Talk:Sarah Palin

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

The Bristol Palin Part of the Main Article Ignores the Fact that Bristol's Pregnancy Was Only Announced in Response to Vicious Internet Rumors

Sarah Palin did not suddenly decided to make her daughter of 17 an issue. Vicious Internet rumors falsely claimed that Sarah was claiming the daughter's baby. Only to squelch those rumors was the announcement about Bristol made. While the press was putting Bristol Palin on the front page of newspapers, there was no mention whatever of any of Biden's kids when they were 17, and the press failed to investigate rumors which had persisted since October 2007 that John Edwards was having an affair. As Obama and Biden correctly noted, children are off limits. The press indeed left the children of Democrats off limits, but not the children of Republicans, thereby leaving the press wide open to charges of partisan bias. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.44.153.18 (talk) 16:00, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree about Gov. Palin not intending to make her daughter an issue, but I think there was a slight correction. I think what touched that off was that some blogger claimed that Bristol was the actual mother of Trig (the baby suffering from Down's Syndrome). WAVY 10 Fan (talk) 16:09, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Yartett (talk) 14:32, 8 September 2008 (UTC)First entry here folks. ;-) The pregnancy is an issue given that Sarah Palin is a so-con who is into abstinence sex-ed, and that she might not have told McCain.

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?[5]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.[6] 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.[7] 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)

   Rebuttal to 4: Once agin, this is not a dead issue. The facts have been documented that she and her husband have been associated with the AKIP, he as a formal member, she as a sympathizer, who stated in the welcome video a sympathy for the party and support for its success. --Zeamays (talk) 17:07, 8 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 [8] 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." [9]

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 [[10] and TIME [11]. 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)

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)

Link Request for Librarian/book removal issue

Can we add a link in this section to Wasilla librarian letter of termination? I found this article very useful for fleshing out this issue. --Bertrc (talk) 14:59, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

That article is up for deletion. Virtually all of the same ideas are discussed below at:

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

-Classicfilms (talk) 15:22, 7 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 [12]. 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)

We need to tweak this sentence:

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.

This is a strong evidence to support the argument that Palin did not fire Monegan because of Wooten. If that was her goal, wouldn't Wooten have been history?

Regarding labeling this section with the highly POV term "TrooperGate" ... ah let me think ... No. Freedom Fan (talk) 16:26, 8 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. [13] 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)

• How could it not be notable that she never travelled abroad until a couple of years ago, when she was in her forties? There must be something odd about that. It would be preferable to say "After becoming governor, Palin obtained a passport for the first time ...", if it is really true that she had never had one before. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.10.176.118 (talk) 19:30, 7 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. [14] 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).

N Edit declined. Everyone, please form a consensus first and then use {{editprotected}}. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 19:47, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

"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 [15] which led to her acknowledging on August 13 that there had been over twenty contacts made by her administration relating to Wooten[16], one of which resulted in her then suspending her Director of Boards and Commissions, Frank Bailey[17]. 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? [18] 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:[19]

"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)

You farst stated "The Senator... expects to damage Palin". That first source you used is a paraphrasing from the Republican of what the Democrat said. This new source is the actual quote from the Democrat where he said "It's [the report] likely to be damaging to the Governor's administration". Not at all the same thing. And not worthy of a summary. Spiff1959 (talk

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

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,[20] "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:[21]

“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[22] nor the sub-article[23] 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”.[24] 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: [25]. 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)

I see. Whichever version ends up protected, from that point on any addition or removal needs consensus to go ahead. In theory the protection is placed with no particular regard for the "correct" version. Because protection is to prevent edit warring, there will always be those who feel they have won, and those who don't. It's not ideal, but it is the best we have for now. Kevin (talk) 22:50, 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)

Considering that the Obama page now reads "The speech, delivered in front of 84,000 supporters, contained pointed criticism of McCain and President Bush, and added details to his stances that were not mentioned in previous campaign speeches.[105][106]", yes, there is a huge double-standard in place. Now there is no praise of the Obama speech, and in comparison to this article, the Obama speech is now portrayed as the "attack" speeech, yet we (and apparently all media analysts) continue to fawn over Sarah's speech. Spiff1959 (talk) 16:21, 7 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

The "NPOV" regarding 2008 convention speeches is WAY off kilter, yet no one is concerned about addressing this? My edit was declined yet no one had directly objected to the change itself, we're all fine with declaring the "Palin speech was well-received by media analysts"? The Obama article now states only this regarding his speech: "The speech, delivered in front of 84,000 supporters, contained pointed criticism of McCain and President Bush, and added details to his stances that were not mentioned in previous campaign speeches.[105][106]" This Palin article addresses her speech in this manner: "On September 3, 2008, 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]". Were one to analyze the two speeches I doubt anyone would disagree that the finding would show a much higher percentage of Palin's speech was spent "on the offensive" than Obama's speech. Yet, we portray Obama's as the "attack" speech. I saw staunch-conservative, former Nixon speechwriter, former Reagan aide and two-time Republican presedential candidate Pat Buchanan state "That was the best acceptance speech I've ever heard". Yet, Obama's article has zero praise about the speech. I witnessed no counterpart to Buchanan extorting Palin's speech, yet it was "well-received by the crowd" and throughout the land it was "well-received by media analysts". It is shocking that millions of readers are being subjected to sourceless statements and outright partisan bias. Spiff1959 (talk) 16:53, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Version 2 of a proposed edit regarding the sentence describing the Plain RNC speech: "At the Republican National Convention, Palin delivered a 40-minute acceptance speech that was mainly directed against the opposition party." Comments? Spiff1959 (talk) 19:39, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

It is odd to see that the Palin speech that is best decribed, based on media accounts, as consisting of "pointed criticism", on WP is only referred to as "well-received by media analysts". The Obama speech that is best described, based on media accounts, as "well-received by media analysts", is labeled here as consisting of "pointed criticism". Juxtaposed. Argue whatever minutiae you wish, but you can not argue that WP is not contrary to the vast majority of media accounts.Spiff1959 (talk) 20:43, 7 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 (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)

This piece in the ADN states that Palin "gained a reputation as an ethics reformer" and "[gained] a reputation as a fiscal conservative". How about a new wording for this phrase based on the ADN source:

she gained a reputation in Alaska as a fiscal conservative and ethics reformer

T0mpr1c3 (talk) 19:32, 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.

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: [26] 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 a 1996 article in the Mat-Su Valley Frontiersman, Emmons stated that Palin twice discussed the question of library censorship with her. These discussions, which took place in October 1996, became public when Palin, herself, referred to them during an interview. Palin argued 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 "I will fight anyone who tries to dictate what books can go on the library shelves [...] 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 that "many issues were discussed, both rhetorical and realistic in nature." She also later stated that "the issue was discussed in the context of a professional question being asked in regards to library policy." Ultimately 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)

I disagree with the proposed changes to the 2nd paragraph. This is entirely too much detail and bumps up against WP:UNDUE. I support the three-paragraph version, above.--Paul (talk) 15:28, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

We need to include the original, primary source which was not available when that version was being hashed out. If this version is too long, tweak or trim it as I wrote above. But I would disagree with any version which does not make use of the primary source. The WP always encourages the use of primary sources. -Classicfilms (talk) 16:22, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia urges the use of secondary sources, not primary sources. Use of primary sources can lead to original research, which is a no-no.--Paul (talk) 16:48, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I think you are misreading the use of a primary source here. We are talking about using articles which describe the Frontiersman article over using the Frontiersman article. This is a different context for using a primary source.WP:No original research#Primary, secondary, and tertiary sources doesn't say they can't be used but should be used on a case by case basis. The section still makes use of the current news articles which talk about the event - but to discard the original article which actually contains quotes by Emmons rather than comments about what people said she stated is misleading. As I wrote above, go ahead and restore portions of the second paragraph or delete the quotes - but I will not agree to a second paragraph which itself does not reference the original Frontiersman article. This is not original research - this is a responsible account of the event. -Classicfilms (talk) 17:08, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

It not really a primary source just a much earlier secondary source. The current sources being used are mostly tertiary sources in reality. --ThaddeusB (talk) 17:16, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Right. A primary source would, for example, be the actual letter Palin wrote or the transcript of the interview with either Emmons or Palin. Thanks ThaddeusB for clarifying this. -Classicfilms (talk) 17:18, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Second draft

Just to be clear, the current section on Sarah Palin's early days as mayor is 150 words long. I include it here just so we're all clear about what is under discussion:

In October 1996, she asked the Wasilla police chief, librarian, public works director, and finance director to resign, and 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 the town librarian, Mary Ellen Emmons, that they were being fired. Palin said in a letter that she wanted a change because she believed the two did not fully support her administration. She rescinded the firing of the librarian, but not the police chief. The chief filed a lawsuit, but a court dismissed it, finding that the mayor had the right to fire city employees for nearly any reason. According to Anne Kilkenny, a Democrat who observed the City Council, Palin also brought up the idea of banning some books at one meeting, but did not follow through with the idea.

Now, there's a lot of problems with it, particularly with the last sentence. I proposed tacking on a 181-word paragraph on the library issue. ThaddeusB proposed replacing the above paragraph with two grafs, 263 words all together, on resignations, terminations and book removal. Theosis4u proposed a 689-word version and then we got back to 298 words with ThaddeusB again, and with Classicfilms' tweaks, we're at 365. The version I now propose below, with tweaks, is 386 words long. There will be objections, but in my opinion the length is inevitable, because the more disputed a subject is, the more editors have no choice but to stick with the precise wording of the sources they rely upon, which makes it impossible to rephrase events in a summary fashion.

Paul, it's true that the idea of outcry was not in the reference ThaddeusB cited, but it is in others, including this one -- http://www.adn.com/sarah-palin/story/515512.html -- so we should include it again. The specific wording is: "a wave of public support." This was covered earlier in the talk thread, and cited properly. The argument that Emmons was kept on because she agreed to merge with the museum is according to Palin only. What's more, the issue of the museum itself isn't essential to this discussion. In the tweaked version below, I've rewritten that sentence for brevity. I also think we can cut the sentence on the museum director, John Cooper.

But it seems necessary to include two additional facts, one from the recently republished Frontiersman article. 1) The librarian said Palin brought up a scenario where the library would be picketed, and asked her how she would feel about censorship then. That's stronger language than we've had evidence of so far, and deserves inclusion. Yes, only the librarian says it happened. But only Palin says her remarks were rhetorical. Just because only one source says something doesn't disqualify it from inclusion here, especially when we're talking about a tete-a-tete.

And we could get into it a lot more. The Wasilla library released this statement:

"This library holds censorship to be a purely individual matter and declares that – while anyone is free to reject for himself books and other materials of which he does not approve – he cannot exercise this right of censorship to restrict the freedom of others."

Which puts Palin's inquiries in a pretty bad light. But for many here, that will be going too far and getting too wordy, so for now I think we should just stick to tweaking the changes presently proposed.

I do have a second addition, however. Much has been made about Palin's prerogatives to fire city employees. Those editors who seem to support her actions have repeatedly justified them by saying that Emmons, Stambaugh et al had openly backed her opponent in the mayoral race. But by those arguments, Palin was acting illegally. Thanks to Theosis4u, we have the Wasilla Munical Code, which outlines the mayor's powers:

2.16.020 Power and duties of mayor.

A. The mayor is the chief administrator of the city, has the same powers and duties as those of a manager under AS 29.20.005, and shall: ...

4. Appoint, suspend or remove city employees and administrative officials, except as provided otherwise in AS Title 29 and the Wasilla Municipal Code; http://www.codepublishing.com/AK/Wasilla/Wasilla02/Wasilla0216.html#2.16.020

So the mayor is bound by AS Title 29, which is the title on Municipal Government. Under the chapter Municipal Officers and Employees, and the section Prohibited Discrimination, we find:

AS 29.20.630. Prohibited Discrimination.

(a) A person may not be appointed to or removed from municipal office or in any way favored or discriminated against with respect to a municipal position or municipal employment because of the person's race, color, sex, creed, national origin or, unless otherwise contrary to law, because of the person's political opinions or affiliations. (The bold is mine.) http://touchngo.com/lglcntr/akstats/Statutes/Title29/Chapter20/Section630.htm

This is why Palin never said she fired them because they had supported Stein. She only said she did not feel she had their full support. With the second sentence in the above version, we are leaving the reader to infer that Palin fired them for their political affiliations, and that such action was justified. If that was indeed her reasoning, then she acted illegally, and we should either remove the sentence entirely or qualify what we're suggesting here. I have made those changes in the 2nd sentence of the version I propose below:

---

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. All four had been part of the previous administration and Palin had been elected on a platform of change; however, it is illegal under Alaska law to fire city employees for their political affiliations, and Palin only said she felt they didn't support her administration. She also instituted a policy requiring department heads to get her approval before talking to reporters.

According to a 1996 article in The Mat-Su Valley Frontiersman, Emmons said that Palin twice discussed the question of library censorship with her. These discussions, which took place in October 1996, became public when Palin herself referred to them during an interview. Palin argued 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 said, "I will fight anyone who tries to dictate what books can go on the library shelves." The librarian explained: "This is different than a normal book-selection procedure or a book-challenge policy," adding that Palin "was asking me how I would deal with her saying a book can't be in the library." Emmons said Palin raised the possibility of picketing the library in the same discussion. Palin responded in a written statement that "many issues were discussed, both rhetorical and realistic in nature." She also said later that "the issue was discussed in the context of a professional question being asked in regards to library policy." 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, after a wave of public support for the librarian, saying that her concerns had been alleviated when Emmons agreed to support her. 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.

Like.liberation 17:00, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Support - Thanks Like.liberation. This is a great version. I support it. -Classicfilms (talk) 17:14, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for giving this another try and finding the correct sourcing for the public outcry bit. However, I have a couple objections:

1. The whole "illegal under Alaska law" thing has to go. The jobs in question are non-partisan and there is no evidence to believe that they were fired for the political affiliation. I am pretty sure the law is referring only to one's political party; And a judge later ruled that Palin did have the right to fire someone for political reasons. Also use a primary source (the law itself) is original research - none of our newspaper articles claimed it would be illegal, so we shouldn't either.
2. There is no reason to split the 2nd paragraph into 2 and I am confident this info can be conveyed in less words.

I'll give it another stab here in a sec. --ThaddeusB (talk) 17:30, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I have to agree these are fair points. Yes, another draft would then be appreciated. -Classicfilms (talk) 17:46, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Suggested changes:

1. Remove: "however, it is illegal under Alaska law to fire city employees for their political affiliations, and Palin only said she felt they didn't support her administration" improperly implies firings were for partisan political purposes.
2. Remove: "She also instituted a policy requiring department heads to get her approval before talking to reporters." Irrelevant to the issue at hand and in this context unfairly implies that she is a "censorship freak."

These changes would make it more neutral.--Paul (talk) 17:46, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

These are also fair suggestions which I support. -Classicfilms (talk) 17:52, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

You bet, ThaddeusB. I agree that we should get the word count down, and I look forward to the next version.

I think you're misinterpreting the judge's ruling in the Stambaugh case though. His case was dismissed in federal court after a three-year process, but we have no evidence that the judge said Palin could fire him for political reasons. Only that she could fire him.

Noting Palin's careful language, we should be just as careful what we suggest about why they were fired. She always says it was about support, never the fact that the directors had worked under Stein.

