Talk:Alaska Public Safety Commissioner dismissal/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

I'm changing the name, possibly,

On google, there are 977,000 results for troopergate, but only 12,600 for the current title. I am putting this up, and if no oposition comes forward, i will change it. --TheWave (talk) 20:02, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Initial comments

Please expand here, there are plenty of details that are notable but don't belong in Sarah Palin. Currently this article is just a duplicate of that section, I expect it to fill out. Do not rapid delete it until at least a day has passed. Homunq (talk) 23:09, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Confusing chronological order

Trying to make sense of this article is like trying to follow one of those movies that develops its plots via flashbacks--you all come out of the movie and spend the next hour trying to piece together the chronological order. Could someone please put the events of this article in the order they happened so mere mortals can follow the sequence? Also some idea of the time span between the events, or when they happened, would be helpful for those wondering how the events are correlated. Events closer together in time tend to be more strongly correlated than those far apart. --Vaughan Pratt (talk) 03:11, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

The article needs some serious formatting help. That huge wall of text, wiki links and footnotes is pretty intimidating to just read, must less dig in for a badly needed formatting. Veriss (talk) 03:37, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I tried to break the massive wall of text down into a structure that is usable for a beginner class article. Please feel free to restructure and edit away =). Veriss (talk) 05:41, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Impeachment Speculation Cautions

There were several attempts on the main article to insert comments from a single opposition Democrat senator, quoted in a single article, that in a worst-case scenario that the Republican governor could face impeachment. In the interest of maintaining a balanced POV, especially since she is currently a candidate in a national election, we need to be careful to ensure that such assertions are well sourced from multiple, unbiased sources. I think it would also be good to keep in mind that much of her reputation is based on her supposedly taking on corruption of all political colors; Democrat, Republican, business and oil industry political machines, and that she might face significant political repercussions for those populist initiatives. Until substantial investigation results are released, we should take comments from individuals about the outcome of the ongoing investigation with a grain of salt and demand context, perspective and verifiability. Veriss (talk) 03:32, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

The Washington Post reference to the possibility of impeachment, which was deleted, said "One fellow lawmaker, state Sen. Hollis French, a Democrat, told The Wall Street Journal that Palin could face impeachment." Period. There was a more extended quote in the Wall Street Journal. It seems arbitrary to delete opinions of the legislator directing the investigation. There is no issue of "verifiability" beyond sourcing the quote to the Wall Street Journal or the Washington Post. I would suggest including the more complete WSJ quote in place of the Washington Post abbreviated quote. We absolutely need not wait for the completion of an investigation to include substantial coverage from reliable sources such as the Wall Street Journal or the Washington Post. Edison2 (talk) 04:40, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually, you need to discuss this point. This is the reason the report descended from 'bipartisan' into 'partisan'. Sen Hollis French is not 'just' a lawmaker. He is the one who was put 'in charge' of the investigation. He is a known Obama supporter and his remarks caused people to believe that the report was just going to be for partisan purposes to win the election. He made the 'October Surprise' comment. He set the initial release date for October 31st - 4 days before the election. A time where it could do maximum damage without sufficient time to correct any errors or slander in the report. That he also raised the I word is significant. NickAtNight500 (talk) 02:42, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

I think you have a valid point though I still counsel that we move forward with caution especially concerning the political environment this is playing out in. To put the rapidity of how quickly things can move on this site into perspective, after I read both articles and went to add Senator French's political party affiliation, the whole section had been deleted on the main site. On the other hand, does a major media article that borrows a partial quote from another major media article count as multiple citations? Many observers might argue that the Washington Post and Wallstreet Journal might be from different political perspectives. Not sure how to run with this. Just some thoughts. (P/S: I have not deleted any discussions about her impeachment but have just been an observer. In fact, if anyone would care to review my edits, as a registered Independent, I've facilitated both political points of view.) Veriss (talk) 05:28, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

The full text of the impeachment quote makes it quite clear that it is "worst case senerio" and even this Democrat is not implying it is a real possibility. Furthermore, the quote was before the investigation even began. Included the quote, and especially just the "could face impeachment" part is very POV in my opinion. --ThaddeusB (talk) 14:49, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually, you need to discuss this point. This is the reason the report descended from 'bipartisan' into 'partisan'. Sen Hollis French is not 'just' a lawmaker. He is the one who was put 'in charge' of the investigation. He is a known Obama supporter and his remarks caused people to believe that the report was just going to be for partisan purposes to win the election. He made the 'October Surprise' comment. He set the initial release date for October 31st - 4 days before the election. A time where it could do maximum damage without sufficient time to correct any errors or slander in the report. That he also raised the I word is significant. NickAtNight500 (talk) 02:42, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

scandal category

I twice added the category "American political scandals"; Realist2 twice removed it. I personally think the category title is unfortunate and "controversies" or something like that would be more neutral. Nonetheless, quite a large number of entries there are not any obviously more "scandalous" than this; so it seems to fit the current practice. However, the bottom line should really be whether the phrase "scandal" is citeable to reliable sources in this context. I notice that Realist2 also even removed the hardly controversial word "controversy" from the article title. If a formal investigation including legal depositions and a special prosecutor, and massive media controversy does not indicate something so mild as "controversy", what would?

• Detroit Free Press, Atlanta Constitution Jounal, and other -- "Palin’s first scandal began as family feud" linklink (many copies so must be from a wire service)
• Washington Post -- "Tarred by Scandal, Republicans May Be Losing Alaska" with a line specifically about Paline "Sarah Palin, the former beauty contestant elected two years ago on a reform slate, spent July navigating her first scandal. A special prosecutor ..."

link

• Rolling Stone -- "Palin Scandal Primer" link
• New Republic headline today -- "A Tick-Tock of The Big Palin Scandal" link
• Lots more -- Google news has 550 hits on "palin scandal" [1]

Now, given those cites to reliable sources, including major media headlines, kindly explain to me why the word "scandal" is verboten in this article. Thank you very much. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.56.65.25 (talk) 05:00, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I removed it. The current political situation is undeniably an Alaskan state political controversy. I do not think it has risen to the level of becoming a scandal, even within Alaska. With all due respect to Alaska, I would be surprised if anyone would be able to assert with a conclusive argument that these issues were US National controversies, much less national level political scandals. Veriss (talk) 05:34, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

As I understand this, it is your personal opinion is that this has not risen to the level of a scandal. If I'm wrong about that, please correct. However, since multiple major national newspapers have used exactly that term in their headlines as well as their text it seems entirely appropriate to use here. Isn't that the rule here -- neutral presentation of the information in reliable sources? If we have to go on opinion alone, it's awfully hard to have a productive debate. Can you produce some citations to reliable sources showing that the word is inappropriate here? Thanks. 130.56.65.25 (talk) 05:43, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure I am not alone on this. I am very sure. One must place ourselves in their shoes before we judge them. I guess this is where I earn my liberal stripe as an editor even though I am far from the converse. Veriss (talk) 06:44, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Regardless of our views, which don't matter, we have multiple sources calling this a scandal. We can safely put it in Category:American political scandals. rootology (C)(T) 06:49, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

You stated you had multiple sources? What might they be? If it's a scandal, it's a scandal, I love 'em! =) Please tell us about the scandals here. Beware, I'm a political independent and a critical thinker, please please delineate these items as you see fit. Veriss (talk) 06:58, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Did you see all the sources the anon IP just above this listed? [2][3][4][5][6][7] covers it for starters. With dozens and dozens of sources calling it a scandal, so can we pretty non-controversially. This is an even more precise search for more stories that call it a "scandal": [8] rootology (C)(T) 07:03, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

2, 5 and 6 might cover it...the other citations.....nope... Veriss (talk) 07:23, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

That itself is enough, but more:

• "Even Gov. Sarah Palin, the former beauty contestant elected two years ago on a reform slate, spent July navigating her first scandal."[9]
• This one: [10]
• "While we’re left with this cliffhanger and a continuing barrage of accusations from both sides, it’s interesting to look at how the scandal developed."[11]
• "Sarah Palin's Troopergate Scandal: 85% of Alaskans Believe She Lied"[12]

And still more out there. We can safely call it a scandal. rootology (C)(T) 07:56, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Although not crucial to the topic, the above comment and reference should be removed: :* "Sarah Palin's Troopergate Scandal: 85% of Alaskans Believe She Lied"[13] . This article is a biased comment about an unscientific poll from KTVA.com that can not be verified and is no longer available, and as I myself voted in this poll recall this to not be a true fact. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.95.157.31 (talk) 21:06, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

