
By the way, Pulsifer, are you any relation to this guy? Ferrylodge ( talk) 23:53, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
So let's get the facts. One, a party official said she was a once a member, but had to recant when proven wrong. Two, she may have attended one or two party conventions. Three, she sent a welcome video to their convention. Four, her husband appears to have been a member in the past, later re-registered as Independent. So form these 4 facts, you think a 4000 character section, attempting to tie every possible thing she has said in the last 10 years into AIP somehow is justified. Apparently, this isn't original research in any way and is based on the length is the single most important part of her entire career, regardless that it had never even come up before 2-3 days ago? Is that an accurate summary of your position? -- ThaddeusB ( talk) 00:29, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
The only argument that has been made is that these items are allegedly not relevant. But if half of the population feels they are relevant, and half of the population feels they are not, then the material should be included so that readers can decide for themselves. Unless someone can come up with an argument other than relevance, I am going to add the material back in. -Pulsifer
There is no evidence that Palin has "links" to the Alaska Independent Party. The only relevancy in trying to include this is to suggest through guilt by association that Palin is an extremist who favors succession of Alaska from the Union. This argument started when officials of the AIP claimed Governor Palin had once been a member of the party. These claims have since been withdrawn, and Sarah Palin's voter registration records showing that she has been registered as a Republican since 1982 have appeared. So editors wanting to include this material have fallen back on circumstantial facts. 1) In her capacity as Governor she sent a video to the 2008 convention where she refers to "your party" in the first sentence, 2) in her capacity as Mayor she attended the 2000 convention, and 3) her husband declared AIP preference for several years in his voter registration. Using WP:SYNTH editors claim that these three facts prove that Governor Palin has ties to the AIP. They do no such thing. This is not material that is relevant to the biography of Sarah Palin. It is an attempt to imply guilt by association when there is no association. Inclusion of this material violates WP:BLP, WP:NPOV and WP:SYNTH.-- Paul ( talk) 12:26, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
{{ editprotected}}
This is what I propose adding. It accurately describes the controversy which has received much attention in the press; it correctly describes that Palin has never been a member of AKIP, but does accurately describe her association with AKIP and is properly sourced and written from a neutral point of view. It violates none of the rules that Paul has cited. Its seems some people at intent on censoring facts, but that is a violation of wikipedia rules. -Pulsifer
The Alaskan Independence Party (AKIP) is an Alaskan political party that calls for a vote on the secession of Alaska from the United States. The motto of the AKIP is "Alaska First - Alaska Always". [1]
On September 1, ABC News reported that Sarah Palin had been a member of AKIP. [2] The sources for this story later retracted these claims, and the Alaskan Division of Elections confirmed that Palin has always been registered Republican. [3]
Palin's husband Todd however was a registered member of AKIP from 1995 to 2002, [4] and served as the Treasurer of Palin's 1999 mayoral campaign. [5] The McCain campaign admits Palin attended the 2000 AKIP convention, [6] and as governor, Palin sent a video address to the 2008 AKIP convention. [7] In addition, two AKIP members recall seeing Palin at the 1994 AKIP convention, although Palin denies attending. [8]
This paragraph contains anti-matter (the incorrect news report) and matter (finally finding the truth which is that the report was false). When you add them together they create a big bang but leave nothing behind. In the discussion of the National Enquirer rumor (below) the consensus is to wait to see if the rumor is true or not. If true, it will be added, if not it will be ignored. That is what should have happened here, but the ABC claim was inserted as soon as it came out, and the truth only came out a day or two later. It should never have been in the article when it was little more than a politically-charged hit, and now that we know it is false, it is not appropriate to add it.On September 1, ABC News reported that Sarah Palin had been a member of AKIP. The sources for this story later retracted these claims, and the Alaskan Division of Elections confirmed that Palin has always been registered Republican.
Palin's husband is not Palin, and what is the purpose of sneaking in the fact that he was her campaign finance manager in 1999 other than to insinuate that because a family member with AKIP ties was active in her campaign, she must "have ties to AKIP"? This is clearly POV-pushing and it is also clear WP:SYNTH. Next is mentioning that two AKIP members recall seeing her at the convention 18 years ago. She denies it. I don't know, maybe she was there to get some grocery money from Todd, or to go out to dinner with him. It certainly doesn't prove any "ties to AKIP" and is either trival or POV-pushing. As I said "when did you stop beating your wife?"Palin's husband Todd however was a registered member of AKIP from 1995 to 2002, and served as the Treasurer of Palin's 1999 mayoral campaign. and as governor, Palin sent a video address to the 2008 AKIP convention. In addition, two AKIP members recall seeing Palin at the 1994 AKIP convention, although Palin denies attending.