If we’re going to be so careful about suggesting causal chains, let’s apply the same rigor equally across the board. Plenty of articles have suggested the librarian was almost terminated for refusing to consider removing books, but we’re going with that theory. We should drop the other as well.Like.liberation 18:16, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Paul, the present version suggests that she fired them for political reasons, by noting their affiliation with the former mayor. We need to drop that, or include her saying that she didn't do it for political reasons. Why? Because she couldn't.

The sentence about policy heads needing her approval before talking to the press is not irrelevant. It's important. Not everything in these paragraphs has to do with censorship and not everything has to. In them, we're talking about big changes Palin made or tried to make early in her mayoral career. The "gag order" as it was called was one such change, and considered just as newsworthy at the time as the resignations, terminations and inquiries as to book removal. It's verifiable, notable and an NPOV fact that's now in the proper place. There's no reason to drop it.Like.liberation 18:24, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

LL...

1. The draft version holds that she was elected to effect change, and instituted house cleaning upon taking office. This is not necessarily political. Including the "illegal under Alaska law" material is suggestive when there is no proof that there was any legal conflict at all. It's got to go.
2. No one puts material into an article just because it is "newsworthy," especially not biographical articles. This multi-paragraph section is only here because we are dealing with the "censorship" issue. As I said above, in this context including this material unfairly implies that she is a "censorship freak," and implies there was a connection between the library issue and the talking to the press issue. That's pure supposition. Its inclusion betrays a POV when we are supposed to have a NPOV.

I think the most recent draft is accurate and mostly balanced. I would lean toward supporting it if these two items are removed.--Paul (talk) 18:50, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Paul, Changes that one is elected to make are necessarily political, and Palin's so-called house-cleaning involved throwing the administrative apparatus of a small town into upheaval. There was a legal conflict, and it was embodied in Stambaugh's law suit, and it had a legal resolution in federal court. Secondary sources also cite the formation of a group called Concerned Citizens of Wasilla, which challenged his firing.

This multigraf section is meant to address a number of issues, all of them pertinent to the early days of Palin's mayoral tenure. Censorship was not the only one, although it remains important. We have done our best to strip it of implications, and keep it as fair as possible, based on the facts at our disposal that we have articulated, together, in the most neutral way we can. To exclude them would be another sort of POV, in a graf about censorship ...

We're not implying any connection between talking to the press and library censorship. I can't imagine that ThaddeusB meant that, and I haven't heard anyone else here interpret it that way. We just can't give every sentence its own paragraph. Please make this a little easier. Everyone is compromising.

Like.liberation 20:32, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

This conversation has been overtaken by events. I'm sure you've seen ThaddeusB's draft #4 and my support thereof. It omits the lecturing about "illegal under Alaska law" and re-phrases the press issue to make it less censorship-linked. Although, as I mentioned below, I think the "circling the library" bit is piling on and only has a single source, we all need to get this behind us and move to other issues in the article needing attention. You are right, we all have to compromise, and we all have done so. Thanks for your hard work on this section of the article.--Paul (talk) 20:50, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Third times a charm?

Here is what a have come up with:--ThaddeusB (talk) 18:53, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Palin was elected on a platform of change and wasted no time starting on that agenda. Shortly after taking office in October 1996, she eliminated the museum overseer position and 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. Palin called the request, which was accompanied by a request for updated resumes, a way to find out who supports her as mayor. She also instituted a temporary policy requiring department heads to get her approval before talking to reporters until they got to know her administration's policies.

Accoring to Emmons, Palin twice discussed the question of library censorship with her - briefly in early October then in detail on October 28th. Palin asked if Emmons would object to censorship to which Emmons replied "Yup and ... it would not be just me ... the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) would get involved, too." Palin also asked about the possibility of people circling the library in protest to which Emmons replied "it would definitely be a problem the ACLU would take on then." In early December, Palin was the first to speak about the issue publically, using it as an example of conservations she'd had with her department heads. She stated that "many issues were discussed, both rhetorical and realistic in nature" and that it "was discussed in the context of a professional question being asked in regards to library policy." 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, after a wave of public support for Emmons, 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.

Comments/Suggestions I reworked the first paragraph to address the concerns above. I left in no talking to reporters line, but changed it as the original newspaper article called it a temporary measure until she got to know the dept. heads. I don't think it is necessary, but its debatable.--ThaddeusB (talk) 18:53, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I think the middle paragraph is still too long. I would consider leaving out either the precise timing of the meetings or the circling the library line since neither adds much. Palin's response could also be shortened. Other thoughts? --ThaddeusB (talk) 18:53, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

It's okay with me to remove the "circling the library" sentence, it's in the footnoted source and anyone interested in more detail can easily find it. Other than that, this looks fine.--Paul (talk) 19:01, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

The Seattle Times did a front page article on Palin's first year as Wasilla's mayor.[27] Perhaps it could be of some use? Of particular note is that after the attempted firing of the librarian and successful firing of the sheriff and museum chief, 2 of the remaining 4 department chiefs quit and all three of the people asked to replace the museum chief quit rather than take the position. Not to mention the article provides some examples how the police chief didn't support the administration. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 19:08, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

4th draft

ThaddeusB, this looks good. There are a couple spelling tweaks I made, and mild rephrasals. I'll drop the bit about Alaska law, but I can't get on board if we don't mention the picketing, as per below.

Palin was elected on a platform of change and began to implement that agenda almost immediately. Shortly after taking office in October 1996, she eliminated the position of museum director and 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 did not support her administration. Palin called the request, which was accompanied by a request for updated resumes, a way to find out who supported her. She also instituted a temporary policy requiring department heads to get her approval before talking to reporters, which she justified by saying they needed to become better acquainted with her policies.

According to Emmons, Palin twice discussed the question of library censorship with her -- first in early October then in detail on October 28th. Palin asked if Emmons would object to censorship, to which Emmons replied she would, and that "it would not be just me ... the American Civil Liberties Union would get involved, too." Palin also raised the possibility of people circling the library in protest, to which Emmons replied "it would definitely be a problem the ACLU would take on then." In early December, Palin was the first to speak about the issue publicly, using it as an example of discussions she'd had with her department heads. She said that "many issues were discussed, both rhetorical and realistic in nature" and that it "was discussed in the context of a professional question being asked in regards to library policy." Ultimately no books were removed from the library.

In January 1997, Palin notified Stambaugh and Emmons that they were being fired. She said she wanted a change because she believed the two did not fully support her administration. She rescinded the firing of Emmons the next day, after a wave of public support for Emmons, 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.

Like.liberation 19:14, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

All changes are improvements. I support this version. --ThaddeusB (talk) 19:46, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Support. Excellent work, I fully support this version. Thanks to Like.liberation and ThaddeusB for your work on this. -Classicfilms (talk) 20:21, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

By the way, there was one spelling error which I corrected. -Classicfilms (talk) 20:27, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Comment The source does not say she wanted the letters of resignations because they didn't support Palin, but rather she wanted the letters to find out who supports her. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 20:28, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I think the bit about circling the library is unnecessary piling-on, but consensus means compromise, and thus I support this version. Bobblehead, do you want to suggest a re-wording?--Paul (talk) 20:30, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

How about: "Shortly after taking office in October 1996, she eliminated the position of museum director and 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 wanted to find out who supported her administration." --Bobblehead ^(rants) 20:45, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

"Palin was elected on a platform of change and began to implement that agenda almost immediately." Since the next sentence gives the chronology of "almost immediately." Less wordy. Kaisershatner (talk) 20:55, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Shortly after taking office in October 1996, Palin eliminated the position of museum director and asked for the resignations of Wasilla police chief Irl Stambaugh, public works director Jack Felton, finance director Duane Dvorak, and librarian Mary Ellen Emmons. Palin stated that she felt they did not support her administration.(cite) Kaisershatner (talk) 20:57, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Palin was elected on a platform of change. Shortly after taking office in October 1996, Palin eliminated the position of museum director and asked for both letters of resignation and updated resumes from Wasilla police chief Irl Stambaugh, public works director Jack Felton, finance director Duane Dvorak, and librarian Mary Ellen Emmons. Palin described this as a way to find out who supported her. She instituted a temporary policy requiring department heads to get her approval before talking to reporters, stating the staff needed to become better acquainted with her policies. Kaisershatner (talk) 21:01, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

5th Draft

Edits for word choice/length. I haven't chased down the refs but this draft assumes the correctness of Bobblehead's view about the resignation letters, so correct that if it is wrong: Kaisershatner (talk) 21:25, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Palin was elected on a platform of change. Shortly after taking office in October 1996, she eliminated the position of museum director and asked for updated resumes and resignation letters from Wasilla police chief Irl Stambaugh, public works director Jack Felton, finance director Duane Dvorak, and librarian Mary Ellen Emmons. Palin stated she wanted to find out who supported her. She instituted a temporary policy requiring department heads to get her approval before talking to reporters, stating they first needed to become better acquainted with her policies.

According to Emmons, she and Palin twice discussed the question of library censorship—first in early October then in detail on October 28. Emmons stated Palin asked her if she would object to censorship, and Emmons replied "it would not be just me ... the American Civil Liberties Union would get involved, too." Palin raised the possibility of people circling the library in protest, to which Emmons replied "it would definitely be a problem the ACLU would take on then." In early December, Palin spoke publicly about the issue, using it as an example of a discussion she'd had with her department heads. Palin said, "many issues were discussed, both rhetorical and realistic in nature," and said adding that censorship "was discussed in the context of a professional question being asked in regards to library policy." No books were removed from the library.

In January 1997, Palin notified Stambaugh and Emmons that they were being fired, stating she believed the two did not fully support her administration. She rescinded the firing of Emmons the next day, after a wave of public outcry, and stated that her concerns had been alleviated when Emmons agreed to support Palin's plan to merge the town's library and museum operations. Stambaugh was fired and filed a lawsuit, which was later dismissed by a court finding that the mayor had the right to fire city employees for nearly any reason.

Comment: For the most part, I support these changes. There is one sentence that I would like to see tweaked for style. It is in the second paragraph:

" Palin said' many issues were discussed, both rhetorical and realistic in nature,' and said that censorship "was discussed in the context of a professional question being asked in regards to library policy."

Using the word "said" twice in the same sentence is a little clunky. I would suggest something like: Palin said that 'many issues were discussed, both rhetorical and realistic in nature,' and that censorship "was discussed in the context of a professional question being asked in regards to library policy."

If this sentence is tweaked a bit, I will support this draft. -Classicfilms (talk) 21:46, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Kaisershatner, if you want the exact wording of one source, here's ADN referring to the resignations:

Palin told the Daily News back then the letters were just a test of loyalty as she took on the mayor's job...

http://www.adn.com/sarah-palin/story/515512.html

I agree with Classicfilms that the "said... said" could be reworded. Maybe one of those "said...adding that" formulations. In all, I support. Thanks for the edit. At this point, we've got something publishable. Maybe there's a better way to word it, but the agreement we've got seems most important. Like.liberation 22:04, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Hmm.. The first sentence looks tacked on.. Perhaps something like "After being elected on a platform of change, Palin eliminated the position of museum director and asked for updated resumes and resignation letters from Wasilla police chief Irl Stambaugh, public works director Jack Felton, finance director Duane Dvorak, and librarian Mary Ellen Emmons shortly after taking office in October 1996. Palin stated she wanted to find out who supported her." --Bobblehead ^(rants) 22:13, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Bobblehead, I think we can leave that first sentence. It's an important thought, and it could just as well stand alone. Palin was a change candidate, that's why she beat Stein. Or as Michelet used to say, beginning his courses on history: "England, messieurs, is an island." Everything else that follows results from that, so we don't need to demote it by making it a dependent clause. Like.liberation 23:38, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

It is an important thought and one that should be included in the article, but its location reads as if it is tacked on, more as a counter to the remainder of the paragraph, than an actual encyclopedic addition to the article. Also, I'm wondering if the "platform of change" would be more appropriate for the preceding paragraph that is actually about the election, rather than the paragraph about her first actions as mayor. It just seems odd to me that the article would say that she won the election in one paragraph (which includes arguments she used against Stein), but then say in the next that she was elected on a platform of change. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 23:48, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. I think I agree with Bobblehead that the "platform of change" works better appended to the preceding para or inserted higher up in that para. It doesn't really directly go to the subject of this paragraph/s, ie her early actions in office. Looking at the context within the larger article for the first time, I would support removing the first sentence "Palin...change" and putting it into her campaign for mayor para. Above, I made the small style modification for review. Kaisershatner (talk) 00:12, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

The version 4 first sentence read better. Why not just use it instead? "Palin was elected on a platform of change and began to implement that agenda almost immediately"--Paul (talk) 00:21, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm also concerned about the last sentence of the second paragraph "No books were removed from the library". It also comes across as tacked on. While I do think it is important to acknowledge that no books were removed from the library, perhaps a rewording is in order? Something like "In the end, no books were removed from the library" or "After the two discussions in October, the subject was not revisited and no books were removed from the library." --Bobblehead ^(rants) 00:29, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

6th draft

I pushed the change platform into the proceeding paragraph and added a tiny detail. Slight rewording on the resignation line for readability. --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:31, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

In 1996, Palin challenged and defeated incumbent John Stein for the office of mayor, running on a platform of change. In the campaign, she vowed to replace "stale leadership" and criticized Stein for what she called wasteful spending and high taxes. She also highlighted issues such as abortion, religion and gun control. Though the position of mayor is non-partisan, the state Republican Party ran advertisements on her behalf. During her first term, the state Republican Party began grooming her for higher office.

Shortly after taking office in October 1996 Palin began to implement the change she'd promised. She eliminated the position of museum director and asked for updated resumes and resignation letters from Wasilla police chief Irl Stambaugh, public works director Jack Felton, finance director Duane Dvorak, and librarian Mary Ellen Emmons. Palin stated this request was to find out who supported her. She instituted a temporary policy requiring department heads to get her approval before talking to reporters, stating they first needed to become better acquainted with her policies.

According to Emmons, she and Palin twice discussed the question of library censorship -- first in early October then in detail on October 28th. Emmons stated Palin asked her if she would object to censorship, and Emmons replied "it would not be just me ... the American Civil Liberties Union would get involved, too." Palin raised the possibility of people circling the library in protest, to which Emmons replied "it would definitely be a problem the ACLU would take on then." In early December, Palin spoke publicly about the issue, using it as an example of a discussion she'd had with her department heads. Palin said, "many issues were discussed, both rhetorical and realistic in nature," adding that censorship "was discussed in the context of a professional question being asked in regards to library policy." No books were removed from the library.

In January 1997, Palin notified Stambaugh and Emmons that they were being fired, stating she believed the two did not fully support her administration. She rescinded the firing of Emmons the next day, after a wave of public outcry, and stated that her concerns had been alleviated when Emmons agreed to support Palin's plan to merge the town's library and museum operations. Stambaugh was fired and filed a lawsuit, which was later dismissed by a court finding that the mayor had the right to fire city employees for nearly any reason.

On January 30, 1997, signed letters from Palin were given to Emmoms and Stambaugh stating, "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 three met to discuss the situation the next day. Palin rescinded the firing of Emmons after meeting with her and what Anchorage Daily News called "a wave of public support for Emmons." Palin stated that her concerns had been alleviated when Emmons agreed to support Palin's plan to merge the town's library and museum operations. Stambaugh was fired as planned and filed a lawsuit which was later dismissed by a court that found the mayor had the right to fire city employees for nearly any reason, including a political one.