I will admit that I do not give a whole lot of credence to articles posted by anons. If they are obviously useful, then they are useful, if they cannot be bothered to register, why should I be bothered to recognize them? Veriss (talk) 07:52, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Because anons have as much right to be heard for adding new material as anyone. rootology (C)(T) 07:56, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Veriss1, as a self-described "independent and a critical thinker" I would have expected you to respond to the message rather than to the messenger. That is an essential part of critical thinking, isn't it? 130.56.65.25 (talk) 08:45, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I just noticed the request over at Sarah Palin. Uhm, well I reviewed the sources. There are several ways to determine if scandal applies. We can look at common usage and that is satisfied via the sources supplied. Then we can look at the definition of scandal: A scandal is a widely publicized incident that involves allegations of wrongdoing, disgrace, or moral outrage. A scandal may be based on reality, the product of false allegations, or a mixture of both. So even if the allegations are not true, it is still considered a scandal. So both apply. The third would be looking at WP:weight WP:NPOV which importantly focus on WP:LIVE. These basically talk about how much credence shall we give to portray this as a scandal especially when it focuses on real people who of course often have their lawyers call the Intern. What are the qualities of these sources? Well honestly, they're not very good, they're mostly columnists and many opinions the likes of People's Magazine. That is what Veriss1 is concerned over. To better understand this read Wikipedia:Coatrack. In the end, I would favor with Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Presumption in favor of privacy and avoid the "scandalizing" of the article. I would propose a compromise, we allow the category addition of American scandal but the article text does not speak of it as scandal per se. Consider that there has not been a formal review and that the issue is confined to a few players of which are highly connected. As such this would be officially a feud than a scandal. .:davumaya:. 10:52, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't know about opinion columns, but I provided several links to hard news stories from the news sections. If pundits also view it as a scandal, that's extra but doesn't diminish the news links. For example, Washington Post news seems like a pretty high quality example to me. However, I am satisfied with your compromise, and thanks for your input. The category suffices so far as I am concerned. Cheers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.176.45.37 (talk) 11:52, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I would object to adding this article to the category "American political scandals" since this category seems to have only national scandals, and I hardly think this qualifies as a national scandal. (Or even a local one, reallyy, sensational headlines aside.) --ThaddeusB (talk) 14:55, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

"seems to have only national scandals" -- first off, not even close, look again. second off -- this was being covered in the national press even before she got the nod. third off -- running for national office makes what you do of national interest. whitewater was a low-level arkansas land deal dating from well before clinton was a national figure, yet it certainly qualified as an "american political scandal" -- even though no wrongdoing by either clinton was ever shown in the end. in short, you may think it doesn't qualify, but what we personally think doesn't matter. the phrase is cited to multiple major national neutral reliable sources. 124.176.45.37 (talk) 21:03, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Confusion on Independent Investigation

Just wanted to clear something up, I'm not really certain about doing this, but it's just an observation I made. Presently, under "Recent Developments," it's confusing where it says:

In August 2008, a bipartisan committee of the Alaska Legislature voted 12-0 to hire Independent Investigator Steve Branchflower to investigate Palin and her staff for possible abuse of power surrounding the dismissal.

It was late July (July 28th) where they voted 12-0 to hire an Independent Investigator, and August 2nd where they picked Steve Branchflower. It's a small technicality, but, it can be a bit misleading in its present form, and it gives a bit of context to the chronology of all of this.

It might be helpful to have an order-of-events? I'll look through Wikipedia for other forms of that. But, there are key dates here, like the firing on July 11th?, and the taped conversation from February 29th (released August 13th)... But, nevertheless, I will try to make the info about the timeframe of the independent investigation to be both informative and accurate. - JollaPwns (talk) 13:06, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Potentially interesting information to add

I came across some potentially-interesting information to add to the article, but the blog cites either dead-tree papers or links to the governor's site which seem not to work. If someone can manage to validate the information I think it would be a good addition to the article.

http://palinforvp.blogspot.com/2008/08/accusations-against-palin-imploding.html

Facts that have yet to be reported in any media

1. Investigator Steve Branchflower has a GLARING conflict of interest. Not only did he work closely with Walt Monegan's Anchorage Police department for years in the District Attorney's office, but his wife was a detective in that department, including after Monegan became chief. She was even quoted singing Monegan's Praises to the Anchorage Daily News when he was hired as chief. ("New Chief" by Lisa Demer, Anchorage Daily News, Jan. 31, 2001).

2. Todd Palin was ORDERED by the head of the Governor's secutity detail, Special Agent Bob Cockrell, to discuss Trooper Wooten with Walt Monegan, as Wooten presented a credible threat to the Governor's safety. Here's a direct quote from Special Agent Cockrell, who is now providing security for his sixth consecutive governor:

“When made aware of the security concerns regarding a state trooper, I instructed the First Gentleman to contact the commissioner of Public Safety. It is standard protocol to ask every governor about any threats they perceive or have realized. I will not hesitate to set the record straight in answering these false allegations by former Commissioner Monegan.” (emphasis added)

3. State records show that Monegan lied about the number of times he met with the Governor during his tenure. While Monegan claims that the Governor was inaccessible and only met with him four times, records indicate that he had more than two dozen meetings with Gov. Palin, including.

--NeuronExMachina (talk) 19:59, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

1. Until Palin or someone else important in the case (say, the Attorney General, or a cabinet officer) says that she has a problem with the choice of Branchflower as the special investigator, I don't think this is relevant; and the Wikipedia article saying that this is a conflict of interest would clearly be original research. (Drawing an implication from an undisputed set of facts is still original research.)

2. The quote can be found here, but I think it's not particularly relevant - the Wikipedia article isn't about Palin's husband talking to Monegan (which is what the quote is about), it's about the totality of the contacts between the governor's office and Monegan. One aide (Bailey) has already been suspended because of those contacts.

3. Whatever Monegan said after his firing, true or false, simply is off-point, since it didn't (obviously) affect Palin's rationale for firing him. The issue is primarily about who said what to Monegan, and when, and why they did so, and the extent to which Palin's reasons for firing Monegan involved what he did and didn't do with regard to Wooten. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 22:12, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Order of sections

I've edited the section headers to make them a bit more specific, to help people understand the whole controversy better. Additionally, I think the section now titled "Dismissal of Public Safety Commissioner Walter Monegan" ought to come after the section titled "Pressure from Governor's office on Monegan to fire Wooten." I'll be bold and go ahead and move the section accordingly, so that the article is written more chronologically.Ferrylodge (talk) 18:13, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

The section about the internal Attorney General's investigation should come after the State Legislature investigation. Additionally, "As a result of the announcement of the State investigation," should be added to the begiining of the Attorney General paragraph. The State investigation came first and prompted the internal investigation. Could someone please make this change and cite this Anchorage Daily News article as a reference: "Palin launches Monegan inquiry ahead of special investigation" http://www.adn.com/monegan/story/492077.html The article states "(Attorney General) Colberg said his office's review began after state Sen. Hollis French was quoted in The Wall Street Journal about two weeks ago saying the governor could be impeached as a result of the (State) probe." (I tried to make the change and messed up the references)

Thanks 06:53, 4 September 2008 (UTC) Paul

Death threat

If a police investigation concluded that Wooten made a death threat, why should that not go in the lead? A death threat is a very serious matter.Ferrylodge (talk) 22:58, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Because it's POV to pick and choose from all the mass of information about Wooten in order to choose a single sentence to cast him in the the worst possible light, just as it would be equally POV to introduce Wooten as "a military veteran and police officer against whom Palin and her family made several unsubstantiated allegations and who is involved in an ongoing custody dispute with her sister" (yet all those facts are true). Before we conclude that the death threat was "a very serious matter", consider the following circumstances:

• Although both Palin and McCann claim that they feared for their father's life, neither of them said anything about it to their father for several weeks, according to the investigation. Does that make sense?
• the sole witnesses to the threat were McCann, Palin and her son -- hardly unbiased observers
• The investigation concluded that no crime was committed
• The Alaska state troopers seemed to think that shooting a moose without a license was a far more serious matter
• The punishment to Wooten for making the threat, along with four other offences, came to a total of five days suspension.

Even accepting the investigation's finding that the threat was made, we have nothing other than Palin and McCann's word for the manner in which it was made. People say things such as "If X has left the door open again, I'm going to kill him" all the time without it being anything other than hyperbole.

Cheers. Grover cleveland (talk) 03:09, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

The lead presently says: "Wooten was disciplined in 2006 for making a death threat against Palin's father, though he denied the accusation." This is completely factual and indisputable, right? So, I think we must accept this statement as true. You say that it could have been some remark like "If he doesn't put down the toilet seat, I'm going to kill him." Quite true, except that he would not have been disciplined for such a fleeting remark. He made a death threat that was deemed by his supervisors to be a serious one. And there is no way that making a serious death threat is not notable enough for the lead, IMHO.Ferrylodge (talk) 03:16, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

It is indeed factual, however I suggest that it is POV to select this fact, and this fact alone, to include in the lede. I am going to balance it by including the fact that Wooten was involved in a custody dispute with Palin's sister, which seems equally important. Thanks. Grover cleveland (talk) 05:23, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Looks OK to me.Ferrylodge (talk) 05:29, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

It's incorrect to claim that Wooten was "disciplined … for making a death threat," since Grimes' letter doesn't even mention the alleged threat. Jukeboxgrad (talk) 23:53, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

The threat to the Palins is covered in the legistlative council report and I have added Branchflowers verdict on it- "Governor Palin has stated publicly that she and her family feared Trooper Wooten. Yet the evidence presented has been inconsistent with such claims of fear" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.133.251.255 (talk) 03:51, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Speculation on implications of ruling removed

