Talk:Sarah Palin

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.

Actual Budget Actions and Voting History

I have been looking up to find the source of claims about her budget actions and voting record.

Most of the claims on the net claim to come for the "wasilla comprehensive annual financial report (year)" and I haven't found the 2003 record, just references to it. The "Politico" document here: http://www.politico.com/enwiki/static/PPM106_palin_doc.html that harshly criticizes Palin's performance is referenced like crazy all over the 'net, and it references FY 2003.

However, the only ones available on the City of Wasillas site are from 2004 to present, for a different Mayor. here: http://www.cityofwasilla.com/index.aspx?page=67

Where'd they go? Did they ever exist?

This be fishy. (yet another pun... :P)

Please post verifiable info on her budgets and voting. t1n0

• The City of Wasilla has posted the most frequently requested information (since Palin got the nomination) in the "Documents Central" section of their website. The items are located in the folder City Documents > Recently Requested > Former Mayor Palin. All financial reports from 1994 - 2005 are there:

http://www.cityofwasilla.com/index.aspx?page=136 71.210.132.185 (talk) 03:19, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

• Palin termed out and left the mayor's job at the end of 2002.--Paul (talk) 21:56, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Is the Budget section the correct place to mention the sale of Westwind II Jet or Matanuska Maid Dairy Closure?
In an earlier revision the Matanuska Maid Dairy Closure has its own section. --Qmf (talk) 00:55, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Sarah_Palin&direction=prev&oldid=235069895

I have just spent 1 1/2 hours typing out the detailed chronology to have the text vaporise.... That my friends, is frustration. t1n0

Well, we shouldn't be doing original research on primary documents anyway. You'll need secondary sources that do the analysis. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 06:57, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

What does that mean? As far as I know, we are supposed to be pulling together information from sources we can cite, correct? I was trying to summarrize everything, because it was lenghthy.

Maybe I'm nuts, but I think the fact that she replaced a board that disagreed with her, and replaced it with members that she knew, and would vote the way she wanted, is a major problem. The point they were deciding may not seem so important, but then why did she change the whole board, hold a closed session, wherein they fired the CEO, and reversed the prior decison to her liking? Oh yeah, btw, there's a shitload of funds involved. t1n0

• That means, "please see WP:PSTS." You can't do your own research on primary sources such as budget documents and put it on Wikipedia. That is what very specialized people like forensic accountants and knowledgable reporters do for a living. I'm telling you this so you don't waste time; there is no way anybody is going to let raw budget numbers on the page. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 08:35, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

1) The state run Dairy, Mat-Maid, had been suffering financial losses for years.

2) The 20 year CEO recommends to the board to either privatize to regain competitiveness, or close and liquidate to cover debts.

3) Governor Palin disagrees, citing concerns for dairy farmers and employees. This is under dubious auspices because Palin claims to run on a atrong fiscal responsibility platform, yet this business was losing hundreds of thousands of ollars per month, and had only 50 or so employees. It seems it might have been cheaper to support them on welfare or unemployment, for Christ’s sake.

4) She replaces the board with people she is familiar with, and the hold a closed session where (surprise!) they fire the CEO that disagrees with her, and they reverse the decision, and manage to sink another 600K into the dairy.

5) This money came from a 25 million dollar grant that the Feds gave them in 2002.

6) When asked why the Board of Agriculture did not act on Mat-Maid dairy president and CEO Joe Van Treeck's requests last year to privatize, Ronda Boyles, chair of the BAC, said that they had not acted due to the impeding change in administration. (So they had to wait for Palin to come to office?)

7) Competing private Dairy businesses are also given federal funding. (So they can further pummel the MatMaid into history, I suppose)

8) The Dairy is eventually closed, seriously in debt. (Surprise!)

9) Nobody offers to buy it a 3.5 Million.

10) Recently a Storage Company purchased it for 1.5 Million, to convert it.

11) What was so important about keeping a hopeless dairy open for a few more months, that she had to wield supreme executive powers? (After all, we all know that “You can’t expect to wield supreme executive powers just because some watery tart threw you a sword!”. (What is your quest?...What is your favorite color?...)

12) Bonus question: Where’s the rest of the 25 Million? Because according to the sources, it hasn’t been disbursed.

Here are the 'webcittes' of the articles. I did it like this so they don't 'disappear', and because some require registration/email to view, so I did it once for everyone, so to speak.

http://www.webcitation.org/5act9Rnjf

http://www.webcitation.org/5acsBLvMD

http://www.webcitation.org/5acsE8XHu

http://www.webcitation.org/5acsMwJJ7

http://www.webcitation.org/5acsOzILn

http://www.webcitation.org/5acsQa4gW

This last one, I wish I had found sooner, but it doesn't cite references. However, it does name names, and it sounds like wwhat really happened. http://www.webcitation.org/5actYqWTe

This is his reference: Andrew Halcro, of Alaska legislature, Harvard Graduate, and Local Businessman. Here Andrew grilled the new board: http://www.webcitation.org/5acttlFqf

The $600K blank check : http://www.andrewhalcro.com/dec_28_looting_matanuska_maid_-_the_lion_sleeps_tonight

The state audit: shows they kept paying farmers, the same ones whose friends and family were on the board, another 39K, and that the 600K check was put into a general checking fund, and was 'comingled' with other funds so it was just spent... http://www.legaudit.state.ak.us/pages/digests/2008/30049Adig.htm

Mat Maid private attorney and Ass't Attorney General both resign, no proper Request for proposal, and equipment is being auctioned off.: http://www.andrewhalcro.com/matanuska_maid_this_time_we_mean_it

http://www.legaudit.state.ak.us/pages/digests/2008/30049Adig.htm

And then the Government tells the staff, no more talking to press about Mat MAid: http://www.andrewhalcro.com/nov_19_no_spilling_the_milk_a_gag_order_on_the_matanuska_maid_fiasco

That's it. Would someone else please help me with this?? Read the articles, and go from there. t1n0 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.166.172.130 (talk) 08:27, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Groomed

{{editprotected}}

At one point the article says that she was "groomed" by the Republican Party for higher public office. ("During her first term, the state Republican party began grooming her for higher office.[19]") The source does not say this. What it says is, "Party officials say Palin was already being groomed for bigger and better things, even as she talked about sewers and road-paving projects." So the source is just quoting the opinion of some unnamed "party officials". I think the whole sentence should be removed. The same thing could be said about any young politician and it is really meaningless. Steve Dufour (talk) 17:18, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

• Comment The source is local and from 2006, though, and can therefore be safey assumed to be a window into that time, uncolored by current concerns. And how is "higher office" really different from "bigger and better things"? The reporter is from a reputable Alaska newspaper, and nobody from Palin's office or the state GOP complained back it 2006. It has meaning, because part of Palin's story is that she bucks the old-boy network; this source says that in the beginning, she was supported by the state party. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 18:10, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't object to "bigger and better things" being changed to "higher office." I do object to "Party officials say Palin was already being groomed" to "the state Republican party began grooming her." One is just a newsreporter's interpretation of statements by anonymous sources. The other is a statement of fact. Steve Dufour (talk) 18:48, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia doesn't report truth, it reports what reliable secondary sources say. The source headline is 'Fresh face' launched Palin RISING STAR: Wasilla mayor was groomed from an early political age. I think that if a reporter, his editors, and the headline writer all did that, it must mean something. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 18:59, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I noticed the headline too. But the only thing in the article about the subject was the one line. Steve Dufour (talk) 19:16, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I think that Steve Dufour's point is that the article is synthesizing a statement that wasn't directly made in the reference. I think it should be reworded as discussed above, or removed. Pianomikey0 (talk) 03:33, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

• Comment I don't think the statement has much value, but I don't object to leaving it in either. --ThaddeusB (talk) 18:28, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

•  Declined More discussion please; consensus has not been reached. GRBerry 20:23, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

• Remove It's just blurb and dubiously rephrased to boot. T0mpr1c3 (talk) 23:20, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
  • T0mpr1c3, you should read the whole article. Really. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 02:33, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
• Leave it in The fact is, even if some people might think being "groomed" is bad, in politics it's a major positive event to get noticed and helped by the big players. Fee Fi Foe Fum (talk) 08:42, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

• • What is the evidence for that though? On the basis of this article, just that one sentence: "Party officials say Palin was already being groomed for bigger and better things, even as she talked about sewers and road-paving projects." I don't think that this vague endorsement from unnamed party officials is notable. T0mpr1c3 (talk) 09:13, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the article's description is lame, but it's a reliable source. And it came true, didn't it? Let's leave it in. Coemgenus 13:45, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Dispute #1: Alaskan Independence Party

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)

We have had lengthy discussions about this material, and while no strong consensus was reached we did seem to be leaning toward not including the (minimal) factual information as not being proven to have any relevance to Palin's career/life.

We don't get to decide; the frenzy of mainstream coverage says it's notable. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 01:00, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually we do get to decide to an extent. We aren't a news source, so what is relevant for their purposes is not necessarily relevant to ours. This page is supposed to be a biography, so things should be relevant to the subject's life for inclusion. --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:18, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

We shouldn't be looking to evaluate topics, but edits. For example, we ought to talk about the weight of someone's treatment of Palin's AIS associations, the edit's verifiability, etc.. If we start trying to evaluate topics, it descends quickly (super fast) into mob rule, utter disregard of argumentation. The Wiki-edit guidelines exist for a reason; we should use them, and allow ourselves to be constrained by them. Catuskoti (talk) 10:15, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

There was no lean toward excluding the info. In fact, it appeared to be 3 to 2 in favor of including it. The only objection to a section on Palin links to the AIP is that they are allegedly not relevant. See discussion above. But the fact that they have gotten so much media and public attention shows they are relevant to many people. Since the items are all factual and well sourced, they should be included. -Pulsifer (author of the AIP links section that was deleted).

There was previously a single sentence in the article about her connection to the AIP. That was sufficient. It's now gone. It could be put back. Anything beyond that is merely an attempt to paint her as a secessionist, which is an absurd idea at this point. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 01:22, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I support a single sentence, preferably in the 2008 campaign section, saying that she has not been a member of the AIP, citing to Mother Jones and whatever other sources people think are important. As Bugs said, anything beyond that is merely an attempt to paint her as a secessionist, which is an absurd idea at this point.Ferrylodge (talk) 01:34, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't object to such a sentence. (Nor would I object to its exclusion.) That she was never a member is the one fact that seems well established and possibly relevant. All other points are either debated or irrelevant. --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:41, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I think there should be a single sentence that mentions her attending the convention in 2000, Todd previously being a member and her video tape address for the AIP 2008 convention. zredsox (talk) 01:44, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

There should also at minimum be a mention that her husband Todd, at member of the AIP, was the treasurer of her 1999 mayoral campaign. -Pulsifer —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pulsifer (talk • contribs) 01:49, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

One sentence about the AIP convention sounds about right. Coemgenus 01:54, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

This is highly irrelevant to the life of Palin as a whole and her BLP and also previous consensus seemed to be to not include it.Hobartimus (talk) 01:59, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Link to previous consensus? I have been watching this page for days and must have missed it... zredsox (talk) 02:08, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

IMO, the 2008 convention video is the LEAST relevant of all the facts and "facts" --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:07, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

The AIM thing has been widely reported by RS. The problem is decideing what exactly to write.Geni 02:29, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I added proposed text to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Sarah_Palin#Palin_links_to_AIP

---

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)

This has already been extensively discussed above. Kelly ^hi! 23:32, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Obviously not enough as it was removed when it seemed quite clear that the consensus was to have at least a mention of this in the biography. zredsox (talk) 01:32, 4 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

Kelly, you keep saying that, but what is being posted is simply *not* contradicted anywhere above. These are WP:V-referenced statements. -- Rei (talk) 23:39, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

(ec)Exactly what is the purpose of including all this information on the AIP, as opposed to other organizations, like the Better Business Bureau or the Girl Scouts of America? Kelly ^hi! 23:40, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Does this straw man even need to be dignified with a response? No, we don't need lot of info about the AIP here. But pretending that the AIP thing isn't a huge scandal is just plain ridiculous. It's real, it's WP:V, it's WP:N, and thus, it can go into Wikipedia. By the book, if those constraints are correct, the only question is *where* it can go (there's no right for WP:N things to go into any particular article; it simply has the right to go into Wikipedia).

And seriously, cut it with the "debunked" stuff. We've all read the previous discussions. Nothing is debunked. If you think something is debunked, cite a source. -- Rei (talk) 23:54, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Clearly many people think it is relevant because it is all over the news. When links to those other organizations also become news items, they can also be added, but that is not the issue. -Pulsifer

• Some mention MUST be made of the AIP material, it is all over the news. Censoring it on Wikipedia is pointless now. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 23:42, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
  • ZOMG censorship...please see the extensive discussions we've already have. It's a guilt-by-association attempt that has already been debunked. Kelly ^hi! 23:45, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
    • Kelly: first you said "debunked", now you are saying "guilt by association". Regardless, there is no guilt by association. It is simply information. There's no claim that she is guilty of anything. -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)

If you believe the links are tenuous, that is all the more reason they should be included in the article. This allows readers to judge for themselves whether the AIP association is substantial or not, and if they decide they are tenuous, it would prove the point that there should be no controversy. -Pulsifer

There is *no* tenousness here. Her husband *was* a member for seven years. She *did* go to at least one convention, possibly two. She *did* record a message telling them to "keep up the good work" this year. The McCain campaign spokesman *did* sidestep a question as to whether she wants a vote on secession. These aren't up for debate; they're confirmed. And they are huge issues, as made clear by the explosion of controversy. -- Rei (talk) 00:04, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

And her husband, a member of AIP, was the treasurer of her mayoral campaign. -Pulsifer

Palin also has tenuous links to the Democratic Party. Shall we create a section about that too? Her mother-in-law is a Democrat, so obviously Sarah Palin's Republican schtick is a complete charade, right?[1]Ferrylodge (talk) 00:23, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Again, the is a straw man. When Palin's links to these other organizations become so important to people that they are mentioned in the news, then we can add them. -Pulsifer

This comes up quite often, someone could add something to the FAQ about it. Hobartimus (talk) 00:29, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

No, it's not a straw man at all. Much ink has been spilled about Palin's willingness to cross the aisle and work with Democrats, and to encourage bipartisanship in her administartion. Smells like a Democrat to me, and I think we need a new section about her ties to the Democratic Party.Ferrylodge (talk) 00:36, 4 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)

It is irrelevant to your conclusions, but for the record the various assertions have included her being present at up to three conventions: 1994, 2000, and 2006. Dragons flight (talk) 00:47, 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

Good luck with that. Coemgenus 00:34, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

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".

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 Todd however was a registered member of AKIP from 1995 to 2002, and served as the Treasurer of Palin's 1999 mayoral campaign. The McCain campaign admits Palin attended the 2000 AKIP convention, 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.

• I disagree with this proposed edit as 1st) Wikipedia is not a newspaper, and 2nd) it is a classic case of "when did you stop beating your wife?" Let's start with Wikipedia is not a newspaper.

  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.

  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.

Second there's "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.

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?"

And because of the reasons above, the following isn't needed at all.

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".

I strongly object to this proposed edit for all the reasons above and because it gives undue weight by virtue of its length. --ThaddeusB (talk) 18:19, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Object as well. Serious undue weight for this "incident". Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 18:21, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

That's fine. Then I propose deleted the 2nd para and the sentence about 1994, leaving the following. This simply states the facts and let's the reader decide the importance. -Pulsifer

---

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". Palin's husband Todd was a registered member of AKIP from 1995 to 2002, and served as the Treasurer of Palin's 1999 mayoral campaign. Sarah Palin herself has always been registered Republican. She attended the 2000 AKIP convention, and as governor, sent a video address to the 2008 AKIP convention.

I disagree with this insertion. First off, it cites an abcnews blog, and youtube. It is also compiling a lot of stuff together that if it were true, should be available as being convered in a single very reliable source. Based on the fact that you need so many sources of questionale reliablility to make the point appears to be a case of WP:SYNTH. Chrislk02 ^{Chris Kreider} 18:32, 4 September 2008 (UTC)SYNTH

The multiple sources were included because otherwise you would be arguing that the information was not sufficiently sourced. Most of the sources contain the entire story. This is the first time I have heard an attempt to exclude information because it had too many references. The facts stated are NOT IN DISPUTE, by anyone, and therefore the alleged "questionable reliability" of the sources is a red-herring. The material also does not state any conclusion, it simply lists facts, and therefore WP:SYNTH does not apply. The YouTube video is the actual video Palin sent to the 2008 AKIP convention. It is also mentioned in the other sources. There is no way it can possibly be deemed to be unreliable, and therefore the caution about self-published sources that generally applies to YouTube links does not apply to this video. The reference to the YouTube video of Palin's address is also appropriate as link the reader can follow if they are interested in the content of the video. -Pulsifer

I think this is probably a bit too much weight, not to mention that it is clearly trying to POV push the AIP views onto Palin. I think the more relevant fact is her husband's participation, which if you can imagine hypothetical analogies (if Michelle Obama was Green party), is more than just trivial. I propose the following insertion in the family section right after "...commercial fishing business."

Proposal:

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.

I don't have all the refs from above so they'd have to be chosen. This retains the essential facts, which are more than notable through all the media coverage, but doesn't impose or imply any viewpoints of Palin's. (Update: I suggest using this NYT article as the source of the sentence, as all relevant info is included) Joshdboz (talk) 19:13, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

While it is better being wittled down into a smaller (single sentence), it also shows how little subtance is involved with such assertions. The article is about her, not her husband (or daughters). Overall, I do not see the significance of it? As a governor I am sure she did lots of stuff with the state of alaska, should we include a blurb for every speech or video she sent to any organization (outside of her party)? I think this is a sever stretch to be included for inclusion. Chrislk02 ^{Chris Kreider} 19:28, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

 Declined It is clear that at the present time there is no consensus supporting any version of the edit proposed here. If such a consensus forms in the future, and is clearly stable, then it will be time to use the {{edit protected}} template. GRBerry 20:17, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

If you read this entire section you will find many editors who have stated that some mention should/could be included, though nothing was resolved. I have thus removed your "declined" tag until further discussion. As for your comments Chris, it may be a minor detail in her political life, but the amount of media coverage it has received is anything but minor. Now, one could rightly say that we shouldn't allow the media to run our agenda here; on the other hand, we rely on them to determine notability, and these facts, which have been the soul subjects of articles in many top newspapers, are much more notable than other details of her life. Joshdboz (talk) 21:07, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I have restored my own comment to the state I left it in. I declined to implement the edit protected request. The text makes it clear that such declining was a decision as of that time and if there is consensus in the future you would be free to make the request again. GRBerry 13:46, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

There was no edit protect request. There was a proposal looking for comment. Joshdboz (talk) 14:02, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

There was indeed an edit protected request. I converted it from {{edit protected}} to {{tl|edit protected}} (the latter of which displays as the former, the former of which displays as one of those beige-orange boxes) at the time I declined it. It is between Paul.h's comment of 12:26, 4 September 2008 (UTC) and Pulsifer's undated comment immediately below that. Properly used, that template is to request an admin to make the edit immediately - which is why the template says "please discuss it on the protected page's talk page before using this template." [emphasis in original] GRBerry 14:20, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

As it is is now noted without dispute that Sarah Palin attended the AIP meeting in 2006 and created a video this does deserve mention. If other sources of involvment are identified they should be reviewed on a case by case bases. Proposal from the AIP Website "Sarah Palin's husband Todd Palin was a member of the Alaskin Independant party. Sarah appeared at the AIP Convention in 2006. Sarah sent a welcoming DVD to the membership at the 2008 AIP statewide convention." http://www.akip.org/090308.html Sitedown (talk) 15:13, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Palin was campaigning for governor in 2006 and visited the convention as part of the campaign, and as had been said many times, sent the video to the 2008 convention in her role as governor (and no doubt vote prospector). I would like to know what the rationale for including this material in this article. Please note: "There are verifiable sources for these facts" is not the answer I am looking for. I am curious as to how editors think this adds to the narrative of Sarah Palin's biography. What does it show about her? If you had to write a sentence after your suggested insert of this info that drew a conclusion, what would you write? Thanks!--Paul (talk) 16:14, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi Paul, The large number of requests to include or not include this information that has been verified as fact demonstrates there is a level of importance associated with it. As the general public believe this is an important part of her history we have no choice but to include the verified fact in her biography. The only alternative would of course be to make a conscious decision and censor information that the public believes is important and I am not sure anyone believes censorship is the responsabilaty of wikipedia. Sitedown (talk) 17:59, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Censorship? No one is advocating censorship here. Certainly you aren't accusing anyone of censorship, are you? You may think that there is a wikipedia policy proscribing censorship, but there isn't. However, there are policies on verifiability, reliable sources, maintaining a neutral point of view, proscribing synthesizing opinions out of unrelated facts, and being especially careful and sensitive about accuracy and not making conjectural interpretations or implications when editing biographies of living persions. Wikipedia is not a free-for-all. Just because something is verifiable does not mean it has a free pass into an article.

The proposals to include AKIP info in the article have never achieved consensus because they aren't NPOV. First some editors tried to establish that Palin was a former member of the AKIP. Later proposals put together a bunch of unrelated facts in an attempt to establish that Palin "has ties to AKIP." Simply put, the sources provided do not back that up. I'm perfectly willing to put something in the article but it needs to be factual with a neutral point of view, which none of the prior proposals have been.

The only "fact" that is indisputable is that Palin was reported as having been a member of AKIP, but that isn't true. Beyond that we get into NPOV and the relevancy of the "facts" to this biography.--Paul (talk) 20:18, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

"I'm perfectly willing to put something in the article but it needs to be factual with a neutral point of view Paul.h" Thanks Paul Thats great. I will place a request to craft the appropriate entry and ask for submision based on the facts available. Sitedown (talk) 20:57, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

---

AKIP Inclusion request

Please assist in creating a single sentence with the appropriate minimal and verifiable facts from reliable sources of Sarah Palin direct interactions with the AKIP.

{{editprotected}} As there has been no objections raised I would suggest the following for submision. Sitedown (talk) 02:04, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Proposed Sarah attended the Alaskan Independence Party convention in 2006 and sent a welcome movie to the attendees of the 2008 AKIP statewide convention.[2] Sitedown (talk) 20:57, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

N Edit declined. There is currently no consensus for the suggested edit. Please use {{editprotect}} only after a consensus for a change in the article has been achieved (see CAT:PER). The edit request is otherwise not actionable. Also, we don't refer to the subjects of our articles by their first name.  Sandstein  05:47, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi Sandstien, I made a proposal and recieved no objection after 6 hours. Could you please provide the documented and approved process to obtain concensus. Your objection to using the first name is easily fixed. Are there any other issue or concerns. ? Sitedown (talk) 12:04, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Hello. To request an edit, please open a new subsection and start it off with a specific, WP:MOS-compliant proposal. If there is consensus to include it after 24 hours or so (i.e., no opposition or substantial net support), then you may use {{editprotect}} at the bottom of your subsection and an admin will evaluate the request.  Sandstein  21:54, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Arbitrary section break

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)}

Just as a BTW, there is a claim near the beginning of this topic claiming that it is significant because of the frenzy of media attention it is receiving. A query on Google Trends returns the following: Google Trends: Palin "alaska independence party" - do not have enough search volume to show graphs.--Paul (talk) 23:38, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Try a Google News search for "Sarah Palin" "Alaskan Independence Party". WP:NPOV says "Assert facts, including facts about opinions—but do not assert the opinions themselves," and I don't see how anyone can claim that it is not a fact that the Palins' links with the Alaskan Independence Party have been the subject of extensive media coverage worldwide, and that it is a campaign issue that deserves mention. --Stormie (talk) 01:51, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

The only "fact" about this "campaign issue" is that Palin does not have any ties to the AKIP even though it has been falsely reported that she did. Since there's nothing about this in the article at the moment, and in the interest of closing this dispute, I propose using an update version of Ferrylodge's sentence as follows:

Members of the of the Alaskan Independence Party suggested that Palin was a member at some point, but have since retracted that claim.

This mentions Palin and AKIP and uses as a source for the correction, the same ABC source that was used for the original incorrect charge.--Paul (talk) 06:50, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

The fact Palin attended multiple conventions either in person or via video raises controversy and is relavent to her biography. Sitedown (talk) 11:49, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't see much of a controversy. I think it'd be a great thing if every governor of every state sent welcome messages to the conventions of the other major parties in their states. What I think is problematic here is that after a flare up of media attention, this is now a dead story, especially since the veracity of the claims has since come under a cloud. I think including it here is just not biographical, and would place wp:undue on the matter.   user:j    (aka justen)   02:21, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

---

AKIP Inclusion Proposal For Review

Proposed Palin attended the Alaskan Independence Party convention in 2006 and sent a welcome movie to the attendees of the 2008 AKIP statewide convention.[3] Sitedown (talk) 12:04, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Support If you support this with minor modifications please included the modified version you would support.

1. I support this text, but would like additional material, as shown in my addition to Talk:Sarah Palin/sandbox. --Zeamays (talk) 15:30, 6 September 2008 (UTC)--Zeamays (talk) 15:36, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

   I think the idea of a sandbox is a bad idea, just opening up another avenue for edit warring and potential libel. Could you please move your suggestion here and ask an admin to remove that page?--Paul (talk) 16:12, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

   It wasn't my idea. I saw a note on this pages asking to place proposals for edits via admins to be placed ion the sandbox. --Zeamays (talk) 16:46, 6 September 2008 (UTC)--Zeamays (talk) 16:48, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

2. She not only attended, she was a member, and only switched her party affiliation when she ran for governer, according to Dexter Clark in this video from last year (jump to 6:00).

Oppose If you oppose please either include a supported version or state your reason for not including anything in relation to the AKIP

1. It's a McCarthyistic attempt to prove "guilt by association" with a fringe party which is not even accused of doing anything illegal, but only of having a fringe viewpoint - and with no evidence that Palin herself agrees with that viewpoint. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 15:45, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

   The simple fact that multiple meetings were attended by her makes this worth mentioning. There is no reason to try to prove guilt by association but if you believe a statement to be added in relation the rumors then please provide a suggestion. 99.228.151.16 (talk) 17:30, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

2. Are people still pushing the debunked "secessionist" meme? I thought even dKos had given up on flogging that. But Bugs is correct - there's no need to give undue weight to a trivial relationship with one particular group. As governor, she attended and greeted many organizations, from the Better Business Bureau to the Girl Scouts of America. Kelly ^hi! 15:51, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

   Even if the rumors had never been raised this still warrants a mention. If she has attended multiple conventions for other parties I beleive this would also deserve a mention. 99.228.151.16 (talk) 17:30, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

3. It might have had some relevance when it was suspected that Palin had once been a member, but since that has been debunked, the only reason for inclusion would be to imply "guilt by association." She attended the 2006 convention while campaigning for Governor, and sent a welcome video to the 2008 convention in her capacity as Governor. And even though it isn't mentioned above, she attended the 2000 convention in her capacity as mayor of Wasilla. Inclusion of the proposed sentence violates NPOV and UNDUE WEIGHT.--Paul (talk) 15:58, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

   If a governor attends multiple conventions for a seperatist group and submits a video then it is worth a mention. I recall you previously agreed that a statement could be included. 99.228.151.16 (talk) 17:30, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

   Rebuttal to 1-3: This is well-documented material. AN AIP leader can be seen on video at their convention stating that their aim is to "infiltrate" other political parties, so this is relevant. My proposed addition doesn't mention "secessionist". More importantly, she expressed support of AIP aims in the video. Did she also send a video to the Democratic Party Convention that year supporting their aims? Wikipedia policy for Well-known public figures reads, "If an allegation or incident is notable, relevant, and well-documented by reliable published sources, it belongs in the article — even if it's negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it." [emphasis mine] --Zeamays (talk) 16:46, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

   Have you watched the video? "Your party plays an important role in our state's politics. I've always said that competition is so good. And that applies to political parties as well." Very sinister!--Paul (talk) 04:54, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

4. As I said above, the story is dead. If she had been a member of the party, I think there would be something here, but those claims (made by that party itself apparently) have since been debunked. Addressing the convention of a competing party is interesting (and something I think should be encouraged), but it's trivial and not biographical, and thus including it in the article would be wp:undue. Should further facts on the matter emerge, though, I reserve the right to change my mind.  :)   user:j    (aka justen)   02:24, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Book Banning

It is noted in the Wikipedia article on Sarah Palin that she "gave up" on banning books at the library. This is not the full truth. Gov. Palin tried to get Librarian Mary Ellen Baker to ban or remove certain books due to "inappropriate language". Ms. Baker was eventually terminated, after refusing to remove 'said' books. She didn't give up, she met opposition that became very public! (Reference: Time Magazine)

Terminated? can you please be more specific, do you mean sacked? And can you give a fuller ref, eg the date this was published in Time Magazine. Thanks, SqueakBox 23:20, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Quote from a 9-2-08 Time article, with different person making allegation than the person cited in the article, Ann Kilkenny - “[Former Wasilla mayor John] Stein says that as mayor, Palin continued to inject religious beliefs into her policy at times. "She asked the library how she could go about banning books," he says, because some voters thought they had inappropriate language in them. "The librarian was aghast." That woman, Mary Ellen Baker, couldn't be reached for comment, but news reports from the time show that Palin had threatened to fire Baker for not giving full support" to the mayor.” http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1837918,00.html EricDiesel (talk) 05:40, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

The incident is discussed in the article, but in a more neutral way. Kelly ^hi! 23:22, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Dude.. Terminated!? Like hit man from the future?? That IS notable. Full Truth Rules! --98.243.129.181 (talk) 23:25, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Sarah - what a coincidence! :) Kelly ^hi! 23:30, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Sticking with Wikipedia:Verifiability, here are two sources related to this discussion. The Time (magazine) article from above:

• • Mayor Palin: A Rough Record

This article (Sept. 2) offers only a few details of the event. A more detailed article (from Sept. 4) is in the Boston Herald:

• • Palin asked Wasilla librarian about censoring books

The second article does offer more information that could be added to the article to clarify the sequence of events. -Classicfilms (talk) 00:04, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

What is your proposed rewording? Kelly ^hi! 00:08, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm open to suggestions. Perhaps it's best to wait and hear from other editors who have read the Boston Herald article first (and any other useful ones) as the source currently being used on the main page does not offer many details. The information below is useful as well - I would suggest however, keeping WP:UNDUE in mind, that this topic only take a few sentences or less (to maintain balance with the rest of the article). On the other hand, since this issue is something that has been referenced in a number of places, the WP should probably offer a bit more detail than it currently does. -Classicfilms (talk) 01:19, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

The article, Wasilla librarian letter of termination is currently separate from Palin's bio, but contains several facts relevant to the discussion:

On Thursday, January 30th, 1997, the mayor of Wasilla, Alaska, now Governor Sarah Palin, served the city librarian with a letter informing her she intended to terminate her employment in two weeks. The following day, Palin reversed herself, announcing that the librarian, Mary Ellen Emmons, could stay. Palin explained the attempted dismissal by saying that she did not feel she had the librarian's full support, and explained her reversal by saying that Emmons had assured Palin she was behind her.

Emmons, and the Wasilla police chief whom Palin dismissed at the same time, both supported her opponent, the incumbent John Stein, when she ran against him for office the previous year.

But Palin and the librarian also had other disagreements. Soon after Palin was elected mayor, in December 1996, Emmons was quoted by the Wasilla newspaper, The Frontiersman, as saying Palin had asked her multiple times about removing books from the library. Emmons added that she had refused to participate in any kind of censorship.

On at least one occasion, Palin brought up removing books from the library in public. In October 1996, at a meeting of the City Council, Anne Kilkenny, a Wasilla resident, said that Palin asked Emmons: "What would your response be if I asked you to remove some books from the collection?" According to Kilkenny, Emmons responded: "The books in the Wasilla Library collection were selected on the basis of national selection criteria for libraries of this size, and I would absolutely resist all efforts to ban books." At the time, Palin called her inquiries about book removal "rhetorical."

Emmons resigned in 1999, shortly before Palin was re-elected mayor. Palin is now the vice-presidential nominee of the Republican Party.

ENDIT.

The Anchorage Daily News, published today, cites Emmons herself as saying that Palin approached her several times about removing books from the library. Those two facts, if no others, should be included in any discussion of Palin's interest in censorship.

The references are:

Komarnitsky, S.J. (1997-02-01). ""Wasilla keeps librarian, but police chief is out"", Anchorage Daily News, pp. 1B. Retrieved on 2008-08-31.

White, Rindi (2008-09-04). ""Palin pressured Wasilla librarian, TOWN MAYOR: She wanted to know if books would be pulled"", Anchorage Daily News, pp. 1B. Retrieved on 2008-09-04.

Like.liberation 01:00, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

By what's presented here, how do we know Palin wasn't simply "testing" her librarian's principles? There doesn't seem to be any verifiable data that she actually requested specific books be removed, and she herself has labeled the incident as rhetorical. Fcreid (talk) 01:48, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Why would a person imagine that Palin was testing her librarian's principles? There's no evidence for that in what anybody said or what she stated. If it were the case, then Palin was simply testing her librarian's principles repeatedly, over a period of months, before she even knew she would be mayor.

Palin called her own inquiries rhetorical after they earned her negative media attention -- does that mean she was just joking? The librarian took her seriously. I doubt that Sarah Palin viewed city council meetings, which are on the public record, as times to fool around.

She never named specific books, because the librarian repeatedly refused to cooperate; it would have been pointless. Like.liberation 02:02, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Apply Occam's Razor here Fcreid, what is more likely? Your invented theory, or that a proven strongly religious person really wanted to ban material that she found offensive? Erik Veland (talk) 02:19, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

It would sure make for a fuller story if there were actual names of specific books. Given the scope of attention this is given, I can't imagine how that never came up between two humans who apparently knew each other pretty well. Really, can you? I also find the librarian's recollection of the incident coinciding with her notification about employment termination to be pretty telling. Think she actually like Palin? Probably not. So, why would we fully accredit her account but completely discredit Palin's? Just food for thought. Yes, Occam's Razor works nicely here. Fcreid (talk) 02:28, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I humbly propose that we change this sentence:

According to Ann Kilkenny, a Democrat who observed City Council, Palin also brought up the idea of banning some books at one meeting, but did not follow through with the idea.

To this:

Soon after Palin was elected mayor, in December 1996, Emmons was quoted by the Wasilla newspaper The Frontiersman as saying Palin had asked her multiple times about removing books from the library, starting before she was elected. According to Ann Kilkenny, a Wasilla resident who sat in on city council meetings, Palin brought up the idea of removing library books at one meeting. Emmons refused repeatedly, and in January 1997, she received notice from Palin, later rescinded.

The sources are in the above Anchorage Daily News articles, one of them published today. Like.liberation 01:55, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

You forgot to mention the part about it being rhetorical! Fcreid (talk) 02:10, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

That's a good point - it should be put in somewhere. Otherwise, I'd say that this is a good start. We should probably indicate, however, as the Herald article states, that the firing was grouped in with a number of other people and that her notice was received prior to the City Council meetings. In addition, I wonder if the last sentence should read: "in January 1997, she received notice from Palin, which was later rescinded." (I also fixed your formatting a bit for readability). -Classicfilms (talk) 02:13, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, this story is completely out-of-whack in chronology and POV. Personally, I'd write it off to a petty feud if there weren't the actual reported incident of the rhetorical question at the city council meeting. Regardless, it's important to get the chronology correct, because it appears Palin was responding to the city council issue with her "just a rhetorical question" response, and it needs to be clear that occurred after the librarian (and many others) had already been released under the discretionary assignments she enjoyed as mayor. The librarian late recounting that she had been asked directly lacks a whole lot of credibility in my mind, but that's just me. Fcreid (talk) 02:36, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Clearly today's article in ADN is an important source. I think "three times" is more informative than "multiple times". Also, "Palin had asked... about removing books from the library" leaves open the possibility that Palin was asking for specific books to be removed which is not supported by either source. And the last sentence appears to connect Emmons' refusal with her notice of dismissal, which is also not supported by the sources. T0mpr1c3 (talk) 02:19, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Problems with the "book banning" issue.

