![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 10 | ← | Archive 13 | Archive 14 | Archive 15 | Archive 16 | Archive 17 | → | Archive 20 |
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)
{{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 [1]) 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. [2] 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.
Would it be possible for you to explicitly highlight what the actual edits are? -- Crunch ( talk) 15:27, 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)
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? ff m 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)
{{ editprotected}}
They are right here and should be added. [1]-- Jack Cox ( talk) 15:02, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
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. [3] The program was criticized by Defenders of Wildlife and predator control opponents, [3] and prompted California State Representative George Miller to introduce a federal bill (H.R. 3663) seeking to make the practice illegal. [3] In March 2008, a federal judge in Alaska upheld the practice of hunting wolves from the air, though limited its extent. [4] On August 26, 2008, Alaskans voted against ending the state's predator control program. [5]
- ^ "Who2 Biography". Who2.
- ^ "Alaska Governor Sarah Palin". Alaskan State Govt. Retrieved 2008-09-07.
- ^ a b c Bolstad, Erika (2007-09-26). "Lawmaker seeks to ban wolf hunting from planes, copters". Oakland Tribune.
{{ cite news}}
:|access-date=
requires|url=
( help)- ^ "Alaska Judge Upholds Aerial Wolf Killing But Limits Extent". ens-newswire.com. Environmental News Service. 2008-03-18. Retrieved 2008-09-01.
- ^ "Alaska voters shoot down predator control initiative". newsminer.com. Fairbanks Daily News-Miner. 2008-08-27. Retrieved 2008-09-01.
I propose deleting this paragraph in its entirety for the following reasons:
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-- 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)
here is another link: http://www.slate.com/id/2199140 —Preceding unsigned comment added by MisterAlbert ( talk • contribs) 23:42, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
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: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
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)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.”
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)
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)
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)
Looks like the CSS on the page is hacked atm (even though it is protected). Sigz ( talk) 16:33, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
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)
Editprotected
Can we add this category:
Category:Republican Party (United States) vice presidential nominees
--
Crunch (
talk)
19:14, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
"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)
{{ 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
http://www.adn.com/news/government/renkes/story/42108.html Joeljunk ( talk) 19:22, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
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)
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.
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.
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)
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)
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)
So, is there consensus to replace this:
With this:
This presumes consensus that the Kilkenny email is tainted, non-RS. Fcreid ( talk) 12:14, 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)
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)
"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."
"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.'" "
"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."
"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."
Like.liberation 14:31, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
Palin may have asked about removing library books because of her constituents’ concerns with inappropriate language, but ultimately none were banned.
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)
{{ 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)
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.
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.
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:
- Classicfilms ( talk) 17:29, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
Like.liberation 18:19, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
{{ editprotected}}
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)
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)
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.
"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 ..."
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.
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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.
[1] 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
Initially, Palin denied that there had been any pressure on Monegan to fire Wooten, either from herself or from anyone in her administration. [3]
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)
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)
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:
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)
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)
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:
Demer, Lisa. Is Wooten a good trooper?, Anchorage Daily News (2008-07-27).
{{
citation}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)CS1 maint: date and year (
link)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 10 | ← | Archive 13 | Archive 14 | Archive 15 | Archive 16 | Archive 17 | → | Archive 20 |
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)
{{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 [1]) 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. [2] 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.
Would it be possible for you to explicitly highlight what the actual edits are? -- Crunch ( talk) 15:27, 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)
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? ff m 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)
{{ editprotected}}
They are right here and should be added. [1]-- Jack Cox ( talk) 15:02, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
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. [3] The program was criticized by Defenders of Wildlife and predator control opponents, [3] and prompted California State Representative George Miller to introduce a federal bill (H.R. 3663) seeking to make the practice illegal. [3] In March 2008, a federal judge in Alaska upheld the practice of hunting wolves from the air, though limited its extent. [4] On August 26, 2008, Alaskans voted against ending the state's predator control program. [5]
- ^ "Who2 Biography". Who2.
- ^ "Alaska Governor Sarah Palin". Alaskan State Govt. Retrieved 2008-09-07.
- ^ a b c Bolstad, Erika (2007-09-26). "Lawmaker seeks to ban wolf hunting from planes, copters". Oakland Tribune.
{{ cite news}}
:|access-date=
requires|url=
( help)- ^ "Alaska Judge Upholds Aerial Wolf Killing But Limits Extent". ens-newswire.com. Environmental News Service. 2008-03-18. Retrieved 2008-09-01.
- ^ "Alaska voters shoot down predator control initiative". newsminer.com. Fairbanks Daily News-Miner. 2008-08-27. Retrieved 2008-09-01.
I propose deleting this paragraph in its entirety for the following reasons:
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-- 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)
here is another link: http://www.slate.com/id/2199140 —Preceding unsigned comment added by MisterAlbert ( talk • contribs) 23:42, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
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: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
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)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.”
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)
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)
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)
Looks like the CSS on the page is hacked atm (even though it is protected). Sigz ( talk) 16:33, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
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)
Editprotected
Can we add this category:
Category:Republican Party (United States) vice presidential nominees
--
Crunch (
talk)
19:14, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
"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)
{{ 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
http://www.adn.com/news/government/renkes/story/42108.html Joeljunk ( talk) 19:22, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
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)
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.
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.
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)
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)
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)
So, is there consensus to replace this:
With this:
This presumes consensus that the Kilkenny email is tainted, non-RS. Fcreid ( talk) 12:14, 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)
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)
"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."
"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.'" "
"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."
"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."
Like.liberation 14:31, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
Palin may have asked about removing library books because of her constituents’ concerns with inappropriate language, but ultimately none were banned.
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)
{{ 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)
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.
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.
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:
- Classicfilms ( talk) 17:29, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
Like.liberation 18:19, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
{{ editprotected}}
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)
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)
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.
"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 ..."
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.
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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.
[1] 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
Initially, Palin denied that there had been any pressure on Monegan to fire Wooten, either from herself or from anyone in her administration. [3]
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)
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)
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:
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)
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)
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:
Demer, Lisa. Is Wooten a good trooper?, Anchorage Daily News (2008-07-27).
{{
citation}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)CS1 maint: date and year (
link)