Hope you don't mind, but I consolidated the referencing for the last sentence into one. The reference at the end of the sentence was the same one at the middle of the sentence, so the middle one was redundant. One question though, shouldn't the sentence end with ", including a political one." That is part of the judge's ruling, so it seems odd to just leave it off. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 00:40, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Wow, I'm gone for a day and your almost back to what I purposed earlier. Theosis4u (talk) 00:48, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

---

I've refactored a lengthy discussion on the book censorship paragraph to here --Bobblehead ^(rants) 04:42, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

---

On the third paragraph. (1) "In January 1997," should be "On January 30th 1997". This really sets the time frame between the book situation and the "intend to terminate your employmen" letters. And again, we should use the language of the letter. You have, "that they were being fired". I think what I wrote earlier is the most accurate description. (2) : This should not exist as is. "She rescinded the firing of Emmons the next day, after a wave of public outcry, " We can't substaniate that it was the "public outcry" that lead to Palin's change of mind. The ordering of the events would leave one to think so. I've yet to see what the evidence of "public outcry" is. This all occurred in the course of 24 hours remember. I suggest this instead:

On January 30th 1997, signed letters from Palin were dropped off at Emmoms and Stambaugh's desk stating,"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..." It referenced Feburary 13 as their last day. The next day the three met briefly at the Wasilla City Hall in the afternoon to discuss the situation. Palin also called them twice later before making her decision. It has been reported that there was "public outcry" to the letters. Palin announced her decision later that day, 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. Palin announced though that Stambaugh would be terminated. Stambaugh filed a lawsuit 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.

Theosis4u (talk) 01:44, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I have completely reworked the last paragraph. Let me know what you think.--ThaddeusB (talk) 02:49, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I think your third paragraph is now the best writeup on this situation - even compared against all the sources on it. Very good job! I believe it describes the situation very accurately and from a NPOV. But.. still leaves just enough content for those that want to say there's a conspiracy to have enough to look into it - without wikipedia giving any actual weight to it. Theosis4u (talk) 03:19, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Definitely an improvement on what was there. One question though, is the "All three met the next day" sentence necessary? The next sentence indicates that Palin met with Emmons and the sentence about Stambaugh could be modified to say that after meetings with Stambaugh and separately with his lawyer that Stambaugh was still terminated.. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 03:38, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Do you have a reference about a meeting with Stambaugh and an attorney on that Friday? I haven't seen that one yet. My purposed sentence comes from this , "The three met briefly at Wasilla City Hall Friday afternoon, and Palin called them twice at Stambaugh's home before making the decision." Theosis4u (talk) 03:55, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Good rewrite, ThaddeusB, although I agree with Bobblehead that the next-day meeting could probably go. Like.liberation 03:51, 8 September 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Like.liberation (talk • contribs)

I believe the meeting is vital to an accurate summary of the situation. With a meeting and phone calls after the letter about the situation paints a different picture compared to someone who sends the letter and then terminates with no discussion. Especially in light that for one employee she changed her mind and for the other she did not. Theosis4u (talk) 03:57, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I original didn't have this sentence and mentioned the meetings separately. It was actually less wordy this way. --ThaddeusB (talk) 04:13, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Lets look at it another way. If your boss tells you on thurs. that he might fire you tomorrow and he'll let you know at the end of the day and then walks off. If he then talks with you about it three times on Friday before his decision compared to not talking to you at all - would their be a different POV implied to your manager based upon the two circumstances? Theosis4u (talk) 04:11, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict)The meetings should be included, it's just the how that is of concern. As an example, if the rescinding sentence were re-written as such: "Palin rescinded the firing of Emmons the next day after meeting with her and what Anchorage Daily News called "a wave of public support for Emmons." As far as a source about meeting with Stambaugh and his lawyer, see this memo from Palin. According to the memo the meeting was with Stambaugh and his lawyer. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 04:12, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Wow! That turn allot of what the Chief said in his interviews, doesn't it? I would offer that we stick with my recommend sentences about the "wave of support" as well as the meetings but include reference that the Chief had legal counsel. Theosis4u (talk) 04:43, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

The memo certainly gives Palin's interpretation of what happened.;) The chief's interpretation is covered here. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 04:54, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Every source prior to that one (date Sept. 7 2008) has the Chief claiming he was never given a reason. Either he was lying in all the sources or he was reported on inaccurately. Theosis4u (talk) 06:56, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

The follow change would be OK by me. The only problem is that it is a very slight synth to say that "no resolution was reached." I mean it is quite apparent, but no source actually says those words. --ThaddeusB (talk) 04:23, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

On January 30, 1997, signed letters from Palin were given to Emmoms and Stambaugh stating, "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..." Palin rescinded the firing of Emmons the next day after meeting with her and what Anchorage Daily News called "a wave of public support for Emmons." Palin stated that her concerns had been alleviated when Emmons agreed to support Palin's plan to merge the town's library and museum operations. Palin also spoke with Stambaugh at least three times about the matter, but ultimately no resolution was reached and he was fired as planned. Stambaugh filed a lawsuit which was later dismissed by a court that found the mayor had the right to fire city employees for nearly any reason, including a political one.

Perhaps eliminate "ulitmately no resolution was reached and" then? I agree that it's quite apparent. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 04:49, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

You're right, it isn't really needed. --ThaddeusB (talk) 05:01, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm good with the change. Nice job. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 06:01, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Book censorship discussion

Ok, this new source you've found is mentioning an existing policy about citizens being able to object to library material. I don't understand why the librarian is freaking out and talking about the ACLU? We know from the ex-mayor that Palin was inquiring about the issue because people had objections about inappropriate language in some of the books. Why didn't the librarian just mention the existing policy and that was the procedure to handle questions about library materials? It couldn't be that the librarian didn't like Palin and was dishing out some out fashion attitude? With this new reference that you found, I'm really starting to believe this is nothing but a non-issue now. Theosis4u (talk) 01:25, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Whoa! I also missed this: Emmons said in the conversations with now-Mayor Palin in October, she reminded her again that the city has a policy in place. “But it seamed clear to me that wasn't really what she was talking about anyhow,” Now it is Emmons OPINION that Palin was talking about giving her a list of books to remove instead of asking about the book challenge policy?--Paul (talk) 01:35, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. Seems like an attitude issue. Theosis4u (talk) 01:44, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

The article makes it rather clear that Emmons was under the impression that Palin was not asking about submitting books to be reviewed under the existing policy, but rather that Palin intended to submit a list of books to her that Palin wanted the library to stop carrying. Is this a she said-she said instance, yes, but there's no reason to take Palin's word over that of the librarian's... --Bobblehead ^(rants) 02:08, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

And what is the reason for taking the librarian's word over Palin's?--Paul (talk) 02:11, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't believe that we are... Palin has admitted that she discussed book censorship of with the librarian. The only difference between the two stories is that Palin says it was purely hypothetical, while Emmons was under the impression it was not. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 02:17, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Even if it was not hypothetical, all the librarian had to do was tell Palin to follow the policy about submitting a complaint in regards to the materials. End of story, right? Theosis4u (talk) 02:47, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Tell me this. What is the difference between "book censorship" and a policy that allows books to be removed or placed only in certain locations within the library? This whole situation needs to be reviewed for complete removal. Theosis4u (talk) 02:33, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Let me just call it for what it very well could be. The librarian was activity using the "book censorship" term politically against Palin to either give her attitude (she support other mayor) or maintain some job protection in light of the "please resign letter". There is no difference between "book censorship" and what the library policy allows for citizens to bring up objections about materials. The librarian was simply sidestepping the issue with Palin when she could of simply told Palin about the policy in place. Theosis4u (talk) 02:40, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Heh. The difference is that if the policy is followed it is the librarian's decision if the book is to be removed, while the discussion Palin had with Emmons was more in line with a mayor telling the librarian which books to remove, thus done outside the policy. Also, it should be noted that the source rather clearly says that it was Palin that brought up book censorship and not the librarian. Palin was the one that used it as an example of her having a discussion with her department heads in front of the state liquor board... --Bobblehead ^(rants) 02:48, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Ok, Palin is new in office. Citizens inquired about certain books. New mayor asks about library and librarians policy on the issue. Librarian say, "“This is different than a normal book-selection procedure or a book-challenge policy,” Emmons stressed Saturday. “She was asking me how I would deal with her saying a book can't be in the library.” Come on, this is a joke. The non-confrontational response to Palin would of been. "Your welcome to fill out the forms yourself to request the review but the decision is given by the library system." I believe the policy allowed you to challenge it and go above the local librarian. So, I'm still at a lost why this is even an issue unless we are making the claim that new local mayor seems to follow up on her citizens concerns. Plus, the librarians quote above seems an opinion not back by direct reference to any of the quotes she offered from Palin. Theosis4u (talk) 03:15, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Theosis4u, are you even reading the source, or are you just applying your own bias and inferring what was said? Seriously.. Palin did not ask how one goes about removing a book from the library, but rather "Palin said she asked Emmons how she would respond to censorship." This is not a concerned citizen submitting a request to have a book removed from the library, but rather a government official telling a library which books it can not carry. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 03:29, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I think your inferring yourself here. I'll admit I am doing a little inferring myself based upon the ex-mayors reference that he knew/though that she was inquiring about citizens complaining about inappropriate language. I don't think your quote actually is clear cut by itself as saying "Palin asked the librarian if she would respect her personal requests to remove books from the library." I think the librarian was saying just enough in her summary of Palin's words to let others infer what you are. Theosis4u (talk) 03:50, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

There is a lot of inferring and supposing going on here. The source for "no books were removed" really says this:

Were any books censored banned? June Pinell-Stephens, chairwoman of the Alaska Library Association's Intellectual Freedom Committee since 1984, checked her files Wednesday and came up empty-handed. Pinell-Stephens also had no record of any phone conversations with Emmons about the issue back then. Emmons was president of the Alaska Library Association at the time.

They obviously looked at the formal book remove process to see if this controversy resulted in removing any books. It seems there is very little rhetorical or logical distance between the new Mayor discussing library censorship policy with the librarian, and the existing formal method for removing books from the library. I think there is much less than meets the eye to this controversy.--Paul (talk) 04:18, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Ummm. Your inference is not supported by the source. We simply can not apply that kind of interpretation to the sources or else we get into the original research realm.. The source says that Palin told them that she asked the librarian what she thought about censorship. The source also indicates that Palin was aware of the library's policy:

Emmons said the current Wasilla policy, which she described as written in more general terms than the borough's, also worked procedurally in a book-challenge case last year. Emmons said then-council-woman Palin was distressed about the issue when it came up, indicating she was aware of the city's book-challenge policy.

Emmons said in the conversations with now-Mayor Palin in October, she reminded her again that the city has a policy in place. “But it seamed clear to me that wasn't really what she was talking about anyhow,” Emmons added. “I just hope it doesn't come up again.”

On a side note, whoever typed up that reprint really needs to work on their spelling.;) --Bobblehead ^(rants) 04:38, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Bobblehead. I think the reference to the city council meeting implies enough to state Palin did know something about a policy. I'm still not sure of how we go from that to the implications that Emmons makes here though, '“But it seamed clear to me that wasn't really what she was talking about anyhow,”". What's their to report about that except using the direct quote of Emmons and let the reader to decide to determine what they will of it? [by the way, who has any respect for reporters to tell a straight story after investigating the issues behind Palin? :) ]Theosis4u (talk) 04:53, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I think the current wording does a pretty good job of indicating that Palin agrees with what was said in the meeting, just that she disagrees with the interpretation that Emmons had. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 05:58, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

In my opinion (and this is just my opinion and is not for the article), based on all the evidence, there were personality conflicts between Palin and Emmons/Stambaugh and that is the main reason she wanted them out. She simply had trouble working with them and the firings had little to do with politics or issues. --ThaddeusB (talk) 05:06, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

7th draft

Wow! Quite a bit of text here... I looked through all of the above and put together what appears to be the 7th draft you all have agreed upon. If I have missed a change or a point, it is due to the amount of text above rather than an attempt to change anything - so please fix it. Otherwise, it looks like we have a section ready for the main article. It would be nice to see this added today. What does everyone think? -Classicfilms (talk) 11:02, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I made a minor grammatical correction in paragraph four, adding a definite article (the) and itals. It was: Anchorage Daily News. I changed it to: the Anchorage Daily News. -Classicfilms (talk) 11:38, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Another grammatical point:

The beginning of the first line of the 4th paragraph currently reads:

"On January 30, 1997, signed letters from Palin were given to Emmoms and Stambaugh stating..."

It should be changed to:

"Palin gave signed letters to Emmoms and Stambaugh on January 30, 1997 which stated..."

-Classicfilms (talk) 11:47, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Comment: Looks pretty good, but about the "groomed" reference. I read it start to finish, and it's pretty thin on this point (comes up in last section only, nice work by the headline writers). Three people on the record, one of them a Palin opponent: "The national Republican Party was encouraging local party officials to groom a new generation of candidates, officials say. [emphasis added] Palin was an obvious selection, say local party officials Roy and June Burkhart of Willow. [emphasis added] Roy is head of the District 15 party, while June sits on the state party's executive board...[Palin] headed straight to her next race, entering the 2002 Republican primary for lieutenant governor. The winner was going to run at the side of Frank Murkowski...Officially, the party under chairman Randy Ruedrich remained neutral. But it didn't always feel that way to Palin's opponents, [Gail] Phillips said recently. [emphasis added] "It was Randy that really talked the Republican Party into her being the bright and shining star, to the point there was a lot of preference within the leadership," Phillips said. "Boy, it was there. The three of us would discuss it among ourselves. We were saying, hey, how about experience?" The citation supports "Some local Palin supporters and one of Palin's political opponents thought Palin was being groomed for higher office by the state Republican Party." Maybe not a really big deal, but the article says something different than a broad assertion that the Republicans were grooming her. Kaisershatner (talk) 13:47, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

That's a fair critique (sorry to have missed it). Perhaps it would be best for you to offer a rewrite of the section for review and if we achieve consensus, we can make the change. -Classicfilms (talk) 14:00, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Ok, instead of "During her first term, the state Republican Party began grooming her for higher office," how about "Some local officials and one of Palin's opponents have stated they believed Palin was being groomed for higher office by the state Republican Party." NB I hardly consider this a significant part of her career (is it notable for high-ranking officials to have started as low-ranking ones that were groomed by the party?) but I guess it doesn't hurt to include it if it is sourced and objectively factual.Kaisershatner (talk) 14:34, 8 September 2008 (UTC) Just an added thought that struck me - wasn't there a minor local offical, state senator or something, whom the Democrats groomed for higher office by giving him a choice speaking slot at their convention? What ever happened to that guy? :) Kaisershatner (talk) 14:38, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't have any problem with "During her first term, the state Republican Party began grooming her for higher office," (what's wrong with it?) but I do object to "Some local officials and one of Palin's opponents have stated they believed Palin was being groomed for higher office by the state Republican Party." This is an ugly sentence, and almost weasely (have stated they believed). I'd rather omit the whole thing rather than put in the "sentence designed by a committee"!--Paul (talk) 15:22, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Hey Paul - the problem with the original sentence is that the citation doesn't support it. You are right about my horrible rewrite though. Kaisershatner (talk) 15:39, 8 September 2008

I think the "Fresh faced launced Palin" source supports the original sentence: "The high-profile support from local Republicans was hardly surprising, however. Party officials say Palin was already being groomed for bigger and better things, even as she talked about sewers and road-paving projects. In Alaska's fastest-growing region, Palin was the fresh young face of the suddenly dominant Republicans."--Paul (talk) 15:56, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Hey Paul - who are the "party officials" the author means? I think it's the two in the final section plus the one Palin opponent. Maybe I'm reading this incorrectly? Kaisershatner (talk) 16:28, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I read it as Republican party officials. Who else would know? I can't imagine why we wouldn't include this.--Paul (talk) 16:47, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Adding that I support current version per Thaddeus below, we can add this and argue about the nits being groomed after. Kaisershatner (talk) 16:29, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

• I've added "term limits" to the list of items Palin ran on, as it is the same sentence in the NYTs article used to source "abortion religion and gun control".--Paul (talk) 15:35, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

In 1996, Palin challenged and defeated incumbent John Stein for the office of mayor, running on a platform of change. In the campaign, she vowed to replace "stale leadership" and criticized Stein for what she called wasteful spending and high taxes. She also highlighted issues such as abortion, religion, gun control, and term limits. Though the position of mayor is non-partisan, the state Republican Party ran advertisements on her behalf. During her first term, the state Republican Party began grooming her for higher office.