1. John Stein (who later ran against her as mayor) says here that, '"She asked the library how she could go about banning books," he says, because some voters thought they had inappropriate language in them.'. This gives context to her inquiry - it's absence just makes the situation about a crazy mayor wanting to ban books. This references also gives a hint to it was certain books because of "inappropriate language". Problem is, we have no other source that goes beyond this detail.
2. Where's the direct source from this , "In December 1996, Emmons told her hometown newspaper, the Frontiersman, that Palin three times asked her -- starting before she was sworn in -- about possibly removing objectionable books from the library if the need arose. " Other articles mention trying to get a hold of Emmons but she was unreachable.
3. And about Anne Kilkenny, not that she's lying - but I think this gives weight to find another sources before we take her characterizations of the situation. About Sarah Palin: an e-mail from Wasilla By Anne Kilkenny

Theosis4u (talk) 02:35, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

This is exactly why I never use people I've pissed off as references in my resume! :) Fcreid (talk) 02:50, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I move that if we allow any portions of the Kilkenny letter as factual that all portions may be cited as factual, e.g. "According to Ms. Kilkenny, Governor Palin is 'not really pro-life'" and the like. Of course I am being facetious. This source is anything but reliable and rings clearly of an axe grinding from an old adversary. It should be utterly discredited as WP:RS. Fcreid (talk) 03:11, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Ditto. I think practically any candidate, for anything from mayors to national elections, has been criticized as "pro censorship" in some way all the time by previous associates, and duly quoted by mainstream media. It's incredibly irrelevant, RS, and Undue Weight.Pianomikey0 (talk) 03:21, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Although I will admit it's a good read. You can tell a lot about a person by talking to his enemies. Fcreid (talk) 03:18, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Agreed again. Although I shudder to think what some of my former co-workers would say say about me, should I run for office ;) Pianomikey0 (talk) 03:24, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I'll be responsible here, considering I share the link of the letter. The link - About Sarah Palin: an e-mail from Wasilla By Anne Kilkenny - does say this, "Editor's note: The writer is a homemaker and education advocate in Wasilla, Alaska. Late last week, Anne Kilkenny penned an e-mail for her friends about vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin, whom she personally knows, that has since circulated across comment forums and blogs nationwide. Here is her e-mail in its entirety, posted with her permission." Is that good enough for us to judge it as representative of Anne Kilkenny? Theosis4u (talk) 03:29, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Are you advocating for inclusion of its contents as cited reference? If so, I would disagree. It's obviously an extemporaneous and anecdotal account of events without any context for establishing either her credibility or credentials. I believe the legal term is voir dire. If some other RS runs this to ground and provides greater foundation, then we should potentially look to that. Somehow, I find that unlikely. Fcreid (talk) 03:35, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I just wanted to point out that the newspaper said they confirmed the email was from her. I hate to find out tomorrow that the "email" turned out to be a hoax. Theosis4u (talk) 04:03, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Since Palin herself referred to the incident by calling it rhetorical and since it was covered in the press on December 18, 1996 and here [4] it is fair to say that something did happen and that it is notable and worthy of inclusion. The Anchorage Daily News is RS and the issue has been covered by a number of newspapers including the NY Times and others. The WP should include something on the topic. On the other hand, I do agree that it would be a good idea as well to find the original December 18, 1996 Frontiersman article before expanding the sentence. I checked a few online sources and cannot find it. If someone has access to a library which would have a copy of the article in microfiche and wants to do the research, it would be very helpful to this discussion. -Classicfilms (talk) 03:39, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Concur. The city council statement, while rhetorical (taking Palin at her word), still warrants a mention. It should not include anything unsubstantiated and, frankly, deserves no more than a single line, e.g. "As mayor, Palin was once quoted asking about "removing books from the library" at a city council meeting, later stating it was a rhetorical question." Fcreid (talk) 03:44, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Ok, that's a good start - in following Wikipedia:Five pillars and importantly Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, all voices which are documented according to Wikipedia:Verifiability have a place in the article. Thus in addition to Palin arguing that she meant it rhetorically, quotes from the librarian are needed to balance the section. Since the Frontiersman has those quotes, it should be easy to find them (if someone can dig up the article). As for Anne Kilkenny, I'm not certain her email is RS but if she is interviewed by an RS news source and quoted, that would qualify as RS. In other words, a few sentences are worthy of inclusion but they should be well sourced and researched. -Classicfilms (talk) 03:48, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I guess in fairness we should also add the other known context, i.e. "As mayor, Palin was once quoted at a city council meeting asking about "removing books from the library" because some voters felt they contained inappropriate language. She later stated it was a rhetorical question." Fcreid (talk) 03:53, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Good suggestion and closer to NPOV. Again, however, I'd like to see that 1996 article before making major changes - it will help us to construct an NPOV sentence that is well documented. Thanks for your suggestions. -Classicfilms (talk) 03:58, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

The above seems most appropriate if it's to be included. That's why I include the quote from him - it gave context. Theosis4u (talk) 04:01, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

It also leaves open the possibility that <gasp> she was actually performing her official duties by escalating an issue raised by constituents to the city council instead of unilaterally dismissing it. That lacks the punch of "Palin fires Wasilla librarian for not burning "Darwin's Theory of Evolution", but it could actually be closer to the truth. Fcreid (talk) 04:12, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

That's sorta what I was thinking and thought it would be important to include the references that the inquiry was on behalf of others in regards to specific books about inappropriate language. As a parent, I would hope my mayor would look into something like that -- if I had no children, I would consider it a waste of his time. Theosis4u (talk) 04:40, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

If I read the complaint correctly, there have been no books actually censored, even after the librarian was fired. That indicates the firing really had nothing to do with book-burning, but with personality issues. In short: a "cat fight". Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 06:00, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Librarian was never fired. No books were banned. There was a source in this article yesterday that mentioned the librarian had signed some document stating she supported the mayor Palin had ran against. Believe it was the same thing with the police chief. I've been unable to locate it again. Theosis4u (talk) 07:32, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

What? Why does anyone even care? People don't read books from the library, especially not the school's "media centers"... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.122.119.33 (talk) 08:21, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Besides, what's wrong with banning books anyway? Some of them are stupid. People still think George Orwell's phantasy is believable. People are stupid. Why do we even let them read the internet?

Sarah Palin is a babe. You can't take your eyes off her. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.122.119.33 (talk) 08:23, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I defy anyone to take their eyes off of Sarah Palin. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.122.119.33 (talk) 08:24, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Why do you think McCain chose her? Rush Limbaugh once said McCain's nomination would destroy the Republican Party. Now he's on the bandwagon. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 11:11, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

So, is there consensus to replace this:

"According to Ann Kilkenny, a Democrat who observed City Council, Palin also brought up the idea of banning some books at one meeting, but did not follow through with the idea.[18]"

With this:

"As mayor, Palin was once quoted at a city council meeting asking about "removing books from the library" because some voters felt they contained inappropriate language. She later stated it was a rhetorical question."

This presumes consensus that the Kilkenny email is tainted, non-RS. Fcreid (talk) 12:14, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

The issue here is not the email (which doesn't exactly fit RS) but the article by the ADN which satisfies Wikipedia:Verifiability. If a change is made, it should only be based upon this article unless other articles are offered. This article does not contain the quote "removing books from the library," thus it cannot be used. Here is what the article states:

"When the matter came up for the second time in October 1996, during a City Council meeting, Anne Kilkenny, a Wasilla housewife who often attends council meetings, was there. Like many Alaskans, Kilkenny calls the governor by her first name. "Sarah said to Mary Ellen, 'What would your response be if I asked you to remove some books from the collection?" Kilkenny said. "I was shocked. Mary Ellen sat up straight and said something along the line of, 'The books in the Wasilla Library collection were selected on the basis of national selection criteria for libraries of this size, and I would absolutely resist all efforts to ban books.'" Palin didn't mention specific books at that meeting, Kilkenny said. Palin herself, questioned at the time, called her inquiries rhetorical and simply part of a policy discussion with a department head "about understanding and following administration agendas," according to the Frontiersman article." [5]

If the sentence in the main page is changed and a quote used, the quote should reflect what is written above exactly (and in fact can state that the information came from the ADN). -Classicfilms (talk) 12:32, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Also, the article didn't mention the fact that this happened "because some voters felt they contained inappropriate language" - this is a paraphrase, which is fine, but I didn't see anything in the article which reflected this idea. If it is used, another RS which states that this is what happened is needed. -Classicfilms (talk) 12:49, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

The closest sentence in the article is "about possibly removing objectionable books from the library if the need arose" - this is what would have to be paraphrased. -Classicfilms (talk) 12:51, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Hard telling what she was up to, without knowing what specific books she had in mind, if any. For example, if they had the nambla official guide to molesting children, she might have wanted that out of there. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 13:01, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that's exactly what bugs me the most and the only reason I ventured into this topic. However, the quote about "because voters felt they contained inappropriate language" is derived from here http://www.time.com/time/printout/0,8816,1837918,00.html which is anything but a glowing interpretation of the event. Fcreid (talk) 13:05, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

No pun intended, Bugs. :) Fcreid (talk) 13:05, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Ok, that helps, thanks. The rewrite can then mix what is offered in the ADN [[6] and TIME [7]. Anything beyond what is in RS, however, would fall under Wikipedia:No original research and is thus beyond the scope of the WP. -Classicfilms (talk) 13:09, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Not to muddy this water even further but this other quote "St. George worked on Stein's campaign at the time, and while he says he has no reason to dispute Stein's recollection of events, he doesn't remember Palin's conduct being beyond the pale. "Our tax coffers were starting to grow," he says. "John was for expanding services, and Sarah wasn't. That's what the race was about." certainly sheds even further light on this event. Growth, change and reform are hard things to accept, and one's perspective of a specific event more than a decade later might certainly become suspect. I'm glad these folks are not witnesses for a prosecution (at least more than figuratively). Fcreid (talk) 13:17, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

That's certainly a fair quote from the Time article if you want to use it. If you can come up with another version of the sentence for the main page which follows Wikipedia:Five pillars, I would be happy to take a look this evening. I have to sign off now. -Classicfilms (talk) 13:24, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

How about this without getting into all the he-said/she-said an less than credible source quotes? (Sorry for lack of structure.. still learning here.) Fcreid (talk) 14:02, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

"As mayor, Palin was once quoted at a city council meeting asking about "removing books from the library" because some voters felt they contained inappropriate language. Accounts of the incident vary, with Palin later stating it was a rhetorical question."

Rationale for above: it includes the core premise (Palin asked about removing books) and two undisputed facts (because of complaints from constituents and her later admission of it being rhetorical). It excludes a disputed fact (whether the librarian firing had anything to do with the books) and omits any inference on the purposes of the ban (because we know nothing about which books to which she referred). Fcreid (talk) 14:14, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

The Anchorage Daily News article from September 4, 2008 -- http://www.adn.com/sarah-palin/story/515512.html -- currently presents our best evidence in this discussion. They cite an article in The Frontiersman, saying:

"In December 1996, Emmons told her hometown newspaper, the Frontiersman, that Palin three times asked her -- starting before she was sworn in -- about possibly removing objectionable books from the library if the need arose."

That’s one reliable source citing another reliable source citing Emmons’s statements in 1996. Since Emmons is not answering the phone these days, that’s all the media have to work with. The ADN article continues:

 "Emmons told the Frontiersman she flatly refused to consider any kind of censorship….
 When the matter came up for the second time in October 1996, during a City Council meeting, Anne Kilkenny, a Wasilla housewife who often attends council meetings, was there. 
 Like many Alaskans, Kilkenny calls the governor by her first name. 
 "Sarah said to Mary Ellen, 'What would your response be if I asked you to remove some books from the collection?’ " Kilkenny said. 
 "I was shocked. Mary Ellen sat up straight and said something along the line of, 'The books in the Wasilla Library collection were selected on the basis of national selection criteria for libraries of this size, and I would absolutely resist all efforts to ban books.'" "

The above quotes from Kilkenny are not in the widely circulated e-mail, and ADN does not attribute them to The Frontiersman. They are quotes from a witness in a newspaper that is RS, and should carry at least as much weight as Palin’s own claim that her inquiries were “rhetorical,” since Palin, after all, has every interest to paint the remarks as trivial.

And what does it mean, Fcreid, to repeatedly ask “rhetorical” questions of a librarian as to whether she’ll remove books from the shelves? What kind of rhetoric is that? What if someone asked you: “How would you feel about not expressing your opinion in this forum?” What if that someone asked you that three times, and had the power to terminate your account? Does calling such a question rhetorical make it meaningless? And if the remarks were empty, why did Palin repeat them?

If Palin was simply representing her constituents by exploring the possibility of banning books, then to call her own remarks rhetoric is to betray the purpose of her constituency. If, on the other hand, her interest in censorship was sincere and truly representative of Wasilla residents, then it was not rhetoric. You can’t have it both ways.

If it was not rhetoric – and I think her persistent inquiries and the Stein quote in Time both support that – then Palin stood for censorship. That is the most notable aspect of her library policy at that time, and the only aspect that was newsworthy.

Then we come to the question: What was she censoring? She gave no list of books, but we know what was on hand. To quote ADN, “Emmons was president of the Alaska Library Association at the time.” According to Kilkenny, Emmons said: “'The books in the Wasilla Library collection were selected on the basis of national selection criteria for libraries of this size…” We have no reason to believe that Emmons’s standards were so low as to include material that was objectionable by any objective measure. We do know that Palin belonged to a church that might have objections to mainstream literature, possibly works concerning evolution or reproductive freedom, possibly works with “inappropriate language,” as Stein put it.

In the end, of course, Palin backed off. Again, the ADN article offers a reason:

 "Emmons had been city librarian for seven years and was well liked. After a wave of public support for her, Palin relented and let Emmons keep her job."

All that to say, in describing this exchange, we should refer to the latest ADN article, which itself is based on the quotes in The Frontiersman. Something along these lines:

 "Emmons said she was asked three times about removing books from the library, at least once at a city council meeting.  Having refused repeatedly, Emmons received a letter from Palin terminating her employment, which Palin then retracted after a wave of public support for Emmons.  Palin may have been concerned with inappropriate language in certain library books, but ultimately none were banned.  Palin later called her inquiries rhetorical."  

I think that sums up the significant aspects of the exchange based on our best knowledge. It makes no reference to the Kilkenny e-mail.

Like.liberation 14:31, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Beyond the fact that you're still introducing disputed accounts of unknown factual data, you have also omitted two other relevant facts: that she was doing this at the behest of her consituents, and that the former mayor's campaign manager did not recount the event in the same manner. I think the term I've seen used in this type of situation is "synthesis". Fcreid (talk) 14:55, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

In the phrasing I proposed at the end of my last comment, what’s the unknown factual data, and what’s disputed about it? It would help me to respond and improve the sentences if you could be more specific. Every proposed sentence can be referenced to the ADN article, which itself is based on the best reporting available to us, not hearsay. Those sentences are as sound and verifiable as anything in Wikipedia.

It may be that Palin was acting at the behest of her constituents. Stein says she was. I’m fine rephrasing it like:

Palin may have asked about removing library books because of her constituents’ concerns with inappropriate language, but ultimately none were banned.

In the Time article, Chas St. George never mentions the library. What version of events are you referring to? I don't object his quotes, but they're not relevant to the library issue. Like.liberation 15:30, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

My last word on this, as I'm not paid to be her lawyer. Choose the version you want. What you've concocted here obviously paints the "zealot" image that the left has been trying so hard to insert into this article with an equivalent level of extremely thin evidence. I, in good conscience, consider my succinct statement as NPOV with the evidence presented, omitting the disuputed accounts, the hearsay and even the "hearsay about hearsay". In your own conscience, you might consider elaborating that these people did not like Palin (substantiated by the evidence) and maybe include just one quote from a person actually willing to stand by his account, i.e. "Wearing her faith quietly fits more with Palin's personality, says St. George. "In all the years I've known Sarah and her parents, we never talked about right-to-life or any of that," he says. "She doesn't let those issues get in the way of getting things done for the community." Fcreid (talk) 15:21, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

This really should get edited ASAP. Everyone who watched the news last night knows this has become a DNC talking point, "She tried banning books." Theosis4u (talk) 15:27, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

{{editprotected}} I propose we cut this sentence:

According to Ann Kilkenny, a Democrat who observed City Council, Palin also brought up the idea of banning some books at one meeting, but did not follow through with the idea.

Start a new paragraph in the same place, incorporating Frceid's suggestions:

Emmons said she was asked three times about removing books from the library, at least once at a city council meeting. Having refused repeatedly, Emmons received the letter from Palin terminating her employment, which Palin then retracted after a wave of public support for Emmons.  Palin may have asked about removing library books because of her constituents’ concerns with inappropriate language, but ultimately none were banned. Palin later called her inquiries rhetorical.

And reference each of the above sentences to this article -- http://www.adn.com/sarah-palin/story/515512.html -- and the second to last sentence to the Time piece. Like.liberation 15:59, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Concur with one caveat. Is the cause/effect of the librarian firing fully substantiated? There is further dialog below (with cite) that specifically describes the chronology of those events, and it indicates the librarian firing was among a group of others. It's certainly not flattering -- describing them as non-players and then going into discussion of Draconion "was just testing you" diatribe, but it also seems to counter the hearsay evidence that the book removal precipitated the firing. Fcreid (talk) 16:12, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

We don't know why these things happened, and we can't read Palin's mind, but we do know is what happened and in what order. We know from newspapers that Palin and Emmons had one open difference: Emmons refused to consider removing books from the library. Kilkenny says in her e-mail that Emmons had also supported Palin's opponent in the mayoral race, but there seems to be caution here about including information from the e-mail in the article.

In any case, Palin said she did not feel she had Emmons's full support in the letter informing her of the intended termination. A day later, Palin said she had been reassured of Emmons's support. So Palin's action probably had multiple causes. I think the proposed change addressed one of those causes. The other possible cause, the issue of support, has already been covered in the third paragraph under the Wasilla heading. Like.liberation 17:13, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Object. The librarian was never fired. If she was fired their would of been paper work on it. The only thing we have at this point is that Palin sent a letter out to those that gave public support to the old mayor she beat in the election and the letter stated she "intends" to fire them. Sources then claim that Palin meet with these individuals to discuss the issues. Only the Police chief was fired. Also, Fcreid's sentence is the most accurate one:

• ""As mayor, Palin was once quoted at a city council meeting asking about "removing books from the library" because some voters felt they contained inappropriate language. She later stated it was a rhetorical question."

Though it could be adjusted to say "As mayor, Palin asked about,"removing books from the library" because some voters felt they contained inappropriate language. She later stated it was a rhetorical question." There's mixed results about how many times she brought it up - maybe it's best to avoid the number of times and just stick to what was asked about and why. Theosis4u (talk) 16:28, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Only for an alternative, because the original revision was significantly reworded:

Emmons said she was asked three times about removing books from the library, at least once at a city council meeting. Having refused consistently, Emmons was among several other city employees who received letters from Palin terminating employment. Palin retracted the letter requesting Emmons' termination. Palin may have asked about removing library books because of her constituents’ concerns with inappropriate language, but ultimately none were banned. Palin later called her inquiries rhetorical.

Based on the reference http://www.adn.com/sarahpalin/story/510219.html which indicates the decision to retain Emmons was reached through reconciliation between the two parties rather than in response to a town uproar. Fcreid (talk) 16:31, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Any further tweaks? Can we get consensus here? T0mpr1c3 (talk) 16:24, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the tweaks, Fcreid. I propose this wording, which mentions both reasons why Palin may have retained Emmons:

Emmons said she was asked three times about removing books from the library, at least once at a city council meeting. Having refused consistently, Emmons was among two city employees who received letters from Palin in January 1997 terminating their employment. Palin retracted the letter informing Emmons of her termination after a wave of public support for the librarian, and having been assured of her support. Palin may have asked about removing library books because of her constituents’ concerns with inappropriate language, but ultimately none were banned. Palin later called her inquiries rhetorical.

Like.liberation 17:13, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I object on the ground that her termination letter was already mentioned in the proceeding paragraph and that tying the two together is improper since they are not necessarily related. I would instead suggest a paragraph only about the possible book banning without mentioning the firing aspects and would suggest putting such a paragraph above the current one (since it came first chronologically). The sentence about book banning would be removed from the current paragraph. --ThaddeusB (talk) 17:29, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I have a few moments so I thought I'd take a look. It looks like there are a number of suggestions floating around. I combined them and used quotes directly from the sources. While it is a little longer, I do not think it would fall under undue weight since a number of topics need to be covered. Also, I added footnotes, which is something we should start doing so that the final draft can be copied directly to the article. Let me know what you think:

As mayor, Palin was quoted at a city council meeting as asking: "What would your response be if I asked you to remove some books from the collection?" because some voters felt they contained inappropriate language. The librarian, Mary Ellen Emmons, later stated that Palin asked her three times about removing books from the library, at least once prior to this city council meeting as well as during the meeting. Emmons stated that she refused each time. Prior to this meeting (along with the police chief, public works director, and finance director ), Emmons had received a letter from Palin requesting her resignation. The letter did not refer to the question of censorship as a reason for the request. Palin later retracted this request after Emmons received support from the community. None of the books were banned and Palin later called her inquiries rhetorical.

-Classicfilms (talk) 17:29, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I should add that if we use this version, we can combine it with the existing paragraph in the main article and tweak both a bit so that material is not repeated twice. I looked at both paragraphs and it seems like a simple matter of a little copy editing that shouldn't create a problem. -Classicfilms (talk) 18:16, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I like it, Classicfilms, but I don't think we're quite there yet. In October 1996, Palin asked for Emmons's resignation, along with the resignations of a bunch of other public employees. In January 1997, she sent Emmons a letter telling her her job would be terminated in two weeks. (And of course neither letter referred to Emmons's refusal to remove books.) Let's not confuse the two letters, or their tone. One asked for resignations, the other said you've got two weeks to leave. The weaker letter came before the public confrontation and Emmons's remarks in the newspaper, the stronger one after. Taking your paragraph as a model, I made a couple tweaks that straighten it out, I think, using the same sources.

As mayor, Palin was quoted at a city council meeting as asking the town librarian: "What would your response be if I asked you to remove some books from the collection?", perhaps because some Wasilla residents felt they contained inappropriate language. The librarian, Mary Ellen Emmons, later said Palin had asked her three times about removing books from the library, at least once prior to the meeting. Emmons said she refused each time. Before the October meeting, Emmons received a letter from Palin requesting her resignation; then in January 1997, Palin served Emmons's with a two-week notice, terminating her employment. Neither letter referred to the question of censorship, but only to feeling a lack of support. Palin retracted her letter of termination a day later, after Emmons was backed by the community.

These reflists are acting weird and I don't quite know how to fix them...

ThaddeusB, I'll repeat what I said above. We know from newspapers that Palin and Emmons had one open difference: Emmons refused to consider removing books from the library. The librarian said that Palin inquired about it and was refused before she was sworn in, and therefore before she had the power to ask for employees' resignations. So the censorship inquiry predates the resignation request, and that pattern was repeated again in Dec 1996-Jan 1997: inquiry, refusal, letter. That's the chronology and we should stick to it.

Like.liberation 18:19, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Sure, Like.liberation - it looks fine. We're still in the draft mode so I expected more tweaks. My only qualm would be "perhaps because some Wasilla residents felt." The Time magazine article quotes Stein as stating that this is the reason she asked so to add the above becomes interpretive. If you don't like my wording, can you rephrase so that it reflects the Time article? I also tried to fix your refs - check and make sure I didn't make it worse. Since I added the reflist tag above, it doesn't need to be added again. -Classicfilms (talk) 18:29, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

It looks like I ran into the same ref problem - oh well. It should be fine once the final version is pasted into the main article.-Classicfilms (talk) 18:31, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

No, the letter that speaks of possible termination can't be directly tied to the book issue. Those letters went to employees that Palin thought favored the old mayor, had publicly support the old mayor, or were tied to a position that was going to be removed of the city payrolls. There's also statements that show that their were discussions about this "test of loyalty" and those can't be tied back to the librarian simply because of the book issue. It makes sense to treat both topics as separate events without this collusion. Theosis4u (talk) 18:33, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Just so the small town politics doesn't get lost to the layman here, these are "discretionary" positions and are absolutely up for grabs to be filled at the discretion of the mayor. There should have had been *every* expectation the new mayor (Palin) would have bounced the incumbents and put in employees who were "loyal" to her agenda, particularly if the incumbent employees vocally supported the losing party. (The police chief learned this in his failed lawsuit.) If Palin wanted to "clean house" of the cronyism to advance a "different direction" agenda for which she was elected, she was totally within her bounds. Emmons should be thankful she ended up with a job. Fcreid (talk) 18:59, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

The Time and ADN articles mentions both but indicates that the ties are ambiguous. I think if we are quoting these sources, we need to include both but state, as the articles do, that there are no direct links. Also I just noticed the "rhetorical" statement was missing. That needs to be there since it is Palin's official response. We are reflecting articles, not interpreting them.-Classicfilms (talk) 18:36, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

See Talk:Sarah_Palin#Clarity_About_early_.22firings.22_in_Wasilla about details. Theosis4u (talk) 18:42, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Sure, some public employees hold discretionary positions, but the post of librarian is usually not highly politicized. I doubt that most librarians appointed by mayors would consider themselves "cronies," and if they did, they wouldn't be very useful ones. What's the mayor going to do -- get a deal on wigs? Most mayors don't have an agenda for the library, or put book removal at the top of their list. But Palin did, and Emmons resisted. Emmons had been librarian for seven years in a town of less than 5,000 people. She was president of the entire Alaska Library Association at the time. How many people do you think there were in Wasilla, Alaska, that could compete with those credentials? Do you think that Palin had the best interest of the community in mind when she tried to get rid of Emmons? No. And here's the ADN:

Palin herself, questioned at the time, called her inquiries rhetorical and simply part of a policy discussion with a department head "about understanding and following administration agendas," according to the Frontiersman article.

So Palin said she had a library agenda. That involved, among other things, seeing if the librarian would remove books upon request, books that had been approved under national standards, but which weren't clean enough for Wasilla. In most towns, that's not even an issue, but Palin made it an issue. Her agenda failed to win the support of Emmons, who preferred to resist censorship rather than show her "loyalty." The letters and the censorship issue all took place in those first few months, and should be presented together. We're not saying because, but there is a clear chronology here, and bending over backwards to avoid putting those events in order only muddles them. Along those lines, we will be reflecting articles -- particularly those coming out of Alaska -- not interpreting them, because that's how they related the events.

Classicfilms, I propose this wording in response to your tweaks.

As mayor, Palin was quoted at a city council meeting as asking the town librarian: "What would your response be if I asked you to remove some books from the collection?", because some Wasilla residents felt they contained inappropriate language. The librarian, Mary Ellen Emmons, later said Palin had asked her three times about removing books from the library, at least once prior to the meeting. Emmons said she refused each time. Before the October meeting, Emmons received a letter from Palin requesting her resignation; then in January 1997, Palin served Emmons's with a two-week notice, terminating her employment. Neither letter referred to the question of censorship, but only to feeling a lack of support. Palin retracted her letter of termination a day later, after Emmons was backed by the community, and said her book removal inquiries were rhetorical. The letters themselves did not mention Emmons's refusal to consider removing books, but simply her lack of support.

Like.liberation 20:22, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Looks great - as I mentioned above, we should add one line about Palin's response that it was a rhetorical comment as reported in the ADN. As part of the WP's NPOV policy, we need to state all sides and this comment should be quoted. Otherwise, it looks fine. -Classicfilms (talk) 20:32, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Also, we should somehow indicate that she wasn't the only one to receive a letter - that other public officials did as well. This is referenced in the sources and should be mentioned here. The key point is that we are summarizing sources in a way which reflect all key points and all sides. Otherwise, good work. -Classicfilms (talk) 20:36, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Concur with caveats above if we *must* go into this much detail about the flap in Hooterville. Thanks. Fcreid (talk) 20:40, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

{{editprotected}}

The comment on rhetorical is in the second-to-last sentence. The Wasilla section already amply covers the other letters served, and briefly mentions Emmons. I don't think we need to restate it. But if we choose to, it could read like this:

As mayor, Palin was quoted at a city council meeting as asking the town librarian: "What would your response be if I asked you to remove some books from the collection?", because some Wasilla residents felt they contained inappropriate language. The librarian, Mary Ellen Emmons, later said Palin had asked her three times about removing books from the library, at least once prior to the meeting. Emmons said she refused each time. Before the October meeting, Emmons received a letter from Palin requesting her resignation; then in January 1997, Palin served Emmons's with a two-week notice, terminating her employment. Both times, other public employees were also served with letters. Neither time did Palin refer to the question of censorship, but only to feeling a lack of support. Palin retracted her letter of termination to Emmons a day later, after Emmons was backed by the community, and said her book removal inquiries were rhetorical. The letters themselves did not mention Emmons's refusal to consider removing books, but simply her lack of support.

If we all agree, I think that's a wrap.

Like.liberation 20:55, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry - I missed the "rhetorical" in your draft above. -Classicfilms (talk) 00:34, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Object: the proposed version is far too wordy and if the current paragraph was left largely in tact (and it has to be because others are involved with resignation request/firing) it would mention the same basic facts regarding the firing incident 3 times. I will try to write a version that addresses everyone's concerns without being so wordy shortly --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:48, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

We're not proposing to replace the paragraph about resignations, we're proposing adding this one on after it. It's wordy because we have to be careful with the language, and there's so many nuances to cover. We've spent a lot of time hammering it out, so to save time and not duplicate effort, it might be best to work with the present wording. Like.liberation 21:01, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Except it is way too long, and addresses the same fact 3 times which are both UNDUE WEIGHT. --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:10, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I want to congratulate Like.liberation for doing as NPOV job as possible, given the apparent impetus to put such explicit details of the "Wasilla Library Shake-up" in here. One final comment but not a request for further change. I understand "inappropriate language" is all we know about these books. While we don't actually say it, everyone knows the obvious inference people will take is that the questionable material was religiously offensive. And it may have been--St. George himself admits the area was evolving into a "Bible-belt", and it wouldn't surprise me if citizens raised that issue to Palin. My problem is I think we're reading Palin wrong on this religion thing. The case for it is far too thin from everything I've seen--even the extemporaneous stuff like the biting critque from Kilkenny doesn't paint her as a zealot. The real "meat" out there just doesn't seem to support the inference made here. Whatever, though... I guess of public service and getting into your constituency's shoes. Fcreid (talk) 21:02, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

N Edit declined. There is currently no consensus for the suggested edit. Please use {{editprotect}} only after a consensus for a change in the article has been achieved (see CAT:PER). The edit request is otherwise not actionable.  Sandstein  05:44, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Suggested version

Here is what I suggest. Hopefully this version covers all the facts/concerns without being too wordy/repetitive.

While Palin was mayor, she raised the subject of removing some books from the town's library. According to the librarian, Mary Ellen Emmons, Palin asked her three times about removing books from the library, beginning before she was inaugurated. At an October 1996 city council meeting Palin asked "What would your response be if I asked you to remove some books from the collection?", adding that some Wasilla residents felt the books contained inappropriate language. Emmons, who had received a request for her resignation from Palin four days prior, strongly rejected the idea. Palin later stated that the question had been rhetorical in nature. Ultimately, no books were removed from the library.

In October 1996, she asked the Wasilla police chief, public works director, finance director, and Emmons to resign, saying that she felt they didn't support her administration. She also instituted a policy requiring department heads to get her approval before talking to reporters. In January 1997, Palin notified the police chief, Irl Stambaugh, and Emmons that they were being fired. She stated that she wanted a change because she believed the two did not fully support her administration, but declined to be more specific. She rescinded the firing of the librarian the next day, after community outcry, stating that her concerns had been alleviated when Emmons agreed to support Palin's plan to merge the town's library and museum operations. The police chief, however, was fired and filed a lawsuit. A court dismissed the suit, finding that the mayor had the right to fire city employees for nearly any reason.

Comments? --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:47, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I like it. I think it covers all of Ike's points. Fcreid (talk) 22:17, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Again, the source has portions of the letter that was sent out. The letter didn't say they were fired or terminated. It says that Palin had the intent and from other parts of the source materials it's clear she meet with individuals (Librarian and Police Chief are specifically mentioned). There isn't reference to the said individuals giving public support to the mayor that was defeated. There is a conflicting report about why Emmons wasn't terminated - 1. Palin and her worked it out in the mentioned meeting. 2. "Outcry" for the public - how many was that they "outcried" exactly? I would recommend swapping the order of the two paragraphs and then removing the lines about termination in the "books" paragraph. Theosis4u (talk) 22:45, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

ThaddeusB, thanks for this. I agree with you in large part. I'd like to propose a couple tweaks, with explanations in parentheses.

While Palin was mayor, she raised the subject of removing some books from the town's library. According to the librarian, Mary Ellen Emmons, Palin asked her three times about removing books from the library, beginning before she was inaugurated, and three times she was refused. At an October 1996 city council meeting, according to one Wasilla resident, (Anne Kilkenny says this. We don't have Palin directly one record saying it.) Palin asked "What would your response be if I asked you to remove some books from the collection?", because (adding that, we have no record of her adding this. John Stein made the claim in the Time article) some Wasilla residents felt the books contained inappropriate language. Emmons, who had received a request for her resignation from Palin four days prior, strongly rejected the idea for the second time (otherwise it would seem as though she were doing it out of spite). Palin later stated that the question had been rhetorical in nature. Ultimately, no books were removed from the library.

In October 1996, Palin asked the Wasilla police chief, public works director, finance director, and Emmons to resign, saying that she felt they didn't support her administration. She also instituted a policy requiring department heads to get her approval before talking to reporters. In January 1997, Palin notified the police chief, Irl Stambaugh, and Emmons that they were being fired. She stated that she wanted a change because she believed the two did not fully support her administration, but declined to be more specific. She rescinded the firing of the librarian the next day, after community outcry, stating that her concerns had been alleviated when Emmons agreed to support Palin's plan to merge the town's library and museum operations. The police chief, however, was fired and filed a lawsuit. A court dismissed the suit, finding that the mayor had the right to fire city employees for nearly any reason.

Theosis4u, you're harping on semantics. ADN said there was a "wave of public support" for Emmons after she received the January letter. Here's a direct quote from that letter:

"I do not feel I have your full support in my efforts to govern the city of Wasilla. Therefore I intend to terminate your employment ..."

Now tell me, is she firing them or not? Employers fire employees by giving them notice. What is notice? It's saying: "Your job will end in a short period of time. I intend to terminate it." All firings happen in the future and are therefore based on intent. Let's please move on.

Thaddeus has included both reasons why it is thought that Emmons was kept on: the reconciliation and the outcry. I see no other objections. Now it's a matter of adding the references.

Like.liberation 00:02, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Looks great. Thanks ThaddeusB for the rewrite and Like.liberation for your tweaks and suggestions. Perhaps one of you could create one more version with the refs and if it is approved by everyone, we can ask for it to be copied to the article. -Classicfilms (talk) 00:34, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I concur with the tweaks. On a side note, if we actually get this approved I would consider that a minor miracle - consensus on a hot button topic, imagine that. :) --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:45, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Update - Just saw this, might be relevant before going forward. Offical city responses - one is pdf about the book issue. Theosis4u (talk) 00:34, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Could you elaborate on this site? -Classicfilms (talk) 00:36, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Which document are we supposed to be looking at? Also, wouldn't using direct source constitute original research? --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:45, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Didn't want to link a pdf directly, for those that don't link the surprise. The document didn't have much to offer other than confirming no books were ever "banned" and gave the library policy about these situation. Theosis4u (talk) 01:43, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Here's what I've come up with - I know it's to long and I expect cuts to it. I believe it does give a good account of the three situations though. 1. Resignations. 2. Books 3. Terminations. I didn't focus on proper quoting and syntax, that should be reviewed for necessities.

In October 1996, newly seated Mayor Palin asked police chief Irl Stambaug, public works director Jack Felton, finance director Duane Dvorak and city librarian Mary Ellen Emmons to resign. Saying that she felt they didn't support her administration. Stein, the now ex-mayor, hired many of these department heads. It is known that both Emmons and Stambaugh had publicly supported him against Palin during the mayoral elections. [upcoming source questionable?] Stambaugh also was at odds earlier with Palin, when she was on city council. He wanted the local bars to close sooner, she didn't find it necessary. And again when the Alaska legislature proposed expanding Alaska’s laws to expand the right to carrying concealed weapons. Stambaugh had publicly opposed it while was Palin in favor. 3 Palin also instituted a policy requiring department heads to get her approval before talking to reporters during this time. In summary about the request of resignations, Palin told the Daily News that the letters were just a test of loyalty as she took on the mayor's job. Alluding to the support they had given to the ex-mayor. We know that Stambaug and Emmons stayed on after this.

Palin inquired in the last quarter of 1996 about the subject of removing some objectionable books from the town's library. Stein, the ex-mayor, said that it was because some voters thought they had inappropriate language in them. In December 1996, Emmons told the hometown newspaper, the Frontiersman, that Palin asked three times about possibly removing objectionable books from the library if the need arose. Once was before Palin had sworn in. Emmons continued saying, "she flatly refused to consider any kind of censorship." One of the later incidents, was in October 1996 at a city council meeting. It was described by a Wasilla resident, Anne Kilkenny. Kilkenny recounts that Palin asked Emmons, 'What would your response be if I asked you to remove some books from the collection?" . Kilkenny accounts that, "Mary Ellen sat up straight and said something along the line of, 'The books in the Wasilla Library collection were selected on the basis of national selection criteria for libraries of this size, and I would absolutely resist all efforts to ban books.'" Kilkenny said Palin didn't mention specific books at that meeting. Palin herself, questioned at the time, called her inquiries rhetorical and simply part of a policy discussion with a department head "about understanding and following administration agendas," according to the Frontiersman article. Ultimately, no books were removed from the library.

On January 30th 1997, a Thursday, signed letters from the mayors office were dropped off at Emmoms and Stambaugh's desk, telling them that their jobs were over as of Feb. 13. 1997. The letter stated, 'I do not feel I have your full support in my efforts to govern the city of Wasilla. Therefore I intend to terminate your employment .... The next day, Friday, the three met briefly at Wasilla City Hall in the afternoon to discuss the situation. Palin also called them twice at Stambaugh's home later before making her decision. Palin announced her decesion later that Friday, stating she now felt that Emmons supported her but didn't feel the same about Stambaugh. Palin claimed she now had Emmons' assurance that she was behind her and would support her efforts to merge the library and museum operations. John Cooper, the ex-director of the city museum, resigned earlier hearing that Palin would eliminated his job. Palin announced though that Stambaugh would be terminated. Her conversation with Stambaugh was short, both later said. He had asked, "What's the basis for this?" She gave him no details he claims and that he didn't understand why he's been fired. There never was an appropriate response, he said. How did we not support the administration? In regards to his support of the past mayor, Stambaugh said he thought any questions had been resolved. Stambaugh filed a lawsuit after this, believing he had a contract that prohibited the city from firing him without cause.. A court later dismissed the suit, finding that the mayor had the right to fire city employees for nearly any reason.