The Alaskan Independence Party (AKIP) is an Alaskan political party that calls for a vote on the secession of Alaska from the United States. The motto of the AKIP is "Alaska First - Alaska Always".
Proposal: The Alaskan Independence Party (AKIP) is an Alaskan political party that calls for a vote on the secession of Alaska from the United States. Its motto is "Alaska First - Alaska Always". [9] Palin's husband Todd was a registered member of AKIP from 1995 to 2002, [10] and served as the Treasurer of Palin's 1999 mayoral campaign. [11] Sarah Palin herself has always been registered Republican. [12] She attended the 2000 AKIP convention, [13] and as governor, sent a video address to the 2008 AKIP convention. [14]
He was also a registered member of Alaskan Independence Party (AKIP) from 1995 to 2002; while Palin has always been a registered Republican, she attended the 2000 AKIP convention, and as governor, sent a video address to the 2008 AKIP convention.
It is clear that at the present time there is no consensus supporting any version of the edit proposed here. If such a consensus forms in the future, and is clearly stable, then it will be time to use the {{ edit protected}} template. GRBerry 20:17, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
The fact that there is so much controversy both for an against the exclusion or inclusion of this information then it is obviously important. I believe if there is documented evidence of Sarah Palin attending multiple events for the AIP this should be noted as this I believe is simply a documented biography of noteworthy facts. { 99.228.151.16 ( talk) 22:49, 4 September 2008 (UTC)}
2. The article currently says nothing about Palin having an extramarital affair with a business associate of her husband even though the story has been covered by such media sources as CNN [11], The Huffington Post [12], France 24 [13], The Washington Post [14], & [15], The Sydney Morning Herald [16], CBS [17], North Queensland Register [18], The Age [19], Gawker.com [20], The Standard [21]. Lampman ( talk) 00:37, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
That's a lot of wonderful, profound thoughts by both ThaddeusB, patsw, What's up, Doc?, Kelly, Baseball Bugs etc. You should all start your own little blogs. As for Wikipedia, that's a completely different matter. I still haven't seen anyone explain what policy prevents us from relating verifiable material from reliable sources. Still waiting for that...? Lampman ( talk) 02:25, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
Are reliable sources confirming the rumor by interviewing the people who claim to have personal knowledge or documentary evidence of it? Or are they acting as a echo chamber for the NE and the little blogs out there? From a Palin-smearing POV, is this a story that's too good to fact check? The Wikipedia can wait like it did for the John Edwards extramarital affair to include it. patsw ( talk) 17:57, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
3. Can't edit point about "appointed long-time Mat-Su Borough associates to run the board" which has been eliminated, to somehow obfuscate any indication of cronyism. As we all know, the articles from news organisation that are available on the Internet may 'disappear' over the course of this week. I was looking at a forum two days ago, and the next day it disappeared. Now, we all know forums are not news sources, I'm just saying that we should prepare for some of the citations in this article to become dead ends in the next few days, as the sources are taken down. I would consider that 'replacing' and entire board of people that don't agree with you, and 'replacing' them with people you are associated with so you can reverse a decision is pretty f'ed up. Doesn't that sound similar to what the Attorney General's office was pulling last year? Replace dissenting people with people who agree with you in order to reverse decisions. The section paints her actions in a favorable light by stating that she 'had concerns for dairy farmers' [sic].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 00:48, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
I have some time now and will look up everything i can on this...thanks for giving me some time, I have a day job y'know :) t1n0
4. The general dispute that this article should become a clearinghouse for every Internet rumor that is reported on without independent verification by sources such as the Washington Post, New York Times, CNN, etc. They cannot be relied upon to show discretion in reporting rumors they have not independently verified when it comes to Sarah Palin. These sources are becoming mere echo chambers for anonymous rumors. We do not have to be in that food chain. patsw ( talk) 00:56, 4 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 5 | ← | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | → | Archive 15 |
Her religion is listed as non-demoninational Christian with two references. Looking at the references, this is incorrect.
Palin calls herself "Christian" in the Time interview so this is what we should list her as. We must defer to the living person what their religion is. Otherwise, people could argue that Obama is a "radical, anti-white christian" based on Jeremiah Wright. So using the term used by the person himself is the correct thing to do as long as it's a mainstream term, which Christian is. Fossett&Elvis ( talk) 19:22, 3 September 2008 (UTC) And it must to be read: "She got converted to evangelicalism when her was 12 years old". No evangelical ever batize children without a personal conversion experience. This part from section is judgmental and from build from a catholic perspective on baptism, so violates neutral point of view.
That's the paragraph but it provides little context. The truth is that Palin was accused of lying about her daughter who was accused of being the mother of Trig (who is 4 months old). To deflate the argument, Palin revealed that her daughter is FIVE months pregnant with the public figuring that you can't give birth while pregnant with another child on the way (short of having twins).