Shortly after taking office in October 1996 Palin began to implement the change she'd promised. She eliminated the position of museum director and asked for updated resumes and resignation letters from Wasilla police chief Irl Stambaugh, public works director Jack Felton, finance director Duane Dvorak, and librarian Mary Ellen Emmons. Palin stated this request was to find out who supported her. She instituted a temporary policy requiring department heads to get her approval before talking to reporters, stating they first needed to become better acquainted with her policies.

According to Emmons, she and Palin twice discussed the question of library censorship -- first in early October then in detail on October 28th. Emmons stated Palin asked her if she would object to censorship, and Emmons replied "it would not be just me ... the American Civil Liberties Union would get involved, too." Palin raised the possibility of people circling the library in protest, to which Emmons replied "it would definitely be a problem the ACLU would take on then." In early December, Palin spoke publicly about the issue, using it as an example of a discussion she'd had with her department heads. Palin said, "many issues were discussed, both rhetorical and realistic in nature," adding that censorship "was discussed in the context of a professional question being asked in regards to library policy." No books were removed from the library.

On January 30, 1997, signed letters from Palin were given to Emmoms and Stambaugh stating, "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..." Palin rescinded the firing of Emmons the next day after meeting with her and what the Anchorage Daily News called "a wave of public support for Emmons." Palin stated that her concerns had been alleviated when Emmons agreed to support Palin's plan to merge the town's library and museum operations. Palin also spoke with Stambaugh at least three times about the matter, but ultimately he was fired as planned. Stambaugh filed a lawsuit which was later dismissed by a court that found the mayor had the right to fire city employees for nearly any reason, including a political one.

I suppport this version. I do feel the groomed comment is out of place, however, it is best to just leave it since it is already there and unrelated to our proposed changes. It can then be addressed separately. --ThaddeusB (talk) 16:14, 8 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 [28] 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 [29]

• John Gizzi [30] 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 [31] 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.[32]RonCram (talk) 18:05, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Rush had said McCain's nomination would destroy the Republican Party. He seems to have backed off now that McCain has gone for his VP selection. What an amazing coincidence. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 11:11, 7 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)

Rush never could resist a pretty face. And he had said McCain's nomination would destroy the Republican Party. That would be too much to hope for. But if McCain selected her in order to get Rush's support, that would make sense. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 11:09, 7 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: [33] 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! (Literally, not philosophically.)

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.[34]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)

I suggest digging around in the history page to find out who removed your edits, and requesting an admin to block that person. T0mpr1c3 (talk) 13:18, 7 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

• 40 minutes is too short, but the result is correct, as there is no comparison between the Obama and the Palin situations. Passively sitting in a meeting conducted by some lunatic is 180 degrees different from being a friend of that lunatic for 20 years. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 11:15, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

• My vote is to undo the deletion. The news surrounding Obama's pastor grew and grew, it didn't surface and culminate within the span of a week; more stories on Kroon will surface in the coming weeks. That the press is covering the story merits its noteriety and mention to a degree. Mention of the pastor and perhaps an unbiased look at his extreme positions merits mention as it fleshes out Palin's character. --198.134.96.10 (talk) 16:13, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

"more stories on Kroon will surface in the coming weeks" this may or may not be true, but it is an argument for waiting to see if there is any "there there" in the Kroon story, not an argument for publishing speculation and charges. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a newspaper or blog. Let the secondary sources fight out the relevance of Kroon. If it becomes relevant, it will be added. It is clear not relevant now.--Paul (talk) 16:33, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

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

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)

Yeah, I know they're not controversial, I just thought it would take way longer to ask for the revision than to just do it myself. This is the first time in four years I've regretted not being an admin. But I'll try it through the talk page and we'll see how it goes. Coemgenus 13:21, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

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)

Also, since the source is the Government of Alaska's own webpage, it isn't an independent secondary source. Do you have a newspaper that noticed Palin liking part of Obama's energy plan? Phlegm Rooster (talk) 10:15, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

A primary source is okay in this instance for verifiability (an official statement of political position is a reliable source for what someone's political position is), but not to establish importance or context. Also, the part about it being up for a while and taken down later is original research, and if it's not available other than by google cache we do have a sourcing issue. I agree that we ought to find a secondary source, and that without one (or better, many) there is nothing to show that this goes beyond a non-remarkable campaign detail. Even if it is okay, it's probably more apt for the campaign article. Nothing wrong with bringing it up here. Normally I would say best to link to sources rather than quoting them here, but I guess it's about to disappear off the google cache. I think we can take this as a proposal or question as to whether the material belongs in the article. Wikidemon (talk) 05:50, 8 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)

Expand I think people just want to conveniently ignore this fact although it is obvious that the section needs to be expanded. 66.186.173.180 (talk) 12:41, 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 1.5) (shortest draft)

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."

As governor of Alaska, Palin has been a strong supporter of reducing state government spending, including cutting $1.6 billion from the Alaskan construction budget. Nonetheless, she has been strongly in favor of increased federal funding of construction programs for her state.

She has called herself as "pro-life as any candidate can be ", would permit abortion only in cases where the mother's life is in danger, and supports mandatory parental consent for abortions. Palin is supportive of contraception but she backs abstinence-only education and is against "explicit sex-ed programs" in schools. She opposes same-sex marriage and supported a non-binding referendum for an Alaskan constitutional amendment to deny state health benefits to same-sex couples.

Palin supports allowing the teaching of both creationism and evolution in public schools, but not to the extent of requiring the teaching of creation-based alternatives.

Palin 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 strongly supports an individual’s right to bear arms, including handguns. She also supports gun safety education for youth.

Palin supports the Bush Administration's policies in Iraq.

She supports capital punishment.--Nowa (talk) 12:40, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Comments on Political positions (draft 1.5)

I added draft 1.5 to the draft article.[35] QuackGuru 19:15, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you.--Nowa (talk) 20:39, 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)

I simplified it a bit more. See v 1.5 above.--Nowa (talk) 12:58, 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)

I added her views on government spending to v1.5 above.--Nowa (talk) 12:59, 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)

Where is it up for deletion? I see only a statement that it was speedied under "CSD R3", which makes no sense. Is there an AfD discussion? JamesMLane t c 02:13, 8 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) I agree, more appropriate to the Campaign article and its use is mentioned in detail at Barracuda (song) --Crunch (talk) 11:12, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

...where even there it had undue weight (though I tried to trim it a bit). It's too unremarkable to be part of her bio, and likely too trivial to even be mentioned in the article about the convention. These kinds of flaps are actually pretty common. Wikidemon (talk) 05:51, 8 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)

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)

Definitely a bad source. See further comments on this topic at Political positions (2). Can I suggest commenting there rather than here to avoid forking the commentary. T0mpr1c3 (talk) 13:22, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

This passage is not adequately sourced and amounts to a description of her image, not a statement of her position on a genuine political issue. While the discussion at the other page proceeds, this passage should be removed, to be replaced when and if something suitable is developed. JamesMLane t c 02:03, 8 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)

• • That source is acceptable, it says "Gov. Sarah Palin already has come out against listing the whales because of the potential for long-term damage to the local economy." and clearly blames overhunting (now curtailed) for the decline. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 10:07, 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)

• Yeah, including the NMFS opinion is a good idea. What do you think of the mention of the Eskimo whaling agreements? Kelly ^hi! 10:05, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I would like to suggest:

... the hunting has been curtailed after federal negotiations with Alaska Native organizations.

because that is what the source says, and I don't think Alaskan Natives would like to see themselves described as "controlled." Phlegm Rooster (talk) 10:08, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

If we want to be loquacious, we can add "She pointed to collaborative hunting agreements in place between the State and Alaskan Native organizations, and asked the NMFS to work with the State in implementing alternative plans to ensure the conservation of the Inlet's whales." Rather wordy though. 86.44.29.35 (talk) 10:21, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

No, it was the feds who negotiated it. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 10:28, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

The hunting agreements, you mean? 86.44.29.35 (talk) 10:38, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 10:40, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

My mistake, I presumed otherwise from the .gov source. OK, substitute "federal agencies" for the first instance of "the State", i guess? 86.44.29.35 (talk) 10:45, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

• May I direct your attention to this document containing more recent from the NMFS research that addresses Palin's scientific claims. The document states that despite hunting controls beluga whales in Cook's Inlet remain severely depleted and at high risk of permanent extinction. T0mpr1c3 (talk) 10:17, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Yep but we're just saying what she said, we're not saying it's true. Give the reader some credit.86.44.29.35 (talk) 10:21, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

The NOAA source is okay, but ideally we'd need a newspaper or magazine that says that, or better yet assesses all the claims. State scientists vs federal scientists, who is right? Phlegm Rooster (talk) 10:26, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

OK, but if we state her position we should also state its rebuttal in a scientific document by the NMFS, a branch of the US department of Commerce. T0mpr1c3 (talk) 10:24, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Do they call it a rebuttal of the Alaskan/Palin claims? Phlegm Rooster (talk) 10:27, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Read the document for yourself. It clearly rejects the claims of the Alaska state scientists that are being considered here. T0mpr1c3 (talk) 10:30, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Why get into the rights and wrongs of it? It will be its own article! The NMFS proposed it, there was obviously good reason for doing so, she rebutted them thus. And we're out. 86.44.29.35 (talk) 10:36, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

No, that's only half the story. The NMFS proposed the listing. Palin argued against the listing it on the grounds the hunting restrictions adequately protect the beluga population. And then the NMFS review was published which rejected those grounds. T0mpr1c3 (talk) 11:16, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, it's 134 pages long, I just read half of it. Please find a secondary source. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 10:39, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

There already is a secondary source: the Time article. T0mpr1c3 (talk) 10:55, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

• To clarify: the NMFS proposed listing belugas and held a public discussion. The Alaska scientists put their case at the public forum. And then the NMFS published this review which rejects the claims of the Alaska scientists. And seeing as its federal scientists who get to decide whether or not the belugas get listed as endangered, that's pretty important information. T0mpr1c3 (talk) 10:42, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

• • But I don't even mention scientists in my proposed version. We really don't want to give claim and counter claim to infinity. Don't you like my proposed version? *is hurt* 86.44.29.35 (talk) 10:48, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

• • • FWIW I don't think it's a case of claim and counterclaim. The NMFS held a public discussion at which Palin and presumably others put their case, and then published a review synthesizing the current status of research. The NMFS is a public body, its not a bunch of animal rights loonies. As I'm sure you know.

I'd say this discussion really needs to take place on the "Political positions" page where we can maybe do some proper wiki editing on an unlocked page, and then when we have consensus we can summarize it here. The version currently up there has already benefited from a bit of back and forth between Kelly and myself.

Here is the version as it currently stands on "Political positions":

Palin also opposed the placement of beluga whales in Alaska's Cook Inlet on the endangered species list, on economic grounds.[36] 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. [37] More recent research by the National Marine Fisheries Service suggests that despite hunting controls beluga whales in Cook's Inlet remain severely depleted and at high risk of permanent extinction. [38]

As an intermediate step, I propose the first sentence of the above for this page, sourced to the Time article which is the ony secondary source we have at the moment:

"Palin also opposed the placement of beluga whales in Alaska's Cook Inlet on the endangered species list, on economic grounds."

This avoids mentioning oil & gas which are not the main economic considerations (it's really about fishing) and is generally a bit more neutral. T0mpr1c3 (talk) 12:30, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Should we specifically say "fishing" instead of simply "economic grounds"? Kelly ^hi! 14:41, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure, the statement that Palin put out doesn't specifically mention fishing. I would say it's probably on the safe side not to single out the fishing industry. But I don't have a strong view on that. T0mpr1c3 (talk) 18:01, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Are there any more suggestions? I'd like to build consensus towards an edit because I think we have made some progress here and it would be good to see that reflected in the page content. T0mpr1c3 (talk) 19:00, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Pending any further suggestions: I propose Palin also opposed the placement of beluga whales in Alaska's Cook Inlet on the endangered species list, on economic grounds in place of the current sentence. 79.74.252.173 (talk) 23:07, 7 September 2008 (UTC) I support the sentence change since it is more accurate than the current one. --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:02, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Yet another proposed revision:I agree with the basic idea that scientific arguments should be included (both sides) or excluded. Giving only one side, as in the original proposal in this thread, would be wrong.

A few suggestions for improving the wording proposed above (by 79.74.252.173 at 23:07): This and other versions say something like "placement of beluga whales in Alaska's Cook Inlet". This would make the reader think first of some kind of program to stock the inlet with whales, until he or she reads on, and then has to go back and re-understand the sentence. Also, the version above might give some readers the impression that the listing was on economic grounds -- not reasonable under the ESA but some people wouldn't know that. Finally, "the endangered species list" most logically means the species designated as "endangered". I've only skimmed the references but it seems possible that NMFS was considering some kind of listing under ESA, which could include listing as "threatened" rather than "endangered".

For these reasons, I suggest: "Palin also opposed, on economic grounds, a proposal to list beluga whales in Alaska's Cook Inlet under the Endangered Species Act." JamesMLane t c 02:00, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

(in place of Palin also disagrees with strengthening the protection status of the beluga whales in Cook Inlet, Alaska, where oil and gas development has been proposed.) T0mpr1c3 (talk) 14:31, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Approve. Could maybe wikilink beluga whales. T0mpr1c3 (talk) 08:18, 8 September 2008 (UTC) Approve This is definitely an improvement (more neutral and more accurate). --ThaddeusB (talk) 17:00, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Citations to lead

{{editprotected}}

I don't think this is controversial, but I'd rather be on the safe side.

I'd like to update the lead with the following citations:

Sarah Louise Heath Palin (Template:Pron-en; born February 11, 1964) is the governor of Alaska and the Republican vice-presidential nominee in the 2008 United States presidential election.

Palin served two terms on the Wasilla, Alaska city council from 1992 to 1996, then won two terms as mayor of Wasilla from 1996 to 2002. After an unsuccessful campaign for lieutenant governor of Alaska in 2002, she chaired the Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission from 2003 to 2004 while also serving as Ethics Supervisor of the commission.

In November 2006, Palin was elected the governor of Alaska, becoming the first woman and youngest person to hold the office. She defeated incumbent Republican governor Frank Murkowski in the Republican primary and former Democratic governor Tony Knowles in the general election, garnering 48.3% of the vote to 40.9% for Knowles.

On August 29, 2008, Republican presidential candidate Senator John McCain announced that he had chosen Palin as his running mate. She was nominated at the 2008 Republican National Convention in Saint Paul, Minnesota. Palin is the second woman to run for vice president on a major-party ticket and the first Republican woman to do so.