Sources used to compile above : Wasilla keeps librarian, but police chief is out (2/1/1997) , Palin pressured Wasilla librarian , Mayor Palin: A Rough Record , and Fear And Retribution: Palin’s Pattern Of Governance Apologies if that was horrible, still getting the learning curve down. Theosis4u (talk) 02:03, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Goodness, that's a lot of text. Its certainly a more compete history, but is all this detail necessaery? Which specific facts do you think are both releveant and missing from my version above? --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:15, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I had the same reaction. While I realize that you are hoping to trim this down, the excessive amount of detail can still lead us to WP:Undue weight and I'm not certain how it improves the existing version by ThaddeusB and Like.liberation. Was there a particular objection you have to their version? Is there a detail you would like to add? That might prove more effective than a complete rewrite again. It would be nice to add this section to the article soon. -Classicfilms (talk) 02:27, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

My intent was to break down the three issues and have each issue stand on it's own within the paragraph. Hopefully I provided all the evidence/context within each paragraph for this. I've seen all three of these issues addressed in the news - resignations letter , book censorship , and terminations (poorly I might add). If all three inclusions become intermeshed in one or two paragraphs it seems to cause never ending edits. For example, the reasoning behind Emmons getting the termination letter I believe is now self supporting in the third paragraph without bring up the book censorship issue - those readers are still free to infer this because it's addressed in the second paragraph. Not sure if I'm communicating myself well here, sry. Theosis4u (talk) 03:08, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I understand now. I don't object to the intent - it is always the goal for articles to be NPOV. The problem is that the above offers far too much detail on the topic to pass Wikipedia guidelines. In other words, I think if this incident were the subject of an entire article we could go in this direction. As it stands, the above offers too much information for what should be a very short part of a larger article - this will lead to its rejection by other editors. These pages may prove helpful here: Wikipedia:Summary style, Wikipedia:Layout, and Wikipedia:Manual of Style. The goal would be something of the nature offered by ThaddeusB and Like.liberation in terms of length, style, and NPOV content. -Classicfilms (talk)

Should the header of "Wasilla" be broken into two sections - "Wasilla - City Council" and then "Wasilla - City Mayor" ? Theosis4u (talk) 02:10, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

FYI, I have posted the suggested version below, complete with references. Hopefully we can get this change implemented today. --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:16, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

ThaddeusB - that's great but I don't see it. Could you place a pointer to the rewrite with refs? -Classicfilms (talk) 16:24, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I've found it. The discussion has moved below to:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Sarah_Palin#Proposed_change_to_Wasilla_section

-Classicfilms (talk) 17:32, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I have suggested inserting the information about the attempted librarian firing controversy at Talk:Political_positions_of_Sarah_Palin#New_Section_Request:_Censorship because it obviously shows Sarah Palin's stance on Censorship and Freedom of Speech. User:Kelly referred me here saying the issue wasn't clear-cut. I disagree. The issue has been extensively reported on and is a key indication of her ability to protect the fundamental human rights of freedom of speech and freedom of the press. I request an immediate inclusion of the issue there.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 18:09, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I'll also post below. Here is the original Dec. 18, 1996 Frontiersman article which should be used as the primary source for this section. http://www.frontiersman.com/articles/2008/09/06/breaking_news/doc48c1c8a60d6d9379155484.txt -Classicfilms (talk) 01:30, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Picture change requested

I think the picture of her family under "Personal life" should be changed. Left, original; right, proposed new.

Palin family members at the announcement of Palin's vice presidential selection, August 29, 2008. From left: Todd, Piper, Willow, Bristol, and Trig.

File:Palin Family.jpg

The Palin family. From left: top: Track, Sarah, Todd; bottom: Willow, Piper, Bristol

-Zeus- 23:54, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Oppose. Copyright and source of new suggested image are doubtful. Vey nice picture though.Ferrylodge (talk) 23:57, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Oppose pending verification then Support Looks like its the official picture. It's credited to US gvt and has public domain status. --98.243.129.181 (talk) 23:59, 4 September 2008 (UTC)Edit.. I took description to be gospel. If it's ever verified as government or public domain, i vote yes. --98.243.129.181 (talk) 00:15, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Oppose - I've flagged the image for speedy deletion at Commons. No indication it's a work of the federal government. Kelly ^hi! 00:02, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Comment I believe that pic is on the Alaskan state gov't site. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 00:04, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

The Alaskan state govt doesn't release its work into the public domain. Kelly ^hi! 00:05, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose http://gov.state.ak.us/photos/PalinFamily_Outside_Med.jpg is the source and there is no release on the image. patsw (talk) 00:14, 5 September 2008 (UTC) I marked it copyvio sd. patsw (talk) 00:25, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Here's the page where the file is shown; http://gov.state.ak.us/bio.html

Release for the Alaska state photo

I just sent an email to the webmaster asking for permission. -Zeus- 00:47, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Ok people this should be good enough; Message 1/252 Mills, Andy J (GOV) <andy.mills@alaska.gov> Sep 4, 2008 04:46:56 pm -0800 Date: Thu, 04 Sep 2008 16:46:56 -0800 Subject: RE: Bio Image To: Matthew Momjian <matthew@momjian.us>

Matthew-

Please feel free to use the image for Wikipedia if it's a non-partisan and non-campaign related use (which is the requirement for this release).

Thank you for your permission request. Please note that newest member of the Palin family (Trig Paxson Van Palin) is not pictured in that photo.

Kind Regards- Andy Mills Office of the Governor Webmaster

---

Original Message-----

From: Matthew Momjian [8] Sent: Thursday, September 04, 2008 4:41 PM To: Mills, Andy J (GOV) Subject: Bio Image

Hello,

I am representing Wikipedia and requesting permission to use the file located at http://gov.state.ak.us/photos/PalinFamily_Outside_web.jpg on the Sarah Palin Wikipedia page at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarah_Palin

I found the file on http://gov.state.ak.us/bio.html

Thank you, -Zeus- 00:50, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

• I am not a Wiki-lawyer but I'm not sure that a release for the Wikipedia is valid. When I have done this myself, the grantor needs to reference one of GFDL, CC-SA, CC-BY-SA, or FAL explicitly for it to be a valid release. See commons:project:Email templates for the sort of release expected. patsw (talk) 01:03, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

• • So what do I need to do now? -Zeus- 01:16, 5 September 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by -Zeus- (talk • contribs)

• • • Try again. Use the boilerplate we suggest be used, and ask that it be returned, verbatim, with their signature at the bottom. Explain why the current permission is insufficient. Hope that helps.++Lar: t/c 01:30, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

• • • • Well according to that template he can't release that file because I doubt the webmaster is the copyright holder of the file :( —Preceding unsigned comment added by -Zeus- (talk • contribs) 01:38, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

The form of release that is the easiest to explain is http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/ But this release is explicit in granting usage that could be partisan or campaign-related. As far as I know, the Wikipedia can't use images that have such usage restrictions. My suggestion:

To permissions-commonswikimedia.org

I hereby assert that I am the creator and/or sole owner of the exclusive copyright of WORK http://gov.state.ak.us/photos/PalinFamily_Outside_web.jpg

I agree to publish that work under the free license LICENSE [choose at least one from http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Choosing_a_license#Common_free_licenses ] (patsw suggests CC-SA http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/)

I acknowledge that I grant anyone the right to use the work in a commercial product, and to modify it according to their needs, as long as they abide by the terms of the license and any other applicable laws.

I am aware that I always retain copyright of my work, and retain the right to be attributed in accordance with the license chosen. Modifications others make to the work will not be attributed to me.

I am aware that the free license only concerns copyright, and I reserve the option to take action against anyone who uses this work in a libelous way, or in violation of personality rights, trademark restrictions, etc.

I acknowledge that I cannot withdraw this agreement, and that the work may or may not be kept permanently on a Wikimedia project.

DATE, NAME OF THE COPYRIGHT HOLDER

This is the form of release expected. patsw (talk) 01:44, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

See also Commons:Email_templates which gives (too?) detailed instructions, and has a link to further example emails you can use. If he is an "authorised agent" of the copyright holder, (the State of Alaska) he can release it. But you need to be clear that it's a release in accordance with our license. As incentive, remind him that if we can't get permission, we may have to use other freely licensed pictures which might not be as nice to look at, and also remind him that this page got 2.5M views a few days ago and is on track to get well over 20M during the month of September. Does he want a nice picture used, or one we scare up from someone??? ++Lar: t/c 01:47, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

• • Ok I sent as you guys suggested let's hope he agrees. I think he will.— Preceding unsigned comment added by -Zeus- (talk • contribs)
    • You might want to forward that email response (if you get another) to at least one or two administrators for record as well. JungleCat Shiny!/Oohhh! 02:25, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
      • You can if you want, but the better thing to do is make sure it gets into OTRS so it can be tagged with the {{OTRS}} template and ticket number. forward it to permissions@wikimedia.org as the instructions I referenced explain and it will get processed. That's much more solid than a few admins having a copy, it's in a trackable system that way. ++Lar: t/c 04:25, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

All images on US Federal government sites are in the pubic domain, unless stated otherwise. Most=, if not all state sites have similar licenses. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:13, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually, most states do not place their copyrightable material in the public domain. It is either explicitly copyrighted, or automatically copyrighted, since a copyright notice is not required to establish a copyright. patsw (talk) 03:22, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

The non-posed picture should be retained, assuming it's a free photo, unless there is evidence that it's standard wikipedia practice to include P.R. family photos for politicians. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 06:04, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh go on, it's a cute pic. T0mpr1c3 (talk) 09:45, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

It's from "happier times", before the daughter managed to get knocked up and hence is all smiles. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 11:08, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Moot for now. Image:Palin Family.jpg has been deleted on Commons. If and when permission is given, the discussion could be revisited. (Bugs, it's standard practice to use the best pictures we can find that have free licenses... this is a good picture, and, were it licensed freely, it would be a better one to use in that part of the article than the one on the left... however it currently is not, and apparently prospects are dim that it will be...) ++Lar: t/c 15:47, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Need breakout page for "Speeches and Public Appearances of Sarah Palin"

I added Palin's Aug. 29 debut speech, but it is a bit long for this main article, and since then she has made her acceptance speech at the Republican Convention, and can be expected to make more. There are also several past appearances that are significant that should be included. On the other hand, her interview in which she asked what a vice-president does now seems somewhat insignificant. Therefore, I would like consensus from other editors about creating a new page, "Speeches and Public Appearances of Sarah Palin", to include the following, among others as they occur (in chronological order, which the list below is not):

• Her interview asking what a vice-president does, removed there from main article.
• Her debut speech of Aug. 29, 2008.
• Her acceptance speech at the Republican Convention.
• Interview, favorite SCOTUS justice, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZOU8GIRUd_g
• 2006 Debate among Palin and her opponents, Tony Knowles and Andrew Halcro, in campaign for election as governor, http://gregransom.com/prestopundit/2008/09/sarah-palin-debates-tony-knowl.html
• (Future) Transcript of debate with Joseph Biden.

The page might also have discussion and cites to commentary, such as analysis of language (e.g., the biblical origin of the phrase "servant's heart"), rhetorical technique (e.g., use or non-use of teleprompters), political significance, and cites to origins of phrases (e.g., the unattributed quote of Adm. Grace Hopper, who is reported to have been one of Palin's role models). Bracton (talk) 01:07, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Note: The phrase "servant's heart" is from Mark 10:44, "whosoever would be first among you, shall be servant of all." See http://www.bible-researcher.com/erv/mark.html#10 .Bracton (talk) 01:46, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

ZOMG BIBLE! ;) - Kelly ^hi! 01:52, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Bracton, perhaps you could transribe Palin's speeches into WikiQuotes so we can link to them from here. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 02:18, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

A breakout page would be appropriate here, to avoid the "listing" that wiki frowns upon.Pianomikey0 (talk) 04:43, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Unless she comes up with an iconic phrase like Truman's "the buck stops here", quotes should be sent to wikiquotes. And before anyone gets too gushy about the acceptance speech, keep in mind it was written by someone else (though presumably with her input). Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 06:08, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Which reminds me: With her funny about eBay, I could imagine the internet-challenged McCain turning to one of his advisers and asking, "Where's eBay? Is that in Alaska?" Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 06:09, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

You should stamp that one before Leno steals it. :) Fcreid (talk) 12:27, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

All my jokes are released to public domain. Including the ones I've stolen from elsewhere. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 13:00, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

This article generally shouldn't contain multi-paragraph quotations, but retaining short quotations (or paraphrases) is appropriate. For example, her comment about wanting to know what the VP does has drawn attention and should be included. I could go either way on the "servant's heart" bit. By the way, any such breakout page should be titled in sentence case per MoS. JamesMLane t c 17:19, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Do we have more votes on this? I still don't get a consensus. When I get consensus support I will implement.Bracton (talk) 00:19, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

The proposal seems to be "about creating a new page, 'Speeches and Public Appearances of Sarah Palin'". What would have to be implemented here? I'd suggest that if someone wants to creat a new Wikipedia article, they should go for it. If it turns out well, then maybe it would be mentioned here in this article.Ferrylodge (talk) 00:32, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I could create it but don't want to do that unless I can insert an internal breakout link into the main article, and that is protected.Bracton (talk) 01:49, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Passive voice in "Political Positions" category

I'm new to this, so please bear with me :) The sentence "Palin has been described as supportive of contraception" is passive voice, and should be changed to something more like "Palin is supportive of contraception"[citation]. Or maybe "ADN describes Palin as supportive of contraception." Pianomikey0 (talk) 02:38, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Except Anchorage Daily News is clearer than ADN, if that option is taken. 86.44.27.255 (talk) 02:34, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

How about just Palin supports contraception? Fcreid (talk) 03:16, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Even though it's almost certainly true, I don't think that rephrase is quite supported by the reference.Pianomikey0 (talk) 03:50, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I take it back. The referenced article says: "Palin said last month that no woman should have to choose between her career, education and her child. She is pro-contraception and said she's a member of a pro-woman but anti-abortion group called Feminists for Life." "She is supportive of contraception" would be almost directly quoted from the article.Pianomikey0 (talk) 03:56, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Okeydoke. Nice and simple non-urgent request: {{editprotected}} remove the passive voice per pianomikey0. "She is supportive of supports contraception" 86.44.27.255 (talk) 03:59, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Um, make it "She supports contraception." Pithy that way. Now I'll shut up.Pianomikey0 (talk) 04:05, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Aye. 86.44.27.255 (talk) 04:07, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Except that contraception is not a notable political issue in 2008 in the United States. :-) Steve Dufour (talk) 04:26, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

That was good, Steve. Sometimes we get so caught up in nuances that we miss the obvious. :) ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:08, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

It's already in the article, in the passive voice. This is about removing the passive voice. Seperate issues, separate sections? You're against removing the passive voice? Sheesh. 86.44.27.255 (talk) 04:39, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

If the article must say something about this how about: "She is in favor of contraception." The source says, "She is pro-contraception." Steve Dufour (talk) 05:54, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Contraception is less of an issue than abortion, but the Catholic Church, last I heard, still opposes contraception. It's also obvious that Palin's family doesn't use it, even if they favor it. Keep the quote on the matter to one sentence. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 07:17, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

"ADN reported in 2006 that Palin was pro-contraception" is accurate and reasonably brief. The ADN article from 2006 seems to be the only evidence that Palin is pro-contraception - I can't find any direct statements that Palin has made in support of contraception. To say "Palin is in favor of contraception" seems to go beyond what is known at this point. T0mpr1c3 (talk) 09:27, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

It is not obvious that her family doesn't use it. I know someone with two kids who were both the result of failed contraception (different methods each time). I know another family who uses contraception and has four kids, only one of which was the result of a mistake in the use of contraception. The other three involved intentional conceptions. Some people use contraception to space out their kids but still intend to have a large family. It's ridiculous to claim that her family obviously doesn't use it. Parableman (talk) 13:36, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Add information on Monegan firing

At the time Palin fired him, the governor said she wanted the department to move in a new direction. Later, after Monegan said he felt pressured to fire Wooten, Palin at a news conference said Monegan wasn't a team player, didn't do enough to fill trooper vacancies and battle alcohol abuse issues in rural Alaska.

Saki2 (talk) 02:56, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

This section needs to be rewritten, or reverted to an earlier version, so that facts crucial to any summary of this issue are present. There were numerous sourced references included previously that described the investigative stage of this topic as occuring in the following order: 1. Governor Palin denied any pressure had been applied to fire Wooten. 2. The state legislature announced it was conducting an investigation. 3. Gov. Palin directs her Attornet General to conduct an internal investigation. 4. Gov. Palin admits that around two dozen contacts had been made regarding Wooten.

As modified, the article implies no initial denial, and that the Gov. admitted to the contacts prior to the announcement of the legislative investigation, rather than as a result of that announcement [9]. Removing key facts, and only those that imply the possibility of wrongdoing, in the name of maintaining this sections "summary" status has imparted a bias upon this section that is in opposition to the established facts. Placing the occurance of events into an accurate timeline, and including the fact that there was an initial denial, then, after the State announced an investigation was planned, an admission to over 20 contacts regarding Wooten would require the addition of only a few words, and result in a concise overview of the isuue, rather than a whitewashed version. 75.88.83.220 (talk) 04:42, 5 September 2008 (UTC) Paul

The site floppingaces.com has done [full encyclopedic and scholarly writeup on "Troopergate"] complete with links to the relevant court documents. I think it would be appropriate to simply refer the reader to that writeup. I would propose the sentence be added that refers the reader to that site or that wikipedia obtain permission to reprint the article in its entirety here. -- Robert 76.120.109.174 (talk) 07:51, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Unreliable source. T0mpr1c3 (talk) 09:31, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

As above, blog posts don't cut it. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 09:36, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I would think the important part would be whther the journalism attained the proper levels of journalistic research, fact checking and referencing. The source is irrelelevant if the information is complete, scholarly and correct. If the identical text appeared on the Washington Post and Floppingaces, would that text be more valuable from the newspaper? Given that the vast majority of newpapers are liberally slanted, this would impart a defacto liberal slant to this site. At any rate the story should be evaluated on the journalistic value of the piece. Floppingaces has linked to the actual official depositions and documents which this obviously POV article has not done. As it is, this article is spouting liberal POV and excluding important relevant facts. -- Robert12.23.96.197 (talk) 16:29, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Effectively refusing to print an accurate chronology and then asking the reader to go to a hyperpartisan blog for "facts" really doesn't cut. This section should have an accurate account of how this controversy came about.--BenA (talk) 12:45, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Saki12 has correctly summarized Palin's post hoc rationalization for the firing. If our article includes her contention, however, then it must also include this information from our daughter article on the dismissal: "Monegan responded on July 18 that the two most recent trooper graduating classes had the most recruits in years."

I also agree with the anon that the Sarah Palin article should include her initial statement, which she later had to retreat from. In our daughter article:

Initially, Palin denied that there had been any pressure on Monegan to fire Wooten, either from herself or from anyone in her administration.

I'll have to recheck the sources -- I think she initially denied any contacts, not just pressure, but whatever the specifics of the denial are, it should be included. JamesMLane t c 12:20, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Adding this information of her reasons for the termination of Monegan (including ineffectiveness in battling alcohol abuse) is important because the article earlier states that after the termination, "She then offered him an alternative position as executive director of the state Alcoholic Beverage Control Board, which he turned down.[83][84". Saki2 (talk) 13:11, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

This is a level of detail more suitable for the spinout article on the dismissal and subsequent controversy. The section here is just a summary. Kelly ^hi! 13:22, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't feel an extended "he said/she said" session as to each parties perceived reasoning for the firing is appropo to a summary. Also not worthy of inclusion in a summarization are: facts about her offering him an alternate position, tidbits about his successor and his failings, or legal arguments being used to challenge the legislatures authority to conduct an investigation. All of those belong in the full, detailed, sub-article. All a concise, chronologically-correct, well-sourced summary need say is:

On July 11, 2008, Palin dismissed Public Safety Commissioner Walter Monegan, citing performance-related issues.[82] Monegan alleged he had been pressured to fire Palin’s former brother-in-law, Alaska State Trooper Mike Wooten, and that his dismissal was retaliation for his failure to do so.[85][86] Palin publicly denied that any pressure to fire Wooten had been applied on Monegan. On August 1, the Alaska Legislature hired an independent investigator to review the situation.[91] Palin then asked the Attorney General to launch his own internal investigation which led to her acknowledging that there had been over twenty contacts made by her administration relating to Wooten. Palin stated that most of those calls were made without her knowledge, and reiterated that she did not fire Monegan because of Wooten.[85][88] The legislative investigation is scheduled to be completed in October 2008.[85]

Tweak some verbage, add in a couple dates if you like, replace a couple references that were previously in the section, and I think this would make a much more accurate, easy-to-read, summarization of the issue 216.170.33.149 (talk) 14:52, 5 September 2008 (UTC) Paul

I endorse the summary given by 216.170.33.149. However, there are those that feel the Kopp detail is notable in its own right, so perhaps that should either be worked into the summary or placed elsewhere in the article. --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:58, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Newsweek is reporting that the McCain campaign is trying to shut down the probe into the firing. This should be added.--BenA (talk) 12:45, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

That's not what the article says. It says the McCain campaign endorsed a letter calling for the removal of the lead investigator for making public comments about the investigation in a partisan way against the person being investigated (and the lead investigator, according to the article, has admitted to doing so). It also says that the guy who wrote the letter (but presumably not the McCain campaign) wants to go further and call into question the entire investigation for this incompetence. So it would be inaccurate to say that the McCain campaign is trying to shut down the probe into the firing. Parableman (talk) 13:49, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

That's not exactly what the article says either. Nowhere in the article does the lead investigator makes comments regarding his previous statements. I'm not sure where the word "incompetance" comes in... I love this quote form the Republican in charge of removing the head of the investigation: "If this has been botched up the way it has..."Spiff1959 (talk) 03:48, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

This controversy is now virtually always referred to in public discourse as "Troopergate." Perhaps that should be the title of this section at this point.--BenA (talk) 12:45, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Sandbox for article improvements

The Sarah Palin sandbox can be found here at the link provided for article improvements. Talk:Sarah Palin/sandbox. After consensus is reached an admin can edit it in the real article.

Regards, QuackGuru 04:33, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I do not see much need for this... {{editprotect}} is working quite well. In any case, if editors want to attempt a massive re-write, a sandbox may be handy. But I doubt this would be the case. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:49, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

An editor by mistake edited the sandbox in mainspace instead of the talk page. It needs to be deleted and salted. Sarah Palin/sandbox‎ QuackGuru 05:26, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Agreed with jossi. There is no need to further splinter out focus from the article to a third page. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 05:28, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

A sandbox will just be a target for more libel, slander, filth, and POV-pushing. That stuff isn't allowed there, either. Kelly ^hi! 05:30, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I also agree with jossi. There's no need to add to the confusion by adding more pages out there. J Readings (talk) 05:31, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

The sandbox is a great idea. The mainspace version can continued to be protected for a week or even a month and we can improve the article by working towards consensus in the draft version. QuackGuru 05:56, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Of course you would think it's a great idea, isn't it your idea? I don't. Have you been here dealing with the horrific crap on this article? There's no need to propagate this stuff to pages that are not well-watched. Kelly ^hi! 06:43, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Better yet, let's have a whole bunch of sandboxes. We'll call it "content forks R us". Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 07:10, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

This seems likely just to cause edit wars on the fake article, rather than consensus on the real one. Coemgenus 13:50, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Travels abroad, part of her governor job

After becoming governor, Palin obtained her passport and traveled to Kuwait and Germany in 2007 to visit with members of the Alaska National Guard; she has also made multiple trips to Canada.

This is included in the #personal_life section. I think this should be shifted to the #Governor section, as these travels seem to be part of her job rather than part of her family life. Teofilo talk 06:38, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Or perhaps in a section, which I truly believe should be added, regarding the controversy regarding her qualifications for VP. I understand such a section would be a lightning rod for NPOV violations, but given that 90% of the media and public discourse regarding Palin has centered on this question, it seems like a huge elephant in the room in this article. Opinions on the subject break entirely along party lines, so I do believe this could be done in a NPOV way. In contrast to the Obama article, which seems even-handed and covers all major discussions, both good and bad, this article seems woefully lacking in discussion of... well... the things people are actually discussing! JoelleJ (talk) 14:27, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

It's also notable that she's *only* visited four foreign countries (Canada, Germany, Iraq, Kuwait), and never traveled out of the US until 2007. 24.16.145.189 (talk) 06:59, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Do you have a source for the last? It does not seem plausible that she moved from Idaho to Alaska and never stepped foot into Canada prior to 2007. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 07:03, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Maybe her airplane from Idaho to Alaska flew over Canadian ground, but that doesn't require a passport. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 07:05, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Have you ever moved? You don't move furniture with aeroplanes. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 07:32, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I've moved. The furniture (and the car) went by truck, and I flew an airplane to the destination. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 07:39, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Having lived in a border state (not Alaska or Idaho, Wisconsin in my case) I find it unlikely that she'd never travelled into Canada for a fishing or hunting trip. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 07:46, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Maybe, but was a passport required on your trips to Canada? I think certain types of ID's are necessary (thanks to 9/11) but I don't think a passport itself is an absolute, at least not yet. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 07:52, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

And I would imagine that there is special dispensation for those who are moving from the lower 48 to Alaska. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 07:53, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Her parents moved in the 1960s. There was definitely no passport needed then. Things were rather friendlier with Canada at that time. You just had to state your reason for being in Canada. That was still true in the early 1990s when I last visited Canada. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 07:56, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I didn't need a passport the last time I went to Canada. She went to college in Idaho though and probably had some belongings to move. (And I don't think most recent college grads ship their belongings, but I could be wrong.) But its smoke break time, don't burn the article down while I'm away! :P Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 08:00, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Depends on what you're smoking. If she graduated 20 years ago or so, she still wouldn't have needed a passport. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 08:35, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually I don't think its really notable for an article about her... it is great for giving the whole thing a subtle slant though o.O Why isn't it noatable? I don't see many articles about people that list where a person has travelled in the world. It doesn't have any bearing on her international capacity, it doesn't mean she isolates herself. Really... its trivia :)

It's part of the "hick" meme that her opposition is pushing, I think. Kelly ^hi! 07:36, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, they don't seem to get that it only reminds Palin's crowd that Obama has it in for small town types who are "clinging to their guns and bibles." Reinforcing gaffes for fun! Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 07:48, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Some of her supporters said she has international experience because Russia is nearby, if we are reinforcing gaffes instead of being NPOV. In any case, Wikipedia's job is to report what secondary sources are saying. Secondary sources are not interested in her opinion on Puerto Rican statehood, so we don't report on it. Secondary sources are reporting a lot on her not getting a passport until 2007. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 07:53, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I'm definately not suggesting we reinforce gaffes, just using this talkpage wrongly. Sorry. :P Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 08:00, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Republicans often try to paint themselves as being poor and uneducated, for example being unable to count how many houses they own. The wealthy can still feel for the poor, although I'm reminded of this, from Richard Armour: "When Richard Nixon turned 21, his father gave him a gold watch. When JFK turned 21, his father gave him a million dollars, because he already had a watch." Despite that, JFK managed to connect with the underprivileged. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 08:49, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

After the fifth house or so I tend to forget the pads I own. Besides, I'm too busy swimming in my pool o' gold to bother. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 09:16, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Speaking of gaffes, here's some idiot Congressman from Georgia who said Obama is part of an "uppity" class. [10] Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 09:29, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Wait. Uppity is an ethnic perjorative? WTF? I cry oversensitivity. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 13:29, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

• I find Kelly's comments to be incredibly partisan. It seems to me that she is pulling out all the stops to keep this article as Pro-Palin as possible. She engages in Original Research when it suits her, and argues that certain commentary from the mainstream media has no place in the article, again using specious arguments. Fee Fi Foe Fum (talk) 08:30, 5 September 2008 (UTC

I have been complaining to the refs for days on this issue, especially about the top 3 partisan editors who are steering this article - but nothing has come of it and every 24 hours that passes this bio becomes ever more Pro-Palin. zredsox (talk) 13:50, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I really wish you'd stop pushing that crap. Making a lot of edits, doesn't make me (or anyone else) partisan. try looking at my actual edit - of the 128 you'll find at least 100 are to correct grammar and similiar problems. I have also pointed out specific times I sided on the "anti-Palin" side to you more than once, yet you have ignored my request for even one time you have sided on the "Pro-Palin" side. Just because you say I'm partisan, doesn't make it so. Did you ever stop to think that you are pushing an anti-Palin agenda far more than "everyone else" is pushing a pro-Palin one? --ThaddeusB (talk) 14:34, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Did you ever stop to think that I am only talking about positions here rather than acting on them and making large scale continuous edits? Sure you made grammatical fixes. You also wrote a Political Summary that was quite dubious. As for my stance on issues, I get the impression if I wasn't here making a case the clear majority rule would be that much more overwhelming. At least I am offering counterpoints to the choir preaching and back patting. That being said, I am not going to argue this any further right now Thaddeus, as it is not productive. zredsox (talk) 15:24, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Please stop claiming I have made POV/partisan edits and we won't have an issue. Again, the vast majority of my edits were for grammar and style. For other edits, I have always posted on the talk page anything I viewed as controversial, no matter how sure I was of the article being in err; and I only made such edits after what I viewed to be talk page consensus. --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:32, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

PS The political summary was written at the request of many editors who felt simply repeating her positions was a poor way to do the section. The reason I wrote a summary was for style, not to hide her positions. I am quite tired of you implying my motives were otherwise. When I made the summary, I fully admitted it wasn't perfect and asked others to fix it as they saw fit. The first thing someone else did was remove the criticism of Palin that I had included to try and balance the section. I strongly maintain that the summary I wrote was better than the list we reverted to, even if it wasn't 100% NPOV. Our current section is utter crap stylistically and is nothing like McCain, Biden, or Obama's page. --ThaddeusB (talk) 16:02, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

• Note to All if there are sufficient sources, yes even if it is something the "opposition is pushing", it belongs in the article, as long as the sources aren't the opposition's webpages. Fee Fi Foe Fum (talk) 08:30, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
  • If you've got any specific complaints, bring them here. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 08:36, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
    • I just did, but the only thing that matters is the Political Positions section. I'll say here that you can count my vote not to water the Political Positions section down even when I'm not here to vote. Fee Fi Foe Fum (talk) 08:47, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
      • I said a specific complaint. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 09:29, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Track Palin's deployment

{{editprotected}} Please add the provided source [11] to the Personal Life section related to Track's deployment. Thanks! Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 12:39, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

The sources cited do not state that he is being deployed to Iraq. Someone please remove "He is set to be deployed to Iraq in September 2008.^[120][121]" Lincoln F. Stern 12:22, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Why can you not do this yourself? This page is the grossest violation of the WP tenet against not owning articles ( see Wikipedia:Ownership of articles ) I have run across. People are so scared they are asking permission to change a comma into a semicolon. --Crunch (talk) 12:28, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure the feeding-frenzy will died down soon. Meanwhile, what specific changes would you be making to the article? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 12:30, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Beelezubub man, this is NOT THE RIGHT PLACE to discuss that. We've linked you to the right place and continuing to complain about the full protection is wasting everyone's time. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 12:33, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Please add this source then: http://canadianpress.google.com/article/ALeqM5g6GYPrhDjOw_MnIFo_4wj1Qwc65Q. Thanks! Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 12:32, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh please, BBugs! You cannot be serious in wanting me, or any other editor, to list all specific edits however minor we want to make. That is exactly my point. I am very frustrated. For starters, the edit suggested above. Next, about a dozen or more some extremely minor. Some grammatical and formatting. Some a little more substantial. Once again, I refer everyone to Wikipedia:Ownership of articles. --Crunch (talk) 12:35, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Kyaa, who are you addressing your request to? Who appointed themselves God who owns this article? --Crunch (talk) 12:37, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Protection was requested and granted. The protection itself was debated and went back and forth until it became clear that semi-protection was insufficient. Go to that other page and make your voice heard. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 12:40, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

And the reason for the separate page is to prevent this one from getting too long. It's long enough as it is. You could almost have a separate spinoff page for each of the POV-pushing topics listed herein. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 12:44, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

WP:CONSENSUS. Nuff said. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 12:38, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

There are endless articles with grammar and spelling errors that the user could spend his energy on. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 12:42, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Two points: While we've been talking here, someone just put full protection on again. Again, you who are fully engaged in the Protection Wars may enjoy this game, the rest of us and the vast majority "out there" who just use Wikipedia as readers are finding it very frustrating. As for other articles that require grammar and spelling cleanup, let me clarify: I am interested in editing the Sarah Palin article. Much of what I am interested in editing is grammar and spelling. But that is not all. I am also interested in adding to the article and believe I can be trusted to do in a nPOV way that adheres to WP guidelines. I am not particularly interested in editing random articles for spelling mistakes at this time. That should have been clear. --Crunch (talk) 12:48, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Your reluctance to specify what you want to change, combined with your seemingly excessive frustration at editing this one article for grammar, makes me wonder what you're really up to. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 12:56, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Baseball bugs, please WP:AGF. The reasons you give are entirely inadequate to justify the aspersions you are casting. Homunq (talk) 22:03, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

N Edit declined. The request is not specific enough (add what where?). Also, if a reference is to be added, it should be provided in the proper <ref>{{cite news|...}}</ref> format.  Sandstein  16:39, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Gosh, someone didn't even read to verify there was consensus and missed the big blue link I provided. I've added it to the request so even a third grader could find it. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 11:58, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Did you not read what Sandstein said: please put the reference in the correct citation template and then list it here. (<ref>{{cite news|title=|publisher|date=|last=|first=...etc}}</ref>)Then give us an exact place that you want it put. We cannot read minds. Woody (talk) 14:50, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

No Mention of Lifetime NRA Membership..?? Seems notable

No Mention of Lifetime NRA Membership..?? Seems notable

I think that's mentioned in Political positions of Sarah Palin. Kelly ^hi! 13:29, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

It should be briefly noted here as well, as being a member of the NRA is not necessarily a political position. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:43, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

How about adding it in the personal life section as such "Palin is a self-described "hockey mom" and mother of five. Among her common activities are hunting, ice fishing and riding snowmobiles; she has also run a marathon. She has a lifetime membership to the NRA." Any other notable memberships that surface could then be added "and is a member of such & such." --ThaddeusB (talk) 14:58, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

If I remember correctly, she has been described as a life-long member of the NRA, which is not the same as being a Life Member, which is what I assume you mean by “lifetime membership.” —Travis^talk 15:03, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

The sources seem dubious, so how about just "She is a member of the NRA." --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:16, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm pretty certain she says "lifelong NRA member" herself. Shouldn't be too hard to find a reference. I'll put that on the list.--Paul (talk) 14:59, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Levi Johnston's age

Resolved

Per edit request below. Oren0 (talk) 19:13, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

The article contains the phrase "17-year-old Levi Johnston" with one relevant Washington Post reference. However, Johnston's age is reported by multiple sources as 18, so the age provided in the article should be considered an error or at least under dispute (or even removed given its insignificant relation to the subject matter.)

A selection of contrary references:

• New York Times, "Now, the Bad News on Teenage Marriage"
• Washington Post, "Palin delivers star-turning performance at RNC"
• Washington Post, "Blogger, Author, Palin Booster: Meghan McCain's New Chapter"
• Washington Post, "Palin Comes Out Fighting"
• Washington Post, "Kids and Kaboodle"
• San Francisco Chronicle/SF Gate, "Levi Johnston to join Palin family at convention"
• New York Daily News, "Bristol Palin's pregnancy was an open secret back home"

It's also been pointed out elsewhere that his exact birthday may be obtained via the Alaska Court System site, but that probably falls under original research.

(Sorry about the nonstandard citation format - easier to copy & paste) --Robort (talk) 13:35, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

While I appreciate your diligent research, I think a simpler solution would be to omit this irrelevant detail entirely. JamesMLane t c 13:49, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I suggested that option, but since I can't edit the article someone else needs to do so. --Robort (talk) 13:57, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I'll do it, if there are no objections? UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 14:04, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

ok w/me. Kaisershatner (talk) 14:07, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

WP:BLP would seem to support this. I can't quickly see a better wording than just dropping the hyphenated age. GRBerry 14:12, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

BLP says no such thing. In this case his age is fairly important in that people would be reacting differerntly if it was more than a couple of years to either side of what it actualy is.Geni 14:17, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

If the sources don't agree, then you have to straddle it and say 17-some-sources-say-18 or some such. The age doesn't matter very much unless there's an issue of statutory rape - which I gather there isn't, as someone had said the age of consent in Alaska is 16. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 14:21, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

"Late teens" would cover it no?Geni 14:25, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Geni, his age may be fairly important for some purposes, but I don't think it's important for Sarah Palin's bio. JamesMLane t c 14:33, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

The fact of her teen daughter's pregnancy is important. Unless there's a legal issue, the exact age of the father is not especially important. However, if someone could determine when his birthday was (maybe it was last week?) the 17 vs. 18 question might at least be answered and we would have some closure here. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 14:37, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

One tyop or misstatement of fact saying "the campaign said he was 17" does not trump numerous other reliable sources with an age which agrees with court records cited above saying 18. The incorrect reference should be removed and a reference with the 18 age should be cited. It removes any salacious speculation that he is much older (or younger) than the girl. Even the Washington Post can make a mistake, which was corrected in several Washington Post and other newspaper's stories in subsequent days. A footnote to The Telegraph follows the misstatement of Johnston's age, but the cited article does not give any age for Johnston. Edison (talk) 14:44, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Bristol is important. She is important due to the pregnancy so the father is important. Going by the various teen pregnacy articles I've seen it would appear that his rough age is of some importance.Geni 00:03, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I vote to remove the age entirely, as it is no relevance to Palin's bio anyway. --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:00, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Concur. Fcreid (talk) 15:37, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

"We must get the article right." Until/unless there's consensus on changing the age, it should be removed. --Robort (talk) 17:04, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Quick canvass

What should we do about the reference to Levi Johnson's age?