So this provides context but could be written smoother:
Fossett&Elvis ( talk) 19:31, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
I understand that some don't want to smear Palin so mentioning the internet rumors isn't wanted. OK. How about removing the whole daughter's pregnancy and include it in the daughter's biography, if it is an article? Another possibility would be to move it to the 2008 campaign article, which is more like a newspaper. Fossett&Elvis ( talk) 19:48, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
The rumors about Bristol and Trig, however unfounded and unsupportable, are key to the narrative. They were spread not only by Kos posters, but by such weighty bloggers as Andrew Sullivan. It was apparently in response to these stories (around 29-30 August) that the announcement of Bristol's pregnancy hit the news. Sallieparker ( talk) 22:05, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
This section risks being campaign literature, either for one party or the other. This is not right for an encyclopedia.
A possible compromise is to limit positions to state issues while being governor.
The political positions of a Vice Presidential candidate mirrors that of the Presidential candidate so anything should go on McCain's article. There is also a danger of changing the focus of the article. With Biden, you could mention his positions during the primary and how they conflict with Obama's. That's just tricky so the best thing to do would be to leave out the recent political positions as all positions must be the same as the presidential candidate or the Obama/McCain will punch Biden/Palin in the nose for causing trouble. Fossett&Elvis ( talk) 19:39, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
I think the family section line "Sarah Palin eloped with her high-school boyfriend, Todd Palin, on August 29, 1988, when she was 24 years old." should end with "and pregnant"
The other wiki information that follows, with Track's birthdate, shows only eight months between the wedding and her son. This is relevant to her bio, imo, as it speaks to her taking responsibility early in life, and/or her ability or inability to plan... depending on how you want to interpret it.
Remember, i am not asking to add an interpretation, just a material fact about her wedding.
It depends on the individual, some people are smarter than others. But I think that the info about her eloping and a quick marriage, and giving birth birth 8 months later, while it's suspicious, we should refrain from adding it in until major news corporations have already reported it. Lakerking04 ( talk) 20:19, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
If it should come out that she got married because she got pregnant, then it WOULD be a story because her daughter is about to do similar. It would show a family pattern of quick, pregnancy-forced marriages. But we shouldn't be doing original research. We have to wait for the major news corporations to report it before we even consider adding in such material. Lakerking04 ( talk) 20:37, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
The early life section says, "In 1984, Palin won the Miss Wasilla Scholarship Pageant..." However, I can't find any evidence of a contest with this exact name. Neither ref mentions it. Am I missing something? Zagalejo ^^^ 20:33, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
That's not the name of the pageant. The Miss Wasilla pegeant, like most pegeants awards scholorship money to the winners. The author of that specific sentence clearly violated NPOV.
Because it draws too much attention to the scholarship aspect of the pegeant when that in fact is only a minor aspect of the pegeant, not to mention, it's inaccurate. Lakerking04 ( talk) 20:51, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
Seems we must now have an "earmarks" meme out there - mention of earmarks while she was mayor of Wasilla were in three different sections. I removed two and left the detailed account of the earmarks in the "Wasilla" section. Kelly hi! 20:39, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
The article needs to add this citation to when she fired the Chief of police and city Librarian. Apparently the people didn't like the direction that the city was going and a group of citizens organized to have her recalled. http://nl.newsbank.com/nl-search/we/Archives?p_product=AS&p_theme=as&p_action=search&p_maxdocs=200&p_topdoc=1&p_text_direct-0=0F79408854D0C20B&p_field_direct-0=document_id&p_perpage=10&p_sort=YMD_date:D&s_trackval=GooglePM
http://hatthief.blogspot.com/2008/08/vetting-sarah-palin-irl-stambaugh-walt.html
http://news.yahoo.com/s/huffpost/20080901/cm_huffpost/122769 —Preceding unsigned comment added by MPA ( talk • contribs) 21:16, 3 September 2008 (UTC) MPA 21:08, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
The article referenced for the fact that she "fired the police chief and the librarian" in fact asserts that the librarian was not fired. I'm reluctant to edit the article without some discussion. The situation appears to be that she told the librarian and the chief of police that they were both terminated, but later rescinded the termination of the librarian. The New York Times article also adds that the librarian continued to serve for "a couple of years". If there's no further information here, I'll correct the article. Lauciusa ( talk) 21:11, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
The following line in the article needs to be edited:
"Palin ran for re-election against Stein in 1999[6][28] and was returned to office by a with 74% or votes cast compared to 21% for the runner-up."
I suggest the following:
"Palin ran for re-election against Stein in 1999[6][28] and was returned to office with 74% of votes cast compared to 21% for the runner-up."
