Talk:Sarah Palin/Archive 15

Archive 10

←

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

→

Archive 20

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)

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 (pronounced /ˈpeɪlɪn/; 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.[1]--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)

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)

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)

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)

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.[2] 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)

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)

Palin also filed ethics complaint against *Murkowski* in 2005 over Renkes matter

http://www.adn.com/news/government/renkes/story/42108.html Joeljunk (talk) 19:22, 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 [3] 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." [4]

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 [[5] and TIME [6]. 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/Archive_15#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)

PLEASE NOTE: This discussion moved to the section below. Please add comments there: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Sarah_Palin/Archive_16#Proposed_change_to_Wasilla_section -Classicfilms (talk) 21:25, 8 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/Archive_16#Proposed_change_to_Wasilla_section

-Classicfilms (talk) 15:22, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

"morally or socially objectionable"

I propose that an important point from Anne Kilkenny (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/03/us/politics/03wasilla.html) be accurately quoted in the book banning question. I propose the following change based on the NYT article: CURRENT: 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.[21] PROPOSED: According to Anne Kilkenny, a Democrat who observed the City Council, Palin also brought up the idea of banning some books, which she felt were morally or socially objectionable, at one meeting, but did not follow through with the idea. --Robapalooza (talk) 19:04, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

This topic moved to the section below a few days ago. Please read through the entire section, but the current draft is draft 8.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Sarah_Palin/Archive_16#Proposed_change_to_Wasilla_section

-Classicfilms (talk) 21:24, 8 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 [7]. 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)

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)

{{editprotected}}

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)

I agree. --ThaddeusB (talk) 17:15, 8 September 2008 (UTC)