Remove it

1. Seems the only sensible thing to do since sources disagree; also it is not relevant to Sarah Palin's biography what his exact age is. --ThaddeusB (talk) 17:20, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
2. What Thaddeus said. Kelly ^hi! 18:00, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
3. Although I'm satisfied with the sources that state his age is 18, it isn't relevant to the subject whether he's 18 or 17. --Robort (talk) 18:08, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
4. Remove it as irrelevant per Thaddeus Keeper ǀ 76 18:17, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
5. Remove. Irrelevant to Sarah Palin's biography. Kaisershatner (talk) 19:49, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
6. Remove. It's not relevant to the subject of the article (Sarah Palin). --Clubjuggle ^T/C 19:52, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
7. Remove. The discrepancies in published information about the date aren't that big an issue. If there were such discrepancies about an important fact -- such as, for example, the birthdate of the subject of a bio article -- then we would simply provide the information available to us, as we do for Ann Coulter (see this section). Here, however, even if we had rock-solid information, there'd be no reason to include the birthdate of the bio subject's prospective son-in-law. JamesMLane t c 01:15, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Change to 18

• Just go with the majority of the sources. The Washington Post just put down what the Palin campaign said, and said 18 in later articles. The other sources must have had some colleagues in Alaska do fact checking; they have BLP concerns too, you know. Getting it "wrong" in this instance is a non-concern, we are just reporting what major newspapers have said. His age should be in there; the age of consent issue means that users will be looking for it. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 18:22, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
• Change to agree with reliable sources. We do not remove facts from articles just because one source gave incorrect discrepant information. If her pregnancy and her age are encyclopedic, then his age is encyclopedic. Edison (talk) 19:53, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Get it right

• If you can determine for sure what his birth day and year actually are, then go with that. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 19:48, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Edit request

{{editprotected}} I request the sentence "Palin announced on September 1, 2008, that her daughter Bristol was five months pregnant chose to keep the baby and marry the father of her child, 17-year-old Levi Johnston." be changed to read "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, Levi Johnston." based on semi-consensus that his age is irrelevant to Sarah Palin's bio and complete consensus that 17 is inaccurate. --ThaddeusB (talk) 16:43, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

 Done based on consensus here. Oren0 (talk) 19:10, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Suggested edit to Public Safety Commissioner section

"...Monegan alleged that his dismissal was retaliation for his failure to fire Palin’s former brother-in-law, Alaska Mike Wooten. Wooten is a state trooper who was involved in a child custody battle with Palin’s sister, Molly McCann, and who had also been disciplined for breaking department policy several times.[87][88] Monegan further alleged that contacts made by Palin herself, her staff, and her family had constituted inappropriate pressure to fire Wooten.[87][88] Though acknowledging that her staff had contacted Monegan or his staff a number of times regarding Wooten, and that at least one contact could be interpreted as pressure,[89] Palin stated that this call and most of the rest were made without her knowledge, and reiterated that she did not fire Monegan because of Wooten.[87][90]..."

"...Monegan alleged that his dismissal was retaliation for his failure to fire Palin’s former brother-in-law, Alaska state trooper Mike Wooten, who had violated department policy during a child custody battle with Palin’s sister, Molly McCann.[87][88] Monegan further alleged that contacts made by Palin herself, her staff, and her family had constituted inappropriate pressure to fire Wooten, because Wooten had already been disciplined and the case was officially closed.[87][88] Though acknowledging that her staff had contacted Monegan or his staff a number of times regarding Wooten, and that at least one contact could be interpreted as pressure,[89] Palin stated that this call and most of the rest were made without her knowledge, and reiterated that she did not fire Monegan because of Wooten.[87][90]..."

3rd version's the charm? Includes edit suggested in following section.

"...Monegan alleged that his dismissal was retaliation for his failure to fire Palin’s former brother-in-law, Alaska state trooper Mike Wooten, who had violated department policy and had been in a child custody battle with Palin’s sister, Molly McCann.[87][88] Monegan further alleged that contacts made by Palin herself, her staff, and her family had constituted inappropriate pressure to fire Wooten, because Wooten had already been disciplined and the case was officially closed.[87][88] On August 1, the Alaska Legislature hired an independent investigator to review the situation. On August 13, Palin acknowledged that her staff had contacted Monegan or his staff a number of times regarding Wooten, and that at least one contact could be interpreted as pressure.[89] She stated that this call and most of the rest were made without her knowledge, and reiterated that she did not fire Monegan because of Wooten.[87][90]..."

I think this edit rounds out the story with both pro-Palin (Wooten's poor record) and anti-Palin (the Bailey call) essential facts, without overly extending it. Homunq (talk) 17:28, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

This revision does not address the faulty chronology raised previously: Palin did not acknowledge that her staff had contacted Monegan until after the investigation was instigated on August 1. 79.74.252.173 (talk) 17:45, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

One thing at a time. Please, any admin who is handling editprotected requests, this is a key article. If you looked at the request and would have done it if you loved the edit, the only reason NOT to do it is if you can cite a specific wikipedia policy that it violates. The page is NOT protected to make admins into the quality police; it is protected to avoid serious, recurrent violations of WP:BLP. Homunq (talk) 17:49, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I endorse the version given by Homunq above. --ThaddeusB (talk) 17:55, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Oppose. If we include Wooten's misconduct, with an implication that Palin therefore had good reason for pressuring Monegan to fire him, we must also include Monegan's response, which specifically pointed to the prior disciplinary action against Wooten. One earlier version included this sentence about Palin's first conversation on the subject with Monegan: "In response, Monegan told Palin that Wooten had been officially reprimanded and disciplined in 2006 for these matters and that the subject could not be reopened."

Good point. How about we add, "for which he had already been disciplined"? --ThaddeusB (talk) 18:12, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

As to the point raised by the anon, this sentence was in prior versions but has now been scrubbed from the article: "Initially, Palin denied that there had been any pressure on Monegan to fire Wooten, either from her or from anyone else in her administration." It was cited to this story in the Washington Post. This fact is important and should be restored. It seems somewhat inefficient to set up another whole section just for that, but if that's the procedure this protection folly requires, I suppose it can be done. JamesMLane t c 17:59, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Both of the counterarguments to my edit are about what it is not, not about what it is. Please propose your own edits (which I'd probably support) instead of opposing mine. This may be an editprotected article, but this is still Wikipedia. If we had to vote on edits before they could happen, this would be Knol or something. This article is protected only to prevent serious violations, and this proposed edit is NOT one of those violations. Homunq (talk) 18:09, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I thought my objection and proposal were both clear. The proposed edit is a violation of WP:NPOV because it doesn't give Monegan's side of the dispute. My suggested revision was to add this sentence at the end: "In response, Monegan told Palin that Wooten had been officially reprimanded and disciplined in 2006 for these matters and that the subject could not be reopened." That would render superfluous one of your additions, namely "and who had also been disciplined for breaking department policy several times". JamesMLane t c 18:24, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I guess I have a slightly looser definition of WP:NPOV than you do, or something, because I can't see a violation in either case. We have to draw the line somewhere on counter-counter-arguments, and as editors we need at least a little flexibility to avoid edit wars. (If this were a forum, I'd respond about how the dispute is not about whether Monegan's or Wooten's actions were appropriate, because she had the right to fire Monegan regardless; the only question is, did the contacts from her office constitute undue pressure.) But sure, I accept your suggestion as a friendly addition to my requested edit. (please strikeout your "opposed" and put your preferred version as a response to mine). Homunq (talk) 18:36, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

OK, I did it for you. The sentence you suggested didn't quite fit (both "response" and "these matters" have unclear referents) but I think the second version addresses your concerns. Please strikeout your "Oppose:". Homunq (talk) 19:03, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I approve of the new version. --ThaddeusB (talk) 19:26, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I Strongly Oppose the new version. zredsox (talk) 19:40, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Zredsox, do you have a reason? Homunq (talk) 19:44, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

After reviewing the proposed edits, I am moving my position to Neutral. I have a feeling this entire section is soon going to need a rewrite anyway. [12] zredsox (talk) 20:03, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

• I approve of the suggested changes. It looks like each individual edit will need a new section, so I'm going to start another section to address the chronology issue. After that maybe we can deal with JamesMLane's suggestions. T0mpr1c3 (talk) 20:19, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

• More discussion please; consensus is not clear. In particular, I'd like to see the opinion of more editors. GRBerry 20:26, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

• I was about to point out an inaccuracy in a passage that's new in Version 2: "who had violated department policy during a child custody battle". That suggests that his violations were in connection with the child custody battle, which is certainly false, and I think it's false even if it merely means during the pendency of the battle. (The divorce proceeding was going on but "the child custody battle" usually refers to the custody dispute after the granting of the divorce.) Also, the context of "because Wooten had already been disciplined and the case was officially closed" is confusing. Those facts are why Monegan refused to fire Wooten, not why he thought the pressure was improper. Homunq, I take your point about the referents. Really, the easiest thing would be to restore the prior version that was perfectly fine before the Palin partisans set to work trying to sanitize it, but now to get that result we apparently have to go sentence-by-sentence and start several different subsections. I hope the geniuses who decided on protection are happy. I'll try to propose a Version 3 but right now I have RL issues to attend to. JamesMLane t c 20:36, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

re: custody battle - at least some of his violations (death threat, perhaps also taser) related to the custody battle. I agree that the moose hunt did not, but we are trying to summarize, and it is technically true that he violated policy during the battle, and the details are all in the sub-article. The inte rest here is to give a feeling for the he-said-she-said without going into every detail, and I think this phrasing works. Homunq (talk) 20:56, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Having read this article: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/03/AR2008090303210.html?nav%3Dhcmodule&sub=AR ... I think that it is necessary to add: "Though acknowledging that she and her staff...". Homunq (talk) 20:56, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I think this section is misleading because it gives the reader the impression that she wanted Mike Wooten dismissed simply because she was upset about the divorce. I think it would better round the story to state that she believed Wooten tasered his son and made a death threat against a retired school teacher http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/us_elections/article4663977.ece To not include her motivation for the firing leaves the read to assume her motivation. --RobertGary1 (talk) 15:14, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Does version 3 address this concern? Note that we can't be going into detail on all the accusations against Wooten, as this is a summary section, yet I now see it is important to pose them as separate from the custody battle. Homunq (talk) 15:38, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

N Edit declined. It is not clear what edit is requested and/or has consensus. Please use {{editprotected}} only after consensus has been achieved.  Sandstein  16:35, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Sandstein: there is not consensus on a final version. There is consensus that an edit is needed, and there are no voices opposing anything about the current proposed version of the edit. I understand the desire to be conservative with regards to an article that has been subject to edit wars, but I propose that the standard of total consensus is unattainable for anything beyond simple copyedits. I suggest that we should try to stay as close as possible to the normal process of editing, with successive imperfect versions, as WP:BLP allows. That is, any good-faith editprotect request that is not an obvious violation of WP:POV, WP:BLP, or some clear talk page consensus should be carried out. The remedy is not fewer edits, it's more. Nobody even remotely alleges that any of the above edits would constitute the kind of violation for which this page was protected, so lets let a thousand flowers bloom, or a thousand points of light, or whatever. 216.106.170.103 (talk) 18:34, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

The problem is, the complainant won't specify what he's complaining about. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 19:47, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Is your honor talking about me? I am saying 2 things.

1. I think that the above version 3, immediately preceded by {{editprotect}}, should be added to the article.

2. I think that the threshold of perfect consensus before putting an edit in place is unreasonable given the controversy involved. I think that anything which is clearly a good-faith attempt at compromise within the principles of Wikipedia should be implemented provisionally, and that debate should continue if warranted.

Is that clear enough for the court? Homunq (talk) 20:17, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I oppose "version 3". It takes this section off on a tangent. The title of the section is "Public Safety Commisioner dismissal". This issue involves Governor Palin, the Alaska Legislature, former commissioner Monagan, charges of abuse-of-power, and the resulting (and on-going) investigations. The messy, multi-year, family feud between the Palin's and Trooper Wooten is immaterial. I'd like to hear objections to using the version at the bottom of this post in place of the existing paragraph. It's considerably less obfuscated, eliminates text not consistant with a summarization of the section title, lists occurances in the correct order, and is entirely sourced. (the two links I recovered from an earlier version of this article would need converting to proper references).

"On July 11, 2008, Palin dismissed Public Safety Commissioner Walter Monegan, citing performance-related issues.[82] Monegan alleged he had been pressured to fire Palin’s former brother-in-law, Alaska State Trooper Mike Wooten, and that his dismissal was retaliation for his failure to do so.[85][86] Palin publicly denied that any pressure to fire Wooten had been applied on Monegan. On August 1, the Alaska Legislature hired an independent investigator to review the situation.[91] Palin then asked the Alaska Attorney General to launch his own internal investigation [13] which led to her acknowledging on August 13 that there had been over twenty contacts made by her administration relating to Wooten[14], one of which resulted in her then suspending her Director of Boards and Commissions, Frank Bailey[15]. Palin stated that most of those calls were made without her knowledge, and reiterated that she did not fire Monegan because of Wooten.[85][88] The legislative investigation is scheduled to be completed in October 2008.[85]"

216.170.33.149 (talk) 20:58, 5 September 2008 (UTC) Paul

I agree with you, Wooten is immaterial. If this were a court room, his misdeeds do not belong. But it's not. Part of the defense of Palin is that Wooten deserved it. That may hold no legal water, but apparently it holds water with some people. It is not our job to decide for them. Wooten being disciplined belongs in, because it is clearly WP:V and WP:N for this article.

Also, your version is light on the actual nature of the contact from Palin to Monegan. There are two specific contacts - the taped Bailey call, and the emails from Palin herself - which stand out as not fitting under a blanket "over twenty contacts" statement. I would be OK with choosing one of these two cases as representative, and covering it in a subclause. Probably the Bailey call is the right one, as it is also the basis for the separate Police Union ethics complaint against Palin. Homunq (talk) 22:17, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Homunq, I haven't seen any source for your assertion, "Part of the defense of Palin is that Wooten deserved it." My understanding is that, although Palin believes that to be true, she also asserts it to be immaterial, and expressly disclaims that it's part of her defense. Her actual defense is that Monegan's firing had absolutely nothing to do with the Wooten issue. If she's now defending the firing by saying that Monegan was being slack about Wooten's misdeeds, that would be a shift in her position, and we would need to document that she's actual argued that. JamesMLane t c 01:30, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I didn't say "palin's defense", I meant other people defending Palin. Wooten's conduct is a significant portion of the sub-article and it deserves some mention here. Just look how many times drive-bys say "he tased his son!!!" - if we leave this information out completely, we are practically asking for those same people to put it in. (I also think that she (or her lawyers) actually does mention Wooten's misdeeds in her own defense - not that he deserved it, but that she was keeping Monegan informed of death threats and other ongoing issues, or something.)

However, I don't want to be taking ownership of this section. I consider this counter-proposed edit to be a clear improvement over the status quo, and would be happy to see it implemented - and then improved further. Homunq (talk) 05:41, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I think the Hatfield/McCoy (Palin/Wooten) dispute deserves mention somewhere, but I disagree that this is the place. This controversy is based upon alleged misconduct by the governor. Do we want to go insert lines into the Clinton's Lewinski section noting that "by the way, Monica often wore tight sweaters"? Whether citing claims that Wooten tortures puppies and pulls the wings off flies, or that he was suspended for letting his son volunteer for an asinine taser demo, or fined for dropping a moose on his then-wife's (Palin's younger sister) tag after she said "Here! You shoot it!", just injects a sympathetic slant that is contrary to any statements made by Governor Palin regarding the "Public Safety Commisioner dismissal". Do we wish to impart that "Well, if it turns out she did break the law, she was justified"?

As to "Your version is light on the actual nature of the contact from Palin to Monegan": I'm asking that additional information, regarding contacts, be added to what is now posted in the article. That facts that were scrubbed be replaced. The fact that she denied that any contact had taken place, then had to admit to two dozen contacts is a huge aspect of this investigation. Any mention of the intiial denial was recently edited out, and "two dozen contacts" became simply "contacts". Removing those key facts, just a few words, renders this summary a hollow, over-simplified misrepresentation of the facts. Specific details of the individual contacts ought to go into the sub-article?

75.88.83.220 (talk) 02:37, 6 September 2008 (UTC) Paul (216.170.33.149 when at the office. I can't remember my old WP login from my old email address... I'll go signup for a new one.)

OK. I still think Wooten's misconduct should go in, and something specific about the Bailey call (she admits it's pressure but disciplined Bailey?), but let's start somewhere. I approve this change. Homunq (talk) 05:41, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Hello all. I'm the former anon who shuffled the lines around a bit for this last version that seems to have some support as an improvement over the status quo (thanks!). I did neglect a couple things: A good reference to follow "Palin publicly denied that any pressure to fire Wooten had been applied on Monegan" would be useful. There are satisfactory examples from the Washinton Post, the Washinton Times, the Anchoorage Dialy News... I could dig one up if you like. Also, I was remiss in identifying the "Attorney General" that Palin instructed to perform an inquiry. Clarification is in order to ensure a reader doesn't get the impression that Michael Mukasey is involved ;) The firng and investigation are logically one event, a part of Palin's public life. The long-term Palin/McCann/Wooten dispute is certainly relevant as a preamble, or lead-in, but needs it's own paragraph to describe this part of her private life. Frankly, it would need it's own section, if the title of this section is to remain the same. Kopp seems to logically fit best as a one-liner kept seperate? Spiff1959 (talk) 06:49, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

(Undent) Just a few brief comments. This talk page section is messy and unclear, and it starts with the title, which uses the acronym "PSC". I just assumed it referred to something very tangential, given that no "PSC" is mentioned in the article. But no! "PSC" refers to the Public Safety Commissioner Dismissal. Why on Earth not put that into the section heading?

Also, it's unclear what the big gripe is with the section as currently written, or what the pending suggested alternatives are.

And, it's unclear why the section begins with three different versions of a paragraph starting with "Monegan alleged that his dismissal...." Shouldn't there be some introductory explanation or something? Some of us are dummies here, and we need things to be user-friendly.  :-)Ferrylodge (talk) 07:09, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Gripes

The gripe with the section as written has been described repeatedly. It has had the fact that Palin denied any pressure was applied by her office removed, it has had the fact that there were actually LOTS (two dozen) of contacts made regarding Wooten reduced to just "contacts". It portrays a chronology of events that indicates that Palin launched her investigation, and made the admission of contacts withut any prompting, and in advance of the State investigation, when the fact is she launched her internal inquiry and admitted to the contacts only AFTER learning of the investigation launched by the state legislature. Someone parked an <editrequested> tag over the 4th example, which seems to be gaining some consensus, it does not begin with "Monegan alleged...". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Spiff1959 (talk • contribs) 14:56, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Gripe #1 is that we should mention here that Palin initially denied any pressure was applied by her office. This is a tricky point, because Palin continues to say that the only intentional pressure was in one unauthorized call by Bailey. She acknowledges that the serial nature of the other calls may have been perceived as pressure, but she says they were not intended as such. And, she continues to say that Monegan was not fired because of Wooten, which implies that she never put pressure on Monegan. I think that the present version of the article treats this gripe as well as it can be treated in a brief summary.Ferrylodge (talk) 19:12, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

You're the first to chime in and say this proposed edit is not at least an improvement over the existing text. I am happy to respond to your defense of the recently inserted pro-Palin version of this section. Your description of "Gripe #1" jumps right over the gripe and camoflages the whole point that Palin initially denied that ANY pressure had been applied regarding Wooten, then late admitted there was. Somehow the gripe becomes a "tricky point" because when she recanted her denial, she then tries to qualify the amount of previously-denied pressure? Your counter did nothing to debunk the fact that she made the denial, had to back-track, and that this summary (now) fails to mention it. This is a key fact of this story, it's previous removal is not NPOV.Spiff1959 (talk) 21:46, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

The proposed new improved section says, "Palin publicly denied that any pressure to fire Wooten had been applied on Monegan." The proposed new improved section does not say anything about her admitting that she was wrong about that, or admitting that any pressure was ever applied against Wooten. Therefore, I do not understand why it's worth mentioning that she denied there was pressure on Monegan, given that the proposed section also says that Monegan was not fired because of Wooten. This seems redundant. You are trying to imply that she admits all of the contacts with Monegan were for the purpose of pressure, but she denies that.Ferrylodge (talk) 22:22, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I see. You wish to base this section entirely upon Palin's own statements. The revision could include a breakout of the contacts, and detail the one contact that happened to get recorded for which she put Bailey on paid leave. You've read this? http://www.adn.com/monegan/story/492964.html Have you listened to the released recording of the call that reads "Todd and Sarah are scratching their heads, Why on earth hasn't this, why is this guy still representing the department?". There was a denial of pressure, and after the legislature launched an investigation, she admitted there had been pressure. This is pertinent and easily worked into the framework of a concise, informative, and factual summary. This article should be based upon facts, not claims made by the Governor.Spiff1959 (talk) 23:24, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, you haven't worked Bailey into your draft section that's now under consideration. Your proposed section does not mention Bailey, or even refer vaguely to Bailey. I feel that people can click on the link to the sub-article, and learn all about Bailey. No need to infuse such details here.Ferrylodge (talk) 00:11, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

You are correct, the Bailey call is the most important (as far as we know) of the two-dozen contacts, and the one that directly refutes Palin's earleir denial that any pressure had taken place, and the one that resulted in her suspending one of her Directors. I've added to that sentence to include Bailey and think we're still well within the WP:SS guidelines.Spiff1959 (talk) 02:58, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Gripe #2 is that Palin actually launched an internal investigation after the legislature announced its own investigation, rather than before. But I don't see that the article presently says anything about the internal investigation. So, I think this gripe is not a good one.Ferrylodge (talk) 19:12, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Gripe #2, You don't see that Palin asked her Attorney General to conduct his own investigation (which she states is where she learned of the previouly denied contacts) because it was removed in the recent butchering of the section, a fact which I would have thought you'd be aware. If's it is the consensus that Palin's internal inquiry is not noteworthy, then fine, omit it. Again, you brush right over the clearly explained gist of the gripe. Gripe #2 is: The article implies Palin came clean about the improper contact(s) prior to the State launching an investigation. Listing the events in an order other than they actually occured, imparts more pro-Palin spin. You don't find it noteworthy to mention she denied there was presuure before admitting there was. You don't consider it important to portray an incorrect timeline of events, one that implies she "came clean" without any impetus.Spiff1959 (talk) 21:46, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Again, I think you're putting words in her mouth. She said, "Many of these inquiries were completely appropriate. However, the serial nature of the contacts could be perceived as some kind of pressure, presumably at my direction." She did not admit that there was intentional pressure, only an incorrect perception of pressure (except regarding Bailey). And, the current version does not suggest that she made statements without an impetus: the article makes very clear that her statements were not initiated by herself but rather were in response to allegations by Monegan.Ferrylodge (talk) 22:31, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

You're repeating quotes from Gripe #1, in which there is no doubt that "pressure" had been applied to fire Wooten. We report the facts, the user draws the conclusion, huh? You support: Wooten complained/Palin disclosed/Legislature investigates. That is factually incorrect, the order of events was Wooten complains/Legislature investigates/Palin discloses. Whether you feel the incorrect timeline creates no false perception, or I feel that it does, is moot. The timeline is in error, and needs to be corrected.Spiff1959 (talk) 23:24, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

You wrote: “Wooten complained/Palin disclosed/Legislature investigates. That is factually incorrect, the order of events was Wooten complains/Legislature investigates/Palin discloses." I assume you meant Monegan, not Wooten. The present article says, “Palin stated that most of those calls were made without her knowledge….” I would have no problem with inserting a date there, so that it reads, “Palin stated on August 13, 2008 that most of those calls were made without her knowledge….” It would be difficult to be any more clear about the chronology than that.Ferrylodge (talk) 00:23, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, It can be made more clear; by inserting the sentence regarding the Aug 1 investigation prior to the sentence describing the Aug 13 disclosure. The proposed edit reflects the correct sentence placement.Spiff1959 (talk) 02:58, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Gripe #3 is that the number of contacts from Palin's people to Monegan's is not provided. I don't think a summary article like this one has to get into precise numbers like that. But, I would have no objection if we modify the article like so: "Though acknowledging that her staff had frequently contacted Monegan or his staff regarding a death threat made by Wooten...." Otherwise, it appears that the Governor's office had no legitimate reason to contact Monegan about Wooten.Ferrylodge (talk) 19:15, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Why do you wish to infuse details about a years-long family feud regarding Governor Palin's personal life into a section summary titled "Public Safety Commissioner Dismissal"? This section involves Governor Palin, Monegan, potential abuse-of-power, and the Alaska State Legislatures on-going investigation. If you wish to go into details starting years ago of the family problems of McCann and her ex-husband Wooten and how that involves Palin, you'll be needing a new section with a number of paragraphs to list all the messy proven-and-unproven accusations, the he-said/she-said's, or to delve into Wooten's morality or lack thereof. A good title might be "If Palin is guilty of abuse-of-power, then it was justified because Wooten is a jerk". If that flies, I'll go add a section to the Clinton article titled "Bill was jusified because Monica had big knockers and wore tight sweaters".Spiff1959 (talk) 23:24, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I hardly think that a mere five words constitutes "infusing details." And the reason why it is relevant here is because Palin's people say that's what they were contacting Monegan's people about.Ferrylodge (talk) 00:05, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Please refer to my reply to this point where it is repeated below Spiff1959 (talk) 02:08, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm not surprised then that you use "this is a summary" to dismiss adding two words that I and many others consider an important fact of the story: The extent of contacts made by Palin's office regarding her ex-brother-in-law Wooten. I get the impression you'd prefer that a section describing an on-going investigation of a vice-presedential candidate being conducted by her own state legislature did not appear in this article at all. Spiff1959 (talk) 21:46, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

So you're fine with including the death threat if we also include the precise number of contacts? Incidentally, I absolutely do think that a section on this matter needs to be included in this article, and I think the presently-worded section does a pretty good job.Ferrylodge (talk) 22:36, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

That's ridiculous. The "death threat" has no place in this summary section. Spiff1959 (talk) 23:24, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Even if that's what Palin's people contacted Monegan's people about?Ferrylodge (talk) 00:06, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

The only reason to describe the content of the contacts between Palin's administration and Monegan's organization would be to determine whether pressure to fire Wooten was or was not applied. The recorded call from Bailey was proven to be "pressure" for which he received a suspension with pay. The reported transcript of that call does not mention the "death threat". I can find no source where Palin or her representatives stated that all the remaining contacts were specifically regarding the "death threat". Therefore, we would need to break up the two-dozen contacts into which of which are known to discuss what topics, which are unknown, etc. To be fair, we would have to include statements from all parties as to what these contacts entailed. That may be valid for the sub-article, but not the summary. Again, details of these contacts are relevant under this subject heading only as to whether they consisted of "applying pressure to fire Wooten" or not. Delving into the dirty personal laundry of the McCann/Wooten/Palin affair would belong elsewhere.Spiff1959 (talk) 02:08, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I've made a couple changes to the proposed edit. I clarified which Attorney General we are speaking of, added the Aug 13 date to when the Palin office revealed the two dozen contacts, and added to that same sentence to mention Frank Bailey, whose contact is the most newsworthy of the contacts of which we know the details. Spiff1959 (talk) 02:34, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm done. I've presented my case that this proposed edit covers the salient points of the section title in an accurate, chronologcally-correct fashion with all statements referenced in an attempt to eliminate the existing POV reflected in the current disjointed, out-of-order paragraph that included trivialities and neglected key points. I had one or two approvals, as well as my own, and just your objection. Maybe others will reads this Gripes section, and the proposed edit, and cast a vote of their own. Thanks, FL, I enjoyed the debate.Spiff1959 (talk) 02:58, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Oppose. The proposed language (immediately below the yellow edit-request box) does not hint at why Palin's people might have been appropriately contacting Monegan's people; the Palin people assert that Wooten was a security threat, having threatened the life of Palin's father. The proposed language also does not hint at what "performance-related" issues Palin claims motivated her to fire Monegan, e.g. that Monegan was allegedly not a team player on budgeting issues, and had not been hiring enough troopers. The existing language in the article also does not address these two problems, and I feel that the proposed changes would just perpetuate that situation. The proposed changes also give the impression that the 20 contacts were intended to pressure Monegan to fire Wooten, whereas Governor Palin only admits that that was true of the contact by Bailey. There's also no hint in the proposed language that the Governor has plenary constitutional power to fire her cabinet officers for any reason, so doing that cannot be considered a violation of law. Although the present section of the article is not great, it is much better than the proposed language, I think. As mentioned above, I would have no objection if we modify the article to say: "Though acknowledging that her staff had frequently contacted Monegan or his staff regarding a death threat made by Wooten...." I would also have no objection if we modify the article to say: "Palin stated on August 13, 2008 that most of those calls were made without her knowledge….”Ferrylodge (talk) 03:42, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I'm not done. The admitted contacts were all regarding Wooten, calls to Monegan inquiring about the weather are not in that count. The proposed edit does not imply they were all nefarious, it just states the facts from the cited press release of Gov. Palin. It is unknown whether the contacts regarding Wooten were inquiries to the condition of his gout, or veiled hints to boot the guy, or personal references to his impeccable integrity. The edit lists the major facts form the press release and allow the reader to make their own interpretation. The very next sentance states " [Palin] reiterated that she did not fire Monegan because of Wooten". That relays from the press report her version of what the contacts were not. The "performance-related" text you object to also exists in the earlier edit that you alone support versus the new edit. Spelling out her what her stated performance issues are does not add value to a summary and should be in the spinoff article. You're arguing that abuse-of-power is not a violation of law, therefore an edit that 4 have approved (2 here, one in "Add information on Monegan firing" and myself) should not replace an edit that also does not make that argument? If she's allowed to fire anyone for any reason, someone should pass that along to her lawyers so they can end this whole thing now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Spiff1959 (talk • contribs) 04:16, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I never mentioned calls about the weather. Good night.Ferrylodge (talk) 06:00, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I'd also like to add that any decent summary of this situation would mention that the Democratic state senator overseeing the secret investigation expects to "damage" Palin, and warns of an "October surprise". See Isikoff, Michael and Hosenball, Mark. “Team McCain and the Trooper”, Newsweek (2008-09-05).Ferrylodge (talk) 04:36, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to add that to remain "decent" we would have to state that that quote is from the Republican charged with removing French from overseeing the investigation, and he suggested that the entire Palin investigation ought to be shut down entirely. We'd have to include that French stated that he is not conducting the investigation directly and will have no part in preparing the report to be submitted by the special investigator hired by the legislature. But then, if we included all that partison back-and-forth banter from both sides, to keep things "decent", we wouldn't have a summary anymore. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Spiff1959 (talk • contribs) 05:23, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

(undent)Oh give me a break. It was the Democratic state senator, Hollis French, speaking:[16]

"It's likely to be damaging to the Governor's administration," said Senator Hollis French, a Democrat…”She has a credibility problem," he said…. "Now they may have to deal with an October surprise," he said, referring to the scheduled release Oct. 31 of the committee's final report.

Ferrylodge (talk) 05:39, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry; what specific change to the wording is being contemplated here? MastCell ^Talk 06:27, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

The propsed edit appears slightly above the "Gripes" sub-heading above, immediately below the <editprotected > tag. (Warning: this is a long read!)Spiff1959 (talk) 06:31, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Unresolved

Suggested edit to PSC section (2)

{{editprotected}}

I propose that the PSC section be reordered to address the faulty chronology. On August 1, the Alaska Legislature hired an independent investigator to review the situation. Palin's acknowledgement that her staff had contacted Monegan dates to August 13. . The reordered text would read:

... He further alleged that contacts made by Palin herself, her staff, and her family had constituted inappropriate pressure to fire Wooten. On August 1, the Alaska Legislature hired an independent investigator to review the situation. On August 13, Palin acknowledged that her staff had contacted Monegan or his staff regarding Wooten. Palin stated that most of those calls were made without her knowledge, and reiterated that she did not fire Monegan because of Wooten. ...

T0mpr1c3 (talk) 20:27, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Agree, this is just reordering, not expansion. Homunq (talk) 22:43, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Included in version 3 above, template here gutted. Homunq (talk) 16:21, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Is topic #15: "Add information on Monegan firing" now officially dead, and this where the Monegan dismissal issue is to be discussed? The other thread appeared to be on-going. If not, I think anyone reviewing it would find it pertinent. 216.170.33.149 (talk) 16:51, 5 September 2008 (UTC) Paul

Oppose. There is no faulty chrnology in the article. The article presently does not mention the internal investigation, or when it occurred.Ferrylodge (talk) 20:33, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

The chronology is still faulty. Someone removed the reference to Palin's internal investigation, but left the statement that she admiited to improper contact(s) in the section prior to the news of the State Legislature launching an investigation. This is a non-factual order of events, and affects the readers perception of any motiovations for making the admissions. Spiff1959 (talk) 21:57, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Ebay error

Resolved

The current article states about the governor's jet:

In August 2007, the jet was listed on eBay and later sold for $2.1 million.

While technically correct, this is misleading, because it was never actually purchased on eBay; instead, it was sold through an aircraft broker. See No bidders on eBay; sold it offline Joshdboz (talk) 17:36, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree, although I am not much of a wordsmith so can't offer a compelling alternative. Maybe, "In August 2007, the jet was listed on eBay although a buyer was not found and later sold for $2.1 million through a private brokerage firm. "zredsox (talk) 17:46, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I created this particular wording because I felt it accurately and succinctly captured the transaction. It was listed on Ebay, and then it later traded. Further details, such as the specifics of the transaction including whether EBay received a commission or a broker, seemed superfluous. I'm happy to change the wording, but not at the expense of wordiness. Ronnotel (talk) 18:08, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

If we do not want to succinctly define the transaction to remove ambiguity, we should just remove the eBay part altogether.zredsox (talk) 18:14, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Just a slight tweak: "In August 2007 the jet was listed on eBay, though with no buyer found it was later sold for $2.1 million through a private brokerage firm." If there's not much controversy I'd appreciate if an admin would clarify this in article. Thanks, Joshdboz (talk) 18:07, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Done--Appraiser (talk) 18:34, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Ronnotel, I agree with the need to stay crisp, but since the line has found its way into official campaign talk, we might as well state it completely to avoid POV one way or the other. Joshdboz (talk) 19:16, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

John McCain parroted this misleading lie. "You know what I enjoyed the most?" McCain said in Cederburg, Wisconsin, according to ABC News' Bret Hovell. "She took the luxury jet that was acquired by her predecessor and sold it on e-Bay. And made a profit!" http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/09/the-ebay-myth.html Macshill (talk) 22:32, 5 September 2008 (UTC) macshill

Don't you think "lie" is a bit harsh, in light of the fact that it could easily be a misunderstanding of the exact chain of events? --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:55, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Naw, it's a lie. Campaigns have teams of fact-checkers and speechwriters to make sure that their candidate doesn't mis-speak. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 22:29, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Especially since it wasn't sold for a profit, but rather a $600k loss (or more? was there a broker's fee?). RobHar (talk) 22:35, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

The difference between a lie and a mistake is in the mind of the speaker -- something we can't determine and must not speculate about. If what was said was incorrect -- and it seems it was -- we can determine that, as can some reliable source woe can cite to. Coemgenus 22:36, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

How about "involuntary lie"? (just kidding) RobHar (talk) 23:14, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Political positions section (2)

I've rewritten this, turning the list into prose per some guideline or other. I know it's not perfect, but it can be improved and is broadly accurate and fair. One thing though: I very much think that that section should not be very long: not when we already have a whole article dedicated to her political positions (Political positions of Sarah Palin). The stuff about the polar bears belongs there not here. BTW, are we sure the stuff about abortion is actually 'political as opposed to just a personal preference. What I mean is, the NRA membership is obviously related to her politics, because as veep she would obviously try to block attempts to limit the right to bear arms, but has she actually said she would like to see Roe vs Wade overturned? If not, the abortion stuff is more tangential than anything else. Moreschi (talk) 19:54, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I am not sure you should bypass edit protection by creating a new article. Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 20:09, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

A new article? Moreschi (talk) 20:10, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Yea... I need more coffee..... Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 20:13, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

The point about the ESA listing of the polar bears is that, unlike the typical politician "position" where the politician is just spouting off, this issue is one where Palin acted on her position by suing the federal government. The suit by Alaska (under her leadership) might be included in a summary of her gubernatorial administration, but it fits well in this section, too. It should be in the article somewhere. JamesMLane t c 20:14, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

It's addressed in Political positions of Sarah Palin. Kelly ^hi! 20:30, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

You can't just have "positive" things and not balance it out with stands that she has taken which are considered less popular. That is taking a POV. That is the real problem here.zredsox (talk)

I think you're confusing "positive" with "neutral". Kelly ^hi! 22:28, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

No, actually I am not - but thanks. zredsox (talk) 00:21, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Great work, Moreschi...and it's of about the same length as the equivalent section in Joe Biden. Kelly ^hi! 20:18, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Please note that it is somewhat frustrating to see admins editing this article while there are unresolved editprotect requests on this page. Not that your edits are bad, just that that's not what adminship is supposed to be about, I think. Homunq (talk) 20:23, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, very true, but then good admins who actually do what they're supposed to always are the boring ones :) Moreschi (talk) 20:26, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

This edit chopped the Political positions section to a stub. Forget consensus, forget Wikipedia process, and now we have admins gone wild. QuackGuru 20:40, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually, it's WP:SUMMARY style. For what it's worth, the really wild admins are the ones who repeatedly unprotected this article. Cool Hand Luke 20:56, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Stub, bollocks. There's no reason for it to be longer when we have a child article for this issue: as Cool Hand Luke says, summary style. Moreschi (talk) 21:18, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

• What on earth was wrong with proceeding in an incremental and consensual way as Gstricky was trying to do above? Why has this section been completely rewritten by an admin? Someone tell me what is the process for getting this reverted. I feel like someone has just wasted a lot of other people's time. T0mpr1c3 (talk) 20:49, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

We won't revert, unless there's consensus that we should. The process to gather consensus can continue. On a side note, I think that Right to bear arms should disambiguate to Right to keep and bear arms, no objection ? Cenarium ^Talk 20:56, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I strongly support the rewrite. ANY summary is better than the list we had. If you have problems with the summary, then please state them, but please let us not even consider going back to that horrible list. Please! --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:53, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

What is the f------ point of stating any opinion at all if an admin is going to take things into his own hands? Why should I bother trying to contribute to this page? T0mpr1c3 (talk) 21:12, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

• Shrugs. Guys, look at it from my view. The article is fully-protected, right? Which means you can't edit it. IMO, that's a shame, but if I unprotect, I get demopped and heavily thwacked with a big trout by arbcom. Supposedly, this has been done to deal with BLP issues. But the protected version itself contained major problems: arguably the previous version of this section was a BLP vio, as it read like a laundry list of "all these crazy things Palin thinks", without bothering to establish context. Ergo, if I'm not allowed to fix problems like this - and I can well understand why you'd be pissed off - well, then, what was the point of protecting in the first place? Moreschi (talk) 21:18, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

• • You didn't fix it, you rewrote it, junking half the material and inserting a bunch of new stuff, all without any attempt at achieving consensus beforehand. I'm taking this to the arbitration page. T0mpr1c3 (talk) 21:23, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
    • Please, go ahead. I don't expect the arbs will sympathise, though. And I didn't junk anything: anything that I didn't retain is already in Political positions of Sarah Palin, as has been pointed out at least 3 times already. And what new stuff? Obviously she's a social conservative and an economic libertarian - you're not disputing that, are you? This is just basic background context that should have been there in the first place. Moreschi (talk) 21:28, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
      • Thank you, I did. The point is not the content of the edit but the arbitrary way you decided to make it. T0mpr1c3 (talk) 21:37, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
        • Well, what am I supposed to do? Sit and wait for a week's discussion while that BLP-dubious list just sits there being viewed by hundreds of thousands? Moreschi (talk) 21:43, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
          • Millions is more like it, have you seen the page stats? Thanks for saving our reputation. Kelly ^hi! 22:47, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
            • I'd like to state a Strong support for Moreschi's version, and getting rid of the dubious list that was put into the article during the controversial unprotection that is currently the subject of Arbcom proceedings. The list was a byproduct of the unprotection wheel war. Hobartimus (talk) 00:07, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
            • This is an improvement. I would not have trimmed quite so much, but without doubt it still is better now. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 04:41, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to state opposition to the textual change made by Moreschi, and strong opposition to the unilateral way he did it.