Done--
JayJasper (
talk)
22:16, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
This article is rated by high importance, but only a very small range of editors can edit this. I wouldn't call this a democratic issue, whatever you think. It is good say in east Africa, in China or in Balkans, but not in a democratic world.
If you want to write something, write it here and it will be copied to the article if someone agrees with the text. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fossett&Elvis ( talk • contribs) 22:34, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
The lead says she got 48.3% of the vote (presumably in the general election). Should we change this to a vote total (114,697) or leave it as a percentage? Whatever we decide, the article ought to be uniform in this regard. Also, maybe we should give the percentage (or vote total) of the runner-up. Ferrylodge ( talk) 22:38, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
In the introduction section of the article, should it not read 'Senator John McCain', not the abbreviated 'Sen. John McCain'? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.244.97.200 ( talk) 22:43, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
Done
Ferrylodge (
talk)
22:52, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
Why are mentions of National Enquirer affair allegations being included? Kelly hi! 22:50, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
In the case John Edwards extramarital affair, the NE was never put forth on its own as a reliable source. However, after subsequent confirmation by multiple reliable sources, the NE allegations were included (and eventually turned out to be almost entirely accurate). In this case, there is zero confirmation from reliable sources so we can quite safely, and without a hint of hypocrisy, ignore this story until it can be (if ever) confirmed. Ronnotel ( talk) 23:50, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
[ [5]]
I am having trouble including this.
I just went back to see if there were any additional comments on something I had posted here, and I couldn't find the section. I then noticed that a whole lot of stuff has been removed, but I can't even find when or by whom because there are so many edits -- and I can't see anyone noting it in their edit summaries. Here is a way to see some of what I mean: http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Talk:Sarah_Palin&offset=20080901235144&limit=1000&action=history
Is this appropriate? If not, what can be done?
Thanks, User:BTR ( User talk:BTR) 14:54, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
Despite the McCain campaign's claims, Sarah Palin is no opponent of earmarks. -- JHP ( talk) 22:07, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
I have read about Sarah Palin's admitted marijuana usage several times on Wikipedia.
The author of the thread correctly cited the incidence.
The news paper where the information was contained actually quoted this info from her own lips.
Sarah Palin admitted to using federally illegal drugs in Alaska.
So why is this information being blocked? This is supposed to be a free and honest encyclopedia.
The American people have a right to know if their prospective Vice Presidential candidate is a drug user.
If McCain dies from old age in office (which he is likely to do) Sarah Palin would be president and a drug user.
The article currently states:
Is there anything here more than guilt by association? A.J.A. ( talk) 04:15, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
Article says, "In that campaign, Palin received $4500 in legal campaign contributions from VECO Corporation. Four years later, the company was investigated by the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Internal Revenue Service in the Alaska political corruption probe." But the wiki article for VECO_Corporation#Alaska_Legislature_corruption_scandal gives nothing to support that she's was accused within the investigation and that the $4500 donation was the legal campaign contribution. Seems like this reference should be removed until she is accused within the investigation. She was not in the search warrants either. Theosis4u ( talk) 04:16, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
The article currenly says: "Palin registered as a member of the Republican Party in May of 1982, and has remained a Republican ever since.[16][17]"
However, it has been suggested that Sarah Palin attended the AIP's 1994 Another AIP Official Says Palin Was at 1994 Convention Members of 'Fringe' Alaskan Independence Party Say Palin Was a Member in 90s; McCain Camp and Alaska Division of Elections Deny Charge and 2000 conventions. The seperatist AIP has a plank that challenges the legality of the Alaskan statehood.