I took out a few sentences under the investigation section, but will leave them here so people can see what I deleted: "Such a decision may have implications for the Public Records Act that reach beyond the investigation of Trooper Wooten's own expectations of privacy for his personnel records. Because we live in a networked communications environment where public/private communications are integrated into single devices and because this is the way people now communicate in both spheres, granting privacy to public employees who use state supported electronic devices and sealing it off from legal or public discovery may impede not only this investigation but limit public access to communications that let the people know how its leaders are conducting the people's business. In this case, the people under investigation will have the opportunity to decide what is private and what is relevant to the public." User:BTR 23:25, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Clearly off-topic; quite right to remove. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 13:09, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Though it may be reasonable to remove the speculation about longer term effects, it is factual and relevant to know that the state's attorney general has reversed standard in-house practice in direct response to an official investigation, in which he is implicated. The standard practice in Alaska, and likely across the country, is that communication on state-sponsored devices is discoverable. If the attorney general suddenly privatizes electronic communications within the department of administration, that becomes a barrier to the investigation. Minus speculation about consequences, the letter remains directly relevant to the section on the ongoing investigation. Attorney General letter changing policy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 49thState (talk • contribs) 18:26, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I refer you to our policy on original research. The Attorney General letter you link to has no mention whatsoever of the Monegan dismissal. You or others may interpret it as (a) a change of policy and (b) one that is relevant to the dismissal, and you're free to do so - but not to expect that such a (personal) interpretation will make it acceptable for Wikipedia content. If you can find a newspaper article that discusses this AG letter and its relevance to the dismissal and investigation, that would be great - and usable. But our policy on verifiability should make clear that primary sources are to be used to support facts, not as building blocks for (personal) theorizing. (To say this one more time, in a different way: the AG has presumably issued a number of letters during the past two years; it's inappropriate for a Wikipedia editor to go through those and identify ones that might have been influenced by, or might have some influence on the Wooten case and the Monegan dismissal, and then add links to those letters in this article, accompanied by speculation about why they were written and/or their impact.) -- John Broughton (♫♫) 21:37, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree with John Broughton and BTR.Ferrylodge (talk) 21:50, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Second investigation?

Look at this source: http://deepbackground.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/09/04/1347737.aspx . Apparently the police union is claiming that the Bailey conversation shows that Palin or her aides peeked (in a possibly criminal manner) at Wooten's private file. Homunq (talk) 23:38, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

added. Homunq (talk) 00:17, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Alaska Daily News articles about attempts to move Monegand firing case from the Alaska State Legislature to Personnel Office

(section copied from Talk:Sarah Palin... Homunq (talk) 23:43, 4 September 2008 (UTC))

Lisa Demer et. al. at the Alaska Daily news are running a really fine series on Palin's attempt to wrest the Monegand firing case from the jurisdiction of Alaska State Legislature and place it under the jurisdiction of the State of Alaska personnel dept and I don't see them in the sources listed here, though I do see other articles from the ADN referred to. I suggest those working on this page have a read through them. The can be found here on the ADN site. --Pleasantville (talk) 22:38, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Hello Pleasantville. You might want to mention that at Alaska Public Safety Commissioner dismissal.Ferrylodge (talk) 22:42, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps so, but it is also appropriate here. --Pleasantville (talk) 22:47, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Get a consensus at that article first - this is just a summary of what appears there. Kelly ^hi! 22:52, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I simply provide references to an emerging theme in the ADN coverage. I had no plans to ad text. There is no consensus necessary for providing references on a talk page. --Pleasantville (talk) 23:31, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Reporting the death threat

This article presently says the following:

As a result of the email, Palin was interviewed again by state troopers on August 18, 2005. During this interview, she stated that she did not warn her father Heath of the death threat until two weeks after it was made: she explained the delay by saying that Wooten had no reason to shoot Heath.[14][15]

First of all, I don't see where either of the two cited sources say this. Second of all, was Sarah Palin asserting that Wooten had no reason to shoot Heath because Heath had not yet done what Wooten threatened him not to do (i.e. hire a lawyer for Molly McCann)? If so, that reason should be spelled out.

The cited refs say: "Although McCann and Sarah Palin felt that their father's life was in danger by the statement, neither mentioned the threat to their father for several weeks." Nothing there about "two weeks" and nothing there about Wooten not having any reason to shoot Heath.Ferrylodge (talk) 05:44, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry: I initially put the wrong URL in the first ref by accident. It has been fixed now. On the first ref (at this link) go to the fourth page of the PDF. "Palin was also questioned as to why it took her two weeks to advise her father of Wooten's threat. Palin then stated that it was because Wooten had no reason to shoot her father". As for Palin's reason for thinking this (because Heath didn't hire an attorney, or for some other reason) the source doesn't say: apparently the interviewer chose not to pursue that line of questioning. The second ref is just corroboration that she didn't mention the threat to her father for some time. Grover cleveland (talk) 06:25, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. It would be nice to find out why she felt Wooten had no reason to shoot Heath. I also don't think a death threat has to be made in person to be a crime.Ferrylodge (talk) 06:31, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

How can it be an "October surprise"

... if it is predicted in September? I guess that since Senator French himself used the term it is appropriate to put it in the article, but it does seem rather oxymoronic. Grover cleveland (talk) 08:05, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

The timing of the final report of whether she is guilty or innocent of abuse of power comes out on October 10th, hence "October Surprise". The media will have field day after field day after documentary over how this is an illegal example of corruption, if she is determined guilty. All leading up to the November 4th election.

Duuude007 (talk) 12:42, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I understand that -- but I should have thought that an "October surprise", by definition, means something not predictable before October. Here it is being predicted in September. Anyway, this was more of a lighthearted query than anything else. Grover cleveland (talk) 20:54, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Understood. but if it does end up as a "guilty" mark for her, that would be "surprising" to diehard republican fans, don't you think? lol

"I'm shocked, shocked to find that gambling is going on in here!" ~Captain Renault, Casablanca

Duuude007 (talk) 21:13, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

French told the investigator to finish by Oct 10 instead of the 31st, to avert the appearance of the timing being politically motivated. The 31st is the Friday before the election and the original end of the investigators 3-month contract (which was set long before anyone would have guess Palin would be the VP choice). Spiff1959 (talk) 04:00, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

• Yeah, but that isn't the whole story. The administration was also fighting to delay the report so that it would be released later than october 31st, say, after the elections, so that it wouldn't be a threat to them at all. That was another reason it was moved back, to make sure the system couldn't be "gamed". Duuude007 (talk) 04:51, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Our article on October surprise notes that "events shortly before the election have greater potential to swing votes." French made his comment when the investigation was scheduled to end October 31. Requiring Branchflower to report three weeks earlier makes it much less of an October surprise (even if it's still within the month of October). I think French's comment, which was based on the old schedule, should be removed from the introductory section. It could still be included in the body of the article, given that the Republicans are using the comment to throw rocks at French. JamesMLane t c 03:55, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Agree with JamesMLane. Arjuna (talk) 03:59, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

The October surprise info in the lead explains why Coghill sought to kill the investigation. Or did you want to delete that from the lead too?Ferrylodge (talk) 04:02, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

As I read the current lead, Coghill didn't try to kill the investigation, he merely tried to oust French from it. That squabble is unimportant in comparison with the current stance of Palin and the McCain campaign -- the argument that the legislative investigation is illegitimate no matter who runs it. That dispute should be mentioned in the introductory section, instead of the Coghill thing. I'l try to craft something. JamesMLane t c 04:57, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

The argument that the legislative investigation is illegitimate arose from the Coghill-French squabble, which arose from the Hollis French remark about an October surprise. The "October surprise" remark marked the beginning of partisanship and the beginning of the end of cooperation. It's a very significant remark.Ferrylodge (talk) 05:14, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Some might date the "beginning of the end of cooperation" to August 29, the day Palin was announced as McCain's running mate: by a stunning coincidence this was also the day Van Flein entered on the scene and tried to shut the investigation down by shifting it to the Personnel Board. Anyway, I digress. Grover cleveland (talk) 08:30, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Name of article

Should this article be located at Troopergate (Sarah Palin), Troopergate (Alaska), or some other variation of Troopergate? Alaska Public Safety Commissioner dismissal isn't the common name for this incident and it seems the media has settled upon "Troopergate". --Bobblehead ^(rants) 16:57, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I think it's adequate for now to list this article at the "Troopergate" disambiguation page.Ferrylodge (talk) 17:09, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

It is listed, but the name of the article also drives the name of links to it. This can be especially confusing when the common name is not actually included in the name of the article. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 17:32, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

• The other DAB references do have names tied to their respective articles, however. Should this not be considered to at least include Walter Monegan in the title? Duuude007 (talk) 18:07, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Wooten or Palin would just as easily be the correct name to put in the title. I think we ought to just wait until Branchflower's report, and see what the media makes of it. Then we follow the media. Maybe this article will become "The Branchflower October Surprise".Ferrylodge (talk) 18:12, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

• I am in consensus with Ferrylodge. The title can be ultimately decided by consensus and altered based on the October 10th official report. Duuude007 (talk) 18:17, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Bailey tape placement

I think the paragraph on the Bailey tape belongs in the section "Contacts between Governor's office and Wooten's supervisors." Palin herself called it a smoking gun. The section on the Ag investigation should mention that the tape was uncovered then. --agr (talk) 17:01, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

The section on "Investigations and reviews" has further details about everything in the previous sections of this article, not just the section on contacts between the Governor's office and Wooten's supervisors. So, I think a better solution might be to rename the section "Investigations and reviews" to instead say "Further investigations and their findings".Ferrylodge (talk) 17:18, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

But the Bailey tape is arguably the most important contact that has come to light so far. It's the only contact during Palin's gubernatorial administration whose content is in the public record and it's the only contact that Palin acknowledges as being improper. So why not discuss it in the contacts section, rather than a later "further investigations" section?--agr (talk) 18:57, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I hae to agree with ArnoldReinhold here. Bailey's contact is certainly a contact between the Governor's office and Wooten's supervisors and should at least be mentioned there as a contact. Then in the Attorney General section discovery of the tape can be discussed. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 19:20, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I concur. There should be a brief explanation of it and a goto link "for more information", that drops you down to the full exerpt. Duuude007 (talk) 19:36, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good. Let's leave the section on the Ag investigation as-is, and let's try to avoid repeating stuff twice.Ferrylodge (talk) 19:37, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree. The article is a bit sloppy. Lots of reduncancies.Spiff1959 (talk) 03:33, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Edit proposal: Lead paragraph. Comments?