BLP. When I started on Wikipedia, there was a dismaying tendency for some editors to use "NPOV violation" to mean "any edit I don't like". That persists, of course, but it's now been joined by "BLP violation". The phrase is invoked as a catchall in any article about a living person. BLP requires that negative or contentious material be properly sourced. I looked over the text replaced by Moreschi and I don't see anything that could reasonably be thought to violate that rule. Furthermore, even Moreschi's defense claims only "arguably" -- well, if something's "arguably" a BLP violation, then the issue should've been discussed here. BLP doesn't mean that anyone who objects to a passage in a bio article gets to remove it, no questions asked.

Other rationales. Editors can reasonably differ over what WP:SS requires here. I personally believe that the previous text was far more consistent with WP:SS (and with WP:NPOV) than is Moreschi's replacement. It should be obvious that these are the sorts of issues we're supposed to be discussing here, and that they should not be the basis for a unilateral edit. JamesMLane t c 04:47, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Note: Moreschi's edit is under discussion at Wikipedia:Arbitration_enforcement#Massive_change_to_Sarah_Palin_made_without_consensus. Please take further commentary to that page. T0mpr1c3 (talk) 08:31, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Massive change to Sarah Palin made without consensus

This massive change chopped the Political positions section to a stub without consensus. Careful now. QuackGuru 21:17, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh, don't be silly. 1) in-article lists are not permitted, 2) said list was arguably a BLP vio, 3) please see my post above, and 4) please read Wikipedia:Summary style. There's a massive difference between this and {{stub-section}}, which my rewrite clearly isn't. Moreschi (talk) 21:21, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

• This change was not arrived at with any sort of consensus, has a heavy POV and needs to completely scrapped. zredsox (talk) 21:29, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
• This isn't a massive change. I think it is excellent. 1) It is in summary style, it is accurate, and it isn't pushing a point of view. It does, however need better cites.--Paul (talk) 21:31, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Hmm. Mostly I just copy/pasted the cites from the previous version and didn't actually look at them. I suppose this should be checked. BTW, can we not use uber-complex citation templates all the time? It just clogs up the edit box and makes it impossible to tell whether material is text or reference, the cites go on for lines on end. Just a personal gripe...Moreschi (talk) 21:34, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
    • I am just shocked that this article is locked and yet we have sweeping changes being made without proper discussion or even a hint of consensus as to the nature of those changes. Absolutely Unbelievable. zredsox (talk) 21:39, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
      • Guys, take it to Wikipedia:Arbitration_enforcement#Massive_change_to_Sarah_Palin_made_without_consensus. T0mpr1c3 (talk) 21:42, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
      • Good suggestion. Moreschi (talk) 21:43, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

{{editprotect}}

• There was never any hint of consensus for this massive change. Therefore, I request the controversial edit be reverted. QuackGuru 22:21, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
  • No, there's consensus, see above. Also see WP:SS. Besides, the issue is being discussed elsewhere, don't complicate by forking the conversation all over the place, please. Kelly ^hi! 22:25, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
    • Also, please stop enabling the "editprotect" template, it's disruptive. It's not going to be filled when the issue is under discussion. Kelly ^hi! 22:37, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
      • Because you are an involved editor you should not touch the editprotected. You could be blocked if you continue to modify my edit. QuackGuru 22:50, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

• • • • • Kelly, I see several editors on this page expressing disapproval of Moreschi's unilateral change, and others doing so on the AN page. Would you explain to me by what process of reasoning you conclude that your personal preference is backed by consensus? JamesMLane t c 05:36, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Barack Obama#Political positions

A featured article has a very well written political positions section.Barack Obama#Political positions This article would easily fail to be a WP:GA because of the very short political positions section. Thanks. QuackGuru 22:50, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks QuackGuru. I think this is the best example thus far of why we need an expanded section with positions beyond the Base's Red Meat. zredsox (talk) 23:59, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

N Edit declined. There is currently no consensus either here or at WP:AE to revert Moreschi's change. Please use {{editprotect}} only after a consensus for a change in the article has been achieved (see CAT:PER. The edit request is otherwise not actionable.  Sandstein  05:39, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Comparison with Joe Biden

For comparison, see Joe Biden#Political positions. We've now got sections that are relatively similar in style, which is a good thing. Kelly ^hi! 22:35, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Read this . Basically it says in order to achieve good article status (on the Biden article) the Political Positions section needs to either be expanded or deleted. So, I don't think it makes for a very good example.

"Either expand "Political positions" or get rid of it. It has a separate article, and that's fine, but the one in this article is way too short for its own section."

Ask QuackGuru said above, the Obama summary is what we should be working toward as we know it is considered high quality copy. zredsox (talk) 00:39, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Simple rule suggested

Same process for regular users and admins. You suggest an edit here by proposing the modified text with {{editprotect}}, when some time passes and you've gotten some positive feedback you (for admins) or an admin (for users) implements it. Further modifications are fine. Same annoyance level for both, everything is fair. As close as possible to a normal flow of edits, given the protection. OK? Homunq (talk) 21:54, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Great idea!

Homunq (talk) 21:54, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

zredsox (talk) 22:25, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Fcreid (talk) 22:46, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

JamesMLane t c 05:37, 6 September 2008 (UTC): I was under the impression that this was the plan from the start, except with regard to manifestly uncontroversial stuff like misspellings.

Horrible idea!

No, the idea is that an admin can come along and act on a request that they can see has already gained consensus, not hover 'til they see how it pans out. 86.44.27.255 (talk) 23:49, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

"there is a plan and that that plan is God's plan"

God probably didn't plan so many "thats" in this sentence of the article.Ferrylodge (talk) 20:52, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Who are you to question His grammar? MastCell ^Talk 20:54, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Maybe He stutters. Nobody's perfect. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 20:56, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I think you're a sock of Porky Pig, Bugs. And Mastcell's comment leaves me humbly speechless. :-) Ferrylodge (talk) 20:58, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

 Done: I took this as an {{editprotected}} request and fixed it. MastCell ^Talk 20:59, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Um, the source says "that that", who are we to correct the sources? Woody (talk) 21:01, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

25,300 google his for that that and 4930 for that. I think it should be reverted. Cenarium ^Talk 21:03, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

If you say the whole line out loud, the double that makes sense. Pray that there is a plan and that that plan is God's plan--Cube lurker (talk) 21:07, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually, the full sentence is, "That's what we have to make sure that we're praying for, that there is a plan and that that plan is God's plan," and the double-that is correct. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 21:06, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

D'oh... OK, with the full sentence it's clearly gramatically reasonable. I'll revert it back. Sorry. MastCell ^Talk 21:06, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

41,900 hits for one "that".Ferrylodge (talk) 21:08, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Come on folks, we're making it sound like she can't speak English.Ferrylodge (talk) 21:11, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm not a grammar expert, but i'll be honest, I use that sentance structure in conversation often. i.e. Can you make sure that that file gets put back when you're done. use only one that and it doesn't sound right. Can you make sure that file gets put back when you're done.--Cube lurker (talk) 21:18, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Yeah revert, it makes sense. Plus, even if it was grammatically incorrect, it's a quote, so [sic] should be added next to it. Deamon138 (talk) 21:10, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I read 4,920 for one that. The entire citation makes sense and should be respected. Should we give the entire citation ? Cenarium ^Talk 21:13, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

It's more than grammar, it's spin. If you read the whole sentence with a single that, it doesn't quite make sense. Deconstruct the double-that, and it does make sense: Pray (1) that there is a plan, and (2) that that plan is God's plan. That makes sense. I suspect those who put a single "that" in there are spinning that into a statement, rather than a question. I wonder if it's on tape anywhere? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 21:13, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I give up. MastCell ^Talk 21:15, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Ferrylodge, yes there are less hits for two "that"s, but notice how in this link, the words are surrounded by quotation marks, but in yours they aren't. In a quote you provide the same structure. i.e. two "thats", which with the full quote is also correct anyway according to the above. Deamon138 (talk) 21:15, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

←User:MastCell's edit summary was probably the funniest today: (→Personal life: minor grammar correction: I do not believe this can possibly be controversial, though I am ready to be proven wrong). Probably should never say that with this article!OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 21:17, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Part of the spin is to omit the preceding "pray that". Include that, and it's clear she's expressing a hope rather than making a statement that the war is God's plan or something. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 21:18, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

(undent)Since I started this, I'll lay it out very clearly. The cited source says: "Switching to the war in Iraq, Palin told the group of students that they should not only pray for men and women in the military but to make sure the leaders of this country are sending U.S. soldiers 'out on a task that is from God. That's what we have to make sure that we're praying for, that there is a plan and that that plan is God's plan.'" In contrast, the present article says: "On the topic of Iraq, she asked that people pray for the soldiers and that 'there is a plan and that that plan is God's plan.'"

Thus, the present article accurately quotes the source, but quotes it out of context in a grammatically and syntactically incorrect manner. Please change the current article to: "On the topic of Iraq, she asked people to pray for the soldiers and to pray that 'there is a plan and that that plan is God's plan.'" She wasn't asking that that plan is God's plan, she was asking that people pray that that plan is God's plan. Alternatively, remove the quotes and write a more understandable sentence.Ferrylodge (talk) 21:25, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

There is a discussion above which reached consensus on remvoal of this, I'll re-enable that edit request. Kelly ^hi! 21:30, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

The non-spin version, stated by Ferrylodge, also becomes non-controversial, because it's something anyone could say. But it might be useful to keep the entire quote, to pre-empt someone from trying to post the spin-version. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 21:32, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

The referenced discussion above had 14 advocating removal, 3 advocating retention. Kelly ^hi! 21:33, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I see, #Undue Weight on "God" quotes. Cenarium ^Talk 21:34, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I'll add my name above for removal, on grounds of distortion (perhaps unintentional).Ferrylodge (talk) 21:36, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

The quote itself is fairly trivial, but by deleting it you then have to keep watching for someone trying to add back the spin-version. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 21:40, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Then put the non-spin version in a footnote for easy reference.Ferrylodge (talk) 21:45, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

<- Maybe Wikiquote is the right place for this info? Kelly ^hi! 21:50, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

There you go. Provided it's quoted correctly. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 22:11, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

WTF? "That that" is a Germanic construction, and as English is a Germanic language ... well. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;^dissera! 23:33, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, Jim, I think that that is a legitimate point you're making. No one is saying that "that that" is never appropriate. The issue here was that "that that" makes for a confusing and misleading sentence in a particular context. While "that that" may sometimes work fine, that "that that" that was in this article did not work fine, got that? Now that that "that that" that was in this article is gone from this article, it is readily apparent that my initial comment in this section was entirely correct, and that's that.  :-) Ferrylodge (talk) 00:25, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

LOL. We have come to dedicate a portion of this article as a final resting place for proper grammar and NPOV, that that nation might live. It is altogether fitting and proper that we should do this. Kaisershatner (talk) 14:29, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

A solution for the Political Positions section fiasco

Those editors who say that people who what to read more can just click through to the Political positions of Sarah Palin article; if you really believe that then you should have no problem with the following proposal:

I propose that the entire section consist of {{main|Political positions of Sarah Palin}}.

That way, everybody's happy; those that consider the current summary as a whitewash, those who didn't like the list that was there before, everybody. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 23:08, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

It's pointless to propose anything as long as the Republicans have their little dwarves around here to vote in mass against.

Anyway, I think it would have been better to make the section be a summary of the detailed article, like the policy says: Wikipedia:Summary style#Keeping summary articles and detailed articles synchronised bogdan (talk) 00:04, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Oppose

1. That's not how it works; main article should have the subject covered in summary style. If there's a problem with POV we should focus on fixing that. Lampman (talk) 23:44, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

   How can we, when an admin will come along and change it to suit his whim? Phlegm Rooster (talk) 23:46, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

2. Oppose. People don't want to be overwhelmed on the bio page. Fcreid (talk) 23:50, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
3. Oppose. WP:SS isn't just policy, it's common sense. Some readers won't care about her political positions and will skip over this section whatever is in it. Some readers will want to know as much as possible and will click through to the daughter article regardless of what's in the summary. Some readers in the middle, though, will want the highlights but not every last detail. That's why there should be a summary here. JamesMLane t c 01:40, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Will Not Matter

• The root problem with this is Palin's positions themselves - they don't lend themselves to summaries well. Against abortion except for saving life of mother (is personal or political?) BUT no real evidence this is a political position she is pushing. She would support capital punishment but isn't pushing it politically. She's against "gay marriage" but then follows "political reasoning" on same-sex health benefits [she pushed it back to the voters rather than push her own opinion]. So, how do you take positions like that and summarize them without edit & pov wars? Theosis4u (talk) 04:11, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
• Theosis4u, this is a good analysis. The 'problem' is caused by the fact that Palin is not a traditional evangelical, she has libertarian leanings. Although she has a lot of opinions that mirror traditional evangelical beliefs, she has no desire to use the power of government to enforce them. This is why saying she is for "teaching creationism in schools" is inaccurate. She might prefer that, but would never do anything in political office to bring it about, because she doesn't think that is the role of government.--Paul (talk) 04:27, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

• TY. And some could now argue that your complimenting her and others will say your making her sound like she's a typical politician just trying to be popular. In the end, it will get resolved when people find another target to inflict their extremism upon. Theosis4u (talk) 04:37, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

And where am I "complimenting her"??--Paul (talk) 04:47, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

To be added to 2008 vice-presidential campaign - No interviews for Palin

Can this be added to the 2008 vice-presidential campaign section - Thanks

On Sept 4 the McCain camp announced that Gov Palin will not give interviews to the media.

That source is a blog. Kelly ^hi! 23:59, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Looks like the blog linked to the Time website. Hmmm - we don't normally write about what people don't do in their biographies, but perhaps the article on the McCain campaign would be appropriate for this info. Wow, that reporter who wrote the Time piece sounds really bitter. Kelly ^hi! 00:01, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

He's TIME's Washington bureau chief. :) 86.44.27.255 (talk) 00:17, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

It's quite remarkable, and surely worthy of inclusion, when a VP candidate will not give interviews. It's been reported in a number of places, this page has lots of quotes and video of McCain people talking about it. I think this needs to go in the Sarah Palin article, not just the McCain campaign article.217.43.168.198 (talk) 10:31, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

For the benefit of those who wont even look at a Huffington Post link, here's what's on the website of The Atlantic: "A senior McCain campaign official advises that, despite the gaggle of requests and pressure from the media, Gov. Sarah Palin won't submit to a formal interview anytime soon. She may take some questions from local news entities in Alaska, but until she's ready -- and until she's comfortable -- which might not be for a long while -- the media will have to wait." I agree with the anon that this is quite remarkable and therefore worthy of inclusion here. JamesMLane t c 14:15, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the strategy of keeping Palin away from the media is noteworthy. It's not controversial to note it. It's a fact and McCain spokesperson Nicolle Wallace essentially derided Jay Carney of TIME for suggesting that Palin should answer questions from the media and conceded that she's not talking to the media at this point when the two appeared on MSNBC's Morning Joe as noted by ABC's Jake Tapper I don't think Carney sounds bitter. He sounds perfectly reasonable. We shouldn't excludes a notable event covered by multiple media outlets and noted by the campaign itself because an editor has the subjective impression that one of the reporters involved is "bitter." --JamesAM (talk) 20:52, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

factual error

Houndly (talk) 00:08, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Correction to a factual matter: Mayor Sarah Palin did NOT raise the City of Wasilla sales tax from 2.0% to 2.5 percent to finance a sports complex, unless you consider possibly signing it into effect after it passed a voter referendum. She advocated for the complex from what I understand, but it was put into law by a public vote after being put on the ballet by a vote of the city council. That's a far different matter from "raising taxes."

And the sales tax was reduced to its earlier 2.0% after the target funds were raised as specified in the referendum.

From Anchorage Daily News circa 12/6/2001 "The city council will have a public hearing Monday before deciding whether to ask residents to raise the sales tax from the existing 2 percent to 2.5 percent to pay the estimated $14.7 million cost of the center. If passed, the question would appear on the ballot in May. Voters would have to approve the sales tax increase before the center could be built."

For confirmation you might look to The Anchorage Daily News (ADN) and not to the New York Times.

http://www.adn.com/sarah-palin/background/story/517370.html

If I am reading correctly we should change "She increased the city sales tax to pay for the new Wasilla Multi-Use Sports Complex,[23] which eventually went over budget due to an eminent domain lawsuit." to "She advocated increased the city sales tax to pay for the new Wasilla Multi-Use Sports Complex. A temporary sales tax increase from 2 to 2.5% was put on the ballot and passed. The sports complex was built, but went over budget due to an eminent domain lawsuit." I would, however, like to see some confirmation that this is actually what happened. --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:17, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, the statement embedded in the article says: "She increased the city sales tax to pay for the new Wasilla Multi-Use Sports Complex,[21] which eventually went over budget due to an eminent domain lawsuit.[23]" which to me implies that Mayor Palin raised the tax herself. The choice to raise the sales tax (temporarily) was one of the voters. As I was sniffing around I noticed that Wikipedia had already included information on the matter at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wasilla_Multi-Use_Sports_Complex

[quote] The Wasilla Multi-Use Sports Complex is a 2,500-seat multi-purpose arena in Wasilla, Alaska. It is home to the Alaska Avalanche ice hockey team. It was originally funded by a 0.5 percentage point sales tax increase voted by residents, implemented by then-Mayor Sarah Palin.[1] The cost went over budget due to an eminent domain lawsuit brought by the prior property owner, Gary Lundgren.[2] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Houndly (talk • contribs) 00:26, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Political positions section redux

I see Bogdangiusca (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) is editing through protection on this section - there's an inaccuracy in the summary. It says "She is a proponent of teaching both creationism and evolution in science classes, but she did not push creation science as governor of Alaska." - in actuality, she is not in favor of teaching creationism at all, but simply allowing discussion. This is discussed in Political positions of Sarah Palin. Kelly ^hi! 00:42, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

See #Direct Plagerism. Though I'll leave a note. Cenarium ^Talk 00:51, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually these are different edits to the "Political positions" section. They're in prose style but there's an inaccuracy. Kelly ^hi! 00:54, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

ANCHORAGE, Alaska (AP) — As a candidate for governor, Sarah Palin called for teaching creationism alongside evolution in public schools. [17] PS. Archive the page- Francis Tyers · 00:58, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

The discussion on archiving is at #__..--_META_DISCUSSION:_ARCHIVING_--..__. It's a 24 hrs setting and already 403 kb. Cenarium ^Talk 01:07, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Proposed change

Change the word "teaching" to "allowing discussion". Kelly ^hi! 00:52, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

"As a candidate for governor, Sarah Palin called for teaching creationism alongside evolution in public schools." zredsox (talk) 00:58, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually, this is the source cited for the statement in the summary[18], which states Palin said discussion of alternative views on the origins of life should be allowed in Alaska classrooms. "I don't think there should be a prohibition against debate if it comes up in class. It doesn't have to be part of the curriculum. Kelly ^hi! 01:01, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

We are both citing the same source so this should be easy. Check out the very first sentence. zredsox (talk) 01:03, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I read the whole article, including the headline, which says Palin has not pushed creation science as governor. :) Kelly ^hi! 01:05, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Great, then I am sure you caught the first sentence. zredsox (talk) 01:16, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I think the referenced AP article is excellent, both informational, and balanced and it should be used as the footnote. Now all we need to do it agree on what to say in OUR article.--Paul (talk) 03:14, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Zredsox, that quote says nothing about science classrooms. It could refer to a class on wolrd religions, or a social studies class. The present article is asserting something that simply is not in the cited source. And this bogus info was inserted into the article just now, while the article was in full protection, without any consensus here at the talk page.Ferrylodge (talk) 01:01, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I've contacted Bogdangiusca. Cenarium ^Talk 01:07, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Zredsox, the article you linked to says "'I don't think there should be a prohibition against debate if it comes up in class. It doesn't have to be part of the curriculum,' she said." (emphasis added) So are you objecting to the proposed edit or agreeing - you source seems to agree.--ThaddeusB (talk) 01:08, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

FL, that's splitting hairs. The teaching of Creationism is prohibited in Public Schools in the US anyways, so my personal opinion is she can babble on about this all day long, and the Supreme Court is going to bash it down. But I digress. It doesn't matter where it's taught, it can't be taught. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 01:09, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

The Supreme Court has not spoken on the issue. Nor has any District Court forbidden any public school from describing the beliefs of various religions, for example in a social studies course or a course on world religions.Ferrylodge (talk) 01:15, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I support this purposed change as being more accurate to what she actually said.--ThaddeusB (talk) 01:08, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I support the proposed change too.Ferrylodge (talk) 01:11, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Except for the tiny little issue is that she actually did call for "teaching" creationism. It doesn't matter, since she's constitutionally prohibited from doing so. And McCain is a firm backer of science. And VP's are kind of irrelevant. I don't support.OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 01:12, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Here we go again, the "majority wagon" is rolling through! I do not support trying to remove impeccably sourced views out of her bio if they somehow fall on the fringe. Absolutely not. zredsox (talk) 01:15, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Your own source disagrees with your assertion, yet you continue to push it. I think you need to take a good look in the mirror about who is being POV. --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:29, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

You are so blinded at this point. Read the first sentence. It is clear as day. Read the Globe article. It is more of the same. Stop being so partisan for just one minute and read.zredsox (talk) 01:39, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Maybe you should open your own eyes and stop being so partisan. Both the headline of the article and the text support a more rich understanding than "creationism should be taught." I read the ONE SENTENCE and I read the REST of the sentences too. To argue that that article says "She is a proponent of teaching both creationism and evolution in science classes" is just nuts. You can't just take the one sentence you like and ignore the rest. --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:50, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Nope. she's argued for teach both. That she may latter have softened on that position may also be mentioned but she has clearly argued for the teach both positon "I am a proponent of teaching both."[19].Geni 01:16, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Meh. The way I read the AP source is that she made a remark and later clarified it. It looks like the Boston Herald included the first part of the AP article and omitted the second. Kelly ^hi! 01:20, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

The word "science" occurs only one place in that cited source, and that's in the title ("Palin has not pushed creation science as governor"). Why did Bogdan override protection to insert it into this Palin article, as if Palin supports teaching creationism in science classes.?Ferrylodge (talk) 01:19, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Oppose She said it herself, in a televised debate (not a remark): "When asked during a televised debate in 2006 about evolution and creationism, Palin said, according to the Anchorage Daily News: "Teach both. You know, don't be afraid of information. Healthy debate is so important, and it's so valuable in our schools. I am a proponent of teaching both." The next day, she said she didn't mean creationism should be part of the curriculum. She wants it "debated" along with evolution, which is taught in biology classes. That's what she said, so why not have the article reflect it? I am forced to conclude Kelly thinks it will lose Palin some votes. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 01:23, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Mr. Rooster, you're the one who is saying "biology class". Palin didn't say "biology class" or "science class". So why did Bogdan put "science class" into this article while it's in full protection, without consensus? Perhaps to make Palin lose votes?[20]Ferrylodge (talk) 01:27, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

The quote in question is from a debate. She clarified what she meant the next day. Why is what she said on the spur of the moment given presidence over what she said the very next day? Do you always 100% accurately state your position every time you are asked?--ThaddeusB (talk) 01:29, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

This is not about identifying the best gotcha quote that's been rehashed and parsed from the Anchorage Daily News, but to find the best source which explains her political views in a complete, neutral way. patsw (talk) 01:32, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

It is also not about identifying populist views to display proudly while stashing the rest in the closet. zredsox (talk) 01:37, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't want to hear any more garbage about the page being hijacked by Republicans. This should be a clear cut edit to change it to what she actually believes, but instead people are focusing on one spur-of-the-moment comment and not what she said the very next day, not the way she campaigned, and not the way she actually governed (all of which support the change). --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:36, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

It was in a debate, not a slip of the tongue. Other sources say she "injected" this and other "wedge" issues into a race that had not been debating them, to get the social conservative vote. She did it on purpose. Also, the goal of Wikipedia is not report the "truth" but to report what reliable sources say. I note that you attack the source. This is not how it is supposed to be done. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 01:42, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Um I didn't attack the source, I read it. Pulling one line out of the source and ignoring the context, is not using a source it is abusing it.--ThaddeusB (talk) 01:45, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

They make headlines for a reason. I oppose changing the statement. Other do ro. Stop arguing and go find an admin who will violate the rules again. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 01:49, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Specifically the get people to read the article. And they make text to explain what the headline actually means. In any case the headline was "Palin has not pushed creation science as governor" which certainly doesn't support "She is a proponent of teaching both creationism and evolution in science classe" so what is your point? --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:01, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

What don't you get here? this is 100% true, correct and verified. "As a candidate for governor, Sarah Palin called for teaching creationism alongside evolution in public schools." [21] zredsox (talk) 01:38, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

And it is 100% correct that she clarified what she meant the next day, but you want only the gotcha quote and not the position she actually ran on. Tell me if you said something at a work function and didn't realize people could misinterpret you, but corrected yourself the next day with more precise language, which version would you prefer people associate with you - the exact words you said or your more precise explanation the next day? --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:44, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

So was Trig being her grandson when you posted that, right? Fcreid (talk) 01:41, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I have no idea what you are talking about, but I think you are in the wrong section as this has nothing to do with Trig. zredsox (talk) 01:44, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

(undent) Bogdan's non-consensus, full-protected edit says: "She is a proponent of teaching both creationism and evolution in science classes, but she did not push creation science as governor of Alaska." Would someone who supports that edit please point out where in the cited source, or where in the summarized Wikipedia article, anything is mentioned about "science classes" or "biology classes", as opposed to "social studies" or "comparative religion" classes? Thanks.Ferrylodge (talk) 01:42, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

If "science class" is your big "issue" I am all for changing it to "She is a proponent of teaching both creationism and evolution in public schools, but did not push creationism as governor of Alaska" per the AP article text. Finally, Consensus! We did it! zredsox (talk) 01:48, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for helping to demonstrate that language Bogdan inserted into the article during full protection has virtually no support here at the talk page. But even that correction you suggest would be insufficent, I think. I would be more inclined to support this: "She is a proponent of teaching about or allowing discussion about both creationism and evolution in public schools, and did not push creationism as governor of Alaska." (After all, the cited source says "Palin said discussion of alternative views on the origins of life should be allowed in Alaska classrooms" and also quotes her as saying that, "It's OK to let kids know that there are theories out there.")Ferrylodge (talk) 02:13, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

• Doesn't matter, evolution is taught in biology. The article doesn't say she wanted taught in social studies, does it? Phlegm Rooster (talk) 01:46, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Mr. Rooster, evolution is not only taught in science classes. For example, I believe that Darwin is often discussed in history class. And his excellent book "Origin of Species" is also a great work of literature, suitable for English classes. By the way, did you know that Darwin and Lincoln were born on the same day?[22] See, you can learn about Darwin in all kinds of places.Ferrylodge (talk) 01:50, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

The sentence as it stands is misleading. The phrase "called for teaching" is an exageration of the quoted statement from the debate. I would favor "described herself as a proponent of teaching" or "opposed prohibiting debate about." Celestra (talk) 01:51, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

As eloquent as the options you have presented might be, they are not what is in the article that we are sourcing. zredsox (talk) 02:00, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the WHOLE article not just the one line you like. The article as a whole does not come close to supporting "She is a proponent of teaching both creationism and evolution in science classes" --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:05, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

We know how you feel Thaddeus. One thing is for sure, you are consistent with your views. *wink* zredsox (talk) 02:15, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Yep, consistent that you should use all the available information to form the best possible conclusion - not just pick one sentence we like and ignore the rest. Please note, for example, that I am advocating expanding the "library controversy" section above. There certainly is no argument about your consistent anti-Palin view though. --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:21, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

This is an encyclopedia, material in this article should communicate what Palin's real views are on teaching creationism. We have her own words on the matter. Do editor's arguing for the sentence from the debate really think that it represents Palin's view? If so, please answer these questions: 1) if her true view is that creationism should be taught in school, why did she say the opposite the next day? 2) if her true position is that creationism should be taught in schools why is it that the ONLY source of this supposed policy position is one sentence from a debate? If she is really for teaching creationism in schools, why hasn't she done anything about it as governor? Wikipedia is not a newspaper. We aren't supposed to report news - like what someone said in a debate - we are supposed to communicate knowledge, not use a "gotcha quote" to spread disinformation.--Paul (talk) 02:56, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for trying to interject some rationality into this mess, although I am confident you'll either get no response or "the first sentence of this article says so, that's why." --ThaddeusB (talk) 03:13, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Nope NPOV requires that we produce something along the lines of "sarah palin was quoted as saying "I am a proponent of teaching both.". She later stated that this satement had been misinterprited and that she meant whatever". obviosuly with better spelling.Geni 03:18, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Nope, that is not what NPOV requires. NPOV requires "representing fairly, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources." In this case we have ONE source, the Governor of Alaska. We need to "represent fairly" and "without bias" what her view really is.--Paul (talk) 03:34, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Actualy no. We report the various POVs on what her POV is. See we can't be pretending to know which of the two POVs expressed is the real one.Geni 03:42, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Point of Order

Could someone explain what empowers Bogdangiusca to edit this protected article without discussing the edits here? 01:53, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

That's being addressed by the ArbCom - I'm sure there'll be some desysoppings, warnings, or trout-slappings handed out liberally when things are sorted out. :) Kelly ^hi! 02:04, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I assume it was to "correct" the "incomplete" summary. --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:06, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

It is funny that people are complaining now about this admin edit, when in fact the summary itself was an illegal admin edit without consensus. Actually, there have been admin edits all day without any sort of consensus. I guess it is only something worth mentioning if your shinny POV somehow gets tarnished. Then scream bloody murder!zredsox (talk) 02:11, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Open your eyes. MANY complained about the first summary edit. (Personally I didn't complain about either, sorry if it sounded like I was complaining about this one.) All the other edits were non-controversial. --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:18, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

All the other edits were non-controversial TO YOUR POV. zredsox (talk) 02:43, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

To any point of view. I wasn't aware correcting formatting, spelling errors, etc. was POV. I should stated that a bit better though "All the other edits were completely non-controversial or had clear consensus." Of course, we all no how you feel about letting people better explain themselves at a later time, so I guess this explanation won't be allowed and I'll have to stick by the original sound byte version. --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:57, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

You can't speak for "any point of view." All other edits were completely non-controversial to you or had a clear consensus to you. Lets not go in circles with this as you can not speak with any authority as to what I find controversial or not. Thanks. zredsox (talk) 03:24, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh brother, are you seriously arguing that spelling corrections are controversial in some POV? --ThaddeusB (talk) 03:41, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I am not talking about spelling corrections. The admins have been making article changes since the initial lockdown and I promise you they didn't just make grammatical edits. Lets just agree to disagree, Ok? Thanks.zredsox (talk) 03:44, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) If you are going to make inflammatory comments about a whole class of generally trusted editors on this project, I'd like to see a dif or two to back them up. Gentgeen (talk) 03:48, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Just head over to Wikipedia:Arbitration_enforcement#Massive_change_to_Sarah_Palin_made_without_consensus and join the discussion. zredsox (talk) 04:01, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

OK, I've read that whole, horrible discussion, and all I see is the action of a single admin being called into question. You said, "The admins have been making article changes since the initial lockdown and I promise you they didn't just make grammatical edits." That is an attack against an entire class of users, with absolutely no supporting evidence. If I was a user who had been blocked multiple times in the recent past, and had been warned rather recently not to make personal attacks, I would be very careful about making blanket attack statements regarding other users. Gentgeen (talk) 05:41, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

This is not productive and does not belong here. If you want to read more about "admins gone wild" head over to the wheel war discussion. If you'd like to get a few more jabs in on me, take it to my talk page. Thanks. zredsox (talk) 13:11, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Another proposed change

Our problem arises from trying to give an accurate summary of a set of confused and confusing statements by Palin. The nuances can be fleshed out in the daughter article. For purposes of this summary, I think the best way to be clear is to acknowledge the lack of clarity. I suggest:

"Palin has spoken favorably but somewhat ambiguously about the teaching of creationism alongside evolution in the public schools."

If you go to the AP article, you can mine it for quotations that support either side. For a short summary, the best we can do is to recognize that fact. JamesMLane t c 05:51, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Oppose. If there's nothing unambiguous to say about this, then I think it should not be dealt with here. Vague stuff can be detailed in the sub-article.Ferrylodge (talk) 06:00, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

It's quite a leap to say that there's nothing unambiguous to say about this. To characterize an ambiguous statement as ambiguous is not, itself, an ambiguous statement. Palin certainly spoke favorably about the subject, far more so than many politicians have. That information shouldn't be suppressed. We can unambiguously state that she spoke favorably but ambiguously. JamesMLane t c 14:18, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Broadband connection required for one of the external links.

The EL "PBS NOW Bio and interview with Sarah Palin" requires a broadband connection. Could you please put a note on the EL letting readers know that this link requires a broadband connection? --64.181.90.183 (talk) 01:48, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Done. Gentgeen (talk) 10:48, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Book banning redlink

The book banning link should link to book banning, not book-banning. Any problem with making this change? --- RockMFR 02:10, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes. It should not say "book banning" at all, as those words are not found verbatim in any quotable source. The actual quote the recounts the event says "removing books" and should be used verbatim. Fcreid (talk) 02:12, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I created a redirect for "book-banning" since it is a plausible typographical error, but I agree that it should be "book banning". No opinion on the content issue of whether it should be rephrased. Dragons flight (talk) 02:23, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree on the grammar. Coemgenus 14:03, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

For those who missed it

A while back I made what I considered to be a fair summary, using input from the talk page. It's prose, it summarizes, it represents what reliable, independent sources say. How does it look now? Phlegm Rooster (talk) 02:17, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Political positions

Palin has described the Republican party platform as "the right agenda for America," adding "individual freedom and independence is extremely important to me and that's why I'm a Republican."

In 2002, while running for lieutenant governor, Palin called herself as "pro-life as any candidate can be." She opposes abortion in cases of rape and incest, supporting it only in cases where the mother's life is in danger, and suggested that requiring parental consent for abortions be added to Alaska's constitution. Palin is a member of Feminists for Life. A 2006 article in the Anchorage Daily News refers to Palin as supportive of contraception but does not go into detail. She is a "firm supporter of abstinence-only education in schools", saying, "explicit sex-ed programs will not find my support".

Palin supports capital punishment for some crimes. "If the legislature passed a death penalty law, I would sign it. We have a right to know that someone who rapes and murders a child or kills an innocent person in a drive-by shooting will never be able to do that again."

Palin opposes same-sex marriage and supported a non-binding referendum for a constitutional amendment to deny state health benefits to same-sex couples. Palin has stated that she supported the 1998 constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage.

In a televised debate in 2006, Palin said she supported teaching both creationism and evolution in public schools. She clarified her position the next day, saying that if a debate of alternative views arose in class she would not want its discussion prohibited. She added that she would not push the state Board of Education to add creation-based alternatives to the state's required curriculum. Palin does not believe that global warming is human-caused. Palin opposed federal listing of the polar bear as an endangered species on the grounds that the "population has dramatically increased over 30 years as a result of conservation," and supported a controversial predator-control program involving aerial hunting of wolves to increase moose populations for hunters.

Palin, a long-time member of the National Rifle Association, strongly supports its interpretation of the Second Amendment as protecting individual rights to bear arms, including handguns. She also supports gun safety education for youth.