Anybody have an objection to the above edits? ffm 14:03, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Would it be possible for you to explicitly highlight what the actual edits are? --Crunch (talk) 15:27, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

The two citations (denoted by the [1] and [2]) ffm 18:03, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Aren't these little factoids already referenced later in the article? If not, wouldn't it be better to reference them in the article itself rather than start cluttering up the lead with references? --Bobblehead ^(rants) 18:47, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Hrm, maybe they'd be better placed in the infobox... ffm 19:56, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm still not seeing that. What did you change? Just citations? There are no numbers [1] and [2] because the Talk page citations are numbered cumulatively. Can you again be more explicit about what you changed? For example, did you change text or just the content of the citation? Thanks. --Crunch (talk) 18:46, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

They added a reference following her birth date in the first sentence and a reference following the first sentence in the third paragraph. That's it. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 18:56, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Ok, does anyone object to the following be added to the infobox on her DoB: <ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.answers.com/topic/sarah-palin |title=Who2 Biography |publisher=Who2}}</ref> as well as the second citation I proposed being added to the lead as-is? ffm 19:56, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Alright. I see. Birthdate reference seems like overkill since there are several sources in External links that cite it, but in any case, I would not recommend answer.com as the citation, since it is just a mirror of other cites, like Wikipedia itself. How about going with this listing from the Governors Association? The second reference is OK. --Crunch (talk) 20:02, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Done. ffm 20:26, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Wasilla Election 1996 Results

{{editprotected}}

They are right here and should be added.[36]--Jack Cox (talk) 15:02, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I disabled the edit request for now - please make a specific request first. The admin answering the request isn't expected to do all the drafting work. Also, have you seen Electoral history of Sarah Palin? That article is not protected. Kelly ^hi! 15:11, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Predator Hunting "Controversy"

The Energy and Environment sub-section of the Governor of Alaska section contains the following paragraph:

In 2007, Palin supported the Alaska Department of Fish and Game policy allowing Alaska state biologists to hunt wolves from helicopters as part of a predator control program intended to increase moose populations. The program was criticized by Defenders of Wildlife and predator control opponents, and prompted California State Representative George Miller to introduce a federal bill (H.R. 3663) seeking to make the practice illegal. In March 2008, a federal judge in Alaska upheld the practice of hunting wolves from the air, though limited its extent. On August 26, 2008, Alaskans voted against ending the state's predator control program.

I propose deleting this paragraph in its entirety for the following reasons:

1. The supplied reference does not support the claim that "Palin supported the Alaska Department of Fish and Game policy allowing Alaska state biologists to hunt wolves from helicopters"
2. The Alaska Department of Fish and Game's practice of controlling predators by hunting aircraft is cited as going back to 2003, four years before Palin took office.
3. A ballot initiative in Alaska to ban the practice failed last month showing that Alaskan's support the practice.
4. The bill mentioned in the paragraph H.R. 3663 is essentially a political stunt having had no action taken on it since its introduction a year ago.
5. The "controversy" has almost no connection to Palin and is basically a lobbying and fund raising effort by Defenders of Wildlife. It is an argument between Alaska residents and lower-48 animal-rights liberals.

These points all add up to this paragraph showing undue weight. It is not a significant part of Palin's actions taken as Governor, and it should be deleted.

Please indicate whether you support or oppose this change:

Support removal as undue weight per the reasons above.--Paul (talk) 15:16, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Support removal. Verified that none of the cited sources actually supports claim that Palin took any significant public action or made any public statement on this issue. Mrhsj (talk) 15:33, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Oppose removal. None of the claims cited for removal support removing the entire paragraph. For example, the fact that Alaskans support the practice does not make Palin's position unimportant. Perhaps you want to suggest a rewrite to address specific concerns with updated references. --Crunch (talk) 15:42, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Neutral - this is basically a duplicate of a similar paragraph in Political positions of Sarah Palin. I think that we shouldn't have duplicate paras in both places, but some mention here is appropriate. I do agree that the para as written tends to overemphasize her personal role in the matter, as she seems to just be backing up the state scientists and the will of the people of Alaska. But I'm not sure exactly to fix that. Kelly ^hi! 16:00, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Comment - I would prefer a rewrite rather than outright deletion. --ThaddeusB (talk) 16:58, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Comment Please review the supplied sources. The justification for removal is WP:UNDUE and WP:V. Unless someone can find a source that actually ties Palin to this "controversy" it should go. At the very least the polar bear, predator hunting, and whale "controversies" should be combined to reduce undue weight.--Paul (talk) 17:11, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Oppose Removal Palins record as Mayor and Governor, her speeches and policy are all a part of the public record. Lets stipulate that there is no question that the shooting of wolves from helicopters in Alaska goes back to 1987, wasn't originated by Palin, and has at times had considerable public upport in Alaska. That's really not the issue. Sarah Palin has now accepted the nomination to run as McCains VP and thus is no longer concerned only with the likes and dislikes of Alaskans. Its germane to many Americans making up their mind who to vote for this year what she stands for. She clearly supports shooting wolves from helicopters, she just objects to it being called hunting and she objects to the federal intrusion into the affairs of the state.

Gov. Responds to the Wildlife Act

07-197 Governor Responds to the Protect America's Wildlife Act

September 26, 2007, Anchorage, Alaska - Governor Sarah Palin today criticized Congressman George Miller’s (D-CA) legislation to eliminate an important element of wildlife management by the State of Alaska.

“Moose and caribou are important food for Alaskans, and Congressman Miller’s bill threatens that food supply,” said Governor Palin. “Congressman Miller doesn’t understand rural Alaska, doesn’t comprehend wildlife management in the North, and doesn’t appreciate the Tenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution that gives states the right to manage their own affairs.”

Miller’s bill would ban the shooting of wolves from aircraft, a component of moose and caribou management plans in five specific areas of Alaska. Predation can keep populations of large game animals at persistently low levels, limiting or eliminating opportunities for Alaskans to secure wild game for food.

Governor Palin is in agreement with Alaska Congressman Don Young, who announced yesterday his opposition to Miller’s bill, emphasizing that it is an affront to the sovereignty of American states guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution.

“This bill would be an unprecedented federal incursion into traditional State management of fish and resident wildlife,” said Palin. “If the federal government can do this to Alaska today, it can do it to any other state tomorrow. The other states, particularly the western public land states, should join us in expressing their indignation.”

Contrary to what Representative Miller said in Washington yesterday, there is no “aerial hunting” of wolves in Alaska, the Governor said. “Our science-driven and abundance-based predator management program involves volunteers who are permitted to use aircraft to kill some predators in specified areas of the state where we are trying to increase opportunities for Alaskans to put healthy food on their families’ dinner tables. It is not hunting and we have never claimed that it is.”

Governor Palin said she will contact several other members of Congress to encourage them not to support Congressman Miller’s effort.

“It appears to me that the Congressman has been inadvertently drawn into service as a fundraiser for national animal rights organizations that commonly spread inaccurate information about Alaska’s game management programs, and with which we are in court on these issues right now,” said Palin.

Wildlife management policy in Alaska is set by the Alaska Board of Game, a public body appointed by the Governor and confirmed by the Alaska State Legislature. The Board deliberates by weighing evidence at public meetings. Testimony comes from Alaska Department of Fish and Game scientists, non-governmental organizations, and private citizens. Governor Palin stressed today that wolf and bear populations are extremely healthy in this state, and that predator control is intended to create more opportunities for humans to harvest moose and caribou for food, while maintaining healthy populations of predators.

“Our goal is to always have healthy populations of all wildlife, including wolves,” Palin said. “Alaska is the only state that still harbors a full complement of both large ungulates and large predators.”

Rktect (talk) 18:04, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

RKtect, thanks for this additional reference, very useful. Based on the "almost overwhelming" support :-) here for a rewrite, I'm going to try a rewrite of the whale, polar bear, and predator hunting programs in order to remove some POV and reduce the overall size to better balance the space taken up by these issues vs. their weight as related to the actions of Palin as Governor.--Paul (talk) 22:15, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose removal, would entertain a rewrite if anybody wishes to go to the trouble. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 21:57, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Oppose Removal--MisterAlbert (talk) 22:28, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I have added further links to Palins enviromental position as more information is becoming available daily.

here is an added link to Time on Palins enviromental position: http://www.time,com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1837868,00.html

Also in the independent: http://www.independent.co.uk./news/world/americas/palin-the-real-scandal-920803.html

Also suggest link to the wiki Arctic Refuge drilling controversy to be added to article so it is made available to the reader. It goes into more detail concerning the issue.

Possible we should open new wiki pages similar to wiki ballot the issues surrounding the slaughter of wolves and bears, plus the defeat of the clean water iniative and its impact on the enviroment. --MisterAlbert (talk) 22:28, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the additional resources, though it may be a bit difficult drafting something with a NPOV from "But the woman who could soon be a 72-year-old's heartbeat away from the United States presidency has an environmental policy so toxic it would make the incumbent, George Bush, blush." and "issues surrounding the slaughter of wolves and bears," but I'll give it a whirl.--Paul (talk) 22:51, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

here is another link: http://www.slate.com/id/2199140 —Preceding unsigned comment added by MisterAlbert (talk • contribs) 23:42, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Some might argue that, objectively, some sort of boring bill about education or municipal finance was more important to Alaska, but this issue has received extensive public attention. "Undue weight" doesn't mean "we genius Wikipedians know better than the general public, which is letting itself be influenced by excess sympathy for furry creatures". When I review your proposed rewrite I will, I must confess, approach it with the knowledge that, in your section heading, you put the word "controversy" in scare quotes. A U.S. Congressman introduced a bill which the Governor denounced. Sounds like a controversy to me. The scare quotes suggest a dismissive attitude toward the subject that doesn't bode well for a possible rewrite, but I'll try to assess it as fairly as I can. JamesMLane t c 01:33, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

James, I'm sure you'll endeavor to be fair, as will I. To get it out in the open my honest opinion of this "controversy" is that was stirred up for fund-raising purposes by a leftist single-issue lobbying group:

Tonight Alaska Governor Sarah Palin will accept the Republican nomination for Vice President, a position that would put her second in line to be President of the United States. But before she accepts, I need your help to let America know where she stands on the brutal and needless aerial hunting of wolves and bears. Watch our new video on Palin’s awful record and share it with everyone you know who cares abut wildlife. Donate Now

This, by the way, is from Defenders of Wildlife which are wiki-linked in our "NPOV" paragraph. The truth about this controversy is a lot more complex, c.f. Palin's statement:

Governor Palin stressed today that wolf and bear populations are extremely healthy in this state, and that predator control is intended to create more opportunities for humans to harvest moose and caribou for food, while maintaining healthy populations of predators.... “Our goal is to always have healthy populations of all wildlife, including wolves,” Palin said. “Alaska is the only state that still harbors a full complement of both large ungulates and large predators.”

It's not so black and white as the lobbying groups would have you believe. Be prepared to see some balance about conservation vs. use of wildlife resources in my draft.--Paul (talk) 02:36, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Well here is the deal Paul, Wolves have been reintroduced in Yellowstone National Park, part of the protest is wolves would deplete the amount of game available to hunters, that is not the case, the wolves have reduced the number of coyotes. The wolves have balanced the ecological system. They prey on the weak , old , malnurished and sick. So if you are trying to spin Pallins's endorsement of big game hunting tactics, such as the Safari Club International you are in for a fight... --207.232.97.13 (talk) 03:19, 8 September 2008 (UTC)Fred

It isn't up to us to decide if predator management is the correct way to manage populations of large ungulates. It is up to us to present a well-sourced neutral point of view of the disagreements on this controversial subject. And it isn't precisely "Palin's policy." The management of wildlife in Alaska is set by the Alaska Board of Game consisting of seven members, each appointed by the governor and confirmed by the legislature for a term of three years. Since Palin hasn't been governor for two years yet, you can do the math. Palin has said she agrees with the policy, but considering that the recent referendum to ban the practice of using aircraft in predator management lost, it is Alaska's policy. --Paul (talk) 03:38, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

sorry Paul, I didn't mean to be so rude:

Compared to Canada with a wolf population of 52,000 to 60,000 Alaskas is quite small. Yellowstone was populated with captured wolves from Canada.

One of the things I have discovered is that outside of Alaska , Minnesota is the only other state to have a wolf population, however unlike Minnesota , Alaska has no sizeable ranches where the wolves can become a problem to the livestock. I have sourced a number of documents off the Web, The issue that the opponents have addressed is the interests of big game hunters, and sport hunting. Which is big business.

There is a books on google that attempt to explain the political dynamics of Alaska wild life policies.

http://www.alaskawolves.org/Alaska%20Wolves.html

http://www.defenders.org/programs_and_policy/wildlife_conservation/imperiled_species/wolves/wolf_recovery_efforts/alaska_wolves/ http://wolfsongnews.org/

Palin defends right to shoot wolves: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/08/31/BARB12KSHM.DTL

APPROPRIATION: What state calls education, foes call PR against initiative. $400,000 spent: http://dwb.adn.com/front/story/9253882p-9168881c.html

Ariel Wolf Gunning 101: http://slate.msn.com/id/2199140/

http://current.com/items/89277542_sarah_palin_supports_shooting_wolves_and_bears_from_airplanes

Alaska Wolf Kill http://www.alaskawolfkill.com/

http://greenopolis.com/myopolis/blogs/david-d/sarah-palins-views-aerial-hunting

http://www.akwildlife.org/content/view/128/61/

http://www.akwildlife.org/content/view/127/61/

http://wolfcrossing.org/2008/09/06/alaska-wolf-and-bear-hunting-ban-ballot-measure-defeated/

http://dwb.adn.com/opinion/compass/story/9402437p-9315723c.html

There is a wealth of information on Google Books for example:

Losing Paradise: Paul G. Irwin Avaialble on google books: P. wolves take the sick , weak, young...and killing wolves does not translate into more moose and cariboo and certainly not healthier ones p.92 --207.232.97.13 (talk) 05:26, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Draft article

Hi there, there is now a draft article at Talk:Sarah Palin/Draft article that is open to editing all registered users. This can act as a "rolling draft" and admins can copy parts that gain consensus onto the main page. If this turns into a BLP nightmare I may delete it again, so please take things easy, cite sources and work towards consensus. Tim Vickers (talk) 15:20, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Meh. This is the second such we have (see Talk:Sarah Palin/sandbox). Personally I think it's better to handle things here at the talk page. Also, aren't there GFDL issues with doing it this way? (By the way, that page needs to be NOINDEXED to hide it from search engines.) Kelly ^hi! 16:03, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Why would you create a "rolling draft" and block out us anon users who have been contributing in good faith for some time? --98.243.129.181 (talk) 18:18, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Kelly. The rolling draft sounds like another nightmare. As for the "anon user," IP users are not anonymous. They are actually more transparent than registered users in most cases. Some of my best friends are in Michigan, by the way. --Crunch (talk) 18:35, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

hehe.. good point. I guess i like to think I'm more hidden than I actually am. When it comes down to it, how much is actually hidden? :) Regardless, as an "IP user" I'm still a conributor and would not like to get blocked out if possible. --98.243.129.181 (talk) 18:58, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

So now we need to navigate a draft article, multiple sandboxes and a talk page in order to correct a spelling mistake. I am probably not as smart as everyone else here but would it not be simpler just to unlock the article. I would have to assume that one tenth of the effort would be required to watch for obvious smear campaigns and hacks on the main article then try to maintain dozens of work around solutions. Sitedown (talk) 19:11, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Delete Sarah Pallin

Someone needs to delete the article "Sarah Pallin" (2 l's) or at least make it a redirect to here. It's some sort of Trojan Horse with a solicitation on it.--Nowa (talk) 16:29, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I take it back. It seems OK now.--Nowa (talk) 16:30, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