I had removed the following sentence from the initial paragraph, but then had it reverted:

"Democratic state Senator Hollis French, who is overseeing the investigation, stated the report will "likely be damaging" to the Palin administration, and may be an October surprise.[7]"

I felt someones personal musings about the future might not be appropriate in the opening paragraph, and that this little tidbit of flighty info was far from adhering to WP:LEAD.

If that sentence is to remain, then some balance is required. From the exact same source that is cited for the above sentence, I suggest we add:

Republic state Senator John Coghill, who pushed an unsuccessful effort to have French removed from managing the investigation, stated that he felt the entire investigation should be halted, saying: "If this has been botched up the way it has, there's a question as to whether it should continue."

(I DO love that last, highly-intelligent, NPOV <cough>, quote from Coghill: "If this has been botched up the way it has.."!)

What do you think, do we add some balance? Or pull it all out and adhere to WP:LEAD SECTION? Thanks. Spiff1959 (talk) 15:32, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

• If you are referring to that, I submit a counterargument, a rebuttal quote that was made in direct response to his botched argument:

"How can this possibly be read as anything but a partisan attempt to shut down a legitimate investigation that was approved and funded with bipartisan support?" top of page 2.

This implies that the fact that it is damaging is an admission by a bipartisan group, inferring an inherent NPOV.

“ Facts are stubborn things.

~John Adams

”

Duuude007 (talk) 15:55, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

• • I would agree to that

• • I think the lead is fine and balanced the way it is. The lead for the Jack the Ripper article does not require a balancing statement that his second cousin twice removed thought he was a wonderful guy. French is much more central to the investigation than Coghill. And we're not saying that French might someday talk about an October suprise; he's already done it. There is plenty negative about Palin in the lead already (e.g. that she's being INVESTIGATED FOR ABUSE OF POWER).Ferrylodge (talk) 16:15, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

That doesn't hold water. How about adding "Sarah's husband, Todd, has stated that he expects Sarah to win the election in a landslide" to the lead of the main Palin article? That is a better analogy. Including the Hollis statement is a complete violation of WP:LEAD, and allowing it to exist with no counter imparts POV. You consider just reporting that she is being ivestigated is "negative" and requires to be balanced? That is accomplished by stating that the main party has denied any wrongdoing. You're also implying in the lead with the important "Democrat" label that Hollis is injecting partisonship into the investigation, AND it implies that Hollis has great power in determining the outcome of this investigation. If this improper statement is to remain where it doesn't belong, then it needs to state that Hollis was appointed by a bipartison committee that had approved the investigation in a 12-0 vote, and that Hollis has no direct involvement in the investigation itself, and is not playing a part in preparing the final report. Spiff1959 (talk) 16:29, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Placing cherry-picked portions of some mystical and minor aspect of this story in the lead violate both WP:LEAD and WP:NPOV. Spiff1959 (talk) 16:37, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

As you requested, I've added Coghill's unsuccessful ouster attempt into the lead, plus mentioning that the investigation was started by a unanimous bipartisan committee.Ferrylodge (talk) 16:42, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

FWIW, I would suggest that the lead should just end with "The investigator's report is expected by October 10". All this back and forth really doesn't add anything important. Grover cleveland (talk) 16:55, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

I think it's important that the legislator supervising the investigation is predicting that it may be an October suprise damaging to Palin. If he's correct, then the presidential election result will change. That's what an October surprise means. That this controversy may swing the presidential election is the most notable thing about it.Ferrylodge (talk) 17:06, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

I would propose omitting the October Surprise wording from the lead (it can go elsewhere), as it has a subtle implication of party opposition. "likely damaging", however, I see as a completely valid nonpartisan argument, which is revealed by the mere listing of the facts, just like one would the crimes of Adolf Hitler. Duuude007 (talk) 17:31, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

<outdent> And as you inch towards NPOV, you move further and further away from WP:LEAD, which isn't being met in the first place. As I've been stating "what would be needed to correct the POV", I've all along said it should all be scrapped and the para end with, as Grover stated, "The investigator's report is expected by October 10". I'm not going to make a crusade out of this, I'm quite sure you'll be fending off others for whom this sentence will jump out and say: "I don't belong here!" Spiff1959 (talk) 17:56, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

I think that French's strong support for Barak Obama, (considering the now even more highly politicized aspect of the investigation) should be added as well. I believe that this is doubly important, if it is true as I have heard, that the lead investigator says that French compromises his independence.

Comments should be signed. And do you have a citation for what you "have heard?" Jukeboxgrad (talk) 12:31, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

• If you plan to challenge partisan balance: How about including the fact that the "bipartisan legislation" is made up of 3 republicans, and only two democrats? This was mentioned on Countdown and the Rachael Maddow show yesterday, I'm sure there's citations out there for it. Duuude007 (talk) 18:18, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

fyi: The Alaska Legislative Council which voted 12-0 to launch the French/Branchflower investigation is made up of 8 Republicans and 4 Democrats. See here: http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5jOTk11gvqDAgD0cY3i4WjI_2YOxwD937N8L80 Jukeboxgrad (talk) 01:43, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Ooh. thats an even better debunk of the "liberal reigns" theory the mccain camp is claiming. I would integrate it, since its Associated Press. Duuude007 (talk) 02:31, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Done. Jukeboxgrad (talk) 03:32, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Removed Character reference section from main article

It isn't clear why this section is relevant to the article. The letter dates from 2000, long before any of the allegations against Wooten. The selective highlighting of certain words in bold, and the original commentary, is a clear WP:OR violation. Grover cleveland (talk) 16:33, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

I accept your point about the selective highlighting. Sorry about that! But I think this section is relevant to the article. Allegations made by Palin regarding Wooten's character are definitely at the heart of this story, and it seems relevant to be aware of what Palin said previously regarding Wooten's character. Especially because the prior statement by Palin is so radically at odds with her later statements.

Also, the character reference is arguably something Palin did on Molly's behalf, and Palin's later actions regarding Wooten also seemed to be (at least to some extent) on Molly's behalf.

And while it's true that the character reference was "long before any of the allegations against Wooten," it wasn't so long before some of the important events. The Taser incident happened in 2003, and that's only three years after Palin wrote the character reference.

I'm open to suggestion about where the character reference should go. From a chronological perspective, it makes sense to put it at the beginning. On the other hand, maybe that gives it undue emphasis. But I think it should be referenced somewhere. It could also be referenced in a shorter manner, with just a short excerpt, instead of that long excerpt. Jukeboxgrad (talk) 16:57, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Duuude007, the way you addressed the situation looks very good to me. Thank you. Jukeboxgrad (talk) 02:58, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

• My pleasure. :) Duuude007 (talk) 04:11, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Content as originally appeared in the article

On January 1, 2000, Sarah Palin wrote a character reference for Mike Wooten. At the time, she was Mayor of Wasilla, and the letter uses her official letterhead:

To Whom It May Concern:

It is my pleasure to provide character reference examples for Mr. Mike Wooten. Since I have become acquainted with Mike I continue to be impressed with his integrity, work ethic, community spirit and trustworthiness.

Mike has assisted the City of Wasilla with community events … Mike is a strong supporter of the youth in our community … Mike gained respect for his patience and dedication to the young men in his care [coaching football, age 7-9] …

… I have witnessed Mike's gift of calm and kindness towards many young kids … I have never seen him raise his voice, nor lose patience, nor become aggitated [sic] in the presence of any child. Instead, Mike consistently remains a fine role model for my own children, and the other young people in Wasilla. I wish America had more people with the grace and sincerity that mirrors the character of Mike Wooten … we would have a much kinder, calmer, trustworthy nation as a result.

I beleive [sic] the United States Air Force has been fortunate to have the services of Mike these past 10 years. His work ethic, his American patriotism, his obvious dedication to traditional values, and his strong faith in God and truth is witnessed in Mike's everyday living.

It is an honor to know Mike and I am confident he will continue to grow in character and internal strength as he moves through life. I do not hesitate in praising this man …

(Emphasis added.) The letter does not mention that Sarah Palin's sister Molly McCann was (at the time) Mike Wooten's girlfriend. (On May 2, 2005, Molly McCann told Sgt. Ron Wall, a police investigator, that she had been married to Wooten for four years and had dated him for two years prior to the marriage.)

With the aid of this character reference and various other state prerequisites, Mike Wooten became an Alaska State Trooper in March 2001.