Palin's foreign policy positions were unclear at the time she was picked as McCain's running mate. When asked for her views about troop escalations in Iraq, she replied "…while I support our president, Condoleezza Rice and the administration, I want to know that we have an exit plan in place…"

Any comments?

• Approve A much better summary! Bravo. Sure, it needs a little work, but all in all a 100% improvement on what we currently have.zredsox (talk) 02:20, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
• Strongly disapprove A summary section should be a short summary, capturing the general principles, not a rehash of every point on the sub page. --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:23, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
• Nope - way too much detail on hot-button "wedge issues" and too long per WP:SS. Kelly ^hi! 02:24, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Those are her positions. Palin is proud of them. The only other one I am aware of is she supports Israel. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 02:40, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
    • Who doesn't? :) Kelly ^hi! 02:46, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose As I said earlier the summary section should be no longer than the summary in the comparative article Joe Biden. The goal here is a short summary of most important positions and not dropping things like "A 2006 article in the Anchorage Daily News" or quotes several lines in length that's not a summary that's simply rehashing the whole subarticle here. We need an actual summary. Hobartimus (talk) 02:35, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I did mention in a section above that we should not be using Joe Biden's summary as an example but rather Obama's Summary and here is why.It basically says that the Political Issues in Biden's summary should either be expanded or removed because there is not enough there and that is part of what is holding it back from being a good article. Clearly it is a strong indication we need to expand the current summary.zredsox (talk) 02:20, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Normally I would agree, but, as I've mentioned before, one of the major problems with Political positions of Sarah Palin (which this section summarizes) is that it doesn't have enough "boring stuff" like fiscal policy, etc. I can understand why - the controversial issues attract a lot of early attention. I'll try to research some of that stuff over the weekend, but for now I am uncomfortable with the emphasis in this summary on wedge issues like gun control, enviromentalism, creationism, etc., which are important to some single-issue voters but extremely minor in the large scheme of things. Kelly ^hi! 02:38, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Kelly, reliable sources find these interesting. Calling them "hot button" implies they are important. Find me a sources that says the evolution issue is minor, or that drilling in the Arctic is minor. Otherwise it's just you guarding the article from anything that might lose Palin votes. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 02:45, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure where this meme is coming from that I'm trying to get votes for someone. Have you ever seen me oppose an edit that was within policies? Ever seen me put positive fluff into the article? Diffs, please. Kelly ^hi! 02:49, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Phlegm: Please stay WP:CIVIL. You may feel that Kelly is guarding the article, but the vote thing is below the belt. Kelly: Please reread your comment two above. You are perfectly justified, but I think it does count as "opposing an edit that (is) within policies". And we all know that you did hundreds of edits, so "diffs please" seems a little weak. We are justified in forming our impression of you from your words here and on your talk page. Homunq (talk) 02:58, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

As I understand it, her historical campaign style has actually been to deliberately emphasize wedge issues (for example bringing religion, abortion, and gun rights into a Mayoral race). It's not obvious to me whether she even has positions on some of the other things (for instance, I suspect she's playing catch-up on most foriegn policy issues). I agree with you in spirit that we should be comprehensive in our coverage, but we also have to keep in mind that some topics, like pro-life positions, gun rights, and oil exploration, are more developed in part because those are things Palin herself has chosen to emphasize during her career. Dragons flight (talk) 03:00, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

If you want to suggest an expansion of the current summary, please feel free. A complete rehash of the sub article is not acceptable though. The proposed version doesn't match Obama's in any way (in style), nor does it match Biden's or McCain's. At least the current version roughly resembles both Biden's & McCain's in style. Also comparing to Obama probably isn't the best option since a presidential candidate is obviously more important than a VP candidate. --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:42, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

• Approve This looks to be a fair summary of important issues and it is not at all a rehash of everything on the subpage - that page is where much more detail would appear, if it is known. We have to look at each individual separately - we don';t decide what to do here based on what other editors have decided to do on Joe Biden's page - these are their biographies not campaign pieces for them. In her case since so little is generally known about her, it would seem appropriate to have a bit more detail here in the main article, as this summary does. In fact, I would support it being even a bit longer, if there are other important subjects not covered. Tvoz/talk 02:47, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

  Tvoz, this article is under an extraordinary amount of media attention. I'm even getting requests from the press for comment about the libel being put into the article over the past week. I understand your point, but realpolitik says we have to keep some level of parity with Joe Biden or teh drahmaz will ensue. Kelly ^hi! 02:51, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Kelly, did you seriously think I don't know that? I've been through this before on other political articles, as I think you know, including press scrutiny, and I still maintain that "parity" with Biden is irrelevant and not the way Wikipedia works. Tvoz/talk 04:11, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

We should not let the bad decisions on the Biden article effect the stewardship of this article. If we are truthfully working to make this a Good Article, we need to enhance and expand the summary. Crazy as it sounds, that means Sarah Palin's views will be visible to the world. zredsox (talk) 03:10, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Why not just merge the whole article back in then. That's essentially what the proposal does anyway. In any case, I fail to see how forcing someone to click a highly visible link constitutes hiding the information 'from the world'. Do you feel that people who might vote against her because of her positions are too lazy/dumb to click through? --ThaddeusB (talk) 03:18, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Approve Thaddeus's proposal.zredsox (talk) 03:31, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

That would be ok with me - until this article gets too long. Tvoz/talk 04:11, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose. Too long per WP:SS and it is certain to require revision shortly: insufficient weight is given to her own emphasis in the current campaign and this has yet to be factored into the secondary sources. patsw (talk) 03:09, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the link! I went there and there was nothing that mentioned long being a bad thing (within reason.) However if you read my link above (and below) you will find that being too short a summary is reason for its removal. zredsox (talk) 03:50, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose. Mr. Rooster has made a valiant effort here, but ultimately it will not work. I support leaving virtually all the specific positions for the Political positions of Sarah Palin article. As another editor once put it,[23] "trying to boil positions down to very short summaries is inherently a dubious proposition: you get superficiality and sound-bites and oversimplification. The whole point of the separate article is to avoid all that." What we need here are some over-arching themes and meta-analysis. Another problem with going into specific issues like this is that the article will never ever become stable.Ferrylodge (talk) 03:17, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

If your are truly opposed then we should delete the entire summary as being insufficient based on the discussion had here .

• Approve of this summary as a point to start further work. I also very strongly disapprove of the current ("libertarianism") summary and strongly believe that we should not be waiting for perfect consensus before making edits (although all edits should be discussed on the talk page).Homunq (talk) 03:57, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
• Support. This version isn't perfect but it's far superior to the text unilaterally implemented by Moreschi. To those who complain about disclosure of Palin's positions on "hot-button issues": well, duh, those are the issues most important to inform the readers about. Readers will want to know that she favors abstinence-only education. Some will cheer her for it, some will denounce her, but all will find that more informative than the solemn pronouncement that she favors "individual freedom and independence" and opposes "corruption". (By the way, that POV about "individual freedom and independence" and her support for a "minimal state" is contradicted by her abortion position, in the opinion of millions of Americans. We shouldn't be reporting a right-wing spin as if it were fact. If she's used those words we could say "She has expressed support for 'individual freedom and independence'" to make clear that it's her own characterization of her position.) JamesMLane t c 04:32, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose The condensed and declarative current version passes all policy and guideline challenges, and reads better. Perhaps it could be expanded slightly, but that is for another day. :) Also, to maintain such a suggestion would mean constantly having to consider which quotes/sources to include as the summaries, and this becomes a magnet for POV pushers -- more than it is already. Please don't Baccyak4H (Yak!) 04:53, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Baccyak4H, throughout this article we must make editorial judgments about what's important enough to include. It's an area where the NPOV policy doesn't provide clear answers. Editors have different POV's about what's important, and any specific fact must be either included or omitted, so we can't implement neutrality between the differing opinions concerning importance. (That said, however, the current version is POV in asserting as fact Palin's self-serving spin on her position.) JamesMLane t c 05:59, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
    • I think you're losing sight of the fact that the section being discussed is supposed to be merely a summary of Political positions of Sarah Palin, similar to Joe Biden#Political positions. Kelly ^hi! 06:51, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
      • Excuse me, "the fact that"? You have a personal opinion that we should model this section after Biden's. Multiple editors have tried to explain to you why that's not the applicable standard. Not only do you not address their arguments, you even say "the fact that" to introduce an opinion that's widely rejected. It's like my saying that you're losing sight of the fact that McCain is a blatant hypocrite. I believe that, mind you, but I would never be so presumptuous as to describe my opinion as a fact. (Also, following Strunk & White, I try to avoid using "the fact that", but that's another issue.) JamesMLane t c 07:15, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
        • • Thanks for the link - I'm pretty much a hick, so I have never heard of Strunk & White. :) But I was really referring to WP:SS. Kelly ^hi! 07:24, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
            • It is great that you are citing WP:SS being it does not support your argument in the least. Yes, it should be used. No, it does not say expanding this summary to have a broader and more balanced sample of positions would be incorrect. If anything I surmised that WP:SS advocates a more inclusive summary that does not shift the balance of the source article, which this clearly does. zredsox (talk) 12:17, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
• Comment. I see a lot of comparisons to the Joe Biden article here. First, the Joe Biden article isn't that good; although I'm now the #2 editor there by edit count, that's more by default than from any great effort by me. There's a lot of areas in it that need improvement. Second, Biden is a very different case than Palin. Biden's been in the Senate for three decades, and there are a lot of interest group ratings such as ADA, ACU, National Journal, etc. that can give you a capsule idea of where he stands in general. For Palin that isn't the case. Third, Biden's views are pretty well known and established by this time; he's cast a jillion votes, made a zillion speeches on everything under the sun. That's also not the case with Palin. So the Palin editors have to figure out what's best for that article. Wasted Time R (talk) 03:16, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Requesting an edit

This article presently says the following, due to a non-consensus edit today by Bogdan during full protection:[24]

“She is a proponent of teaching both creationism and evolution in science classes, but she did not push creation science as governor of Alaska.”

The edit ought to be reverted, since it was made without consensus during full protection. But in the mean time, I think we can easily get consensus to remove the words “in science classes”, since neither the cited source[25] nor the sub-article[26] specifically says anything about “science class” or “biology class”, as opposed to some other type of class (e.g. philosophy or social studies). Zredsox has already said that he could support removing the words “in science classes”.[27] So, for the time being, I would like to propose changing the sentence to the following:

“She is a proponent of teaching about or allowing discussion about both creationism and evolution in public schools, and has not pushed creationism as governor of Alaska.”

After all, the cited source says "Palin said discussion of alternative views on the origins of life should be allowed in Alaska classrooms" and also quotes her as saying that, "It's OK to let kids know that there are theories out there."Ferrylodge (talk) 02:57, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I support this change even though I object to the rest of the material remaining in its present form. --ThaddeusB (talk) 03:01, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Needs a tweak as it is not reading cleanly:

“She is a proponent of teaching or allowing discussion of both creationism and evolution in public schools, but has not pushed creationism as governor of Alaska.”

Although, instead of making minor edits at this point we should probably be focused on the bigger picture as being discussed one section above. ;) zredsox (talk) 03:04, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I support zredsox's phrasing. It'll do for now. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 03:07, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

(undent)I would support the Zredsox version, with a slight change: “She is a proponent of teaching about or allowing discussion of both creationism and evolution in public schools, but has not pushed creationism as governor of Alaska.” I think Palin has pretty clearly said "It's OK to let kids know that there are theories out there", and that meaning is lost without the word "about".Ferrylodge (talk) 03:13, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I would not object to this version. --ThaddeusB (talk) 03:15, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, what Ferrylodge said. Kelly ^hi! 03:16, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I object. It's a lame copout. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 03:17, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

So incorrect info is better than a lame compromise? --ThaddeusB (talk) 03:19, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Mr. Rooster, you think the word "about" is a lame copout? The woman is suggesting telling students "that there are theories out there". Can you see the difference between telling students about other theories, versus telling students that those other theories are correct? Palin supports doing the former. Why do you want this article to imply that she supports the latter?Ferrylodge (talk) 03:22, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Yup because the other ah hypotheses have been so firmly demolished that calling them a theory is highly inaccurate. It's a bit like telling pupils that there is a hypothesis that life involves some kind of vital force. Technicaly true there is such a hypothesis but not useful.Geni 03:28, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Look, the fact is she totally said "teach both" in a televised debate. She wanted some votes, and said it in the forum that would get her those votes. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 03:25, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

<- Looks like a deadlock, we may need to do a request for comment to get movement. Anyone want to volunteer? I'm going to bed pretty soon. Kelly ^hi! 03:23, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I've got to run. Every source I can find has the words TEACH and CREATIONISM right next to each other with no "about" in the middle. I am sticking to my guns here. Goodnight.zredsox (talk) 03:28, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

It is impossible to teach that two conflicting theories are both correct. I've got to run too. You know, Zredsox, that I was merely looking for a shorter way to say that Palin wants to teach "that there are theories out there". But you want this article to convey that she wants to teach that one of those theories is correct.Ferrylodge (talk) 03:35, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

It's not out there. It's very firmly burried in the world of science. Certian religious groups insist on digging it from time to time.Geni 03:47, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I think "about" is a fine compromise. It's one word. How bad can it be? As a science teacher, I know that any "teaching about creationism" which is not debunking it belongs outside the science classroom anyway. Homunq (talk) 03:44, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I pretty much agree with that, Homunq, except that it might be worth mentioning in a science class that many theories once thought to be correct have since been proved incomplete, and evolution may well turn out to be among them. Also worth mentioning is that our present knowledge is very limited (e.g. we haven't yet figured out how to create organic matter out of inanimate matter).Ferrylodge (talk) 04:06, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Radiometric Dating . The End. ;) zredsox (talk) 04:14, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

{{editprotected}} Please take this out: [28]. Improper edit unsupported by the protection policy, and I don't see any consensus for it to be there in the first place. The admin that did it hasn't replied to any queries, and this isn't an admin action that requires running it by the admin before undoing. Please take it out wholly until a consensus supports some wording. rootology (C)(T) 07:28, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Note that, even if this article were not protected at all, the edit in question would have been totally inappropriate and revertable, since there was no consensus for it. I believe it substantially misdescribes what the subject of the BLP has said, and also misdescribes what the cited source has said.Ferrylodge (talk) 07:46, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

 Done - Kevin (talk) 09:35, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't see how anybody was calling for the complete removal of the material. I can only assume that this was some sort of error on Kevin's part. If any admin's edits to the article are to be reverted "per editprotected, rm edit with no consensus" in should be the first such change, by Moreschi, who also introduced unsourced material claiming Plain is a libertarian. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 10:23, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

It was not an error at all. The edit was made without consensus, and so I reverted it. If there is some version that gains consensus here, it can be re-inserted. Kevin (talk) 10:26, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

What about Moreschi's earlier edit, changing the section and claiming she's a "classical libertarian" in favor of the "minimal state"? Talk about a BLP concern. Look below, that has no consensus, since no sources at all can be found that say that. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 10:31, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Kevin, does your approach mean that the version that happened to be in place as of protection has a preferred status, and can't be changed absent consensus? That seems to mean that, where opinion is divided so that there is no consensus, the happenstance of what was protected governs what our most-visited article will say. That contradicts the way protection is supposed to work. (I realize that you didn't unilaterally impose protection but I'm trying to understand how you and other admins proceed under these circumstances.) JamesMLane t c 14:24, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Not at all, I have no preconception as to the correct version. My removal was based solely on the fact that the addition was made before a consensus had been reached as to it's inclusion. If a consensus is reached later, then I have no issue with inclusion, either as-is or in an altered form. The purpose of full protection is to stop edit warring. No editor, including admins, should edit the article unless there is a consensus for the edit. Kevin (talk) 22:28, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Let me clarify -- I'm not charging you with any preconception. I'm raising an issue about the protection system and rules, the result of which is apparently the same as if admins did have a preconception. If there's a 50-50 division of opinion on a proposed edit, or even 60-40, then there's no consensus for a change, so whatever language is currently in place remains. Isn't that, in practice, the way it works? There are passages in the current version that some editors consider inaccurate or otherwise objectionable. There's no consensus to include those passages, but they remain in, because there's no consensus to remove them. This setup gives too much weight to the protected version, which deserves no special status. It was (presumably) selected for protection on the basis of the happenstance that it was the version in place when an admin decided to protect, not on the basis of any admin's comprehensive review of all the different versions. JamesMLane t c 03:26, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

an admin's initial decision about what version to protect. Whether that decision was based on a preference for one version, or was just based on JamesMLane t c 03:26, 7 September 2008 (UTC) This is absolutely ridiculous. How far will people go to hide Palin's views? Seriously! We were one word away from a consensus on this and yet the entire statement was removed? zredsox (talk) 12:25, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Re-proprosing "“She is a proponent of teaching about or allowing discussion of both creationism and evolution in public schools, but has not pushed creationism as governor of Alaska.” for quick inclusion. This was extremely close to consensus above. personally i think "teaching creationism" is in effect synonymous with this, but also that "proponent" is too strong. But the tortured prose of this compromise will certainly do for now. 86.44.21.70 (talk) 16:09, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

You're suggesting to insert what you think is "tortured prose"? No wonder you put that in tiny font!Ferrylodge (talk) 17:57, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

No offence! :D Would you prefer "tortuous"? :) 86.44.21.70 (talk) 18:19, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Either way is correct. Did you see this?Ferrylodge (talk) 18:41, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Edit request: 2008 vice-presidential campaign - Convention speech

I floated the idea of making this edit under two different discussion topics: "15 Convention Speech" and "19 Total Viewers Of Palin Speech - Beats Obama?". I was surpised that in over 16 hours I've received no reply in the affirmative, nor any dissentions. I will request it more officially before applying a request-edit tag and respectfully asking an administrator to enact the change.

My objection is to the final portion of the last sentence in the section. The sentence reads: "Palin delivered a 40 minute acceptance speech at the Republican National Convention that was well-received by the crowd and by media analysts.[97][98]." I object to including "and by media analysts". The term "well-received" is very broad and to cast that net over media analysts in general is inappropriate. It is a subjective judgement that is not verifiable. I do think it is generally agreed that the convention attendees approved of all aspects of the speech and therefore "well-received" is appropriate. I request that sentence be modified to read: "Palin delivered a 40 minute acceptance speech at the Republican National Convention that was well-received by the crowd." Alternatively, I think the following would also qualify as an objective statement: "Palin delivered a 40 minute acceptance speech at the Republican National Convention that was well-received by the crowd and considered well-executed by media analysts." Spiff1959 (talk) 03:45, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

• Since it was my edit, I will say I have no objection to "Palin delivered a 40 minute acceptance speech at the Republican National Convention that was well-received by the crowd and considered well-executed by media analysts." Phlegm Rooster (talk) 03:47, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I couldn't have hoped for a better endorsement than that! Thank you, Sir. Since this proposed edit has been around all day without a single objection, and has now received a stamp-of-approval from the author of the text to be modified, let's put up some colorful graphics! (my first, so I'm excited!) {{editprotected}} Please edit the final sentence of the "2008 vice-presidential campaign" section to read as follows: "Palin delivered a 40 minute acceptance speech at the Republican National Convention that was well-received by the crowd and considered well-executed by media analysts."

• Oppose (sorry to burst your bubble of excitement, Spiff1959, and I appreciate your efforts, but there are problems). Some media analysts trashed the contents of the speech. If the point of "well-executed" is to say that she was evaluated as being skilled at reading a speech off a teleprompter, it's really not important enough to include. The notable thing about the speech is that she undertook the traditional "attack dog" role of the VP candidate. She was sharply partisan, which did indeed play very well with the delegates, and more generally with the party's right-wing base, but which was deplored (as to tone and content) by some of the media analysts who frequently criticize what they see as excessive partisanship. It would hard to convey that last point in NPOV fashion, though. What if we just end the sentence after "crowd"? (I think "delegates" would be an improvement over "crowd" because this wasn't just some bunch of random Republicans who wandered into the hall to hear a speech.) JamesMLane t c 06:12, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

• Comment The following is from the Obama article: "On August 28, Obama accepted the nomination in a speech that received praise from many media commentators and political analysts.[104]" See any similarity? Do you intend to "be bold" and edit the Obama page to remove this blatant POV pushing? I think that Obama gave a great speech that was well received both by Democrats and commentators. I think it is easy to find multiple RS's that prove the same of Palin's speech. Is there a double-standard here?--Paul (talk) 06:18, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

• I've done very little editing of the Obama article. If you think that language is unacceptable or unsupported, talk it up on that talk page. I'm allowed to opine about this article without running around Wikipedia editing articles that other people assign to me. JamesMLane t c 06:26, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

• Yeah, James is right. It's one of those things where only history can tell the impact, long from now. Best to avoid fleeting opinions. I agree with Paul's opinion of the Obama article comment, but that is an issue for the editors over there, not here. Kelly ^hi! 06:57, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm sick of that excuse, wiki uses that lame excuse all the time "well thats for them over THERE"....no its not. Wikipedia, when considered as a whole, needs to be NPOV on a macro level not a micro level. We have a duty, since the Obama article preexists this one, to keep Wikipedia fair on a macro level. Your excuse is lame. If you are really about NPOV, then you WILL consider how Obama's article is taken into account compared to this one as these two individuals are in a current competition. This is not about 'micro-fairness' and you know it. This article cannot possibly stand on its own as a measure of NPOV without being justifiably compared to Obama. Because Obama's article mentions the lavish praise of his speech, and this one does not, makes this article slanted. You cannot call this article NPOV when you snipe phraseology that are permitted on Obama's page, people are smarter than that. If you want to make this article truly NPOV you will balance it against Obama's. That is fair....but for the editors here....are you going to be fair like that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.18.108.5 (talk) 07:53, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Two wrongs do not make a right. It is is not a valid argument to say that this article should remain inaccurate or opinionated because that failing exists elsewhere in another article. James: So you're saying that you agree with me that citng that the speech was "well-received by... media analysts" is inappropriate. And, you're agreeing that her presentation was almost universally acclaimed as "well-executed". But, you're lodging an opposition to the edit because you feel the latter fact is not noteworthy? Isn't this throwing the baby out with the bathwater? This will result in the statement that her speech was loved by the media as a whole remining intact. I thought WP was about improving articles a little at a time, about making compromises. If you read my request, you see that I offered an edit with the "media analyst" portion of the sentence removed. As a compromise, I offered the second option including a reference to "media analysts" but restricting it's use to "well-executed". You, and I am sure the vast majority, do not object to that being factual. I feel it does have some value as content in that there was considerable speculation as to whether Palin would be able to handle the task this being the first time she spoke in the national spotlight. It seems you're nit-picking, putting a halt on what you agree is an improvement for trivial reasons (or to put a stop to my all-night Wiki party, celebrating my first contribution, while I still have 6 bottles of champagne and three cases of vienna sausage remaining!) Spiff1959 (talk) 14:31, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Spiff, you're correct that, while I see problems with your version, I would regard it as an improvement over what's in the article now. If those were the only two choices, I would support your change. I'm just hoping that, while we're focusing on this subject, we can remove all the Palin-fawning. The champagne will keep for another day or two, right? JamesMLane t c 16:40, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Deal! The <editprotected> just got denied because of opposition, but let's not let it stand as currently written. I am surprised the admin didn't notice that there is no opposition to at least a partial change for now. Removing any media reference would be fine, or, including it was "well-executed" or, adding that "A major portion of the speech was directed against the Democrats" are all accurate, and I'd find ANY combination of the above preferrable to what is currently displayed. Spiff1959 (talk) 22:18, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

James, maybe we ought to take what we can now and fight the next battle later? Yours is the only outstanding objection to the proposed change? Spiff1959 (talk) 03:23, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

N Edit declined. There is currently no consensus for this edit. Please use {{editprotected}} only after consensus has been achieved (see WP:PER).  Sandstein  21:48, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Unresolved

Proposed change "classical libertarianism"

The article currently says:

Palin is known for her support of "individual freedom and independence", and her endorsement for the minimal state and economic liberty of classical libertarianism: she is known in Alaska for her strong opposition to what she views as excessive government spending and corruption.

Neither of sources provided, one an interview and the other an op-ed, does not use the terms "minimal state" or "classical libertarianism", so I propose that this WP:Synthesis be removed. The sentence should simply read:

Palin supports "individual freedom and independence", and she is known in Alaska for her strong opposition to what she views as excessive government spending and corruption.

Thanks, Phlegm Rooster (talk) 04:19, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Can we stop doing the Support/Oppose sections and simply discuss, which seems to be working so far. We don't do votes here. 86.44.21.70 (talk) 15:42, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Support

1. That phrasing struck me aa peculiar when I read it a few days ago. It feels like something taken from a manifesto. Moving Palin to the ranks of "classic Libertarian" because she is for "less government" and "less taxes" does seem a leap withot better sourcing. At the least, some punctuation ought to be inserted to divert the rare(?) reader from construing that Palin supports "minimal economic liberty".
2. These phrases are spin, not substance. A classical libertarian or supporter of the minimal state would favor legalization of marijuana. Let's see Palin run that one past McCain. We can consider calling Palin a supporter of "individual freedom and independence" when she comes out against the PATRIOT Act. The phrase really adds nothing to the reader's understanding because few contemporary American politicians characterize their own views as opposition to "individual freedom and independence". JamesMLane t c 06:17, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
3. If she were a true libertarian, she would be in the Libertarian Party. This is spin similar to the attempt to connect her to the Alaskan secession movement and to Christian extremism. "Support", I assume means REMOVE the comment about libertarianism. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 10:05, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
4. I support this change, as the new wording is more accurate to the sources. --ThaddeusB (talk) 14:21, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
5. Support for reasons I mentioned below. I also agree with James Lane that the "individual freedom and independence" quote should be removed. There is no evidence she is "known" for this quote, nor does the fact that she said it differentiate her from any other American politician. Queerudite (talk) 15:18, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose I think those are very accurate descriptions and are undoubtedly true. They will go a long ways towards explaining why she might be for discussing creationism in schools but would never use the state government to do anything about it. The correct way to fix this problem is find better references. I commented on this earlier today on the Administrators Bulletin Board. UPDATED - Here is a possible reference for the libertarian claim: The Libertarian Case for Palin--Paul (talk) 04:34, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

What we think is not the issue. I think that being a pro-life libertarian is an oxymoron, and that being a libertarian who raised sales taxes in Wasilla and got millions in fed handouts is being a hypocrite. Luckily, neither Paul.h nor I has any sources but blogs to back us up. I support this change. Homunq (talk) 04:59, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Has she ever said anything about leaning libertarian? It's supposed to about her positions, not what some libertarian commentators claim for her. I say it's still out as WP:Fringe and WP:Undue. There's so much else out there on her political philosophy that seems better attested. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 05:02, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, there's this: To recap: Sarah Palin attended at least two meetings of the ALP in 2005/06 as a speaker, including one early on in her candidacy for Governor. She gladly accepted the last minute endorsement of the ALP for her Gubernatorial Campaign, and very publicly thanked the Party and their candidate for Governor Billy Toien for their support. But it's from a blog, not a RS. I guess I'm going to remove my opposition, as there just aren't good sources out there for claming that Palin has strong libertarian leanings, though I do think that it is accurate.--Paul (talk) 05:26, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

It's really the characterization that is a problem. It already says she's against "excessive government spending", so "minimal state" is an extreme interpretation of that. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 05:32, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

{{editprotected}}

 Done - Consensus here combined with WP:BLP, we can't have something like this remain in the page unsourced. Oren0 (talk) 19:39, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Wider discussion is ongoing, but it appears that "her endorsement for the minimal state and economic liberty of classical libertarianism" was a controversial and unsupported addition, therefore for now this can be changed to:

Palin supports "individual freedom and independence", and she is known in Alaska for her strong opposition to what she views as excessive government spending and corruption.

Thanks. 86.44.21.70 (talk) 19:03, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Radical Overhaul

Neither of these two alternatives is accurate. How is support for restrictions on abortion (even in cases of rape/incest), an amply endowed Pentagon, an interventionist foreign policy, and for government wiretapping -- just to pick a few at random -- anything even approaching "minimal government", "individual freedom", or the other bromides in the current or proposed revised text. Come on editors, this is bad analysis and description. N.B. I am not trying to express a partisan opinion on Palin or these issues, just an editorial one: these descriptions are NOT accurate and NOT encyclopediac. They do not hold up to any scrutiny whatsoever. As for the first statement, though: Palin's positions would appall someone from the Libertarian Party, so you can throw that appellation right out the window. Arjuna (talk) 10:17, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

A description of "traditional conservative Republican Party positions" or something like it is the most accurate NPOV description. Arjuna (talk) 10:20, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't mind this being removed, but I'd like to point out I'm not such a moron as everyone seems to assume: the point I was trying to make was that Palin's economics are libertarian (as Gerard Baker said in my source) - obviously her social views are nothing of the kind. Guess I didn't get that across well enough. Moreschi (talk) 21:08, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Public Safety Commissioner dismissal

This section should be removed from the article since it violates the NPOV. If you are going to talk about how she has questionable ethics in office, you should also mention it other politician's articles. For example, Obama's article should talk about how he got a discounted home loan for being a senator.24.117.138.162 (talk) 04:26, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Mentioning a current scandal does not have to violate the NPOV rule, but it is difficult to report it that way in the heat of the moment. Bringing out all relevant facts, and a listing of the various parties reactions to them could work. When saying the Commisioner was dismissed for allegedly treating a relative of hers badly, mention should be made of the specific charges. One of these, not mentioned so far, is that the dismissed man Tasered Palin's 10 year old nephew while off duty. Add this, properly sourced, and the response to the accusation.

Besides, everyone is talking about the dismissal right now; Wiki should provide all the facts, because they are going to be in demand. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.89.68.24 (talk) 04:48, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Two replies to IP24: first, WP:UNDUE and WP:NPOV are not the same. The presentation in the article is neutral. Second, we don't look at other articles to determine how this one should be edited. Tvoz/talk 05:00, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Have you seen this?Ferrylodge (talk) 05:03, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

me? Tvoz/talk 05:05, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh- I see what you're responding to. never mind. Tvoz/talk 05:18, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Yup, I was addressing IP24.Ferrylodge (talk) 05:52, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I would add, in reply to the anon, that Obama's article does mention that Rezko's involvement with Obama attracted media attention. One obvious difference is that, in l'affaire Monegan, the Legislature has opened a formal investigation, which elevates the matter into more prominence than mere media mutterings. JamesMLane t c 06:23, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

There is no basis to remove this section. The article currently handles it is a very responsible way. If you have specific problems about it, please specify. However, removal is not an option. --ThaddeusB (talk) 14:26, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

About Monegan— he has now said in the Anchorage paper that, for the record, Palin never, and no one else in her administration ever, tried to make him fire Trooper Wooten(her ex-brother-in-law). The article should reflect this, with the proper sourcing. Not sure how this jibes with his earlier statements. According to other articles in the same paper, Wooten is alleged to have: - used a Taser on Palin’s 10 year old nephew while off-duty - driven his state patrol car while drinking; -threaten to murder her father and sister for hiring a lawyer for her divorce from Wooten. Wooten was suspended, not fired; he was put under a court protective order . Investigation is proceeding. Palin may not have liked this person, but there seems some reason to think he might have been suspended even without that, pending investigation. These allegations should be added and sourced, along with the findings of the investigation, when that is completed. 65.89.68.24 (talk) 19:46, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Please make the following clarification to the last sentence of the first paragraph of this section:

Palin stated that most of those calls were made without her knowledge, and reiterated that she did not fire Monegan because of Wooten, who is still employed as a state trooper.

Demer, Lisa. Is Wooten a good trooper?, Anchorage Daily News (2008-07-27).

Otherwise the reader may be misled into believing that Wooten was actually fired. This statement is notable because it provides significant support for Palin's argument that the Public Safety Commissioner was not dismissed for failing to fire Wooten. This fact is supported by The Anchorage Daily News shown above, a related Wikipedia article, Alaska Public Safety Commissioner dismissal, and by a statement on her web site. Thanks. Freedom Fan (talk) 00:53, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

You may be right, but I'm not sure. Just because Wooten hasn't been fired doesn't necessarily mean that Governor Palin wouldn't have fired him if she could have. I think the Governor has a lot more power to hire and fire political appointees (like cabinet secretaries) than she does to hire and fire other employees like Wooten.Ferrylodge (talk) 01:09, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

True. But Monegan's replacement also did not fire Wooten. So why did she fire Monegan but not his replacement? Regardless this is a verifiable fact which should be part of the article. Freedom Fan (talk) 03:33, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Political positions

Palin is known for her support of "individual freedom and independence", and her endorsement for the minimal state and economic liberty of classical libertarianism...

The above statement from the Political positions section is unsupported by the sources cited and should be removed.

1) The only source cited for Palin being "known" for her support of individual freedom and independence is a quote from Palin herself. The article does not mention any of Palin's policy positions that support individual liberty except the right to bear arms. In fact, the preceding paragraph lists political positions limiting individual liberty such as banning abortion and same-sex marriage.

2) There is no source cited for being "known" for her "classically libertarian" views. The article does not mention any classically libertarian positions other than those that coincide with modern conservatism. Again, the preceding paragraph establishes political positions that seem contrary to libertarian principles. Queerudite (talk) 06:37, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

This has been discussed fairly extensively above, please contribute. Kelly ^hi! 06:47, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, please do provide input. I think we independently made similar comments. Arjuna (talk) 11:48, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Best evidence of her "libertarian" views are her support of gun rights and jury rights (see above). Those, especially the latter, are two key libertarian positions. This can be confirmed by examining the Libertarian Party Platform, which contains both, and note that jury rights appear nowhere in the platforms of the two main parties, but does in the Constitution Party Platform, which reflects the views of social conservatives who agree with libertarians on most issues except abortion. Both of these minor parties are active in Alaska, and Palin can be expected to be familiar with their positions, particularly since the Alaskan Independence Party is affiliated with the Constitution Party. We can't cite these platforms because we don't have evidence Palin has examined or commented on them, but it provides a direction for further investigation.Bracton (talk) 00:15, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Political positions (2)

she is known in Alaska for her strong opposition to what she views as excessive government spending and corruption - this is sourced to an op-ed piece in a British newspaper that doesn't go into the specifics of what she actually opposes or what she is known for in Alaska. Can we have a better source - perhaps from one of the Alaskan newspapers? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.67.45.129 (talk) 12:14, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

We should instead remove the statement. How many contemporary American politicians would not oppose excessive government spending and corruption? This gives the reader no information about her positions. If there's a reliable source for the assertion that she's widely perceived as particularly dedicated to this issue, then it might find a home elsewhere in the article, in some discussion of her public image. JamesMLane t c 14:29, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Though every politician pays lip service to excess government spending and corruption, most of them don't do anything about it. In her time as Governor, Palin has vetoed over 300 spending items, and worked with all parties in the legistature to pass broad governmental ethic reforms. Refs for these accomplishments should be easy to find. Later this weekend, I'll propose an edit to add supporting references. Why not make the article accurate?--Paul (talk) 14:39, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Vetoing spending bills doesn't prove that she's against corruption. The kinds of things you describe, if properly sourced, might well find a place in the summary of the main events of her administration as governor, but I don't see them as political positions because the statement of them here is so abstract as to be noncontroversial. JamesMLane t c 16:43, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

It depends on what she vetoed, who was behind each, and the alleged merits of the legislation. This gets into political debate on which honest persons can disagree, but we can at least report that Palin vetoed bill X because she considered it to lack merit, then provide the background on it. We would need to find some evidence of her justification of the vetoes, such as veto messages. Bracton (talk) 00:02, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Note that in a court of law it is admissible evidence to testify that someone "has a reputation for doing X", even if one can not testify to someone having actually done X. Palin clearly has a reputation for opposing corruption, or at least what she considers to be corruption, but it shouldn't be difficult to cite something to support that.Bracton (talk) 02:11, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

... But it needs a better source!! C'mon guys there must be something better than an op-ed in the London Times. 79.74.252.173 (talk) 09:01, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Please be more clear on 'high approval rating'

"maintained a high approval rating throughout her term.[43]" can we please be a bit more specific and include some numbers? I heard some say she had the highest of any governor, if this is true (and I don't know if it is), that certainly warrants a mention.

Sarah Palin protection arbitration case is open

I have no clue why no one left a note here. The admin protection/unprotection war the other day on this article is open as an arbitration case:

---> Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Sarah Palin protection wheel war

Just a heads up for those that are regulars here who may not have been aware. rootology (C)(T) 09:46, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikiquote

Resolved

 – Kaisershatner (talk) 14:20, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

{{editprotected}} Under External Links please add a sister link to Wikiquote:

{{Wikiquote}}

Sbowers3 (talk) 12:40, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Has been done by someone else, disabled editprotected. Woody (talk) 14:37, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Chronology of nomination and acceptance speech

How is the chronology of Sarah Palin's formal nomination and acceptance speech? Her speech was at Wednesday, September 3. This was also the occasion when she accepted the nomination.[29] But according to the articles I've read she was nominated on Thursday, September 4.