According to Lynette Clark, the chairman of the AIP, Palin and her husband Todd were members in 1994, even attending the 1994 statewide convention in Wasilla. John McCain's running mate Sarah Palin was in Alaskan independence party
She made this video in 2008: Sarah Palin and the Alaska Independence Party. Palin addresses AIP convention
I feel this controversy should be out in the open in the article since it gives additional political background on the presumptive vice presidential candidate. Kgrr ( talk) 12:07, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
The party says that she was not part of the party: http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/09/02/alaska-party-official-says-palin-was-not-a-member/?scp=2&sq=alaska%20independence&st=cse . Argo117 ( talk) 21:50, 3 September 2008 (UTC)Argo117
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/uselection2008/johnmccain/2667214/John-McCains-running-mate-Sarah-Palin-was-in-Alaskan-independence-party.html There's a summary of what the party is, mention of what Palin said, then a mention that the AIP wants to infiltrate the government and hates that Palin is with McCain now, and then they say Palin wasn't chosen properly, and move onto other issues. No direct talk of what this means. Or this. http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-aip3-2008sep03,0,6399468.story It repeats her praise for the group, and says that an official sidestepped a question, but again didn't answer whether she was a secessionist, merely said she cheered them on. We don't really have anything solid. A lot of blogs make the link- she has these links, so she must be unpatriotic, and will therefore not support America as a vice president, but favour Alaska. But news articles don't directly touch the issue. And rightly so, since at any time she could support or contradict what they say. Until there's some direct evidence that she likes or dislikes secession, it doesn't warrant a major section. Certainly not a spam of links that support various statements about vague links between her and the party that I saw before. -- Ytaker ( talk) 01:02, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
One sentence would suffice. The AIP website minimalizes the involvement of Palin and her husband, and there is nothing seditious in their views. This is a non-story. One sentence is enough. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 10:08, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
I noticed some material was deleted [8] with the edit summary "rm addition with mutliple unreliable sources cited". Most of the sources were from ABC News, another was from Talking Points Memo (a recipient of the Polk Award), a couple more from the AIP itself, and a YouTube video of Palin addressing the AIP (which, while not a V RS itself, is OK as a convenience link. Since those sources looked pretty reliable to me, I restored the section, only to have it deleted less than 5 minutes later by another editor whose edit summary offered no basis on content-guiding policy whatsoever -- the old "need consensus" excuse, as if that possibly advances discussion at all. -- Comesincolors2 ( talk) 15:33, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
Ref. 114 links to court document that shows her birthyear is 1990 where as the article here states 1980. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.249.47.11 ( talk) 12:38, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
It was mentioned on the 9aug version, but no longer on the current one. Dont get me on whether or not it is relevant; i just noticed it. I started reading the old version to get some unbiased 'data' in the first place, and this is the first difference i noticed. -- 82.170.27.104 ( talk) 17:42, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
Heads up, something to keep an eye out for. People will likely start adding this and related information before/if it gets proper sourcing. rootology ( C)( T) 13:25, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
Here is the historical list of speakers for her church. You can see David Brickner spoke only one time. http://wasillabible.org/sermons.htm So please remove this obvious political attack. MAL
I am not a Palin supporter, but it seems to me that trying to smear her by including some controversial content of a speech given by someone else while Palin was in attendance violates the spirit of BLP guidelines. If the speaker had a long-term relationship with Palin, it's possible a case could be made, but this was a guest speaker! The editor keeps re-adding the inappropriate sentence. - Exucmember ( talk) 18:40, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
<- (to Scjessey) Agreed, just trying to be realistic. You remember what hell it was around here when everyone was claiming that she wasn't really the mother of her kids. Agree on the specificity. Also, need to rephrase the "God's will" quotes from the church speech and frame it in context. Looks like the reporter took a couple of words from a much longer prayer to fit whatever he/she was trying to say.
Kelly
hi!
19:11, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
<- I agree with Kelly. Need to fix "God's Will" quote. Does not accurately reflect what Palin was saying. Check the source.
75.11.191.123 (
talk)
20:47, 3 September 2008 (UTC)John
<- This is a blatant guilt-by-association attempt. However, if the article makes clear that Palin rejects the speaker's views, it's not as bad as it could be. Kelly hi! 23:13, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
I've removed a statement a couple of times that the Jews for Jesus guy was "warmly welcomed by her pastor". Not sure why that would be relevant to her biography, unless it's a guilt-by-secondhand-association attempt. Kelly hi! 22:55, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
I'm placing a neutrality tag on the article as a first step. If we have certain editors who seriously believe that it is relevant that Palin once listened to someone whom she probably doesn't even know and that somehow reflects on her deeply-held religious beliefs, then we have an egregious neutrality problem.
This is an example what some of these same editors call a wp:coatrack when it happens to their candidate. This is a transparent attempt to scare Jews from voting; whether she once listened to someone is obviously irrelevant to her religious beliefs. Also irrelevant is whether people in her campaign once responded to some bogus concern. These same editors would recoil at using the same standard for relevancy when it comes to say, Barack Obama's bio, from which the entire religion section was erased.
Simply put: This text tells us absolutely nothing about Sarah Palin's religious beliefs.
This text violates WP:Relevant and fails to meet the high bar of neutrality necessary for inclusion of material about living persons in a Wikipedia article [WP:BLP]]. Accordingly, I believe it qualifies for speedy deletion as required under Wikipedia policy. Freedom Fan ( talk) 23:26, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
{{ editprotected}}
I am requesting deletion of the irrelevant, POV inclusion of the statement about Palin's having listened to someone and then implying that it has something to do with her religious beliefs. This text has no consensus for relevancy and appears to be a textbook candidate for speedy deletion as required by WP:BLP.