• I attempted a different way of reintegrating it into the article, hopefully it is acceptable. It may need to be fixed chronologically, but I figured the accusations took priority, as it was initially reverted when it was in front of them. Duuude007 (talk) 20:17, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Contacts versus Palin's statements about contacts

I've moved some text around, trying to consolidate information about who talked to Monegan and his staff within that section, and trying to keep Palin's statements about influencing Monegan in the section on investigations. It's impossible to maintain two chronologies (who did what; when was this discovered and commented on) in a single section. The advantage of keeping Palin's statements only in the investigations section is that the events there are all post-July 2008 (when Monegan was fired) and that all the "contacts" events are (of course) before Monegan was fired.

Or, to put it differently, we don't want to arrange "contacts" events in the sequence in which they were discovered or publicized or comment on, we want to arrange them in the sequence in which they occurred.

And yes, this necessitates a bit of duplication, though I've tried to minimize this, in the investigations section, by just a quick reference, such as "the February 2008 call by Bailey". -- John Broughton (♫♫) 19:41, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Seems reasonable to me! There is quite a bit of "spaghetti" in this subarticle that needs de-tangling and consolidation. It sounds like your work will improve the logic/readability of the article, and that you're removing more redundancies, than those you're forced to leave in place to maintain continuity. Spiff1959 (talk) 20:24, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

I haven't been following this article until now, but it seems to me that it is not only extremely convoluted, but there are some serious problems with the way allegations are sometimes treated as facts. Keep in mind that WP:BLP policies apply here, not only to Palin but to Wooten and other actors in the controversy, and so editors need to be especially careful not to include unsubstantiated claims that may be tantamout to slander. Wikipedia is not a court. Arjuna (talk) 09:52, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Excessive detail about Wooten

This article should be primarily about Monegan's firing, about pressures (or not) on Monegan with regard to Wooten, and about the resulting investigations. Those are why the matter is news.

But in fact about half the article is about events that occurred before Monegan was dismissed - specifically, about the Wooten case. This is, in my mind, an WP:NPOV problem, because space/weight is so wrong. Yes, it's necessary to provide some background about Wooten. But the way the article is written, it discourages readers from actually getting to the important matters (see first sentence, above). And it encourages readers to decide how serious the allegations and charges against Wooten were. That might seem reasonable, but the point is that once charges have been placed and an employee has been disciplined, nothing further can be done, legally unless new evidence appears. The details of the case - what happened, whether discipline was appropriate or not - are irrelevant.

This case is a nutshell is this:

(1) Wooten was disciplined; (2) Monegan reviewed the case and found that he could do nothing; (3) Palin was unhappy about Monegan's inaction; (4) Monegan was dismissed; and (5) it is unclear the extent to which (3) is related to (4). There is absolutely no one (except bloggers) saying that (2) was a mistake. So there is absolutely no reason to go into details about (1). By going into such details, readers are encouraged to think that it makes some sort of difference with regard to (4). It does not.' Regardless of how horribly Wooten might have acted, Monegan's hands were tied - if he had done anything other than (2), he could have been sued, fired for cause, etc.

1) Monegan didn't 'review the case', he didn't care and passed it off to a subordinate. In the Branchflower report, he admits that he had no idea what Wooten looked like. NickAtNight500 (talk) 02:34, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

2) Monegan had a duty to meet with the man and determine if he was a threat to his Governor. NickAtNight500 (talk) 02:34, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

3) Monegan was negligent in his duty and his response when he dropped of a poster for the Governor to sign that just 'happened' to be of Wooten. He lost all of his credibility with the Governors office on that day.

4) Monegan was fired a week after his deputy refused to provide security for Cockerall - Security Detail Coordinator.

5) I would have canned his *** after that as well.

So the first section needs to be shorter - a great deal shorter. Or the entire section spun off as a daughter article, per WP:SS, with just a brief summary in this article. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 13:25, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

• I would then propose a new article about (living person) Mike Wooten then, just like Paula Jones was created as a living person + scandal synth extension of the Bill Clinton main article. There is an existing unrelated (football player) Mike Wooten too, so a DAB will be necessary, should we go this route. Duuude007 (talk) 14:25, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

John, I completely understand your point, but I think your perspective is overly legalistic. You are absolutely correct in your core point: "once charges have been placed and an employee has been disciplined, nothing further can be done, legally unless new evidence appears." Unfortunately, I think there are vast numbers of people who are not looking at the situation that way. Rather, people are looking at the situation as follows: 'anyone who tasers a kid is obviously an ogre; the original investigation was obviously corrupt; Palin was obviously justified in her righteous attempt to hound Wooten to the gates of Hell; it was proper for her to bulldoze over any legal or ethical niceties that impeded her effort to bring justice to the rogue cop.'

People are obviously interested in the story because of the insight it provides regarding Palin's character. And evaluating Palin's actions requires a detailed understanding of the core events that set the whole narrative into motion. Especially because there's a lot of superficial reporting ('he's a drunken wife-beating child-abuser') that materially distorts the underlying facts.

Then again, maybe you're both right, and a spin-off article is the right thing, because the current structure is getting unwieldy. I respect the opinions you're both expressing. Jukeboxgrad (talk) 15:49, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I've been arguing John's point for a while now. Are we putting Wooten on trial here on WP to make him look the reprobate and infer that "If Palin acted improperly, then she was justified"? Garnering sympathy for Palin is far from NPOV. Wooten is not an active player in this article, and should be sufficiently identified, and nothing more. Spiff1959 (talk) 16:19, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Duuude007 created a separate article on Wooten, which is now found at Mike Wooten (trooper). Anyone who agrees with this solution should watchlist that article, so that you'll find out about the AfD on it, which I predict will begin within the next 24 hours. (A large-scale pruning of information from this article, on the theory that it should be moved to Wooten's bio article, would be a fair amount of work. I'm going to be lazy and defer doing any such work until we see whether the separate bio article survives the deletionist onslaught.) JamesMLane t c 17:01, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I think I agree with Jukeboxgrad: despite John Broughton's correct summary of the legalities, a brief glance at any internet forum discussing "Troopergate" shows that the overwhelming public interest is in the character of Wooten and his alleged bad acts, not in the legal niceties of whether Monegan was correctly dismissed (see the generally erudite Volokh Conspiracy for a random example).

However, while I think it is admirable to go into detail about the allegations against Wooten, we need to be careful that the article doesn't start to look too much like something written by Wooten's defense attorney. A sentence such as "[a]lthough the Taser incident happened in 2003, it was not reported to police until on or after April 11, 2005, the day that Molly McCann filed for divorce" clearly implies that the Taser violation was not truly serious, and was only brought up because of the divorce and custody hearings. This is coming to close to a WP:SYN violation, unless we have a source that makes the same implication. Cheers. Grover cleveland (talk) 20:23, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Close to WP:SYN but not quite, because the complaints and conclusions are made by the articles, not the people who added it to Wikipedia. Because of that gray area, we have a little give on our end too, but not much. That is why I went with the suggested Mike Wooten (trooper) proposal. Duuude007 (talk) 20:36, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

spiff, I think your statements highlight some ironies of the situation.

"Are we putting Wooten on trial here." I think whether we like it or not, Wooten is currently on trial in the court of public opinion.

"Garnering sympathy for Palin is far from NPOV." Of course. But I think it's the oversimplified media narrative ('Wooten is a drunken, threatening taserer') which garners sympathy for Palin. I think when one looks closely at the original events, mostly what emerges are details that are unfavorable to Palin. For example, I think most people aren't aware that the Palins waited months or years before reporting events to the police. Most people surely don't realize that Palin repeatedly (and even now) points to the DVPO as proof of Wooten's guilt, even though the DVPO was granted presumptively, and then quickly dissolved because of an absence of evidence. There are an abundance of similar details. So fairness demands that the story be told fully, and I can't think of a single other place where that's being done.

"Wooten is not an active player in this article." This is another irony. Surely readers are much more interested in assessing Palin's character, as compared with assessing Wooten's. Only one of those people is running for high office. However, when we tell the early story in detail, we learn a lot about Palin, even though we are nominally discussing Wooten. For example, take a look at Palin's email of 8/10/05. It is nominally about Wooten. But most of the allegations in that email turned out to be unsubstantiated, even though they are described with great confidence and decisiveness. In my opinion, this email tells us more about Palin than it does about Wooten. This same observation applies to other aspects of the early narrative.

For these reasons, I think the early details are important. I'm open to the idea of them being split off into another article, since that may make the whole pile of information more manageable, and easier for a reader to approach. On the other hand, I think the early details are inextricably intertwined with the later events. For example, consider how Palin's very recent court filing makes reference, in virtually its first sentence, to the DVPO. The recent talking-points memo from the McCain campaign also references the DVPO. Therefore I'm inclined to think the early facts deserve emphasis and belong on the same page with everything else.

Also, I agree with James that creating the spinoff would be a large amount of work. There would inevitably be overlap, where certain facts are stated in both places. This, in turn, would probably lead to errors and conflicting information, where the same point is handled differently in the two places. So the effect of a spinoff might be to make the overall project less manageable, not more manageable.

Grover, thank you for describing my perspective more concisely than I did. And I'm glad you mentioned that VC thread. It's packed with misstatements. This demonstrates the need for a central source that's detailed and verifiably accurate, like what we're trying to create.