It is a redirect, someone hacked wiki. The Sarah Palin article is messed up. RobHar (talk) 16:32, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

It was simple vandalism, quickly removed. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 19:50, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Page Hacked

Looks like the CSS on the page is hacked atm (even though it is protected). Sigz (talk) 16:33, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Nope, was vandalized. Fixed now, and the anon responsible has been blocked. - Jredmond (talk) 16:41, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Edit request - Anchorage Daily News

This looks like a good External link, as it appears balanced, comprehensive and it's from Alaska. It's also updated on an ongoing basis: http://www.adn.com/sarah-palin/ Flatterworld (talk) 17:23, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Looks good to me. 79.74.252.173 (talk) 17:44, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure if the fact that it's from Alaska means it's balanced, but it seems comprehensive, so I support adding it, formatting as
Alaska Daily News ongoing coverage of Sarah Palin. --Crunch (talk) 18:39, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

oppose In a google search for "anchorage daily news bias" several sites pop up identifying ADN with a pretty significant left-leaning bias. --98.243.129.181 (talk) 18:55, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Support A reliable and independent source with substantial and encyclopedic coverage of the subject. If one leans far enough to the right, the center can appear to be leaning left. One of the largest circulation papers in a candidate's home state should not be excluded as a reliable source on such flimsy grounds.Edison (talk) 19:08, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Support. A reliable and informative source. T0mpr1c3 (talk) 19:07, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Support I see no reason to exclude it. It adds value and is considered independent. --ThaddeusB (talk) 23:54, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Support Looks like a fine source. Important paper in her home state, it would seem to be a POV issue to not have it. Hobit (talk) 23:58, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Note We already have News and commentary from The New York Times so I would suggest News and commentary from Anchorage Daily News Flatterworld (talk) 01:10, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Support, no reason to see it as "left-leaning". JamesMLane t c 01:24, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Support a google search is not sufficient evidence to label something "left-leaning". Hobartimus (talk) 01:28, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

{{editprotected}} Please add the following external link per consensus: --ThaddeusB (talk) 04:11, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
News and commentary from Anchorage Daily News

•  Done in the format Crunch suggested, which is the one that has consensus. GRBerry 13:40, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Marie C. Brehm

It would be prudent to point out that in fact Palin is being nominated full 84 years after the first woman to run for vice-president, Marie C. Brehm. --Stalfur (talk) 18:14, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose. It's just a coincidental point of trivia. --Crunch (talk) 18:42, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
• Supportoppose I noted somewhere WAY above that it seemed a little POV'd to mention only the democrat and republican female nominees as if they had been the first. Libertarians actuall had the first woman to recieve electoral votes. That's pretty significant. It's also significant that the deocrats and republicans were both relatively slow in catching on. Could be a different article though.. history of women running for executive federal offices or some such thing.. with a brief mention here. --98.243.129.181 (talk) 18:49, 7 September 2008 (UTC)edit.. major party politics annoy me.. personal bias. As is it looks fine. --98.243.129.181 (talk) 22:56, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose Her party got zero electoral votes and a trivial 0.2% of the popular vote, so it does not qualify as a "major political party." And she was not "the first woman to run for Vice President," just the first one after women got the right to vote in federal elections throughout the US. Edison (talk) 19:00, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
• Comment. The Palin article very clearly states "Palin is the second woman to run for vice president on a major-party ticket." The Prohibition Party is not a major party. The point of Palin article should not be to give an encompassing history of American presidential politics or of women's political history in the United States or Alaska politics. It's a biography of Sarah Palin. --Crunch (talk) 19:02, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
• Comment - yes, Crunch above me said it exactly right. Kelly ^hi! 19:04, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Protection

Just to keep us all up to date, what are the plans to get this page down to semiprotection? This is supposed to be a Wiki. I remember reading somewhere that we were going to give it a try on Saturday. This is Sunday and the page has been fully protected for three days. I think someone on this page seriously proposed keeping it locked until after the election, which is a laughable suggestion and diametrically opposed to Wikipedia's mission to be an encyclopedia that anyone can edit. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 19:04, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

There is currently a proposed temporary injunction at the ArbCom case regarding this. Admins are waiting for a determination, which I think is prudent. Kelly ^hi! 19:06, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

That's got nothing to do with my question. The proposed temporary injunction only concerns how admins should handle the page while it's protected. This seems like a silly question if the page will be unprotected before that question can be settled, like it should be. What steps are being taken to get the page unprotected? --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 19:21, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

The issue was discussed by administrators at WP:RFPP (sorry, no link), but the sense of the conversation was that any admin who screws with the protection of this article now risks being added as an involved party to the ArbCom case. Kelly ^hi! 19:26, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Very nice catch-22 we've blundered into here, protect the page and then make it procedurally impossible to unprotect it, thereby indefinitely enshrining a situation that runs directly counter to Wikipedia's mission. Very well, how can the community voice its views on getting this page unprotected, notwithstanding the activities at arbcom? --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 19:36, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

For now, the best way forward is to draft proposed edits and propose them here at the talk page, for consensus. This process actually seems to have become fairly civilized and is working well so far. Kelly ^hi! 19:41, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Your edits will then be reviewed and if they are positive towards Sarah we will add them. If they are in anyway negative despite the fact they are current and in the MSM and verified correct we will not include them. We will do this by continually declining updates based on wording or other semantics that would normally be resolved through the wiki process. Sitedown (talk) 20:16, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Is the above meant as some kind of sarcasm? Obviously, including only positive edits but no negative edits would be an NPOV violation. Wikidemon (talk) 20:20, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

(ec)Afraid not. There is plenty of material in this article that people could regard as negative - i.e. the Alaska Public Commissioner dismissal and other things. But those things will only be accepted if they comply with WP:NPOV and have multiple, reliable, sources. This is the same reason you don't see garbage about being a secret Muslim or Mob-associated at the Barack Obama article. Kelly ^hi! 20:23, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm well acquainted with NPOV policy. That would suggest that any contentious material, positive or negative, and particularly anything challeneged by another editor, must be reliably sourced. The notion of multiple sources is a bit unique but I would go along with it as a mater of weight for hyper-notable people (on the theory that if it's truly notable a lot of sources would agree on it). The only policy I'm aware of that goes one-way to admit only positive and not negative stuff is BLP, and that is only under limited circumstances. Most negative things about major politicians are POV issues, not BLP issues. For example, the "troopergate" and "bridge to nowhere" matters as they affect Palin are matters of her public record in office and definitely not BLP concerns (though I suppose where they affect the officer himself, the kid, the divorce, etc., they raise BLP questions for other people). Wikidemon (talk) 20:33, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I absolutely agree. In terms of multiple sources, I was thinking of WP:REDFLAG as regards controversial or unlikely claims. Kelly ^hi! 22:23, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Background on Traffic

I have just finished writing this summary of the traffic and activity on this page. It remains the most visited page on Wikipedia. I plan to propose a reduction in protection once the evidence shows this page falls out of the top spot, but we aren't there yet. Dragons flight (talk) 21:10, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing out the high level of traffic on this page. That is an excellent argument in favor of lowering the protection level as soon as possible and not waiting for the traffic to abate. Wikipedia articles are supposed to be available to edit by anyone. The fact that our most-trafficked article is locked is a mockery of our purpose. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 21:25, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Excellent work, Dragons flight. The problem with this article is that the volume of editing simply overwhelmed the normal wiki procedures of warning and blocking for quality control. There were simply so many edits that it was hardly possible to read them all, much less check out the supplied sources. I was going to do an analysis of edits per minute, but your work is good enough so that I think I'll do something else this afternoon. I'm sure there were long periods of time with edits at more than one per minute. Thanks again.--Paul (talk) 21:38, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Of course, as you know, Paul, that describes what was happening three days ago, before the article was locked. Furthermore, the number of page views tells us nothing about the editing pattern. Looking at that part of the summary shows that the edit rate on the day before it was locked (Sept. 3) was about half what had been on Aug. 29. Also, the page views were down yesterday to 207,000 yesterday from a high of 2.5 million on the 29th. There's obviously no more reason for this page to be locked. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 01:06, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I get your point, but you'd probably be better off making your point at the Arb case page. No decision will be made here, it's just wasted bytes. Kelly ^hi! 02:45, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Mr. Anderson makes a wondeful point. Mrs. Palin's page may be receiving an enomorous ammount of attention and be suseptable to vandalism, but the irony is, that by receiving such focus the chance of removing slanderous and untruthful comments also proportionally increases. For Wikipedia to place this page under full protection is a basic violation of one of their basic strengths, an "open and transparent consensus." To reject the word is to reject the human search. ~Max Lerner —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aruhnka (talk • contribs) 06:12, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Mr. Anderson and Aruhnka make fine utopian agruments, but they've never edited the Sarah Palin article, and presumably weren't here at the height of the attacks that led to fully protecting the article. Poke around on the Adminstrator's pages there is plenty of evidence as to why the article is locked at the present. As disagreements are solved here on the talk page, and as interest falls back to normal levels (on Friday Aug. 29, this page had more page views than any wiki page ever). the protection will be removed.--Paul (talk) 13:13, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Why doesn't Obama's page get the same protection she does? Are the wiki admins being paid by the republican party or something? I've notive alot of things with this presidential election and wiki and alot of things I've observed have been pro republican themes and reverts. This needs to be put out on main stream media on how wiki has change to being evil now.--Ron John (talk) 11:59, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Obama's page isn't fully protected at the moment, because it isn't being attached by 100's of POV-pushers. Though if you look at the protection log, it has been fully protected at times in the past.--Paul (talk) 13:13, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

• Have you got any friends who are reporters you can contact? We know that reporters watch Wikipedia talk pages for juicy stories, maybe a story is in the works. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 12:03, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

NPR already did a story on how the article was edited by one volunteer the night before the Palin announcement. What seems to be missing is the followup story on how the article was so heavily attacked by partisans of the other side inserting libel and NPOV and BPL voilating materials, that the article has been locked for editing ever since; a very much bigger story which has not been reported.--Paul (talk) 12:55, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't know if people outside Wikipedia would find it surprising that an article with millions of views would attract a few NPOV edits, since this is the "Encyclopedia that anyone can edit". My comment to Ronjohn above was tongue in cheek, although not unsympathetic. I was trying to convey that unless a reporter is very familiar with Wikipedia's internal workings, they would not understand how unusual the behavior of the admins has been lately. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 13:30, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

MInor change: Add category

Editprotected Can we add this category:
Category:Republican Party (United States) vice presidential nominees
--Crunch (talk) 19:14, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Support, astonishly non-controversial. Kelly ^hi! 19:27, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Done. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 19:33, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Early life

"As a child, she would sometimes go moose hunting with her father before school, and the family regularly ran 5K and 10K races.[5]"

Does this belong? It sounds like fluff. Running a 5K isn't even a notable accomplishment. --76.113.150.171 (talk) 23:36, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

For me it is. :) Kelly ^hi! 23:38, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

The moose stuff has resonance in the media, but the running stuff could go. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 23:41, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Sets a good back ground for her early family. That in itself might be slightly positive POV. No one gets on wiki for running a 5K but if the article's purpose is to paint the overall picture is there a better way to do that? --98.243.129.181 (talk) 23:46, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

This sounds fine to me. You've got to say something about her childhood and the fact that she grew up taking advantage of the great outdoors in Alaska seems a reasonable thing to say.--Paul (talk) 23:51, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Moose hunting is noted in the Palin blueprint document and I think it should remain. Our goal should be to mirror their work as closely as possible. zredsox (talk) 23:48, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Your link is to the Conservapedia, not the McCain campaign. Do you have a link to an official biography, either from the State of Alaska or the McCain campaign?--Paul (talk) 23:55, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

If Palin was a runner and moose hunter, I don't see the problem continuing to mention it briefly here in this article. It's not relevant what your Conservapedia "blueprint document" thinks of it. Zredsox, you ought to support keeping the mooses in this article, as a strategic prelude to the future edit war about including a photo of her next to a dead moose. Photos must be supported by text in the article.Ferrylodge (talk) 23:54, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually, the Conservapedia article is less fluffy. Hilarious. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 23:56, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Here is a link to the official State of Alaska bio.--Paul (talk) 23:58, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

What's the dispute here? That Kaylene Johnson is lying or that she was misled, or that for a family to run in 5K and 10K races is unremarkable? My take: 1. We are going to regard Johnson, Kaylene (2008). Sarah: How a Hockey Mom Turned Alaska's Political Establishment Upside Down. Epicenter Press. ISBN 978-0979047084 as accurate on this point until otherwise shown. 2. For a family to run in 4K and 10K races is significant as part of a larger biographical article. patsw (talk) 00:39, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I have brought this back from Archive #11. I still assert these are not notable achievements, and the arguments in favor of including them seem to agree. It is not necessary to say something about her childhood simply to say something. It does give the impression she “took advantage of the outdoors,” which is its only purpose. It molds an impression of a person based on anecdotal evidence, which in this case is unverifiable and may not even be true, which is suitable for some biographies, but not factual or encyclopedic ones. --76.113.150.171 (talk) 19:17, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it's a problem. For example, Barack Obama#Family and personal life mentions his hobby of playing basketball. Kelly ^hi! 19:20, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

We have a total of two sentences about her entire childhood. I think that it is a quite appropriate level of information. Surely her childhood has some relevance? --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:04, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with the sentence. It is sourced, no one is arguing it isn't true, and in a 5,000 word biographical article, we can certainly support 50 words about her early childhood. Would you advocate deleting this: "He was also a talented local wrestler and skilled with an axe" from the Abraham Lincoln article as being non-notable?--Paul (talk) 21:02, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I usually disagree with ya, Paul.h, but that is an excellent point. If the news media thinks it is interesting, it has a place in the article. After all, the Lincoln article doesn't say if he used to use a bookmark or dog-ear the pages in books he was reading, because that is not interesting to anyone (with the possible exception of memorabilia collectors). Phlegm Rooster (talk) 08:38, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Full template for lock icon

{{editprotected}} Please remove small=yes from {{pp-protected}}. It explains protection to everyone, and points people who want to improve the article onto this page. --h2g2bob (talk) 22:59, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually this was previously discussed further up the page. Kelly ^hi! 23:21, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Bridge To Nowhere

As this is locked, I cannot add this. According to http://politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/675/ and an NPR story here she said "thanks but no thanks" after Congress actually had reneged. The bridge plan was already cancelled when she asked for it to not continue. This is notable in the artilce. Qermaq (talk) 01:17, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

"after Congress actually had reneged" what do you mean by this? Hobartimus (talk) 01:22, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Basically, Palin said "Thanks, but no thanks" after Congress had already removed the funding for the bridge to nowhere.. Well, after Congress had changed the earmark from a specific funding of the bridge to a general funding of Alaska's transportation system. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 01:26, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

As far as I understand the funds were in place and it was a specific Alaskan decision not to build the bridge. Congress had nothing to do with not building the bridge they merely passed the responsibility to the Alaskan government to build it or not. Then Alaska decided not to build the bridge and spend the money elsewhere where it's less wasteful. Hobartimus (talk) 01:58, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

This is already pretty thoroughly covered in Sarah Palin#Gravina Island bridge. DId you have a specific change in mind? Kelly ^hi! 02:28, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't think your link is correct, Kelly. Do you mean Sarah Palin#Bridge to Nowhere? I'm thinking the issue at hand is that the way the section is worded, it gives the impression that Palin was the one that was responsible for getting rid of the earmark, when in reality it was Congress that did that.--Bobblehead ^(rants) 02:35, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Whoops, yeah, wrong link - it apparently got changed sometime, or my brain is scrambled. What rewording would you suggest? Kelly ^hi! 02:40, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

It's certainly clear that Congress removed the earmark in 2005, leaving Alaska's general transportation grant available for whatever purposes the state chose. [37] The current wording gives the impression that this happened after Palin became governor, which of course is false. (For that reason, I agree with Bobblehead's criticism.) In 2006, campaigning for governor, Palin supported funding the bridge and referred to the power of the state's congressional delegation. The clear implication is that she wanted to keep the general transportation grant but get bridge money added on top of it. (If all she had wanted to do was spend the grant money on the bridge, then the state could do that without intervention by Stevens and Young.) Thus, she was still hoping to get bridge money from the feds. She canceled the bridge only when it became clear that there would be no additional appropriation for that purpose from Washington. In that respect, I think that Hobartimus's summary above, although accurate as far as it goes, is incomplete.