E.g. "Palin nominated by acclamation Associated Press - September 4, 2008 8:23 PM ET MINNEAPOLIS (AP) - The Republicans have nominated Sarah Palin by acclamation as their vice-presidential pick. It comes just hours before John McCain makes his acceptance speech tonight at the convention in St. Paul." [30]

Also here: "Sarah Palin, governor of Alaska, was officially named the Republican vice-presidential candidate Thursday evening. The nomination was made by acclamation." [31]

Shouldn't she be first nominated and then accept the nomination, not the other way around? It was like that for Obama. Vints (talk) 13:08, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Palin read her acceptance speech on the 3rd, was nominated on the 4th. Check the the wording of her acceptance speech; it's designed to point out she would accept the nomination. GoodDay (talk) 13:30, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I know there has been a lot of talk comparing Palin and Obama but remember: Palin is the vice-presidential nominee; Obama is the presidential nominee. It is traditional for the VP nominee to speak on the second-to-last night; the P nominee on the last night. It is not uncommon for the VP nominee to say that s/he "would" accept the nomination in advance of the actual nomination. Remember that these conventions are staged for television. The roll call is rather boring so the planners schedule it for non-prime time while the acceptance speeches are scheduled for prime-time. Sbowers3 (talk) 14:32, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Political Positions of Sarah Palin Removal

If we are not going to follow WP:SS with the summary currently in place, we should remove it. At just over a hundred words, it does not have enough substance to support its own subheading and should be integrated into the article itself. Even though there is a "Stay the course" mentality of making this section like the Joe Biden summary, it has already been discussed that the Biden summary is not what is to be aspired to at all. Actually, that poor summary is one of the primary reasons that the Biden article is not consider a Good article. The Biden PP Summary, which needs to be either expanded or removed, is actually 22% larger than the Palin PP Summary! I know I have brought this up ad nausium (and been completely ignored because it goes against the logic others want to apply) but it is a valid point. We do not want to mold a section after something that is flawed and slated for removal! As for WP:SS, the intention of a summary is not to obfuscate views. The summary should include a balanced sample of what is actually in the daughter article and we should not pick only what is politically expedient. No, we do not need to go into great detail on each point as that is what the spin off is for, but we do need to bring up a fair sample of her positions.

I'll be honest in saying I am just about out of steam on this topic as it seems that "the machine" is going to get its way no matter what critical thinking is applied to the situation. Even after a long discussion and a virtual consensus on the re-wording of the creationism sentence, it was arbitrary removed because the previous admin made a change without consensus even though the version before it was also achieved via the same methodology and was actually cited in an arbitration case for being wrong! We need to start to differentiate the terms majority and consensus as we have seemingly lost focus and are not taking into account valid minority opinions.

At this juncture I move that the Political Positions of Sarah Palin be removed until such time as a true consensus can be reached on improved and fully encompassing copy that is balanced and meets Summary Style guidelines for Wikipedia. zredsox (talk) 13:33, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

It's tragic, the way this article has suffered from political biases (from both sides). GoodDay (talk) 13:38, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

As noted on your talk page red, the bias is not coming from the myriad of editors who wish to see a good artical here. Nothing was done arbitrarily but by following strict guidelines and coming to an understanding of one another's opinions. As I addressed on your talk page it appears that you have made edits here based on your feelings of the editors rather than the material they were presenting. This kind of editing I think produces a "machine" that is contradictory to the application of "critical thinking" as you worded it. An assumption of good faith in the consensus of the masses of editors despite one or two who are opposed because of thier own personal bias would benefit all in determining what should or should not be edited. Most importantly though are the BLP standards that we are growing closer and closer to.. --98.243.129.181 (talk) 15:13, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

You should take your own advice and review the materials presented above rather than attack the messenger. You proved my point. You have looked past all my arguments and instead made it personal. The topic of this discussion is the removal of the Sarah Palin Political Positions. Please stay focused. Thanks. zredsox (talk) 15:27, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I vote to keep the Political Positions breakout page for now. I sense the original purpose in creating it was that it was expected we would find a lot more to put in it, leaving only a few of the most important positions for the main article. We can still expect more as the discovery of Palin continues. If in a month we find little more, we can fold the breakout into the main article. Bracton (talk) 23:57, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Marathon Reference

I think the mention of S.Palin's marathon accomplishment should reference the official result from that race organization's site: http://www.athlinks.com/results/6623/8598/Humpy-s-Marathon-Half-marathon-5K-Run-26-2Mi.aspx and no other biased comment. Thus reflecting a NPOV. --Gciriani (talk) 13:53, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

No objection from me--ThaddeusB (talk) 14:35, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Object/Don't object As long as it's just a reference, I don't object. But I object to including this level of trivial detail within the article itself. --Crunch (talk) 15:02, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Minor Edit: Spelling of Anne Kilkenny

Resolved

 – Spelling fixed

-- Vary | Talk 19:03, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

While I object in principle to this form of editing by proxy, I am coming around to seeing the need for it, and I believe the article as it currently stands is about as non-biased as it's been in a week. Anyway, here's a very minor edit for someone to do. The last sentence of the third paragraph in the Wasilla section reads: "According to Ann Kilkenny, a Democrat who observed City Council, Palin also brought up the idea of banning some books at one meeting, but did not follow through with the idea." Ann should be spelled Anne, with an e on the end. The New York Times reference confirms this. Thanks. --Crunch (talk) 14:52, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Seems reasonable. Support. ++Lar: t/c 15:51, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

And... how long does it usually take to get something like this done? It's an obvious edit that isn't happening because a bunch of Wikipedia admins are squabbling amongst themselves and now the article got locked. This does wonders for Wikipedia's reputation for having content of questionable accuracy. --Crunch (talk) 18:57, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Proposed change to Wasilla section

A number of editors have worked hard on expanding the library controversy/early firings information to better reflect all the facts. (See "Book Banning" secion above.) This is what we have come up with:

---

While Palin was mayor, she raised the subject of removing some books from the town's library. According to the librarian, Mary Ellen Emmons, Palin asked her three times, beginning before she was inaugurated, about removing books from the library if the need arose. In response, Emmons refused to consider "any type of censorship". At an October 1996 city council meeting, according to one Wasilla resident, Palin asked "What would your response be if I asked you to remove some books from the collection?", because some Wasilla residents felt the books contained inappropriate language. Emmons, who had received a request for her resignation from Palin four days prior, strongly rejected the idea for a second time. Palin later stated that the question had been rhetorical in nature. Ultimately, no books were removed from the library.

In October 1996, Palin asked the Wasilla police chief, public works director, finance director, and Emmons to resign, saying that she felt they didn't support her administration. She also instituted a policy requiring department heads to get her approval before talking to reporters. In January 1997, Palin notified the police chief, Irl Stambaugh, and Emmons that they were being fired. She stated that she wanted a change because she believed the two did not fully support her administration, but declined to be more specific. She rescinded the firing of the librarian the next day, after community outcry, stating that her concerns had been alleviated when Emmons agreed to support Palin's plan to merge the town's library and museum operations. The police chief, however, was fired and filed a lawsuit. A court dismissed the suit, finding that the mayor had the right to fire city employees for nearly any reason.

---

These two paragraphs would replace the current 3rd paragraph of the "Wasilla" section. Although, I believe consensus has already been reached, I am reposting it (with references) to solicit further comment before asking it to be added to the main article.--ThaddeusB (talk) 15:10, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Oppose because this phrase "who had received a request for her resignation from Palin four days prior" is out of context and does not reflect that she was terminated the same time as the police chief. It's confusing and should be omitted. Also, though it would require a little re-writing, the order of the two paragraphs should be reversed so that the chronology makes sense.--Paul (talk) 15:19, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

The phrase in question was used to show that the letter came first since both happend in October, but I agree it is a little ackward. The 'book debate' came before the firings, so I thought this was the more logical order. Perhaps a rewrite to the order resignation, books, firings is in order? That would seem to solve both problems.

Oppose Appears to make a causal link between the book issue (which looks to be getting a little bit of undue weight) with the Palin's request for termination. After reading some of the sources both the Librarian and the police cheif actively supported her opponent for Mayor. Additionally, a city council member stated that one of the reason she was elected was for general change. Arzel (talk) 15:39, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

How about this?

Shortly after taking office in October 1996, Palin asked the Wasilla police chief, public works director, finance director, and librarian to resign, saying that she felt they didn't support her administration. In January 1997, Palin notified the police chief, Irl Stambaugh, and the librarian, Mary Ellen Emmons that they were being fired. The police chief filed a lawsuit protesting his firing. A court dismissed the suit, finding that the mayor had the right to fire city employees for nearly any reason. The firing of the librarian, was more controversial. According to Emmons, Palin had asked her three times about removing books from the library "because some Wasilla residents felt the books contained inappropriate language." Emmons refused to consider "any type of censorship". Palin later stated that the question had been rhetorical in nature. Ultimately, no books were removed from the library. Palin rescinded the firing of Emmons the day after her initial action, stating that her concerns had been alleviated when Emmons agreed to support Palin's plan to merge the town's library and museum operations.

It has all of same facts, but shows a better chronology.--Paul (talk) 15:50, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I support this section, though it is clear from the first section that the inquiries over banning books was more than a one time affair. I would suggest the following edit to the second proposal: "According to Emmons, Palin had asked her three times about removing books..." Joshdboz (talk) 15:59, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Your suggested change is fine with me. "three times" it is.--Paul (talk) 16:02, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Number of times implies that three is somehow significantly important, and strengthens the belief that the books were the reason she asked for termination (plus the bolding is a bit much). Additionally, the librarian was never fired from what I have read, only that she had said that she was going to fire her. So we cannot say that she was actually fired. Additionally for neutrality it should be noted that both the librarian and police cheif actively supported her opponent during the election for mayor. An additional minor aspect is the repeating of the first sentence later in the paragraph, this needs to be rewritten. Arzel (talk) 16:13, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Also, the word "fired" should be replaced with "terminated" in all instances. Terminate or termination of a position is the correct grammatical form. Arzel (talk) 16:17, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

New version

After some thought about this, I think 3 short paragraphs are better than 1-2 long ones. This is the best way to show chronology. As such, here is my new proposal. I added a few details to the resignations part to better show Palin's reasoning.

---

Shortly after taking office in October 1996, Palin asked the Wasilla police chief Irl Stambaugh, public works director Jack Felton, finance director Duane Dvorak, and librarian Mary Ellen Emmons to resign, saying that she felt they didn't support her administration. All four had been part of the previous administration and Palin had been elected on a platform of change. A fifth director, John Cooper resigned when his job overseeing the museum was eliminated. She also instituted a policy requiring department heads to get her approval before talking to reporters.

According to one Wasilla resident, later that month Palin asked Emmons at a city council meeting, "What would your response be if I asked you to remove some books from the collection?", because some Wasilla residents felt the books contained inappropriate language. Emmons strongly rejected the idea. According to Emmons, Palin asked her about this subject a total of three times, beginning before Palin was inaugurated. Palin later stated that the question had been rhetorical in nature and ultimately no books were removed from the library.

In January 1997, Palin notified Stambaugh and Emmons that they were being fired. She stated that she wanted a change because she believed the two did not fully support her administration, but declined to be more specific. She rescinded the firing of the librarian Emmons the next day, after community outcry, stating that her concerns had been alleviated when Emmons agreed to support Palin's plan to merge the town's library and museum operations. The police chief Stambaugh, however, was fired and filed a lawsuit. A court dismissed the suit, finding that the mayor had the right to fire city employees for nearly any reason.

---

It is probably a bit long, but I'm not sure which details to cut. Thoughts? --ThaddeusB (talk) 16:29, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Fired should be changed to terminated for proper current official terminology. Remove the "but declined to be more specific", implies that her reason wasn't valid. Arzel (talk) 16:38, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm okay with either your version (if you'll cut out "but declined to be more specific"), or my version. It is so tedious to have to devote so much of the article to this long ago little skirmish in the culture wars. My version is about 2/3 the size of yours, so I prefer it a little, but yours is a bit more neutral because it contains more of the facts from the Wasilla PDF.--Paul (talk) 16:41, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I have striken the "but declined" part. I'm not sure about 'terminated' as that seems unnecessarily harsh and firing is the more common term (even if not technically correct). If its really an issue, I can accept "that their employment was being terminated" as a replacement for "that they were being fired". (Along with changing the other mentions of fired to terminated, of course.) --ThaddeusB (talk) 16:51, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

One more change. The supplied reference does not support "after community outcry." Without a cite, it is not a NPOV and should be removed.--Paul (talk) 16:58, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Good catch - I apparently "SYNTHed" that in from somewhere with out realizing it. The actual source only says "caused a stir,' which doesn't mean much of anything. I am striking it. --ThaddeusB (talk) 17:28, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Support: I have been following this section from the beginning of its development. This is the best version. I fixed two spelling errors but otherwise I think it is ready to add to the main page. -Classicfilms (talk) 17:42, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I still think "Terminated" is the proper form, perhaps "Dismissed", but I won't press the issue. I made one small change to ensure consistancy as well (librarian to Emmons and police cheif to Stambaugh in all instances). Arzel (talk) 18:46, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

The Frontiersman just published the original Dec. 18, 1996 article which is the primary source referenced by the others. Since it looks like it was just posted, none of us would have known about it when the edits were made. I still support the section below - I just think that it needs to be tweaked to refer to the primary source. Can this be done quickly before it is added to the main article?

FROM THE ARCHIVE: Palin: Library censorship inquiries 'Rhetorical'

• http://www.frontiersman.com/articles/2008/09/06/breaking_news/doc48c1c8a60d6d9379155484.txt

Frontiersman Dec. 18, 1996 -Classicfilms (talk) 01:34, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

---

I am withdrawing this request until people have had a chance to read the newly republished original source for the news articles written on this subject. Found here: [32] I personally think the existing text is fine, but should probably be tweaked to the language of the original article and resourced where appropriate. Please make any suggested changes below the current version. --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:41, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

After extensive talk/negotiations in the Book Banning and Clarity about early firings sections, as well as some refinement here, I believe we have finally reached consensus and respectfully request the follow edit...

Please replace the current third paragraph of the Wasilla section that starts "In October 1996, she asked the Wasilla police chief..." with the following three paragraphs. --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:58, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Current version:

Shortly after taking office in October 1996, Palin asked the Wasilla police chief Irl Stambaugh, public works director Jack Felton, finance director Duane Dvorak, and librarian Mary Ellen Emmons to resign, saying that she felt they didn't support her administration.All four had been part of the previous administration and Palin had been elected on a platform of change. A fifth director, John Cooper resigned when his job overseeing the museum was eliminated. She also instituted a policy requiring department heads to get her approval before talking to reporters.

According to one Wasilla resident, later that month Palin asked Emmons at a city council meeting, "What would your response be if I asked you to remove some books from the collection?", because some Wasilla residents felt the books contained inappropriate language. Emmons strongly rejected the idea. According to Emmons, Palin asked her about this subject a total of three times, beginning before Palin was inaugurated. Palin later stated that the question had been rhetorical in nature and ultimately no books were removed from the library.

In January 1997, Palin notified Stambaugh and Emmons that they were being fired. She stated that she wanted a change because she believed the two did not fully support her administration. She rescinded the firing of Emmons the next day stating that her concerns had been alleviated when Emmons agreed to support Palin's plan to merge the town's library and museum operations. Stambaugh, however, was fired and filed a lawsuit. A court dismissed the suit, finding that the mayor had the right to fire city employees for nearly any reason.

Suggested changes: I would like to suggest that we modify the second paragraph only according to the primary 1996 source and focus on Emmons rather than what others said happened. I also used a direct quote from both Emmons and Palin in order to present both sides of the argument. Please feel free to restore deleted material or modify what I am suggesting here - in order to satisfy WP guidelines, it seems to me that we should focus on primary sources as much as possible. Here it is:

According to Emmons, Palin twice discussed the question of censorship with her during October 1996. These discussions became public when Palin, herself, referred to them during an interview. Palin stated that she wanted to know how Emmons would react to the issue of censorship in a general sense but did not have a specific list of books in mind. Emmons stated that "this is different than a normal book-selection procedure or a book -challenge policy [...] she was asking me how I would deal with her saying a book can't be in the library." Palin responded through a written statement arguing that, "Many issues were discussed, both rhetorical and realistic in nature." Utimately no books were removed from the library.

-Classicfilms (talk) 02:40, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

If the footnote doesn't appear well, here is the source again: http://www.frontiersman.com/articles/2008/09/06/breaking_news/doc48c1c8a60d6d9379155484.txt -Classicfilms (talk) 02:46, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Who supported Sarah Palin for VP before McCain picked her?

{{editprotected}} This is a story Wikipedia readers will find very interesting and I do not see it covered at all in the article now. Here is what I've found so far:

• Adam Brickley [33] A college-aged blogger, Adam was among the first people Sarah and Todd Palin called to thank him for his early support.

• Kathryn Jean Lopez writing for The Corner on National Review Online [34]

• John Gizzi [35] Political Editor of Human Events - Wrote about Sarah Palin first out of fifteen possible VP choices for McCain on March 27, 2008 after Holly Robichaud returned from the Alaska Republican convention and praised her as the next Republican superstar.

• Newt Gingrich [36] Newt has also supported Bobby Jindal, Charlie Crist, Tim Pawlenty, Rob Portman, John Kasich and Mark Sanford.

These are interesting facts. The Steven Colbert interview of Adam Brickley is pretty funny too. RonCram (talk) 15:43, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

If you'd like this included in the page you should probably write up a proposal and see if there's any interest before asking for an admin. I could see maybe a line or two here, otherwise it might be a good fit in Republican Party (United States) vice presidential candidates, 2008 or the McCain campaign article. Joshdboz (talk) 15:52, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Josh, I think it fits best here because the article is about Sarah Palin. There is no evidence McCain was swayed by any of these endorsements. In fact, McCain had some disparaging remark about Gingrich, saying something to the effect even a blind pig finds an acorn occasionally. If I could have found a citation for that, I would have included it. Perhaps someone else can find it? RonCram (talk) 15:58, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Again, if you think this fits you need to write exactly what you'd like an admin to add to the article and where to place it. Joshdboz (talk) 16:01, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Excellent question. God, perhaps? But putting her aside, readers will be happy to hear she so quickly got thumbs up from the author of the contract on America. -- Hoary 15:53, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Reverted this unexplained tampering by 65.89.68.24 and reattached my signature. -- Hoary (talk) 04:04, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Rush Limbaugh could also be added. But then in the United States anyone can support anyone else for any office. I told my city councilman that he should run for president. :-) Steve Dufour (talk) 16:34, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

If, as RonCram says, there's no evidence that McCain was swayed by any of these endorsements, then I don't think any of them are important enough to mention in the Palin bio article. JamesMLane t c 16:47, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm not so sure, James - I haven't looked at any sources yet, but it may not be about whether McCain was swayed: if they talk about why these individuals were talking about her as a viable national candidate, that could be more about her than about McCain or the campaign and if there's any substance it could belong in her bio. But again, I haven't looked at any sources so this may not fit in her biography at all. And PS to Ron - would love to find that blind pig quote - for sure there's a placew for that. Tvoz/talk 17:18, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Tvoz, yes I wish I could find it. I learned about it watching TV. An interviewer (was it Chris Wallace?) was a guest on a show along with Newt. He had just done an interview with McCain. While talking about the upcoming airing of his interview of McCain, he was pleased to tell Newt what McCain said about him on TV. I wonder if we can find a transcript of that interview? RonCram (talk) 17:49, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Tvoz, either I am misremembering or that particular interaction was left on the cutting room floor. Here's the transcript.[37]RonCram (talk) 18:05, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Hockey mom

Resolved

I understand "hockey" and "mom"; should I understand what a "hockey mom" is? -- Hoary (talk) 15:52, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Hoary, a hockey mom is akin to a soccer mom. It is the mom of kids who play hockey. It has the connotation of an involved parent driving their kids to different activities, including their sports. She is a hockey mom since she is in Alaska. RonCram (talk) 15:56, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Soccer mom is helpful. It's not an obscure term to me, a non-american, and the transfer of meaning to "hockey mom" is clear. 86.44.21.70 (talk) 17:21, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

What is the opinion on wikilinking soccer mom where hockey mom is first mentioned in the article? Oren0 (talk) 19:42, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I would say it would be fine, if Soccer mom is updated to reflect Hockey mom as a synonym. (I haven't looked at that article.) Kelly ^hi! 19:50, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Whoops - actually Hockey mom redirects to Soccer mom. So probably OK to wikilink the redirect, in case anyone ever writes the "Hockey mom" article. Kelly ^hi! 19:52, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

{{editprotected}} Please change the wiki-link on

Palin, a self-described "[[Ice hockey|hockey]] mom", is a mother of five.

to

Palin, a self-described "[[hockey mom]]", is a mother of five.

as this link will be more helpful for someone unfamiliar with the term. Hopefully this is a non-controversial edit that can be preformed immediately :) --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:02, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Y Done.  Sandstein  21:41, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Geraldine Ferraro

{{editprotected}} I noticed a bit of odd piping in one of the lead paragraphs:

Palin is the [[Geraldine Ferraro|second woman to run for vice president]] on a [[major party|major-party]] ticket and the first Republican woman to do so.

Piping "Geraldine Ferraro" that way is a bit of a no-no according to WP:PIPE. As a clearer alternative:

Following [[Geraldine Ferraro]], Palin is the second woman to run for vice president on a [[major party|major-party]] ticket and the first Republican woman to do so.

Could the sentence please be changed to reflect my suggestion? Just64helpin (talk) 15:44, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Seems a reasonable change to me. Support. ++Lar: t/c 15:49, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, seems pretty common sense. Joshdboz (talk) 16:03, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

We don't really need to say she is the first Republican here. If we say she is the second and Ferraro, a Democrat, was the first readers will be able to figure it out. :-) Steve Dufour (talk) 16:12, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

To Steve, this was discussed at Talk:Sarah Palin/Archive 11#Geraldine Ferraro. Also see this and my reply. This edit is simply to fix piping. Regards. Woody (talk) 16:17, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry. The sentence as it now is is fine. (Two "is's", is that as bad as two "that's"?) Steve Dufour (talk) 16:31, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Steve, two "is's" isn't even as bad as one "that." I defy anyone to find a sentence where there is a loss of meaning if take the word "that" out. RonCram (talk) 18:11, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

It is a bit of a no-no, but only a bit. Grouping the relevant words together definitely suggests to the reader that they should click if they wanna know who was first, so the main concern of wp:pipe is alleviated. The sentence as is parses, whereas Following Geraldine Ferraro, Palin is ... the first Republican woman to do so is a bit ewww. 86.44.21.70 (talk) 17:15, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

NB we did have a resolved argument about this; the consensus was to link to Ferraro rather than "List of VP candidates," which would have been my preference. The main line of agreement was that Ferraro need not be mentioned by name in the intro to Sarah Palin's biography. Kaisershatner (talk) 17:19, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I was aware of the previous discussion Kaisershatner, I linked to it above when I made the edit. I made the correction solely to avoid having a misleading piped link, per WP:PIPE. I have no opinion on the wording, but the current version looks to be the consensus driven version. Woody (talk) 17:44, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I think it should be left as it is. If any change is made, the only thing that really needs to be changed is to move the word "second" out of the link, so it says:

Palin is the second [[Geraldine Ferraro|woman to run for vice president]] on a [[major party|major-party]] ticket and the first Republican woman to do so. Ferrylodge (talk) 17:51, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

So instead of mentioning Ferraro directly, we're misleadingly disguising a phrase to link to her article? Can someone explain how this makes sense? Just64helpin (talk) 18:20, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

What about "Palin is the second woman to run for vice president on a major-party ticket (Democrat Geraldine Ferraro having been the first, in 1984)."

—WWoods (talk) 17:47, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Let's put Ferraro in the title of the article too.Ferrylodge (talk) 17:51, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I like Wwood's version. Much more elegant way of putting it. -- Vary | Talk 18:17, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

The most elegant way of all would be to simply say that she would be the first female Vice President. Having parenthetical in the lead is bad form. If it's not important enough to say without parentheses, then it's not important enough to be in the lead.Ferrylodge (talk) 18:31, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Bad form? Says who? And it is 'important enough to say without parenthesis', it's just difficult to say eloquently. -- Vary | Talk 18:53, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Seriously? There was a whole discussion about this, but I if needed let's have it again - there is simply no reason to mention Ferraro by name in the introduction to Sarah Palin's biography. Ferraro is mentioned in the body of the article. Kaisershatner (talk) 19:05, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Inappropriate conduct of administrators on Sarah Palin

Please, be aware of Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Inappropriate_conduct_of_administrators_on_Sarah_Palin. Discussion is there. Cenarium ^Talk 16:15, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Changes to 2008 vice presidential campaign

{{editprotected}} Edit protected null - do not add until there is a consensus for change, not before there is one. Rjd0060 (talk) 17:35, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia readers will be interested to read who the early supporters of Palin for VP were. Here is the change I am suggesting:

On August 29, 2008, in Dayton, Ohio, Senator John McCain, the Republican presidential candidate, announced that he had chosen Palin as his running mate. Palin's selection surprised many people because national media speculation centered on others, such as Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty, former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney, United States Senator Joe Lieberman of Connecticut, and former Pennsylvania Governor Tom Ridge. Early supporters of Palin for Vice President prior to McCain’s selection were:

• Adam Brickley, a college-aged blogger, launched a blog hoping to get Palin nominated. Adam was among the first people Sarah and Todd Palin called to thank him for his early support.

• John Gizzi, Political Editor of Human Events, wrote about Sarah Palin first out of fifteen possible VP choices for McCain on March 27, 2008. He selected Palin to be profiled first after Holly Robichaud returned from the Alaska Republican convention and praised her as the next Republican superstar.

• Newt Gingrich, former Speaker of the House, spoke favorably about Palin as one of several potential choices. Newt has also supported Bobby Jindal, Charlie Crist, Tim Pawlenty, Rob Portman, John Kasich and Mark Sanford.

• Rush Limbaugh, conservative talk show host, was an early Palin booster. Limbaugh put a McCain/Palin logo on his webpage in February, 2008.

RonCram (talk) 16:48, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I fail to see how this is important enough material to warrant such a lengthy addition. --ThaddeusB (talk) 16:54, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree with ThaddeusB -- some readers might be interested but not enough for this much detail about supporters. The listing of the people who were considered top-tier candidates is what's important, and that's already in there. JamesMLane t c 16:58, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

James, you are missing the point. The article currently reads as if McCain selected her from Mars. It is true that national media attention had focused on other people but Palin had her own early supporters. Readers deserve to know who they were. To prevent readers from access to this information seems like POV pushing to me. RonCram (talk) 17:54, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Articles are supposed to be informative and interesting. Without doubt most people will find this story interesting. Adam Brickley was a guest on the Steven Colbert show because of his blog and has gotten quite of bit of other media attention. People are definitely interested in this aspect of the story. Learning the other early supporters of Palin is also interesting. The entry provides links to articles about Palin prior to her nomination but speaking directly to the issue of her chances of getting the job. RonCram (talk) 17:01, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Put it in the campaign article(s), and you are forgetting Rush Limbaugh, a very early booster. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 17:03, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Interesting information, but belongs in a branching article and Brickley will likely have his own wikipage in a bit.--Tznkai (talk) 17:13, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I didn't know Rush was an early supporter, prior to the nomination. Are there any links we can use to show Rush was an early supporter?RonCram (talk) 17:18, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Of course, he's been saying it since February, but I saw it on TV, so can't link. Just Google it. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 17:27, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I found a suitable link. Rush is added. This is why this is valuable. I learned something myself. Thanks.RonCram (talk) 17:39, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Main photo

File:Sarah Palin headshot.jpg

I have found a new headshot photo of Palin from Flickr which is licensed under CC 2.0 and is not from a press agency. I think it should be the new main photo, but I may as well propose it here first. Best, Happyme22 (talk) 17:21, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

• It's a shame she's still facing the wrong way. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 17:24, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

• McCain's main photo is facing left as well. I still think this photo is better than the current one. Happyme22 (talk) 17:29, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I support the change, assuming it is indeed OK for use here. (I have no clue about these things.)

oppose What's wrong with the current picture (and facing direction?) Based soley on aesthetics I like the current one. This one seems very stately and would go nice on her main election article. --98.243.129.181 (talk) 17:31, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

FYI, she does not have a 'main election article'. If it seems very stately, then why not put it at the top of this page? I remember a discussion taking place on this very talk page regarding the photo we currently use, because not many people liked it. Well here is a solution. Happyme22 (talk) 17:39, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

FWIW I like this new one better, as it looks more professional and dignified. rootology (C)(T) 17:50, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

And it looks like a copyvio: [38] rootology (C)(T) 17:53, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I think the outdoor scene in the picture now used adds interest. Steve Dufour (talk) 17:57, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

While I disagree (what other vice president or vice presidential candidate has a main photo of them outdoors?), this is not the point. It appears Rootology is correct that this may indeed be a copyvio. Nothing was indicated at the Flickr image source (i.e. nothing that says "AP Image" or something like that) because if it was, I would not have uploaded it. If it is indeed a copyright violation, than I must support its deletion and withdraw this discussion. Happyme22 (talk) 18:01, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

For the curious, its a phrase we call "flickrwashing" over on Commons. Basically, take an image, claim it as yours on a free license, flickr it, and then try to pass it off. Sometimes they're hard to catch. The dates seem to be a giveaway here, but unless you know to look for it, it's hard to catch sometimes. :) rootology (C)(T) 18:05, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

And the magnificent photo uploaded to OTRS by Ferrylodge wins yet again. Mwahahahahah! Ferrylodge (talk) 18:03, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Give it time... every appearance she makes gives us more photos. :) rootology (C)(T) 18:05, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I believe its time for us to delete this photo as copyvio?--Tznkai (talk) 18:11, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I'd rather not with my admin tools on commons myself (although I do delete flickr copyvios routinely there). I'd prefer to leave these to someone else and let the DR there run out. rootology (C)(T) 18:19, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Now I look to the left!

It was commented that she is looking the wrong way in the current photo. That is trivial to fix if people think it is important. Dragons flight (talk) 18:14, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

This was discussed a while back and decided against, though I can't remember the policy/guideline that was cited. I really don't want to delve into the wiki-hell that are the talk page archives. :) Kelly ^hi! 18:23, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Flipping images is verboten.[39]Ferrylodge (talk) 18:36, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

That's new. As of May, MOS allowed flipping. Dragons flight (talk) 18:52, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose flipping the image, millions of people have seen it, and it will be noticed! Just wait, more images will be coming soon enough. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 20:02, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Flipping an image will start us on a road toward Wikipedia being manipulative and untrustworthy. We should not use doctored photos. The most we should accept is possibly to retouch a flash off the person's eye's. Eliminating wrinkles or reversing the photo or taking someone's head and putting it on a nude model should be strictly unacceptable. Spevw (talk) 23:36, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

You're right, messing with the image is a bad precedent. If they're concerned that it's looking "offscreen", there's no law that says we can't put it on the other side of the page. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 03:47, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Meta Discussion on reverting the talking points of others

In above discussion an editor made acusations against the authors and editors of this article claiming POV among other things. I respsonded and those responses keep getting removed. If I point out, in good faith the flaws in the POV of someones argument on this talk page, why is that getting reverted? Thanks. --98.243.129.181 (talk) 17:46, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

WP:ACCESSIBILITY

Per WP:ACCESSIBILITY and WP:MOS#IMAGES I have made this (hopefully non-controversial) edit, after a request on my talkpage. Any comments of course are welcome. Woody (talk) 17:47, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

{{edit protected}}

The image in the Sarah Palin#Personal life section has similar problems. Would another admin please move the image to after the first paragraph (to avoid alignment issues with the header) and left justify the thumbnail image (so that the people in the image are not "facing away" from the article text). --Allen3 ^talk 18:51, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

 Done--chaser - t 19:04, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Westwind II Controversy Update

The Westwind II jet, unused after purchase, was sold to a Palin campaign contributor for $600,000 less than the purchase price. A news account at the time of the sale indicates the sale was brokered by the Republican speaker of the Alaska House of Representatives.

Source: Washington Post, Saturday, September 6, 2008; Governor's Plane Wasn't Sold on Ebay http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/05/AR2008090503722_pf.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.107.54.157 (talk) 18:38, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I fail to see a conflict with our current version that reads "In August 2007 the jet was listed on eBay, though with no buyer found, it was later sold for $2.1 million through a private brokerage firm." We *could* mention that the winning bid fell through instead of just say 'no buyer was found' and we *could* add more details about how exactly the sale was arranged. However, I don't see any reason to do either. The current version is succinct and as such doesn't give undue weight to a minor event. --ThaddeusB (talk) 18:50, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

The article cited by the IP says it is unclear how the sale was ultimately arranged, with one side saying a private brokerage was used and the NYTimes reporting that the Republican Speaker arranged it. With that in mind I'd suggest that "through a private brokerage firm" is potentially problematic. Dragons flight (talk) 19:08, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

To be fair, a number of reports say "a broker" rather than a "brokerage firm". I suppose the Speaker might also count as "a broker". Dragons flight (talk) 19:14, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh my, another "controversy"! Shocking! :) Seriously, I agree with Thaddeus on the undue weight, at least for now. Also, we need to wait until at least a little time has passed, because for some reason our normally "reliable sources" like the New York Times and the Washington Post seem to be screwing the pooch a lot lately, and their stories on that topic are constantly having to be corrected or retracted - cf the New York Times pushing the bogus "secessionist" meme. Kelly ^hi! 18:55, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I think the text is fine and totally accurate the way it is. Adding "the winning bid fell through" is both vague and probably inaccurate. My understanding is that there was no actual winning bid. It was listed three times and got bids, but none of them were up to the reserve set in the auction. In eBay terms this means the sale could not be completed. Let's just leave it as it is. A bid "falling through" would mean that a succesful bid came in, but for some reason, the buyer did not pay, or the jet could not be delivered. This is not what happened. --Crunch (talk) 19:06, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, there's been some confusion in the news because McCain apparently has mistakenly said that she "sold" the jet on eBay. Shame on McCain. :) Kelly ^hi! 20:20, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

"reliable sources" with scare quotes when referring to the New York Times and the Washington Post???? What's up, Kelly? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:55, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Would the UK Times be also scared-quoted? "Vendetta row can't hold Sarah Palin back as she outshines John McCain - Times Online". Retrieved 2008-09-06. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:12, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

The whole kerfuffle around McCain and his campaign saying it was "sold on eBay" is probably better suited for the campaign article than here. I don't think Palin has ever said she sold it on eBay, just that she listed it on eBay. Granted, she didn't say it didn't actually sell on eBay and then had to sell it for a loss through a broker, but the "controversy" is a campaign issue (and a very minor one at that), not a Sarah Palin issue. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 21:27, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

The current wording, which was suggested by me the other day, was based on this account [40] from Politifact.com. It in turn cited these articles [41] and [42]. The second one quotes the owner of the Turbo North brokerage firm on the still to be completed contract with the eventual buyer, Larry Reynolds. I don't see the NYT offering up real proof to counter that for the time being. Joshdboz (talk) 21:18, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Minor change: Mother of five

The first sentence of Sarah_Palin#Personal_life reads:
"Palin is a self-described "hockey mom" and mother of five."
Unless the intent is to say she is a self-described mother of five, you might want to change this to read:
"Palin, a self-described "hockey mom," is a mother of five."
Any questions? I hope this can be done in a timely manner. Thank you. --Crunch (talk) 19:15, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Support. Fixes bad syntax.Ferrylodge (talk) 19:56, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Support. Having to wait for consensus for changes like this make WP feel like a bureaucracy. Oren0 (talk) 20:01, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Done. --- RockMFR 20:12, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Ferraro Reference

I know the Ferraro reference has been discussed in depth, but there is still an inaccuracy in how the text is currently written. It says:
Palin is the second U.S. woman to run on a major party ticket. The first was Geraldine Ferraro, the Democratic vice-presidential nominee of former vice-president Walter Mondale in 1984.
Ferraro was not Mondale's nominee. She was the nominee of the Democratic party. This may sound like a picky point, but it's not. A second point to raise is whether the point is that she is a U.S. woman or that it is a U.S. major party? I think it's the latter. So I would suggest this rewrite. The issue of who is doing the nominating is hard and fast. The issue of which nationality you want to emphasize, the woman or the party, can be debated:
Palin is the second woman to run on a major U.S. party ticket. The first was Geraldine Ferraro, the Democratic vice-presidential nominee in 1984, who ran with former vice-president Walter Mondale.
Thank you. --Crunch (talk) 19:25, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Good observation. But why not just change "nominee" to "running mate"?Ferrylodge (talk) 19:29, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Two reasons: 1) These are two different things. Mondale picked her as his running mate. Then her name was put in nomination at the convention. A vote was taken, and she was the nominated and became the official nominee of the party. History will refer to her as the nominee. She can still be called running mate, or second on the ticket, or whatever else, but the technical term now is nominee after the floor vote. 2) I was trying to change as little as possible from the original text to avoid a lengthy discussion of what else to change that would open up an unnecessary can of worms and lead us on a protracted discussion. --Crunch (talk) 19:39, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Also add that Mondale was the party's presidential nominee. GoodDay (talk) 20:29, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

• Support. Seems non-controversial, and fixes a clear error.Ferrylodge (talk) 19:43, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
• Support per Crunch. Kelly ^hi! 20:18, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
• Support No reason not to fix an error. --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:18, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
• Comment in response to GoodDay's suggestion to add that Mondale was the party's presidential nominee. That's the can of worms I was hoping not to open. If she's the VP nominee, he would have to be the Pres. nominee. The party rules don't allow for any other situation. We went round and round with this on August 29 with me explaining the difference between candidate, nominee, presumptive nominee, running mate, VP pick, best buddy, etc. --Crunch (talk) 20:37, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

{{editprotected}} Please change "Palin is the second U.S. woman to run on a major party ticket. The first was Geraldine Ferraro, the Democratic vice-presidential nominee of former vice-president Walter Mondale in 1984". to the more technically accurate "Palin is the second woman to run on a major U.S. party ticket. The first was Geraldine Ferraro, the Democratic vice-presidential nominee in 1984, who ran with former vice-president Walter Mondale." Presumably this is non-controversial and can be fixed without lengthy debate. :) --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:36, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Not controversial, and done.