Specifically, under the religion section this part needs to go:
Thank you. Freedom Fan ( talk) 23:57, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
This sentence seems fairly inflammatory. Can someone provide a good reason why sitting in a pew and listening to someone rattle on is worth mentioning on a bio page? Seems like WP:UNDUE to me.
{{
editsemiprotected}}
"in teh theory of evolution" needs to be fixed in the first paragraph of the Personal Life:Religion section.
Anyone have any idea why all the images seem to be busted? None of them are loading for me. Ferrylodge ( talk) 22:12, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
I just added a FAQ section (see the top of this talk page), based on the section in the Barack Obama article. It's meant to guide editors new to the page, and also be a stable place to note perennial proposals that have firmly been rejected and that are no longer under active discussion. That way, instead of re-starting a finished discussion every time someone new comes to the page and doesn't find it (because it's been archived or the talk page is too long) you can just point them to the FAQ. It's best to only include completely uncontroversial things there. For now I just populated it with a few process points, not any actual issues. Hope this helps. Wikidemon ( talk) 22:46, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
Throughout the article it refers to SP as either Sarah or Palin (except in the opening section) Why then, when we get to the section 'Family' and the potentially damaging revelations about her daughter's pregnancy is she suddenly refered to as "Governor Palin announced on September 1, 2008, that her daughter Bristol was five months pregnant and intended to keep the baby and marry the father of her child, 17-year-old Levi Johnston."? Surely, Palin OR Sarah (if you wanted to distinguish her from her daughter) would suffice. It seems to me that the introduction of "Governor" in this sentence is contrived.
An admin has protected the article page. Probably a good idea. We have other things we could be doing! Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 23:46, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
Did anyone else notice the page was protected in a state were all the McCain campaign talking points were included and anything controversial yet well documented and sourced (such as AIP which was being discussed above with a consensus to include) was completely wiped? How convenient since she is speaking tonight and this page will see heavy traffic. It is quite apparent what is going on here. zredsox ( talk) 00:42, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
I find it admirable that Wikipedia editors try to uphold their own concepts of journalistic decency. However, that is not how Wikipedia works; if reliable ( WP:RS) sources exist, then it doesn't matter what exulted admins think.
As it is, The Washington Post deal with the issue, so there is no reason why we shouldn't. Here's a suggested text that is NPOV and sourced:
Rumours that Governor Palin had an extramarital affair with a business associate of her husband were forcefully denied by the McCain campaign.<ref name="Kurtz">{{cite news|url=http://voices.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/09/03/mccain_aide_rips_tabloid_repor.html|title=McCain Aide Rips Tabloid Report|last=Kurtz|first=Howard|date=2008-09-03|publisher=[[Washington Post]]|accessdate=2008-09-03}}</ref>
The admins are right and you are wrong. This is just a back door attempt to get the allegations into the article. Trying to sneak unfounded allegations into the article by the means you are suggesting is inappropriate. I hope the allegations turn out to be true and Palin is given a one way ticket back to Alaska, but it does not belong in the article unless the allegations are actually true. -- JHP ( talk) 00:24, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
This part of the policy exists specifically to keep unsubstantiated and potentially slanderous rumors from appearing in biographies of living persons. This prohibition exists expressly to override the lower bars of WP:V and WP:RS. Without this prohibition anyone could make a false and defaming charge and if the charge was reported in mainstream media somewhere it would have to appear in the biography. Thankfully WP:BLP exists to keep this from happening.-- Paul ( talk) 11:54, 4 September 2008 (UTC)Biographies of living persons (BLPs) must be written conservatively, with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid paper; it is not our job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives. The possibility of harm to living subjects is one of the important factors to be considered when exercising editorial judgment.
There is a lot of public interest in the birthdates of at least some of the children, and it would be helpful to have them in the article just so we could see when their ages change. There is no immediate need to draw inferences from those ages (e.g., as to how long the Palins were married before the birth of their first child), but the birthdates themselves should, I think, be included, as should the full names of the children, to the extent available. Could a moderator please add the following information?