As for rewording, I'm too tired right now to draft something. I do think that the section should go roughly in chrono order, beginning with the pre-2006 developments rather than beginning with Palin's campaign. She wasn't involved pre-2006, but it's essential to give the reader the background. JamesMLane t c 08:02, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Your theory that Palin somehow wanted to get the bridge money twice out of Congress is interesting to me. Why would Congress pay more after they already paid the full price of the bridge? After they pay the 2nd time and again Alaska finds that the bridge is still as wasteful and still spends the money much better elsewhere would there be a 3rd run 4th etc? I think your theory about bridge money on top of bridge money becomes weak at this point because it makes the assumption that Congress would even consider handing out more money for a bridge they already paid for in full. And in the end they didn't. Why would they? They'd look stupid at that point paying say 1B$ for a bridge with a price tag of 400 Mil. We know that the earmark was cancelled in late 2005 but when did the money arrive? The previous administration of Alaska should probably also get some credit if they also recognized the wasteful nature of the bridge and directed some funds at better projects however the extent of this is not known. But even if they get some more money from Congress why would they build the bridge. Say the bridge costs 400$ and it's benefit to Alaska is estimated at 50$ (thus being a huge waste of money), clearly they will direct the money building other projects(as they did). Let's say Congress goes mad and pays them 2-3-4 times for the whole price of the bridge as you speculated. Now they have 1600$ but the bridge still costs the same 400 with the same lousy 50 benefit and still if they build anything else they will be better off. If they have the choice they will never build the bridge they know it's simply not worth 400. If Congress forces the bridge on them with an earmark and they have no say in it then Congress can take credit or blame for how the project turned out. But here Alaskan government had the choice and they deserve full credit (possibly shared between the two administrations who handled it) for recognizing that the bridge is not worth it's cost. Hobartimus (talk) 13:18, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Political positions of Sarah Palin

The above article has had some editing done by single-purpose accounts, and probably needs some attention to make it neutral again, especially in the "Oil and gas development" section. Experts appreciated. Kelly ^hi! 01:33, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Shouldn't the information that is notable be here and the info that isn't just be deleted? --98.243.129.181 (talk) 01:55, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I'll see what I can do on Political positions of Sarah Palin. To address the other point, the idea was to have a separate article on her political positions, not to put it all here. This is consistent with what has been done with Biden et al. --Crunch (talk) 02:06, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Racial, gender positions of Sarah Palin

When looking at Palin's views, we should examine her views on race and gender. Reports are out saying she called Obama "Sambo" and Hillary Clinton a "b----." They also say she regularly calls Alaska’s Aboriginal people racial slurs. For one such report, see http://www.smh.com.au/news/us-election/media-factions-at-war-over-palin/2008/09/08/1220857456619.html

What was Palin's record on appointing minorities and women to positions in her administration as Alaska governor and mayor of Wasilla? Does she support affirmative action? Did she ever help increase the pool of loans given to minority and women owned businesses? These are important questions that need to be answered in any report on her positions. Jacksonthor (talk) 16:38, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Put discussion into subpages

This discussion page is now 632 kilobytes and is getting very very hard to read/edit. So how about we take all active discussions and split them into subpages? Then under each current section header we provide a link to that subpage. What do you all think? Green caterpillar (talk) 01:35, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I think that would just drop the conversations off the radar of people who watch this talkpage. Things will eventually settle down here. Kelly ^hi! 01:58, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I think we can safely archive the older couple hundred kilobytes. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 02:23, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

The auto-archiver is currently scheduled to remove anything older than 24 hours, it'll pick off any stale discussions as they come up. Unfortunately the auto-archiver only runs once a day... --Bobblehead ^(rants) 02:27, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

There ya go.. 182kb removed by the auto-archiver.[38] Granted, still 480kb in size, but more headway will be made as discussions die down in the next few days. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 02:57, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Abortion reference should include "personal opinion"

I have this on Talk:Political_positions_of_Sarah_Palin#Abortion_wording as well. I think we should include the abortion reference as a "personal opinion" and then let the main political positions page refer to the following below:

ADN - Palin on issues.

Q: If Roe v. Wade were overturned and states could once again prohibit abortion, in your view, to what extent should abortion be prohibited in Alaska?

A: Under this hypothetical scenario, it would not be up to the governor to unilaterally ban anything. It would be up to the people of Alaska to discuss and decide how we would like our society to reflect our values."

If someone could please include the above references in the appropriate manner. I'm not 100% sure I've been able to maintain objectively in response to the hypocrisy I've witness around Palin. Theosis4u (talk) 03:43, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I tried to add this info, but as I was doing so the page got full protected again due to continued edit wars. Sigh. See the talk page for my attempted edit. --ThaddeusB (talk) 04:46, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

My view would be to hold off until someone directly comes out and asks her "Do you support Roe vs Wade?". I don't think the interviewer pinned her down. T0mpr1c3 (talk) 09:15, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

A direct "answer" would be nice, but this reference should definitely go in the article as it gives more context to the other opinions that very well might be "personal". Without this reference, it's easy to imply the others are political statements against Roe V. Wade. Theosis4u (talk) 15:46, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Edit requests, editprotected, and consensus: The formula for "nuthin-gets-done"

There is no structure being adhered to in the edit-request/editprotected/consensus process.

If there is a WP standard regarding editing fully-protected pages it is either too loose to be effective, or is not being enforced.

The Problem is: A proposed edit placed on a protected talk-page may receive moderate support, so the author throws up the editprotected flag. Then all hell breaks loose. Responses are of three types, with numerous sub-types. The first type "Approve" which seems to come in the following flavors:
1. The unqualified approval
2. The "I approve , but..."
Second response type is the "Oppose":
1. Direct opposal: "I prefer the existing article text to the proposed edit because..."
2. Violation opposal: "Your proposed edit is in error or violation because..."
3. The "I like my way better counter-proposal" opposal
4. The "I don't like your edit but can't fault it compared to the existing text, so let's broaden the scope and talk about the entire section, or the entire article, or about a different article entirely, or about the weather" opposal
Then there are the ambiguous responses. They come in all the varieties listed above, but you can't quite tell if it's really an approve, or if it's actually an oppose, some are completely off-topic.

The result I find is that a talk-page "Edit request" section gets turned into a standard talk-page discussion section, where lengthy debates lead off in who knows what direction, the topic then gets stale, and nothing gets done.

A section beginning with "Edit request:" should be treated differently than a typical discussion section. If in discussion someone feels they have support then they should create an "Edit request:" section. That type of section should allow only three types of responses, under seperate sub-headings: Approve, Oppose, and "non-controversial minor change request". Any post under "Approve" counts as an approve, regardless if the author lists a dozen "but's". A post in the Oppose area must address only the proposed edit versus the existing article text to be replaced. If the oppose either:
1. Broadens the scope of the comparison
2. Argues for, or against, a point that already exists in both the current article and the proposed edit
3. Makes an argument that is obviously without merit, or has been clearly refuted in a counter-post
then the oppose should be considered invalid.

After a set amount of time an Admin should review the editprotected, remove invalid opposes, determine if what remains is a consensus, and then either process or deny the request.

I'm not egotistical enough to think this hasn't been gone over a million times before, but where are the results? Where is the structure to get something accomplished? It is utter chaos here, where anyone can devolve a valid edit request into a never-ending debate that flies off in all directions, where efforts made in good-faith go for naught.

Addendum: I'll offer some examples:
Look at my exhaustive efforts to get "Palin's acceptance speech was well-received by media analysts" edited. That is an unsounced judgement call. I've offered numerous rewordings. When will it be corrected? Nov. 5th? Does someone want to defend that as belonging in the article?
Look at my effort to get the the timeline corrected in "Public Safety Commissioner Dismissal" edited. Again, I've offered numerous re-edits. That section mentions Monegan's allegation, Palin's denial, oops, that was scrubbed, I mean Palin's admission, then three or four more sentences regarding subsequent events. Then three more sentences about some off-topic guy named Kopp, and then it mentions the Aug 1 launching of an investigation. The problem is, the second un-dated sentence (and, no, adding a date is not sufficient, correct the order of the sentences in the paragraph) about Palin's admission occured on Aug 13, six sentences later with off-topic items mixed in, we go back to the original topic with the Aug 1 sentence. Who wants to defend that as an accurate timeline, an accurate portrayal of events? Again, I'm sure someone will get around to it, post-election.
(I was the 75 and 216 anons in my earliest posts) Spiff1959 (talk) 06:43, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Hang in there! :-) T0mpr1c3 (talk) 08:13, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Request for POV Tag

The one consensus we have on this page is that there's no consensus (See comment above.) As there's no consensus that the current article is NPOV, shouldn't we have a tag to alert readers of our intense disagreement with each other?GreekParadise (talk) 06:23, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

haha, yea right! Slap one on Obama first. Nowhere in Obama's article do I find mention of him voting against the born alive act, or do I read about HIS family such as Malik Abongo Obama...I cant learn about Rezko or Ayres on Obama's article....thats because the typical wikipedian- a white male, aged 35 and under, techi, socialist, in favor of smoking pot will typically hate Palin and want to fill her article with 'controversey.' that is what many people want....they want to add a bunch of controversey to this article. We all know it.

• Approve This page is not NPOV, and the consensus process has stalled. Spiff1959 (talk) 16:42, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

New information on the Palins' choice of churches

The NYT has new information on why the Palins changed churches;

One of the musical directors at the church, Adele Morgan, who has known Ms. Palin since the third grade, said the Palins moved to the nondenominational Wasilla Bible Church in 2002, in part because its ministry is less “extreme” than Pentecostal churches like the Assemblies of God, which practice speaking in tongues and miraculous healings.

Now that we have this piece of information we could add it to the religion paragraph at the tail end of the article, if anybody cares to rework it. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 07:15, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Seems like further support for the existing statement that Palin is a non-denominational Christian, although it hardly seems necessary because we already have it in her own words. T0mpr1c3 (talk) 09:31, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

irrelevant. Obama has the monopoly on bizzarre churches, and barely a mention in his article —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.18.108.5 (talk) 08:06, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

oops forgot to mention: Obama's church is black liberation theology....interesting how the Obama article completely leaves that out! But then again, the typical wikipedian: a white male, age 35 and under, a tekkie, a pro-obama, anti-palin socialist will conveniently leave that out! I know how the typical wikipeian works. He will pump up the palin article full of controversey and leave it out of Obama's. When you confront him on it, he has a nice little pre-packaged excuse "well thats over THERE and this is HERE...two wrongs dont make a right....blah blah". Its all bogus. If you go out of your way to describe all of Palin's churches including their theology, then you have to mention black liberation theology on Obama's article without issuing the repetitious excuse of "these are two different articles", because thats the point-- that is precisly how the typical white male tekkie wikipedians exploit wikipedia with POV. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.18.108.5 (talk) 08:11, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I completely ignore the foregoing anon rant and respond to Phlegm Rooster's serious point. The quotation is from a member of the church who highlights one difference from the other church, but doesn't even allege that Palin told her that that difference is why she switched. (BTW, speaking of "that that", I note that the Times removed a "that" in quotin from the video. Shame on them.) I think it's too peripheral to the Palin bio to include what amounts to speculation about her reasons for choosing one church over another. JamesMLane t c 09:23, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I think the pro-Palin folks should be happy that the Palins were smart enough to get out of that church while the getting was good, unlike Obama. And the speculation was by someone who has known her since the third grade. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 10:07, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Has she changed churches, though? She spoke at the Assemblies of God back in July, when its pastor stood next to her on the stage and thanked God that she was Governor because she'll know what to do when the apocalypse comes and hundreds of thousands of Americans flood to Alaska. ANd she invited the founder of that Church to preside at her inauguration. Isn't she keeping a foot in both camps? And this "less extreme" church, the one she moved to, is the one where she sat and listened to David Bricker of Jews for Jesus describe terrorist attacks on Israel as the judgement of God, and then listened as her new pastor prayed for the conversion of Jews. 86.140.233.58 (talk) 10:53, 8 September 2008 (UTC).

In the Time interview she said her family switched from Roman Catholic to non-denominational. No mention of other churches. T0mpr1c3 (talk) 11:03, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I haven't read the Time interview. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 12:09, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Do not concur with inclusion. Palin's religious views are already succintly and appropriately summarized in the Personal section of her biography. Her attendance at this or any other church provides nothing to alter the veracity or accuracy of those views. The inclusion of any church affiliations is a clear attempt to place undue bias and "guilt by association" (if, in fact, the church is "guilty" of something), and it does not belong there unless RS have evidence that a) she participated in ritualistic religious behavior outside of the norm, and b) her governing policy was demonstrably influenced by religious beliefs outside of the norm. I just checked, and it appears the maintainers of the Obama article has also resisted attempts to paint him through tangential church affiliations as also not meeting that criteria, with which I agree. Finally, the MSM is divulging much more researched background information on Palin now that some time has elapsed since her precipitous thrust into the spotlight. I would suggest others do more thorough research against current sources as well before requesting inclusion in this article. Fcreid (talk) 12:17, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Sarah Palin Article Is Going Stale

This process is obviously not working. There was a total of 1 updates in the past 16 hours to the article and this was made by a passing admin who made a change without concensus. The review process to decided who did what will take a long time as the article gets older. The editors are losing interest over having to debate over a minor update. As a result no updates are happening. Sitedown (talk) 12:20, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

It's not a "perfect" article at present, but it's not bad either. If you contrast it against [39], it appears the hard work over the past ten days paid off in reaching accuracy through consensus. What specific issues do you think make it "stale" and warrant immediate inclusion? Fcreid (talk) 12:24, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Last I checked, WP was an encyclopedia. How can an encyclopedia article go stale in 16 hours? Ronnotel (talk) 12:27, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

It's been days since any edit of substance has been made. And one doesn't have to look far for issues that require resolution. Spiff1959 (talk) 12:40, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

So, chip in and help forge consensus on the outstanding issues.--Paul (talk) 12:45, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

It is impossible with the majority blockers in place. I have given up. 66.186.173.180 (talk) 12:55, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

So you are asserting your right to add material that has not gained consensus? Ronnotel (talk) 13:09, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

(ec) Are there any edits of substance and WP:CONSENSUS that have been ignored? If so, let me know and I'll be happy to add them. Ronnotel (talk) 12:46, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Ronnotel, do you think we have enough consensus on beluga whales yet? T0mpr1c3 (talk) 13:38, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

It's getting close. Can you please make an edit request with specific language. If no one bleats I'll consider adding. Ronnotel (talk) 13:45, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

AdminPedia I have no idea what needs to be added or removed because I am not a subject matter expert on Palin and I can not imagine any of the administrators here are either. Millions of people will visit this page and a percentage of people who do are subject matter experts and have important verifiable facts that need to be added or changed. This is the whole purpose of a wiki. It is not the responsibility of the admins to make an article "perfect" before it is unlocked and since information changes by the minute on a person it would be impossible to ever make it "perfect". My understanding is the reason the article was locked was due to hacking of the page and that maybe valid for a very short period of time (although it is quicker to press undo then argue about what should or should not be included). I am disgusted by this behavior and believe it is not in the spirit of wikipedia, democracy or freedom of speech. Sitedown (talk) 13:29, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

WP:CONSENSUS is non-existant and unattainable. Incontrovertible issues of unsourced bias, or easily verifiable factual errors, go unchanged if a single person lodges opposition. Proving that opposition unwarranted bears no fruit. WP:CONSENSUS apparently means that in order to replace blatant flaws in this article, one must produce a perfect edit that garners universal approval. For the shortest read in my list, review the merits of "Edit request: 2008 vice-presidential campaign - Convention speech" 216.170.33.149 (talk) 13:32, 8 September 2008 (UTC) (Pardon, I neglected to login) Spiff1959 (talk) 13:46, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Can you point to any "easily verifiable factual errors" in the article? I highly doubt admins would raise objection to correcting such an error. Hobartimus (talk) 13:49, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

The issue is not what is in the article but what is not. Until the article is unlocked no one will know what that information is. I can't believe this argument is still ongoing. I have not heard one valid reason why the article can not be semi protected. Sitedown (talk) 13:58, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

If anyone's bored after that firxt read, look at the major edit that took place just before the lock to the text discussed in this talk-page section and subsection: "Suggested edit to Public Safety Commissioner section" and "Gripes" Spiff1959 (talk) 14:01, 8 September 2008 (UTC) You'd of thought I'd of at least been able to correct an unsourced global assertion of total media praise attributed to the Palin speech in over 2 days? Or put sentences into a chronologically-correct order to properly portray the factual order of events in the Public Safety Commissioner section in 2 days? Both of continuing violations impart a particular bias. This page need to be unlocked now, or have a bright shiny POV tag pasted smack on the top of it.