"we need to be careful that the article doesn't start to look too much like something written by Wooten's defense attorney." Well-said, and I completely agree. However, I think that in the example you cited, we do indeed "have a source that makes the same implication:" Bristol Palin herself. But I very much support efforts by you and others to help make sure that we avoid any WP:SYN violation. Jukeboxgrad (talk) 22:14, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I've tried to clean up the article a bit, removing duplication, stuff that is of limited relevance, and material that seemed to be overly partisan. The Wooten material now takes up slightly more than 1/3 of the entire article, which I think is about right. Grover cleveland (talk) 15:55, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Grover, I think you're correct that a bunch of the stuff I put in was too detailed. It's preserved in the history in case anyone ever needs to see it. I think you showed good judgment in reducing a bunch of details into short summary statements, and I think the important points are preserved. I think the recent changes you made greatly improve the article. I welcome your reactions to any further material I might come up with. My opinion at this point is that you've sufficiently streamlined the article, and a spinoff article isn't needed. Jukeboxgrad (talk) 17:02, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

---

Weighing in. I do not think it is appropriate to have a second article about Wooten. I do think this article should include the problems related to him. I am undecided about whether the current length or detail are right or wrong.

2nd death threat?

Silly that anyone are trying to defame a trusted Anchorage Chief of police with over 30 years experience by digging up an 18 year old allegation that at best appears to be hearsay, and never proven. Is this what it has come to? Duuude007 (talk) 06:48, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I removed this material as it is an unsubstantiated allegation that, as per WP:BLP policies, is unacceptable. Wikipedia articles are not a venue to spread allegations about a person. These kind of serious charges should be decided in a court of law, not Wikipedia. Furthermore, the article is about the Monegan dismissal, not a biography of Monegan. Leave it out -- for your own protection if nothing else. Arjuna (talk) 07:37, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't the one who added the Monegan death threat material, and I have no strong opinion as to whether it is relevant enough to be in the article. However, I will note that:

• The allegations against Wooten have never been "decided in a court of law" either, yet they are in the article. If the Monegan death threat material violates BLP, then why doesn't the Wooten death threat material violate BLP?
• The Monegan death threat has been reported in a WP:RS (the SF Chronicle).
• Monegan's own response to the allegations, as given in an interview to the Chronicle, is also given.

Cheers. Grover cleveland (talk) 13:03, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Fair point. It should probably apply to Wooten too. But the Wooten example is obviously all over the news as a campaign issue and there's no putting the genie back in the bottle. Monegan is another story. To publish the material here is both unwarranted on its merits -- this story is about Monegan's firing, which is completely unrelated to whether he is a fine human being or not -- as well as the fact that it essentially repeats gossip, which is not allowed under WP:BLP. There's a potential libel issue here, and anyone advocating putting that material in the article should be careful. Arjuna (talk) 19:59, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

The two alleged death threats are not on the same footing under WP:BLP. The applicable portion of the policy states:

Wikipedia also contains biographies of people who, while notable enough for an entry, are not generally well known. In such cases, editors should exercise restraint and include only material relevant to their notability, while omitting information that is irrelevant to the subject's notability. (from Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#People who are relatively unknown (Non public figure = NPF))

The alleged death threat by Wooten is relevant to his notability, because it relates directly to the controversy surrounding the Governor's decision to fire a commissioner. The alleged death threat by Monegan is not relevant to his notability because there's no indication anywhere that it played a role in his dismissal.

Ferrylodge disputed that last point in restoring the material, with an ES stating: "Cited reliable surce says this is relevant to dismissal controversy, so we should mention this briefly". I disagree. The cited source does not say that. The San Francisco Chronicle article recounts the incident, which is a matter of local interest because Monegan's ex-wife now lives in the Bay Area. The article then continues: "As for whether any of his own troubles might have clouded his judgment in dealing with Palin's ex-brother-in-law amid his messy divorce, Monegan says no." Thus, there's no one asserting any connection. There's a reporter asking whether there was a connection and Monegan denying it. It was reasonable for the reporter to ask that question, in preparing a story about Monegan, but that doesn't mean that this nonissue should be included in a Wikipedia article that's about the dismissal, not about Monegan personally.

I personally have doubts about the wisdom of this Wikipedia policy as applied to bio articles. If we were doing a bio of Monegan, I would prefer to include this information, though the current wording of WP:BLP would prohibit it. In this case, however, we're not doing a bio of Monegan. "Walt Monegan" redirects to this article about his dismissal. Most biographical information about Monegan, including the 1993 dispute with his wife, is irrelevant to the subject of the article. JamesMLane t c 19:56, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Correct. The subject of the article is about the issue of how and why Monegan was fired, not about his past alleged actions, or indeed, his character. Leave it out. Arjuna (talk) 20:02, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. Even if Monegan never made a death threat against his ex-wife, the experience of being falsely accused could have led him to be skeptical about such accusations generally. A reliable source (the San Francisco Chronicle) states that Monegan denies that "his own troubles might have clouded his judgment in dealing with Palin's ex-brother-in-law amid his messy divorce". There is nothing at all inappropriate about us mentioning that Monegan denies that the death threat accusation against him might have clouded his judgment in dealing with Palin's ex-brother-in-law. It is clearly a statement that is very relevant to this article. I plan on rephrasing and reinserting. I also have no problem with this article mentioning that Monegan is the son of Walter C. Monegan, Jr., and I helped to include that information.Ferrylodge (talk) 20:25, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

• I would not go much further than alluding to his unique experience in dealing with domestic disputes. Defamation is not a necessary subject matter. Duuude007 (talk) 20:36, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I'll make it vague and euphemistic, but something footnoting the SF Chronicle news article ought to be said.Ferrylodge (talk) 20:37, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Excuse me, but did you read any of what is written above? This material is inappropriate and violates WP:BLP. You are also proceeding against the consensus position. Leave it out please. Arjuna (talk) 20:51, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I read what was written above. I then completely re-wrote the material so it is very different from what was discussed above. I inserted this into the article: "The San Francisco Chronicle has asked Monegan whether his own past domestic troubles 'might have clouded his judgment in dealing with Palin's ex-brother-in-law amid his messy divorce,' and Monegan said 'no.'[36]" There is no conceivable BLP problem with this.Ferrylodge (talk) 20:54, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I strenuously disagree. Please do not be disingenous -- you left the disputed material in the footnote. Please remove it entirely. Otherwise, I suggest someone revert (I'm at 2 already and don't want to push it). Arjuna (talk) 21:01, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

The footnote merely includes a quote from the news article, but I'd be glad to remove it if that will settle the matter.Ferrylodge (talk) 21:04, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

That would be acceptable to me. Arjuna (talk) 21:23, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

It is not acceptable to me. Including this at all is based on the following passage:

Even if Monegan never made a death threat against his ex-wife, the experience of being falsely accused could have led him to be skeptical about such accusations generally. ... There is nothing at all inappropriate about us mentioning that Monegan denies that the death threat accusation against him might have clouded his judgment in dealing with Palin's ex-brother-in-law.

The problem is that the foregoing passage isn't from a reliable source. It is, as far as I can tell, only from Ferrylodge.

My personal opinion is that the accusation against him couldn't possibly have affected how he dealt with the similar accusation against Wooten. The reason is that the accusation against Wooten was investigated and resolved before Monegan took his post with the state police. Furthermore, you'll note that the initial disposition of the case against Wooten was changed based on a union grievance. That means that, almost certainly, Wooten was covered by a collective bargaining agreement. Typically, a CBA goes into great detail about disciplinary procedures. To say that Monegan's prior experience affected how he exercised his power, you'd have to believe that he had a power to be exercised, which means you'd have to believe that, once the investigation had been concluded and Wooten had been punished for his infractions, the CBA nevertheless allowed management to re-open the matter, with no new evidence, just to try to increase the punishment. You show me a CBA that says that and I'll show you a union lawyer who's committed malpractice. Thus, my view is that Monegan had no choice but to tell the Palins to go pound sand when they tried to get him to carry out their vendetta against Wooten.

So, Ferrylodge has one opinion and I have another. Now let's return to the point of this talk page, which is editing the article. Ferrylodge's opinion has the same status as mine -- both are completely worthless. Each of us is engaging in WP:SYNTH and WP:OR. Unless and until some prominent spokesperson states the position that Monegan's 1993 experience affected his choices as Public Safety Commissioner, or otherwise played a role in his dismissal, this material is improper. (And, of course, note that Palin maintains that Monegan's dismissal was unrelated to the Wooten matter. Not even Palin is contending that Monegan bungled the Wooten case because of his alleged subconscious sympathy for people accused of making death threats.)

I usually prefer to try to reach consensus rather than edit warring, but this is a BLP violation, so I'm removing it now. JamesMLane t c 21:42, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

You have removed this: "The San Francisco Chronicle has asked Monegan whether his own past domestic troubles 'might have clouded his judgment in dealing with Palin's ex-brother-in-law amid his messy divorce,' and Monegan said 'no.'[36]"

There is no way that that is a BLP violation. When I get a chance, I may bring it up at the BLP noticeboard for their opinion. Will that convince you, James?