Resolved

 – Kaisershatner (talk) 20:44, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Delete reference to Larry Kroon

The reference to Larry Kroon should be deleted from this article. The consensus is that he is not notable as evidenced by the deletion of articles about him. It's enough merely to state what church Sarah Palin attends. --Nowa (talk) 19:53, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

• Support. for reasons stated. --Crunch (talk) 19:57, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
• Support. Unnecessary detail.Ferrylodge (talk) 20:07, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
• Support per Nowa. Kelly ^hi! 20:14, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
• Support - unnecessary detail --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:15, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Would someone do the honors? I'm not an administrator.--Nowa (talk) 20:35, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Specifics? Woody (talk) 20:39, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

The above comment was moved from another section (presumably accidentally)--ThaddeusB (talk) 20:47, 6 September 2008 (UTC

Noiw reunited. Woody (talk) 20:59, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Do Not Support Fair is Fair on the Wiki, Obama was given much attention due to his association with a certain Pastor, Sarah's Pastor deserves the same merit.--MisterAlbert (talk) 20:39, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh gosh, I must have missed the news about Kroon making racially and politically charged sermons, and Palin responding by condemning Kroon's remarks and ending Kroon's relationship with the Palin campaign. Can you give me a link to that news, please? Also, please note that this article still mentions pastor Ed Kalnins as well. How many pastors must we mention in this article?Ferrylodge (talk) 20:48, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Um, Kroon hosted Jews for Jesus and promoted Focus on the Family's efforts to "cure" homosexuals - some people might consider that a bit politically charged. He's also profiled, along with the church, in today's New York Times. As to whether he needs to be mentioned by name, I'm agnostic, but these arguments seem a bit iffy: Kroon isn't notable enough for a standalone article, so his name can't be mentioned here? That doesn't make sense. MastCell ^Talk 23:22, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the link. That's the first I've read about Palin's church, and it seems pretty much low-key, overall. If they allowed someone from Jews for Jesus to speak there, it would seem to be a classic case of preaching to the choir, and I'm not sure it would be fair to conclude that Sarah Palin (or Kroon) has been trying to do what Mitt Romney did as a missionary in France. As for coming under fire for promoting a Focus on the Family conference dealing with the so-called curing of homosexuality, that's a one-liner from the NYT article, and it's not clear yet that Kroon (or Palin) wants to convert gays to straights or Jews to Christians or vice versa.Ferrylodge (talk) 23:50, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Poor Mitt Romney. Like I said, I don't know that we need to belabor this issue. I have a dream... a dream of a future where candidates are judged on the content of their platform, and not on who has the craziest pastor... but I seem to be in the minority these days. :) MastCell ^Talk 05:43, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

 Done Oren0 (talk) 22:08, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Oren: I would caution that consensus needs to develop over a bit longer than 40 minutes. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:46, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Just thought I'd mention that 22:08 - 19:53 = 2:15.Ferrylodge (talk) 22:50, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Jossi, with respect, the tally was 5-1. The one oppose was a WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS making a totally invalid comparison to Jeremiah Wright by an apparent sock puppet who has recently been blocked. I feel comfortable with the two hour consensus and I stand behind my action. Oren0 (talk) 23:26, 6 September 2008

(UTC)

40 minutes is not enough time to gain a consensus to delete Kroon

undo the delete,

The need to delete Kroon is a result of his recent statements??? Are editors trying to distance Palin from Kroon, he is her pastor, yes??? could the reason be below in the link?

http://www.thenation.con/blogs/campaignmatters/355534 Kroon on God an America:

"Kroon bellowed, "he'd be saying, ‘Listen, [God] is gonna deal with all the inhabitants of the earth. He is gonna strike out His hand against, yes, Wasilla; and Alaska; and the United States of America. There's no exceptions here -- there's none. It's all.'"

By the way in the last two hours since the delete of Kroon the Associated Press has done an article on Palins Church:

Palin church promotes converting gays By RACHEL D'ORO – 2 hours ago

ANCHORAGE, Alaska (AP) — Gov. Sarah Palin's church is promoting a conference that promises to convert gays into heterosexuals through the power of prayer.

"You'll be encouraged by the power of God's love and His desire to transform the lives of those impacted by homosexuality," according to the insert in the bulletin of the Wasilla Bible Church, where Palin has prayed for about six years. --MisterAlbert (talk) 23:48, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Where is 40 minutes coming from? It was two hours. And the consensus was everyone but you (and your repeated attempts to only insert negative material make me question your neutrality). 00:13, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

As for your link, blogs aren't reliable sources. Oren0 (talk) 01:14, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Well what about these links on Kroon and Palin, it appears the subject is being given national and international coverage.

http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/2008/09/05/pastor/index.html

http://www.examiner.com/Subject-Larry_Kroon.html

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/09/04/ap/politics/main4414055.shtml

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080906/ap_on_el_pr/palin_gays

http://www.thenation.com/blogs/campaignmatters/355545 --207.232.97.13 (talk) 03:27, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

• O.K., Two hours is not enough time to demonstrate consensus for deleting referenced content from the article. Edison (talk) 04:38, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
• I agree - whether 40 minutes or 2 hours, this is too rushed. There needs to be discussion, and a reasonable amount of time for people who don't live here to review material and give an informed opinion. Would there be as fast an edit if it involved adding negative material? Tvoz/talk 04:43, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, eight hours seems like plenty, and the consensus still stands.Ferrylodge (talk) 04:50, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

according to You {ferrylodge} eight hours is plenty..however it is the weekend and not all editors are out and about on the wiki...the consensus is changing, and the process is slow, and that is normal. --207.232.97.13 (talk) 05:31, 7 September 2008 (UTC)Fred

Tall Tales, Untruths, Errors of Ommission in Palins Acceptance Speech

Palin made a number of claims in her acceptance speech which are now under examination by national media. These inconsistencies need to be added to the article , to make it current.

I have uncovered some interesting info and have added it to the discussion page.

<copvio copy of AP article removed - Kelly ^hi! 22:49, 6 September 2008 (UTC)> --MisterAlbert (talk) 22:45, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Discussion of the speech would probably belong in 2008 Republican National Convention, not here. Kelly ^hi! 22:49, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

OK to remove copyvios, but replacing with a convenience link is better practice. "Attacks, praise stretch truth at GOP convention - Yahoo! News". Retrieved 2008-09-06. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:55, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

FactChecking

Her claims and the fact checks would best be in her bio:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080904/ap_on_el_pr/cvn_fact_check

Similar Piece on FactChecking from CBS: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/09/02/eveningnews/main4408870.shtml

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/09/04/politics/animal/main4414049.shtml

Another article: http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5h4Os_NvbBurz0R8IejrDDj-4sRlAD930AQV01

--207.232.97.13 (talk) 06:18, 7 September 2008 (UTC)Fred

Examining Sarahs Acceptance Speech for Untruths, Errors of Ommission and Gov't Pork spending

What needs to be added to the article are the errors of ommission, tall tales, so to speak, that are now appearing nation wide on television regarding Sarah's acceptance speech at the GOP convention. Especially in the matter of Government pork spending. Apparently Sarah took the money earmarked for the Bridge to Nowhere and used it elsewhere.

http://www.slate.com/id/2199058

Story that Sarah Palin sold Alaska state jet on eBay is a campaign-trail tall tale By CORKY SIEMASZKO New York Daily News Staff Writer :"The truth is that Palin couldn't find a buyer last year when she tried to peddle to plane on eBay - and lost the state money when she did sell it." Also reported on CNN news.

Palin Was Vetted - By the Dems in 2006! The Daily Kos reports : "Palin Used Part of the City’s Funds from the Alaska Revenue Sharing Fund to Fund Anti-Abortion Center. "

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/9/6/104926/1353/943/588935

http://www.citizensforethics.org/node/33960

--MisterAlbert (talk) 20:39, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

The Pensito Review:

Palin Cut Funding for Alaska’s Special Needs Children by 60 Percent Jon Ponder | Sep. 5, 2008

Palin: “To the families of special-needs children all across this country, I have a message: For years, you sought to make America a more welcoming place for your sons and daughters. I pledge to you that if we are elected, you will have a friend and advocate in the White House.”

"The Facts: The facts here show Governor Palin cut funding for special needs kids dramatically.

In 2007, before Palin assumed her office of governor, the State of Alaska FY2007 Governor’s Operating Budget for the Department of Education and Early Development Special Schools Component Budget Summary (this department provides services—not just school but services—for children with severe disabling conditions) includes approved and necessary budget increases to help special needs children. This budget was released in December, on the 15th to be precise, 2006."

--MisterAlbert (talk) 21:02, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi MisterAlbert, for openers, the article doesn't claim the plane was sold on eBay. Also, this isn't a forum for general discussion of Palin - what specific change to the article would you like to make? Kaisershatner (talk) 21:07, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Well how about this from the Washinton Post: Sarah Palin Plane Not Sold on eBay Updated 7:10 p.m. By Anne E. Kornblut

"It appears that, as promised during her bid for governor in 2006, Palin did try to sell the plane on eBay but that doing so was not as easy as it might have sounded. After putting it up to auction, there was one serious bid, in December 2006, and it fell through. Still, the Westwind II was sold about eight months later, achieving Palin's goal of ridding the state of a luxury item.

But that hasn't stopped Palin, or John McCain, from implying -- and, on Friday, claiming outright -- that Palin did sell the jet on the Internet.

"You know what I enjoyed the most? She took the luxury jet that was acquired by her predecessor and sold it on eBay -- and made a profit!" McCain declared in Wisconsin at a campaign stop on Friday. It could not be immediately determined what that profit was." The video tribute to Palin that aired at the Republican National Convention on Thursday night made the same claim. "She signed sweeping ethics reform legislation, auctioned the governor's jet on eBay," the narrator said, citing it in a list of Palin's achievements.

--MisterAlbert (talk) 21:37, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Hello, youll have far better luck proposing specific chanegs you'd like made than by posting blurbs and expecting others to propose a change for you. --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:51, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

First, the article doesn't say that it sold on eBay, only that it was posted on eBay. Second, her speech said "I put it on eBay," which is true. This whole issue is a non-starter. Oren0 (talk) 22:13, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Okay got it. --MisterAlbert (talk) 22:19, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Mrs Palin is clearly not racist against native minorities, she got her name from the one she married. Clearly a smear pice with no place here. --98.243.129.181 (talk) 01:43, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Gay Rights and Abortion

I'm sure it was discussed in detail, but can someone briefly summarize why the section Gay Rights and Abortion was removed?--Nowa (talk) 20:19, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

It's pretty much all in Political positions of Sarah Palin now. Kelly ^hi! 20:21, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Good article.--Nowa (talk) 20:27, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

BTW, do any of you with inside knowledge know if any of the suggestions for change will be made to that article? It's been stagnant all day. thanks --Crunch (talk) 20:40, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

It was only locked for 24hrs. Kelly ^hi! 20:48, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, that's confusing. It still has the gold full protection lock icon on it. What's up with that? --Crunch (talk) 21:03, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Full Protection until after the election

As several requests have been made to to include information that may not view Sarah Palin in a positive view I would like to request that any current negative points in the article are removed and the article is permanently locked until after the election. We of course should leave Biden's and Obama's article semi protected and open to modifications. This will ensure the current "NPOV" by the admins is maintained and each politician is treated equally. Sitedown (talk) 20:43, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Is this sarcasm? Kelly ^hi! 20:45, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

This article would be unprotected if questionable edits weren't made (before discusson). GoodDay (talk) 20:47, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Is the job of wikipedia to portray Sarah Palin in a positive view? I didn't know the McCain Campaign owned wikipedia. I've gone to Senator Obama's page and seen racial and political smears on it - and you have the audacity to say THEY should be only semi-protected while hers should be fully. Hypocrisy at it's finest.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.123.224.177 (talk • contribs)

Sooo if there's smears at the Obama article; you prefer smears here too? GoodDay (talk) 20:54, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

The first person who started this did. "We of course should leave Biden's and Obama's article semi protected and open to modifications." Otherwise I wouldn't have mentioned it. What I prefer is that I do not open the Obama page to see only "Left-wing nutcase socialist who wants to raise everyones taxes" like I did a few days ago. Either make them BOTH fully protected or not. Don't slant it to the right OR the left.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.123.224.177 (talk • contribs)

If the rate of vandalism is the same at both articles? Then I'm in agreement. GoodDay (talk) 21:00, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I am fine with this proposition under the condition all articles about Senators McCain, Biden and Obama are put to the same level of protection. However, if any of these stories are proven true by the national media, I would like them added.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.123.224.177 (talk • contribs)

Okay.. This is just nutty. Vandalism will happen on Wikipedia and it is corrected as quickly as possible. The difference here is that because of the newness of Palin on the national scene and the press taking the "Just run with it! We'll post a correction later if we have to" attitude with her there was a lot of crap in reliable sources this last week. Once the press gets settle down and actually starts to fact check and the editors here get some of the rough bits ironed out, there shouldn't be a reason why this article can't be semi-protected at most... --Bobblehead ^(rants) 21:04, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

We are not here to decide when a reliable source is no longer so. The Washingto Post, NPR, The Times, and many others' reports can and should be used in WP articles. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:15, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

This is very true. My comment was not intended to indicate that the sources should not be used, just that the press was rather loose with their standards this week and as a result there was a lot of contradictory information out there. As a result of this reasonable editors fought over which source was "more correct". --Bobblehead ^(rants) 21:21, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

"Rather loose"? And who are we to make these value judgments? One can call it "rather loose", others may call it "doing their job" in a country in which there is freedom of press. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:32, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Jossi, even the New York Times[43] and the Washington Post[44] have printed false claims about Palin this week. Kelly ^hi! 21:36, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

... and if that is the case, we report it. NPOV 101. Or are we now the deciders/censors of what we report in WP articles? I don't think so. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:38, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Report what? Kelly ^hi! 21:41, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

What the sources say. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:47, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Jossi, I totally understand where you're coming from. But per WP:REDFLAG we have to be really cautious about the controversial stuff. There's no harm in sometimes waiting a little while for things to be verified - there is no deadline. Kelly ^hi! 22:54, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

(outdent somewhat)*sigh*Seriously, Jossi. Dial it back a bit. I think we're both on the same side here. The press is certainly doing their job and looking into Palin's past and, for the most part, have done a good job of it, but they've also made some mistakes in their rapidity to get the information out. Are the mistakes as bad as the Republicans are making it out to be? Absolutely not. I don't know what Palin and McCain were expecting to happen when they brought her basically out of nowhere, but she's just getting the attention usually given to politicians, just in a much more concentrated form. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 21:49, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Whoo, chill out. I am quite confident that the OP was just expressing there frustration about not being able to edit in a sarcastic way. Also, mystery user please start signing your posts. Just add --~~~~ to the end of what you write. --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:06, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Agree with Thaddeus. Obvious sarcasm borne of frustration. No need to escalate. --Crunch (talk) 21:10, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough, but I do not agree with the premise that because someone may not be viewed favorably on their page they deserve protection for it. The job of wikipedia is not to provide a positive view of any politician or individual - it's to provide some facts backed up by sources. --165.123.224.177 (talk) 21:10, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Sure, but unsourced crap won't be tolerated either. Pre-protection, this page was attracting a lot of that. See WP:BLP. Oren0 (talk) 21:29, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I think Jossi's point is simply that Wikipedia cares about NPOV, V and NOR, not about whether a view is positive or negative (it is precisely because we editors have such divergent feelings about what is negative or positive that we have the NPOV policy! This is what it is here for!) That said, I assume Jossi agrees that BLP applies here as well. I see no cause for a complete freeze of this article (or the articles on Obama, McCain, Biden) before the election, especially since the main page will surely include stories about them that match current events. I do know that this page has become very heated. Is it possible for all partices to agree (1) that the page can be edited as long as edits crupulously comply with NPOV, V, NOR and BLP? Furthermore, are people in agreement that (2) as long as the page is protected, edits should be discussed on the talk page before being made to the article? It seems to me that things have calmed down here over the past 24 hours and I hope that is so but yesterday people were expressing a good deal of concern at AN/I. It seems to me that as long as everyone agrees to (1) and (2), the article need not be locked. Slrubenstein | Talk 23:30, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Hello Slrubenstein, welcome! I am taking a much needed wikibreak over the next few days. Your always judicious comments and clarity will most certainly help here. Hope you can stick around and lend a hand. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:55, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

There was just an edit revert war on this talk page. It whizzed by so quick it's hard to even see let alone handle appropriately.. That being said I think that to open up the mainpage to consensus free editing at the moment would be a mistake. The article is starting to look good and I think if we get a larger framework of editors to catch all these little things in place then we could open it up. As it is, we cant even maintain the talkpage well enough just yet. :) Keep it locked until lots more seasoned editors come in to help or until the buzz dies down.. presumably after the election. Either way, no need for any hasty decisions nor decisions that lack proper consensus. --98.243.129.181 (talk) 02:33, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Sarah: How a Hockey Mom Turned Alaska's Political Establishment Upside Down

I got the book in the mail today. I'll be glad to add page-specific cites as soon as the article is back to semi-protection. Coemgenus 22:17, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Cool, we've been needing that. Thanks, Coemgenus! Kelly ^hi! 22:22, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I see it came out in April 2008 - that author has no idea how lucky she is! Any new info would be appreciated. Joshdboz (talk) 23:36, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually, since the recently issued (September 1) paperback edition is #15 on the Amazon bestseller chart, I'll bet the author knows EXACTLY how lucky she is, especially when the checks start to arrive. :-) -- ArglebargleIV (talk) 00:45, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

You don't have to wait for the protection to be downgraded. If you can generate consensus for any changes from that book, we can go ahead and add them. Oren0 (talk) 01:37, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Heck, adding the page numbers to the existing cites will be obviously non-controversial. Just put a list here when you have them ready. GRBerry 03:42, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Sarah approved of Baracks Energy Plan

google cached it before it was removed.

State of Alaska > Governor > News > News Details Palin Pleased with Obama's Energy Plan Includes Alaska's Natural Gas Reserves Printer Friendly

No. 08-135

August 4, 2008, Fairbanks, Alaska - Governor Sarah Palin today responded to the energy plan put forward by the presumptive Democratic nominee for President, Illinois Senator Barack Obama.

“I am pleased to see Senator Obama acknowledge the huge potential Alaska’s natural gas reserves represent in terms of clean energy and sound jobs,” Governor Palin said. “The steps taken by the Alaska State Legislature this past week demonstrate that we are ready, willing and able to supply the energy our nation needs.”

In a speech given in Lansing, Michigan, Senator Obama called for the completion of the Alaska natural gas pipeline, stating, “Over the next five years, we should also lease more of the National Petroleum Reserve in Alaska for oil and gas production. And we should also tap more of our substantial natural gas reserves and work with the Canadian government to finally build the Alaska natural gas pipeline, delivering clean natural gas and creating good jobs in the process.”

Governor Palin also acknowledged the Senator’s proposal to offer $1,000 rebates to those struggling with the high cost of energy.

“We in Alaska feel that crunch and are taking steps to address it right here at home,” Governor Palin said. “This is a tool that must be on the table to buy us time until our long-term energy plans can be put into place. We have already enjoyed the support of Alaska Senator Ted Stevens, and it is gratifying to see Senator Obama get on board.”

The Governor did question the means to pay for Obama’s proposed rebate — a windfall profits tax on oil companies. In Alaska, the state’s resource valuation system, ACES, provides strong incentives for companies to re-invest their profits in new production.

“Windfall profits taxes alone prevent additional investment in domestic production. Without new supplies from American reserves, our dependency and addiction to foreign sources of oil will continue,” Governor Palin said

--MisterAlbert (talk) 23:16, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi again MisterAlbert, as noted above, this is not a general forum for discussion of Sarah Palin. Posting those accusatory section titles and these article snippets is not precisely discussion of how to improve the article. Do you have an addition you are proposing? Best, Kaisershatner (talk) 00:07, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Recap of Political positions

Political positions (current mainspace version)

Main article: Political positions of Sarah Palin

Many of Palin's political views are of a strong social conservative nature: she opposes abortion except when the life of the mother would otherwise be imperilled, and is a member of Feminists for Life; she backs capital punishment, and opposes same-sex marriage. She is also a member of the National Rifle Association and is a strong supporter of the right to keep and bear arms.

Palin is known for her support of "individual freedom and independence", and her endorsement for the minimal state and economic liberty of classical libertarianism: she is known in Alaska for her strong opposition to what she views as excessive government spending and corruption. She has strongly supported development of oil and natural gas drilling in Alaska, including in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.

Comments on Political positions (current mainspace version)

• This version is currently in mainspace. It is way too short. QuackGuru 22:53, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
• Keep - This version is fine for now, written in summary style, and comparable to Joe Biden#Political positions. I would much rather see incremental improvement to it via {{editprotect}} than to replace it with one of the laundry lists of controversial issues below. Kelly ^hi! 22:57, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
• Expand - A featured article has a very well written political positions section. Barack Obama#Political positions This article would easily fail to be a WP:GA because of the very short political positions section. QuackGuru 23:06, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
• Expand. "Controversy" doesn't have any meaning; as long as there are no BLP violations, and care is taken to follow the sources, why shouldn't it be in the Positions section? QuackGuru, please find us a few reliable sources that say that Palin took these positions deliberately, to forestall any claim that a position is a slip of the tongue or something. We do not need Palin's campaign website to also say what positions she takes, but if there is such a source, please add it, so that nobody can say it isn't appropriate for Wikipedia. Also, please note that only 10,000 people a day visit the Political positions of Sarah Palin article, but 500,000 visit this page, so the "they can just click through" argument must be tempered to allow more in the summary. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 23:13, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
• Keep - There is no need for a main biographical article of a politician to give lots of political positions on particular issues. For example, see the John McCain article which is a featured article that only addresses two particular issues: the economy and Iraq. John McCain#Political positions mostly covers broad themes, and leaves particular issues for the sub-article. It's very difficult to describe a particular issue position in a very brief sound bite, and that's why we have the sub-articles. Also, doing it all in the main article will prevent the main article from ever becoming stable; people will constantly be arguing about which issues to include, and how to describe her position.Ferrylodge (talk) 23:14, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment The article is protected, so stability shouldn't be a problem. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 23:53, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
• Note - Talk:Joe Biden/GA1 Either expand "Political positions" or get rid of it. It has a separate article, and that's fine, but the one in this article is way too short for its own section. The Joe Biden article failed to become a Good Article in part because of the short political positions section. The goal for this article can easily be a WP:GA. This can happen when we work together in good faith and are reasonable. QuackGuru 23:40, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
• This is not enough on her positions. Social issues are not the single, monolithic important aspect to her campaign. She ran as governor as a fiscal conservative, and has said on numerous occasions that she opposes pork-barrel spending. There is plenty of evidence to suggest her past history with lobbyists contradicts her statements. With that in mind, the "Political Positions" part of the article should be split into Social Issues and Fiscal Issues. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.123.227.162 (talk) 23:54, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
• Keep The current short summary is fine, it's the same as Joe Biden. If someone is intrested we have a full article dedicated to political positions, no need to duplicate the whole thing here. Time to focus on improving other parts of the article. Hobartimus (talk) 04:43, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Did you read my note above? The Joe Biden article failed GA in part because of the short political positions section. QuackGuru 05:23, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Political positions (draft 1)

Main article: Political positions of Sarah Palin

Palin has described the Republican Party platform as "the right agenda for America," adding "individual freedom and independence is extremely important to me and that's why I'm a Republican."

She has called herself as "pro-life as any candidate can be " and would permit abortion only in cases where the mother's life is in danger, and supports mandatory parental consent for abortions. Palin is a member of Feminists for Life. Palin has been described as supportive of contraception. She backs abstinence-only education and is against "explicit sex-ed programs" in schools. She supports capital punishment and opposes same-sex marriage and supported a non-binding referendum for a constitutional amendment to deny state health benefits to same-sex couples.

Palin has said she supports teaching both creationism and evolution in public schools, but not to the extent of adding creation-based alternatives to the required curriculum. She has strongly promoted oil and natural gas resource development in Alaska, including in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR). She has opposed federal listing of the polar bear as an endangered species warning that it would adversely affect energy development in Alaska. Palin does not believe that global warming is human-caused.

Palin, a long-time member of the National Rifle Association, strongly supports its interpretation of the Second Amendment as protecting individual rights to bear arms, including handguns. She also supports gun safety education for youth.

Palin's foreign policy positions were unclear at the time she was picked as McCain's running mate. When asked for her views about troop escalations in Iraq, she replied "…while I support our president, Condoleezza Rice and the administration, I want to know that we have an exit plan in place…"

Comments on Political positions (draft 1)

This draft is very well written. QuackGuru 22:53, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I like #1 since it is shorter than #2 and to the point. I would tighten it up bit more by:

• Delete the mention that she is a member of Feminists for Life. It should certainly be mentioned in the article, but not here. Membership in an organization is not a political position.

• State simply that “Palin is pro contraception. “ That is the clear message in the cited reference. There is no need to qualify it with “it has been reported that”. This is an encyclopedia article. Everything we post has been reported by others.

• Delete the mention that she is a member of the NRA for the same reasons above. It should be in the article, but not here. Instead simply say that “Palin strongly supports an individual’s right to bear arms, including handguns. “

• Regarding foreign policy, simply say “Palin supports the current administration’s policies in Iraq”. There is no need to mention what we don’t know (i.e. her positions are unclear). When they become clear, we can add them. There is also no need to mention that she wants to know we have an exit plan in place. That’s not a policy position.

• Add that she is pro Israel--Nowa (talk) 02:22, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

If you would like, I can go ahead and make the above edits, or leave it to the original poster to decide which of these, if any, to incorporate in his/her proposed draft. Just let me know.--Nowa (talk) 01:36, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I started a new section below for you to draft a similar version to draft 1. Anything is better than the current mainspace version. QuackGuru 05:04, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Political positions (draft 2)

Main article: Political positions of Sarah Palin

Palin has described the Republican party platform as "the right agenda for America," adding "individual freedom and independence is extremely important to me and that's why I'm a Republican."

In 2002, while running for lieutenant governor, Palin called herself as "pro-life as any candidate can be." She opposes abortion in cases of rape and incest, supporting it only in cases where the mother's life is in danger, and suggested that requiring parental consent for abortions be added to Alaska's constitution. Palin is a member of Feminists for Life. A 2006 article in the Anchorage Daily News refers to Palin as supportive of contraception but does not go into detail. She is a "firm supporter of abstinence-only education in schools", saying, "explicit sex-ed programs will not find my support".

Palin supports capital punishment for some crimes. "If the legislature passed a death penalty law, I would sign it. We have a right to know that someone who rapes and murders a child or kills an innocent person in a drive-by shooting will never be able to do that again."

Palin opposes same-sex marriage and supported a non-binding referendum for a constitutional amendment to deny state health benefits to same-sex couples. Palin has stated that she supported the 1998 constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage.

In a televised debate in 2006, Palin said she supported teaching both creationism and evolution in public schools. She clarified her position the next day, saying that if a debate of alternative views arose in class she would not want its discussion prohibited. She added that she would not push the state Board of Education to add creation-based alternatives to the state's required curriculum. Palin does not believe that global warming is human-caused. Palin opposed federal listing of the polar bear as an endangered species on the grounds that the "population has dramatically increased over 30 years as a result of conservation," and supported a controversial predator-control program involving aerial hunting of wolves to increase moose populations for hunters.

Palin, a long-time member of the National Rifle Association, strongly supports its interpretation of the Second Amendment as protecting individual rights to bear arms, including handguns. She also supports gun safety education for youth.

Palin's foreign policy positions were unclear at the time she was picked as McCain's running mate. When asked for her views about troop escalations in Iraq, she replied "…while I support our president, Condoleezza Rice and the administration, I want to know that we have an exit plan in place…"

Comments on Political positions (draft 2)

This draft has the most detail. QuackGuru 22:53, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

If this is going to be a summary of what is described in more detail on Political positions of Sarah Palin, there probably should be a mention of her position on energy and the environment. --Crunch (talk) 23:18, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Here is a transcript of an interview with her on CNN earlier this year. In it, she carefully outlines her strong opinions that the environmental activists are using the Endangered Species Act as a tool to prevent oil and gas development that will not really harm the environment. It is clear that this is a political position she believes in. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 23:48, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Comment- In an (probably archived already) discussion, we hashed out better language than "Palin, a long-time member of the National Rifle Association, strongly supports its interpretation of the Second Amendment as protecting individual rights to bear arms..." which makes it sound as if Palin holds the position because the NRA does. Better wording would be more like "Palin strongly supports the individual right to bear arms and praised the 2008 US Supreme Court decision in Heller that interpreted the Second Amendment as an individual right.(cite) She is a long-time member of the NRA.(cite)" etc. Kaisershatner (talk) 00:01, 7 September 2008 (UTC) NB this discussion is still several sections above, not archived yet. Kaisershatner (talk) 00:02, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

• Comment The reference for the predator hunting program does not confirm that Palin supports the program, nor does it support the POV-clause "for hunters." Also, this is mostly a list of wedge issues and doesn't really tell us anything about Sarah Palin's political principles or political accomplishments. It is well documented that she is a fighter for ethics in government, and against wasteful spending, having vetoed 300 spending items so far as governor. This summary is not balanced. --Paul (talk) 01:06, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

It is equally well documented that she has been a fighter for earmarks, and has helped to appropriate vast sums of money for her town, and later for the "bridge to nowhere" that she later changed her mind on. So are we talking about the dictionary definition of "balanced", or the FOX News definition? -- Scjessey (talk) 01:54, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I prefer a summary that doesn't address any specific positions. I would prefer the summary only deal with her political philosophy and possibly decision making process. I prefer this for two reasons: one it avoids unnecessary duplication of info and two it discourages people from adding more specifics and more specifics as is bound if the article becomes unprotected again. The section will inevitability expand until it is basically a copy of the daughter article again. (This already happened multiple times despite the hidden comment asking people not to expand it.) All of that said, I think this is a well written, reasonable, and fair summary. However, I feel it is at the very least too long and detailed. --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:11, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

"A summary that doesn't address any specific positions" doesn't make any sense at all. How can you have a section called "Political positions" that doesn't specify any? While I agree these sections have a tendency to expand, that is not a good enough reason to keep important details out of the summary. There are plenty of editors who can step in to provide guidance, perform "good faith reverts" and/or perform regular pruning as and when necessary. This particular version is reasonable, accurate and non-controversial summary of the key details. -- Scjessey (talk) 01:49, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Biden doesn't address any and McCain only addresses two, so certainly it can be done. To be clear I meant that the summary should be something like it is now (only bigger) in that it explains the general principles behind her positions without addressing the finer details. A few sentences on her philosophy on social issues, a few on her economic view (with ~1 on her view of the environment.), a few on her view of governments role, and maybe a few on what she is know for/how other view her. --ThaddeusB (talk) 03:20, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

edit requested

{{editprotected}}

• Remove space between "graduating in 1987." and "[10][11]", end of 4th para. of first section.

• In Political positions:

Palin is known for her support of "individual freedom and independence,"[3] and she is known in Alaska for her strong opposition to what she views as excessive government spending and corruption.[101]

Illogical punctuation, needs to be

Palin is known for her support of "individual freedom and independence",[3]

per WP:MOS. Please undertake these highly urgent edits immediately. Thanks. 86.44.22.55 (talk) 01:28, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

 Done No controversy here. Oren0 (talk) 01:35, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

That is not how commas work. 147.136.249.101 (talk) 02:29, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Mary Ellen Emmons redirects here?

Should this be the case? It's true that she's related to Palin but not only to Palin. This is an individual who isn't notable to have an article for herself so I don't see why she should redirect here. Oren0 (talk) 01:48, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

The redirect should be removed.--Paul (talk) 01:49, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

This was the reason the editor created the redirect.

(cur) (last) 12:00, 6 September 2008 Grundle2600 (Talk | contribs) (25 bytes) (Mary Ellen Emmons is the librarian that Palin allegedly fired)

Not sure if that's a good enough reason, just providing input. Veriss (talk) 02:05, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I've removed it. ffm 02:26, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

So why is Kroon redirected? --207.232.97.13 (talk) 03:19, 7 September 2008 (UTC)Fred

It is currently up for deletion and it looks highly likely the deletion will go through. --ThaddeusB (talk) 03:45, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

why delete it? --207.232.97.13 (talk) 04:34, 7 September 2008 (UTC)fred

Music Group Heart doesn't want Palin to Use their song

An interesting tidbit for music buffs. Cease and desist on Barracuda.

http://www.boston.com/ae/music/blog/2008/09/heart_to_mccain.html --207.232.97.13 (talk) 03:17, 7 September 2008 (UTC)Fred

More appropriate to the campaign article (if anywhere) rather than her biography. Dragons flight (talk) 03:29, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I think it's discussed at Barracuda (song). Kelly ^hi! 03:34, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

--207.232.97.13 (talk) 06:25, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Room for Political Humor on the Wiki

Cartoons and Posters:

http://z.about.com/d/politicalhumor/1/0/t/G/2/palin-pregnant-daughter.jpg

http://z.about.com/d/politicalhumor/1/0/enwiki/w/H/2/bush-years-sac0904cd.jpg

http://www.cinematical.com/2008/09/03/fan-made-hilarious-juneau-poster

http://thebruceblog.files.wordpress.com/2008/08/palinqueen.jpg?w=400&h=604

--207.232.97.13 (talk) 04:30, 7 September 2008 (UTC)fred

WP:NFCC would make it difficult to use these copywritten images in our articles. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 04:49, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Miz Scarlett LeadPipe's Photos of Palin Moosehunting

I found these on the daily Kos in the comments: Wonder if these are copyright? People earlier were looking for better photos.

http://s180.photobucket.com/albums/x98/ms_scarlett_leadpipe/

--207.232.97.13 (talk) 06:25, 7 September 2008 (UTC)Fred

Photos are always copyrighted unless explicitly released under a free license. Kelly ^hi! 06:56, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Pic

How about an image of the GOP ticket?

Ferrylodge (talk) 06:35, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Looks good for a campaign article, but Palin's article should probably have pictures with her focused.--Tznkai (talk) 06:55, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I guess we'll just have to wait for better pics to become available.Ferrylodge (talk) 07:33, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Poor archiving?

I came back to see if anyone offered some actual substance to the "Sambo/b*tch" claim, and see that it's neither on the discussion page nor in the archives. Please don't make the discussion page worse for POV than it needs to be by removing posts here. --Kickstart70-T-C 07:13, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Not positive, but the section was likely removed per WP:BLP as unsourced or poorly-sourced potentially defamatory information. Kelly ^hi! 08:36, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

The Enviroment Important Information needs to be added

Source: http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/opinion/377955_palinenvir07.html

Pebble Mine Palin a opposed the "clean water initiative" on the August ballot in Alaska (which then failed), favoring instead foreign mining company desires for fewer government regulations controlling their toxic effluent into salmon streams. She has supported virtually any and all mining proposals that have come her way, even likely the enormous Pebble gold and silver mine proposed in the Bristol Bay watershed. That plan put at risk the largest runs of sockeye salmon in the world, where this summer fishermen caught more than 27 million salmon.

http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/Protect_Alaska%27s_Clean_Water_Act_%282008%29

Last year, her administration offered a $150 bounty for each wolf killed until the bounty was ruled illegal by the courts. Much controversy was created when Biologists killed 14 wolf cubs, dragging them from their den after killing the parents

http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/Alaska_Wolf_and_Bear_Protection_Act_(2008) . http://www.grizzlybay.org/SarahPalinInfoPage.htm

http://www.wolfsongnews.org/news/Alaska_current_events_2825.html

http://www.defenders.org/newsroom/press_releases_folder/2008/07_23_2008_statement_regarding_illegal_killing_of_14_wolf_pups_in_alaska.php

P.S. I forgot to Mention the Safari Club International

http://www.alternet.org/environment/97207/sarah_palin%E2%80%99s_big,_sleazy_safari/

Palin has supported oil and gas drilling plans anywhere in Alaska, including in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, the central Arctic, the entire Arctic Ocean, and in fish-richBristol Bay andCook Inlet

--207.232.97.13 (talk) 08:11, 7 September 2008 (UTC)Fred

I think all that stuff is covered (albeit in a more neutral way) in Political positions of Sarah Palin. Kelly ^hi! 08:35, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

edit needed

Per Talk:Sarah Palin#Political positions (2), "and she is known in Alaska for her strong opposition to what she views as excessive government spending and corruption" is sourced to a Times of London op-ed which says she got to be governor "by challenging the entrenched interests in her own party and beating them. In almost two years as Governor she has cleaned out the Augean stables of Alaskan Government." Does anyone really think that is good enough? 86.44.29.35 (talk) 09:19, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

link to op-ed 86.44.29.35 (talk) 09:20, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Beluga whales

Currently, the last line of "Energy and Environment" states:

Palin also disagrees with strengthening the protection status of the beluga whales in Cook Inlet, Alaska, where oil and gas development has been proposed.

Recommend replacing with:

Palin also opposed the placement of beluga whales in Alaska's Cook Inlet on the engangered species list, on economic grounds. Palin cited state scientists who claimed that hunting was the only factor causing the whales' decline, and that the hunting has been effectively controlled through cooperative agreements with Alaska Native organizations.

I believe it's more neutral and specific. This is the additional source being cited for the info, in addition to the source already on the sentence. Kelly ^hi! 09:12, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose That source is the government of Alaska's own page. Since Palin is the governor, that is a decidedly non-neutral source; she could well have written it herself. Please find a newspaper or other independent secondary source that says what you (and Palin) are claiming. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 09:48, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

  Here is another source regarding the whale population and the agreements with the Eskimos. I think the state press release should also be kept as an additional source though, since it contains the scientists' statments. Kelly ^hi! 09:55, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

• • I see where you're coming from, Kelly, but it's not really more neutral since it gives her rebuttal but no argument for. The NMFS doubtless have their scientists too. How about

In 2007 Palin urged against a proposal by the National Marine Fisheries Service to place beluga whales in Alaska's Cook Inlet on the engangered species list. Such a listing entails vetting of all actions under the scope of federal agencies. Palin argued that there was evidence that the whale population was on the increase, and warned against damage to the local economy by the costs of added delays in process.

? 86.44.29.35 (talk) 10:00, 7 September 2008 (UTC)