You are only furthering the beating of the dead horse into glue. It's been largely discussed at AN, ANI, AE... with consensus to keep the page fully protected for the short-term. You're a pretty new user (judging from your contributions), so it is understandable you didn't read the countless threads on this topic. seicer | talk | contribs 14:02, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I reviewed the Arbitration discussion, the war wheeling pages, most of the on-and-on discussions about unlocking, semi-locked, full-protection a long time ago. I'm not sure what I saw is what I would call consensus. So, this flawed article is to remain intact, in it's current state, indefinately (beyond Nov. 4th?) due to turf wars amongst the admins, to the detraction of providing a quality, accurate product to the millions who pass through WP? (I'm a WWII buff, I had a WP login years ago which I've forgotten and contributed somewhat to those civil, less-ugly topics within WP) Spiff1959 (talk) 14:13, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I am a new editor but a regular user. My reason for creating an ID was simply because I could not believe this was occurring. I have read and already commented on a lot of the locations you mentioned where this is being debated and I continue to raise it either sarcastically or directly as it is not being resolved. When I stated it should be left locked until after the election it was obvious sarcasm to show just how ludicrous this is but now it appears this is actually the opinion of some people. This is CENSORSHIP BY LACK OF CONCENSUS.

I can only assume the majority of people who want to make updates do not have the time to debate for 2 days on if Palin was a member of the PTA or basketball team captain and then spend another 24 hours trying to get the wording correct so everyone agrees. Sitedown (talk) 14:23, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I will desist with any of my opinions as to the locked/unlocked status of this page as that is not within my purview. But you have to be kidding, you relegate the flaws demonstrated above to the triviality of PTA membership? Spiff1959 (talk) 14:32, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Pardon, I'm a bit frustrated and your sarcasm (temporarily) went over my head ;) Spiff1959 (talk) 14:36, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually that time was not an attempt at Sarcasm and I am concerned that anyone would refer to community work such as PTA membership as Trivial. Education of children is one of the key issues and Alaska has the highest drop out rates in the country [40]. So this is very important, so important Sarah has mentioned this several times in her speeches as the turning point in her career. I am not here to debate this though, my objection is to the fact this record is locked and neither Biden or Obama’s records are locked. This is very one sided politics and should not be occurring.Sitedown (talk) 14:51, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry Spiff1959 I should not have lost it like that but I like you am frustrated and everyone has different views on what is or is not important. That’s kind of why wikipedia works so well. BTW I am neither a republican or a democrat or even an American for that matter so I am in no way biased either way. All I want is a wikipedia article on a potential VP of one of the most powerful countries in the world to have a neutral point of view so the people who do vote can vote responsibly knowing all the facts and not just the ones that were “approved by consensus” for submission. Sitedown is taking a break. Sitedown (talk) 15:15, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

No, I apologize. I in no way meant to belittle the importance of the PTA or even High School sports. I, too, am frustrated, and misunderstood your statement. I'd thought you were discounting my documented instances in this article of unsourced personal opinion, and a fictitious timeline, as trivial. Spiff1959 (talk) 16:53, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Spiff and Sitedown are right. The page gets edited a certain way -- let's face it ALWAYS in a heavily pro-Palin way, with all the truthful negative things about Palin bowdlerized and whitewashed -- then it's locked. I understand the editors are in a bind, sorting out rumors, with Dems wanting to add truthful negative information and Republicans desperately trying to keep readers from knowing the truth. But let's not pretend this page represents anything truthful about Sarah Palin. This page could now be called the "Republican view of Sarah Palin." So let's tell listeners the truth: that there is no consensus. Maybe one day there will be consensus. But there is clearly no consensus now. So that's what POV tags are for. To let people know that the version they see may or may not be true. Even if you're a right-wing conservative, you can't deny there's no consensus on this page. - - Just by way of example, there's no mention of the fact that Wasilla had a balanced budget before Palin left it $20 million in debt. And the part about "banning books" is treated with such pro-Palin bias as to be laughable, as if her wish to ban the books had no connection to her threat to fire the librarian several sentences earlier. I'm not trying to get into specifics here, only trying to point out that this article is sated with POV and has been ever since political operative "Young Trigg" first reworked the entire article. We all know it. Even those of you that are trying to insert Republican Talking Points while deleting well-sourced negative information about Palin know it. - - I'm not trying to get into a fight here about specifics. That's what 10 talk pages are about. I'm appealing to people, whether they agree with me or not, to recognize that precisely since we can't agree, a POV is appropriate. And I'm asking an administrator to take action. If an administrator does not respond to this POV request or says no, I would like Spiff and everyone else to go to administrator's talk pages and ask them repeatedly for a POV tag until someone explains why it's wrong to say "disputed; no consensus reached" when it's obvious this page is "disputed; no consensus reached" - - OK, commence your personal attacks if you must. Sigh. I fully expect it. But could someone please address why we don't put a POV tag on something that is clearly disputed as non-neutral?True 12345 (talk) 15:01, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

• By saying "I understand the editors are in a bind, sorting out rumors, with Dems wanting to add truthful negative information and Republicans desperately trying to keep readers from knowing the truth." and more, you are clearly indicating your own bias, and may not be in a position to offer an objective opinion about what is neutral or not regarding this article. PHARMBOY (TALK) 15:18, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Unless I'm misunderstanding, a BLP article is not a "debate" forum, right? On the issues you mentioned: there was extensive talk regarding the book removal incident above with a multiple of sources cited and examined. Have you participated in that discussion? Just because you see it one way does not mean everyone does, and you will invariably find multiple reliable sources that interpret the event entirely differently than you. There was (or was approaching) consensus above. Why should your interpretation now trump all other editors and reliable sources? I don't recall discussion or proposal on the other issue you mentioned (the Wasilla budget), but have you proposed an edit for discussion and consensus? I think the fundamental problem is what I mentioned above. People are trying to use this person's biography to grind their political axes. Certainly that's not appropriate when multiple RS provide entirely different conclusions (and often entirely different "facts"). The article must strive for neutrality. Fcreid (talk) 15:21, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Neutrality will not and can not be acheived until the article is unlocked like every other politician. Sitedown (talk) 15:27, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree, POV tags should be added until this article can undergo a through assessment by the community, which will take time. Right now its neutrality is in dispute and that should be clearly noted.Neutralis (talk) 15:34, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Yeah. I agree, sadly. A "disputed" tag is appropriate. --Evb-wiki (talk) 15:40, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Whether I agree or not is irrelevant, as I have nothing to do with that decision. Based on my understanding, the admins were going to wait until the page hit volume subsided, as BLP violations can be much more egregious when tens of thousands of users are reading that content. It looks like the "Political Positions of Sarah Palin" article is unlocked... why don't you work on that one? Fcreid (talk) 15:43, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Why don't we go work on a spinoff? A good response might be that the majority of the readers will get their misinformation from this page, and not bother delving into the sub-articles Spiff1959 (talk) 17:00, 8 September 2008 (UTC).

• Any editor can join in the discussions on the talk page to propose changes to the article and to help achieve consensus on any changes. Those that claim that the article is biased without participating, and those who continually post poorly-sourced and libelous charges on this talk page are only prolonging the protection of the Sarah Palin page. It is partisan anger that got the page protected in the first place.--Paul (talk) 15:49, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

The right reason for the temporary use of a POV tag is to alert the reader that an article may fail to adequately reflect all points of view, with the intention of encouraging more participation in consensus building. Once consensus has been reached, the tag is removed. The wrong reason to add a POV tag is when one side in an editing dispute fails to gain consensus on their preferred version. In this case, it's difficult to argue that all points of view are not being adequately represented. That some feel their input is not sufficiently represented in the consensus version that is adopted would fall under the wrong reason to add a POV tag. Ronnotel (talk) 15:54, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

The point is there is zero consensus on the stuff that's up here. I have tried to change it several times and I can't get consensus on my change because everyone wants to assert POV. My earlier changes were all reverted without any explanation and then the page was locked thereafter. I tried to work on the talk page several times (and many archives ago) and my suggestions were just ignored. Not responded to. Every change I've made, all duly sourced by reputable sources, has been reverted back without explanation and locked. And people have been extraordinarily uncivil. If you want me to name names, I will, but I'd rather not make it personal. This is a more systemic problem.

All I'm saying is that let's post truthful, balanced information. If you want to balance the positive with the negative or the negative with the postive, fine. But what we have here is the locked remains of Young Trigg, the probable political operative who created this puff piece to begin with.

These early changes then locking the door is kind of like someone stealing my money and then saying, "The case is closed. I won't discuss giving the money back unless you and I agree on whose money it is." And I say, "The money is mine!" And you say, "Sorry bud, no consensus. Case closed."

Right now, I'm not arguing for a particular edit. I've learned the hard way it's practically impossible. Every well-sourced edit I put in gets reverted and people refuse to dicuss why. I'm just saying there is ample disagreement that the version of this article represents anything close to neutral POV. And that disagreement should be reflected with a POV tag until we can all agree (consensus!) that the article expresses all the truthful descriptions of this woman's life, including things she's done that can be perceived in both a negative and positive light.

Once we at least acknowledge disagreement, we can work on our differences. But to pretend, in an Orwellian kind of way, that there is no disagreement, makes me think any attempt at working out our differences is hopeless.GreekParadise (talk) 16:07, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

"But what we have here is the locked remains of Young Trigg, the probable political operative who created this puff piece to begin with." I don't know who is pushing this argument, but here is the Early morning Aug. 28, 2008 version of article. I would think that any unbiased observer would conclude that current article is VASTLY more critical of Palin than it was 10 days ago. and "Young_Trig" didn't "create this puff piece" he (or she) started with an existing 2200 word consensus article.--Paul (talk) 17:00, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Johnson cites -- page numbers

There are currently 13 cites to the Johnson book. I'll list here the pages to which those cites refer, and request that some administartor add them.

a - p. 15; b - pp. 15-16; c - p. 17; d - pp. 27-29; e - p. 31; f - pp. 27, 30; g - p. 21; h - p. 45; i - p. 65; j - p. 80; k - p. 81; l - p. 107 (there's probably a better cite for this elsewhere); m - p. 39.

The book also contains some insight into the librarian firing, but lets do the non-controversial edits first before getting into that. Coemgenus 15:43, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Great job. Kudos. I support the expedited addition of page cites. Thanks, Coemgenus. --Evb-wiki (talk) 15:52, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

a, b and c are all in the same paragraph and no other source is used in the paragraph. I'll do this as one citing pp 15-17.

d, e, and f are all in the next paragraph and no other source is used in the paragraph. I'll do this as one citing pp 27-31.

None of the other uses are combinable. So we'll end up with 9 separate references for the book. But unless we totally change the reference style to a notes & references, this is unavoidable. And I can't recommend a change to the reference style here. Unless I hear an objection soon, I'm going to do this. GRBerry 16:18, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Media coverage

• {{editprotected}}

Proposed edit--Rtphokie (talk) 16:05, 8 September 2008 (UTC):

The McCain-Palin campaign refused interview requests for Palin saying calling the news media "piranhas" complaining that Palin was not being treated with "respect and deference." Reporters have expressed concerns with the lack of opportunity to ask questions directly of Palin. Since the annoucement as McCain's running mate, Palin has granted a single interview to People Magazine and Charles Gibson of ABC News.

Oppose If this is relevant at all (and one can argue that WP:RECENT and WP:Wikipedia is not a newspaper suggest it is not) it would be relevant to the campaign article, not the biography of Sarah Palin.--Paul (talk) 16:21, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I think this would be more appropriate for the campaign article. Kelly ^hi! 16:23, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

"Saved"

Palin describes herself as "getting saved" at the Wasilla Assembly of God.here That should probably go in the Personal life section.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 16:07, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

POV

• {{editprotected}}

--Proposed edit until consensus is reached for reasons stated above. Otherwise, people who go to this encyclopedia will think that consensus has been reached when it clearly has not.--

GreekParadise (talk) 16:22, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Disagree

Oppose:Disagree for now, can you be more specific? Kelly ^hi! 16:26, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Oppose: As above, I think this is a poor reason to insert a POV tag on this article. Ronnotel (talk) 16:44, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Oppose I don't like most of her politics, but the article is neutral in regard to the facts. The debate about adding additional content that doesn't favor her is a separate issue. While the article isn't as up to date as it could be (and Wikipedia policy is clear that it is better to be out of date than to try to be a news source) doesn't make the article POV. Again, I am not a fan of hers, but there does seem to be a fair amount of people determined to turn the article into a political tool, which is NOT the purpose of Wikipedia. PHARMBOY (TALK) 16:54, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Oppose The typical wikipedian: a white male under 35, who favors legalizing pot, is a tekkie, leans socialist, is pro-obama, despises conservatism....of COURSE you think its POV. You want to shove more controversy in it...like talking about speaking in tongues, etc. Funny how the words "black liberation theology" is no where to be found on Obama's article. But Palin/McCain now have a 10 pt lead in the polls, and I understand how desperate you are. You have to save Obama! You got to get that controversy stuffed in this article.....these are desperate times!!

Agree

Support I would prefer the article was unlocked but if we can't get that then this is a good start. Sitedown (talk) 16:49, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Agree Wholeheartedly. Spiff1959 (talk) 17:06, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

New Biography about Sarah Palin

A suggested link under "External Links" to a new biography about Palin, scheduled to release October 10, according to the press release.

New biography: Sarah Palin: A New Kind of Leader by Joe Hilley

Finz7 (talk) 17:03, 8 September 2008 (UTC)