Regarding our personal opinions, mine is that Monegan may have goofed badly when he reviewed the investigation that predated his tenure. He concluded that the investigation and its results were error-free. In fact, the State Trooper investigative report stated that making a death threat is not a crime if it is not done in person or directly to the potential target. That sounds completely absurd to me. If a person is coerced by a threat made against another, that is a crime, and the crime is called coercion. Suppose I tell you that I will kill your child if you go to the movies tonight. That is coercion, and it is very clearly a crime. But like I said, that's just my personal opinion.

Here's the pertinent Alaska statute, in case you give a hoot: "A person commits the crime of coercion if the person compels another to engage in conduct from which there is a legal right to abstain or abstain from conduct in which there is a legal right to engage, by means of instilling in the person who is compelled a fear that, if the demand is not complied with, the person who makes the demand or another may inflict physical injury on anyone...." See Alaska Statute 11.41.530(a)(1).Ferrylodge (talk) 22:11, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Even before I read your comment, I was thinking about the possibility of raising this at the appropriate Noticeboard. Without identifying this article, I lodged a query at Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Scope of this Noticeboard. One person has already replied that the BLP Noticeboard would indeed be the appropriate place. A consensus there probably wouldn't convince me but I would abide by it. (I sometimes disagree with what I see as a fetishistic application of BLP policy to exclude appropriate information, so it would be a new experience for me to disagree with a decision to include something.)

As for the statute, I'm pretty close to not giving a hoot, because I really can't take this "death threat" issue seriously. Somebody in the midst of a contentious divorce yells "If you get her a lawyer, I'll shoot you" (or, more likely, "I'll f***ing shoot you"). This is technically a death threat, but it's a far cry from a serious attempt at coercion. If the Alaska State Police are supposed to arrest everyone who makes an intemperate remark like Wooten's, then I can see why Palin was concerned about recruitment. They'd probably need to double the size of the force just to keep up with the workload. JamesMLane t c 22:36, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Okay, if I get around to posting at the BLP Noticeboard, I'll make a note of it here. As for the death threat, I take it that you're willing to suppose that Mike Wooten said to Molly McCann that Wooten would kill her father if McCann let her father hire a lawyer for her. But you say it wasn't serious. I wonder what Wooten would have had to say in order to make it "serious" for you.Ferrylodge (talk) 22:44, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I've posted at the Noticeboard here.Ferrylodge (talk) 23:10, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Came here from there. I agree with Ferrylodge. The Chronicle is clearly a reliable source. Speculating about their motivations has little relevance. The claim is clearly relevant in context. JoshuaZ (talk) 19:13, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

As I'm sure both of you already know, your personal opinions on what anyone did or didn't do and whether it was a good idea or not are irrelevant within the context of editing Wikipedia articles. I recommend sticking to policy as a guide rather than any personal opinions either of you might have. 92.10.115.253 (talk) 00:31, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Agree. And while it's interesting to note the wording of the statute, that is rather irrelevant as it constitutes WP:OR. I think WP:BLP should be strictly applied as this is a very very slippery slope. Wikipedia should not be an avenue of disseminating unsubstantiated allegations of a dubious nature, and gets into potential libel issues. I agree that the BLP noticeboard can be helpful. Finally, to reiterate: this article is not about Monegan the man, it's about his dismissal. Arjuna (talk) 00:35, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Instructions to Branchflower

Do we know the specific instructions that the legislature gave to Branchflower? The main issue seems to be why Palin fired Monegan. But lots of other side-issues seem to be popping up, and I don't just mean the question of whether there was pressure on Monegan to fire Wooten. There's also the question of whether people in the Governor's Office improperly peeked into Wooten's confidential personnel file, and whether anyone in the Governor's Office tried to get Wooten's Workmen's Comp claim rejected.

I'm curious to know how much authority (if any) Branchflower was given to delve into all of these side issues. If he can find the answer to the main question (i.e. why Palin fired Monegan), does he still have authority to inquire into all this other stuff?Ferrylodge (talk) 02:50, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Good questions, and I would add the issue of Todd Palin's access to executive branch emails. I suspect that that point arose only after the investigation started, when Palin asserted executive privilege to withhold emails that had been divulged to her husband, so it's probably not included in the legislature's instructions to Branchflower, but I'm not sure. JamesMLane t c 02:59, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I think these are the instructions: "to investigate the circumstances and events surrounding the termination of former Public Safety Commissioner Monegan, and potential abuses of power and/or improper actions by members of the executive branch."[16] This seems like a mighty broad mandate, especially the last part, which seems to allow him to investigate improper actions that have nothing whatsoever to do with the firing. These instructions would probably be well worth including in our article.Ferrylodge (talk) 03:04, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I also understand that Branchflower is on record as saying his independence has been compromised by the lead politician in charge, state senator French.--Blue Tie (talk) 09:11, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Do you have a citation for this claim? Jukeboxgrad (talk) 12:25, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Van Flein

Let me see if I understand this. Van Flein is being paid by the state of Alaska to represent Palin. September 1 he files a complaint against his own client before the Personnel Board. September 15, he files a motion before the Personnel Board to stop the investigation of the very same complaint he himself had filed two weeks earlier? Am I missing something? It's a good thing Alaska has all the oil money to pay this guy. Grover cleveland (talk) 06:49, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Grover, you're absolutely right. It makes no sense. I'm not enough of an expert on that aspect to know what to say or how to say it, but maybe that should be mentioned somehow. Jukeboxgrad (talk) 10:51, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Article for Deletion: Clone article about Mike Wooten

I authored it, and now I have deemed it a coatrack, unnecessary to remain, because all of the information it has also exists in the Sarah Palin subarticle: Alaska Public Safety Commissioner dismissal. if you have an opinion on the matter, please participate in the discussion at the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mike Wooten (trooper) page. Duuude007 (talk) 17:04, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the clone article should turn into a redirect, as I mentioned in the other Talk page. But for the sake of accuracy, I want to mention that it's not true that "all of the information it has also exists in the Sarah Palin subarticle Alaska Public Safety Commissioner dismissal." That was true at one time, but lately some material has been trimmed out of the parent article. I think everything that was trimmed is details that I had authored. Others have convinced me that it's detail that we can get rid of. So currently the clone is more detailed than the parent. Jukeboxgrad (talk) 18:05, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Already going stale

Wow. I can't even count how many separate, even contradictory, arguments defending Palin there are here.

But I added this section to ask somebody to add something about how the alaska atty gnl has said that Palin staff will refuse to testify unless the legislature reconfirms the subpoenas? Homunq (talk) 19:29, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

oops, it's there, just in the wrong section. Homunq (talk) 19:34, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

what about...

... where P says M didn't fill vacancies, then M says he hired a record number from the police academy graduating class? Homunq (talk) 06:51, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Search "vacancies" in the article for where she claims that was the reason for firing. Here's where she bragged about doubling academy recruits: [17]. Can't put it in the article because it's WP:SYNTH, but I wouldn't be surprised if we could somewhere find a WP:RS that makes this connection. Homunq (talk) 13:48, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Praise: this article is beautifully researched and written.

Over the years, I've had my differences of opinion with Wikipedia and Wikipedians. At times I've despaired of the whole enterprise. But this one article, all by itself, is enough to make me question that judgement. It's beautifully clear, well-organized, well-written, and sourced on every point. I wish professional reference publishing were always this good.

Is it all right to say I hope it continues to be excellent? The world is full of agenda-pushers who think nothing of meddling with reference sources.

I'm sure it's all right to say this: I appreciate the work that's gone into making this article. Thank you all very much for doing it. 72.225.223.185 (talk) 02:21, 19 September 2008 (UTC)TNH

I'd like to raise one issue that I've found (and is repeated a few times). Basically two statements following on from each other that clearly contradict;

Union executive John Cyr said that many of the negative items in Wooten's personnel file were minor,[34] and that the only complaints ever filed against him were those by Palin and her family.[33] Palin has said "there were a lot of concerns from not just my family, but from the public about this trooper's activities."[38] Palin also said "the Palin family was not the only group of people concerned about Trooper Wooten's behavior."[27]

I mean, the statements are fine in themselves, but they don't reference each other. Are they meant to be a comparison of claims/statements? Shouldn't there be an effort to make it less of a "he said/she said"? There are a couple of other instances.--Koncorde (talk) 05:51, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree: could be a WP:SYN violation. Grover cleveland (talk) 06:19, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm sort of new around here, so I welcome guidance from the folks who aren't.

My understanding of WP:SYN (from reading the article about it) is that it means saying "A and B, therefore C." I think you are both noticing correctly that I have put in plenty of "A and B." However, I think I have pointedly omitted the "therefore C" part.

I am not doing OR, because I am not coming to a conclusion or stating a conclusion. I am just "summarizing source material without changing its meaning." According to the WP:SYN article, this "is not synthesis; it is good editing."

I think any story about a conflict or dispute is made up of a series of "he said she said." That's the basic building-block of any such story. If we prohibit "he said she said" then we might as well prohibit all stories about conflicts and disputes. I don't see where WP:SYN prohibits or discourages "he said she said." Is there another policy statement on this?