>> BLP violation deleted for the protection of the children <<
I realize that the speeding tickets are not of public interest, but they are public records that show Track's and Bristol's birthdates. John M Baker ( talk) 00:24, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
I didn't realize that the guidelines were so restrictive. I disagree on principle (as to birthdates, not the rest of them), but this probably isn't a good test case. I note that the birthdates of the two youngest children are readily available online in reliable sources. I also think it would be useful to provide the fuller versions of the children's names. John M Baker ( talk) 04:31, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
1. The article currently says nothing about Palin's tangential association with the Alaskan Independence Party, but the mainstream news media has analysed the issue. Phlegm Rooster ( talk) 00:34, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
There is no controversy that Palin had links to AIP, including her husband's membership. This is different than claiming she was a member. The links are well documented and certainly relevant. This section should remain available to readers as a well-documented source of information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pulsifer ( talk • contribs) 23:28, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
Kelly, I have read the complete discussion above. It focuses primarily on her husband Todd's membership in AIP, which was in the end deemed relevant. Similarly, the section I added documents other links to the AIP. None of them were discussed above, and certainly they are all relevant. Your stated reason for deleting the section was that it had been "debunked". This is not the case. All of the items are both true and well sourced. It appears you are trying to hide behind the above discussion to prevent relevant information from being added to the entry. If you have any issue with the truth or relevance of any of the statements, please identify the specific statements. -Pulsifer
(undent)It's true that Palin had well-documented links to the AIP. However, those well-documented links are so tenuous as to not be notable here in this article, except maybe a brief mention in the campaign section that her membership was debunked by Mother Jones. I feel like the tenuous links to AIP are being used not to give a neutral description of the subject, but rather to pulverize the subject.
By the way, Pulsifer, are you any relation to this guy? Ferrylodge ( talk) 23:53, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
So let's get the facts. One, a party official said she was a once a member, but had to recant when proven wrong. Two, she may have attended one or two party conventions. Three, she sent a welcome video to their convention. Four, her husband appears to have been a member in the past, later re-registered as Independent. So form these 4 facts, you think a 4000 character section, attempting to tie every possible thing she has said in the last 10 years into AIP somehow is justified. Apparently, this isn't original research in any way and is based on the length is the single most important part of her entire career, regardless that it had never even come up before 2-3 days ago? Is that an accurate summary of your position? -- ThaddeusB ( talk) 00:29, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
The only argument that has been made is that these items are allegedly not relevant. But if half of the population feels they are relevant, and half of the population feels they are not, then the material should be included so that readers can decide for themselves. Unless someone can come up with an argument other than relevance, I am going to add the material back in. -Pulsifer
There is no evidence that Palin has "links" to the Alaska Independent Party. The only relevancy in trying to include this is to suggest through guilt by association that Palin is an extremist who favors succession of Alaska from the Union. This argument started when officials of the AIP claimed Governor Palin had once been a member of the party. These claims have since been withdrawn, and Sarah Palin's voter registration records showing that she has been registered as a Republican since 1982 have appeared. So editors wanting to include this material have fallen back on circumstantial facts. 1) In her capacity as Governor she sent a video to the 2008 convention where she refers to "your party" in the first sentence, 2) in her capacity as Mayor she attended the 2000 convention, and 3) her husband declared AIP preference for several years in his voter registration. Using WP:SYNTH editors claim that these three facts prove that Governor Palin has ties to the AIP. They do no such thing. This is not material that is relevant to the biography of Sarah Palin. It is an attempt to imply guilt by association when there is no association. Inclusion of this material violates WP:BLP, WP:NPOV and WP:SYNTH.-- Paul ( talk) 12:26, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
{{ editprotected}}
This is what I propose adding. It accurately describes the controversy which has received much attention in the press; it correctly describes that Palin has never been a member of AKIP, but does accurately describe her association with AKIP and is properly sourced and written from a neutral point of view. It violates none of the rules that Paul has cited. Its seems some people at intent on censoring facts, but that is a violation of wikipedia rules. -Pulsifer
The Alaskan Independence Party (AKIP) is an Alaskan political party that calls for a vote on the secession of Alaska from the United States. The motto of the AKIP is "Alaska First - Alaska Always". [1]
On September 1, ABC News reported that Sarah Palin had been a member of AKIP. [2] The sources for this story later retracted these claims, and the Alaskan Division of Elections confirmed that Palin has always been registered Republican. [3]
Palin's husband Todd however was a registered member of AKIP from 1995 to 2002, [4] and served as the Treasurer of Palin's 1999 mayoral campaign. [5] The McCain campaign admits Palin attended the 2000 AKIP convention, [6] and as governor, Palin sent a video address to the 2008 AKIP convention. [7] In addition, two AKIP members recall seeing Palin at the 1994 AKIP convention, although Palin denies attending. [8]
This paragraph contains anti-matter (the incorrect news report) and matter (finally finding the truth which is that the report was false). When you add them together they create a big bang but leave nothing behind. In the discussion of the National Enquirer rumor (below) the consensus is to wait to see if the rumor is true or not. If true, it will be added, if not it will be ignored. That is what should have happened here, but the ABC claim was inserted as soon as it came out, and the truth only came out a day or two later. It should never have been in the article when it was little more than a politically-charged hit, and now that we know it is false, it is not appropriate to add it.On September 1, ABC News reported that Sarah Palin had been a member of AKIP. The sources for this story later retracted these claims, and the Alaskan Division of Elections confirmed that Palin has always been registered Republican.
Palin's husband is not Palin, and what is the purpose of sneaking in the fact that he was her campaign finance manager in 1999 other than to insinuate that because a family member with AKIP ties was active in her campaign, she must "have ties to AKIP"? This is clearly POV-pushing and it is also clear WP:SYNTH. Next is mentioning that two AKIP members recall seeing her at the convention 18 years ago. She denies it. I don't know, maybe she was there to get some grocery money from Todd, or to go out to dinner with him. It certainly doesn't prove any "ties to AKIP" and is either trival or POV-pushing. As I said "when did you stop beating your wife?"Palin's husband Todd however was a registered member of AKIP from 1995 to 2002, and served as the Treasurer of Palin's 1999 mayoral campaign. and as governor, Palin sent a video address to the 2008 AKIP convention. In addition, two AKIP members recall seeing Palin at the 1994 AKIP convention, although Palin denies attending.
The Alaskan Independence Party (AKIP) is an Alaskan political party that calls for a vote on the secession of Alaska from the United States. The motto of the AKIP is "Alaska First - Alaska Always".
Proposal: The Alaskan Independence Party (AKIP) is an Alaskan political party that calls for a vote on the secession of Alaska from the United States. Its motto is "Alaska First - Alaska Always". [9] Palin's husband Todd was a registered member of AKIP from 1995 to 2002, [10] and served as the Treasurer of Palin's 1999 mayoral campaign. [11] Sarah Palin herself has always been registered Republican. [12] She attended the 2000 AKIP convention, [13] and as governor, sent a video address to the 2008 AKIP convention. [14]
He was also a registered member of Alaskan Independence Party (AKIP) from 1995 to 2002; while Palin has always been a registered Republican, she attended the 2000 AKIP convention, and as governor, sent a video address to the 2008 AKIP convention.
It is clear that at the present time there is no consensus supporting any version of the edit proposed here. If such a consensus forms in the future, and is clearly stable, then it will be time to use the {{ edit protected}} template. GRBerry 20:17, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
The fact that there is so much controversy both for an against the exclusion or inclusion of this information then it is obviously important. I believe if there is documented evidence of Sarah Palin attending multiple events for the AIP this should be noted as this I believe is simply a documented biography of noteworthy facts. { 99.228.151.16 ( talk) 22:49, 4 September 2008 (UTC)}
2. The article currently says nothing about Palin having an extramarital affair with a business associate of her husband even though the story has been covered by such media sources as CNN [11], The Huffington Post [12], France 24 [13], The Washington Post [14], & [15], The Sydney Morning Herald [16], CBS [17], North Queensland Register [18], The Age [19], Gawker.com [20], The Standard [21]. Lampman ( talk) 00:37, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
That's a lot of wonderful, profound thoughts by both ThaddeusB, patsw, What's up, Doc?, Kelly, Baseball Bugs etc. You should all start your own little blogs. As for Wikipedia, that's a completely different matter. I still haven't seen anyone explain what policy prevents us from relating verifiable material from reliable sources. Still waiting for that...? Lampman ( talk) 02:25, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
Are reliable sources confirming the rumor by interviewing the people who claim to have personal knowledge or documentary evidence of it? Or are they acting as a echo chamber for the NE and the little blogs out there? From a Palin-smearing POV, is this a story that's too good to fact check? The Wikipedia can wait like it did for the John Edwards extramarital affair to include it. patsw ( talk) 17:57, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
3. Can't edit point about "appointed long-time Mat-Su Borough associates to run the board" which has been eliminated, to somehow obfuscate any indication of cronyism. As we all know, the articles from news organisation that are available on the Internet may 'disappear' over the course of this week. I was looking at a forum two days ago, and the next day it disappeared. Now, we all know forums are not news sources, I'm just saying that we should prepare for some of the citations in this article to become dead ends in the next few days, as the sources are taken down. I would consider that 'replacing' and entire board of people that don't agree with you, and 'replacing' them with people you are associated with so you can reverse a decision is pretty f'ed up. Doesn't that sound similar to what the Attorney General's office was pulling last year? Replace dissenting people with people who agree with you in order to reverse decisions. The section paints her actions in a favorable light by stating that she 'had concerns for dairy farmers' [sic].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 00:48, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
I have some time now and will look up everything i can on this...thanks for giving me some time, I have a day job y'know :) t1n0
4. The general dispute that this article should become a clearinghouse for every Internet rumor that is reported on without independent verification by sources such as the Washington Post, New York Times, CNN, etc. They cannot be relied upon to show discretion in reporting rumors they have not independently verified when it comes to Sarah Palin. These sources are becoming mere echo chambers for anonymous rumors. We do not have to be in that food chain. patsw ( talk) 00:56, 4 September 2008 (UTC)