Also, let's take a close look at the example that was cited, because I think it's instructive. I wouldn't say the statements are "clearly" contradictory. I would say they appear to be contradictory. It's up to the reader, not us, to interpret and resolve the contradiction. Here's one way to resolve this apparent contradiction, that maybe has not occurred to you: other parties have complained about Wooten to the Palins, but not brought their complaints to the police. That's just one speculative explanation, and there are various other possibilities. Anyway, it's not our job to offer an explanation, or to resolve the apparent contradiction. I just want a reader to know what the principal parties have actually said. What could be more legitimate and appropriate than that? Jukeboxgrad (talk) 14:14, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

This isn't a criticism of whoever wrote it by the way, just how it reads/looks/feels. It reads like a list of quotes on subject, rather than as a readable prose. It's clunky, and feels forced. The fact Palins comments follow succint Cyr/Cox statements (with no quotes) could be viewed to favour one or the other (even though the attempt has been to balance them). The fact Palins follow Cyr/Cox might be interpreted as hers being superior (as they are unchallenged whereas Cyr's+Cox's both are challenged by her quotes). It's not enough to say the reader has to interpret, if we're not making it clear, or it being made convoluted by the structure or favouring providing more depth on one side of the argument.

I mean, considering the length of the paragraphs and somewhat disjointed nature of the claims counter-claims it might have been better simply to state in the aftermath what Cyr/Cox said, and that Palin disputed these responses in a press release (or wherever it was). By including her quotes, but not Cyr/Cox you lend undue weight to one over the other basically. I'm not suggestion there is bias, but that bias can be drawn from it due to the format (and in several other sections also that include lengthy comments contrasted to succint claims with just a cite).--Koncorde (talk) 23:56, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Koncorde, I appreciate your thoughtful remarks, and I don't take them personally. I think your observation about clunkiness is correct. I think to some extent this is a consequence of having multiple contributors with different styles. My own personal preference is to use direct quotes extensively. When directly juxtaposed with other styles, I think this tends to create the clunkiness you're noticing.

A lot of the quotes I'm providing come from multi-page official pdfs. I could create more readable prose by using a paraphrase instead of a quote, but I think the paraphrase approach becomes especially hard for a reader to verify, when it involves plowing through a long pdf. A quote inherently has more credibility and impact.

I think it's ironic that you interpret the Palin quotes as giving her side extra weight. My reading of the material is that her recent statements mostly discredit her. When juxtaposed with other facts and evidence (including, especially, her own statements from years ago), a reader can notice that she is making claims that are weak or false. I think this is even easier to see when her exact words are used. So I like to use direct quotes whenever possible.

I'm happy to see any editing that helps make the overall material more readable. But I hope you can see why I think exact quotes are indispensable. Maybe part of the solution is to find more quotes that balance the Palin quotes I've been adding. Jukeboxgrad (talk) 03:44, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Well I was giving an interpretation, I'm not sure what the current format currently favours - it just jars. Even a phrase such as "This has been disputed by Palin" and then the quote, would make it more reader friendly. I didn't want to actually edit the article as I think it's otherwise extremely well done (I don't know enough about the subject or care to read the vast wealth of articles and cites), and the readability is unaffected by the format. It's just the fact it feels unnatural to the ear/eye and thought I would raise it as a concern :) --Koncorde (talk) 01:52, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

I think that's a good suggestion ("this has been disputed by Palin"). But I've generally avoided language like that because I'm concerned it could be seen as expressing a POV! But maybe I'm incorrect about that. Anyway, thanks for your feedback. I find it helpful. Jukeboxgrad (talk) 03:36, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Well it would be kind of POV, as it's unknown if she's actually responding to the points made (I don't know, not read the cites) - or if someone has just placed two otherwise unrelated quotes next to each other in order to create a POV (which is where there would be an issue).

For instance if she made the quotes after those by Cyr/Cox then we can presume they're in response. If she made them at the same time, we can presume she was contesting/disputing them. If she made them prior, then we've got the quotes the wrong way around and really it should be her quotes, then Cyr/Cox's response and the format is misleading. As these seem to be inextricably linked there is no harm in using such language. For instance - what's the time delay between Suspension of Wooten in 2006, and Palins legal filing and comments in September 2008, when were Cyr/Cox comments made? If there's 2 years gap between the two then really the two statements shouldn't be linked in a paragraph without some qualifying text.

It's also one of those things where - are those Cyr/Cox's personal opinions, or the findings of the board? And obviously vice versa. A little background as to what prompted those statements and where they were stated. For instance it seems someone has been through and edited it a little to give time and date for Palins quotes, which makes it a little less he said/she said and states where and why.--Koncorde (talk) 13:22, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

I've added some dates for the Cyr & Cox statements; since they are from 2008, they clearly aren't from the 2006 investigation. And yes, they are personal opinions, though from union officials, not just persons-in-the-street (which is why they are quoted in newspaper articles).

I realize that a format of "Factual sentence. Factual sentence. Factual sentence." can be a bit jarring if the facts aren't consistent. The problem is that Palin and her staff have made statements that (at least to me) appear to flatly contradict known facts. And there really isn't any way to add transitional language to a paragraph without that addition most likely being contested as a POV violation or a synthesis of facts. (We don't want the article locked down because of edit warring, I think.) Even using the wording of a reliable source to point out inconsistencies is problematical (if one can find that; most newspapers seem bound and determined not to point out such inconsistences), because critics can argue that this is simply one newspaper, or a liberal paper, or whatever. So I, for one, think it's best (at least until after the November 2008 election) to just to lay out the facts and their sources, and let readers decide. Which is why being chronological is important - it's neutral. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 00:34, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

John, I think what you said goes to the heart of the matter, and I agree 100%. Jukeboxgrad (talk) 01:00, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Cheers for your time guys, and I agree with your reasoning. The dates do help, and clarify things because (as previously said) it causes confusion. It's one thing to have the cites there for people to check, but it's another if the dates/relationship between the comments are not clear. I've made a small amendment, based on date (to place union protest alongside the original suspension) so 2008 can start afresh. What I'm going to do is raise the next few paragraphs and try and hit the issues I think that section has (again I hope you don't take this as criticism) I just hope to highlight readability/logical issues - I have highlighted in bold what needs to be 'answered' effectively by the article and or inconsistencies. I can appreciate you don't want to use transitional language, but it's actually doing a disservice by not providing the support structure the quotes really require to stand up to scrutiny.:

In late July 2008, union president Rob Cox denied that Wooten was a "rogue cop" and pointed to his service on an emergency reaction team.[38] Why? What prompted this statement? Who suggested he was a rogue cop? At the same time, union executive John Cyr said that many of the negative items in Wooten's personnel file were minor,[38] Cyr said in August 2008 that the only complaints ever filed against Wooten were those by Palin and her family.[37] Why the response here? Is this in response to claims by Palin - apparently not as her statements are from September. So what prompted the comments? It feels as if something has been omitted In early September 2008, Palin said "there were a lot of concerns from not just my family, but from the public about this trooper's activities."[40]Again, why did she say this? Who asked the question? Was it in relation to what Cyr said or unrelated? In a September 15, 2008 legal filing, Palin's lawyer wrote that "the Palin family was not the only group of people concerned about Trooper Wooten's behavior."[29]Fine, this part is clear on the origin and intention with no ambiguity. However, what exactly is this legal filing? Has it been introduced previously? Is it in response to Monegans claims?

According to the Memorandum of Findings, more than fifteen witnesses were interviewed.[16]The who, the what, the where and the when? On September 1, 2008, Governor Palin said "that the troopers' investigation into Wooten was negligently or deliberately slipshod. … many witnesses to wrongful or possibly illegal behavior by Wooten were never interviewed … investigators seemed more concerned about exonerating Wooten than protecting public safety or the Palin family."[27]Again, without qualifying this seems a quote for quotes sake, and the use of the "Memorandum of Findings" means a point has been synthesised.

For the period prior to April 11, 2005, the date when the divorce paperwork was filed and a Domestic Violence Protective Order was issued, Grimes' letter listed three disciplinary actions against Wooten: a Warning, a Reprimand, and an Instruction, for such things as "not using turn signals."[36]Why stepping back in time? On September 15, 2008, Palin's lawyer said that "according to the Grimes report, Trooper Wooten had been disciplined a dozen times before he was the subject of a Domestic Violence Protective Order from Molly McCann."[29]Synthesising an argument again.

As of September 2008, Wooten was still a state trooper.[38]Err, okay - bit of a random finality to the statement.

I think (possibly) what would be better is a 2006 section, and then a 2008 section for more recent events as there are quite a few instances of the prose sliding back and forth in time. I don't think the article does let people decide when stuff is being juxtaposed and used out of context or being drawn upon from previous years (or later years) to create an argument (however true or relevant it may be).--Koncorde (talk) 18:44, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Koncorde, I think the edit you made a little while ago is helpful. I also think you've raised a lot of good questions. However, I'm personally reluctant at this moment to try to place lots of answers in the text. I see it as potentially a lot of work, making the article much longer, and getting into POV arguments. Nevertheless, I'm sure there are places where improvements can be made, along the lines of the questions you're raising. Jukeboxgrad (talk) 19:55, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

That's okay, I'm not demanding instant revision - if I honestly knew enough about what it was referring to I'd have seen what I could fix. Just thought I'd bring up stuff that is ambiguous and/or potentially misleading without more details than the quotes alone.--Koncorde (talk) 13:27, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Koncorde - you may be under the misimpression that Wikipedia articles are supposed to contain all available information. That's not the case; per WP:NOT, Wikipedia isn't intended to be an organized mirror of the entire Internet. So, with regard to your questions - while we could expand the article to provide yet more context, we generally should not. Rather, we provide links in the footnotes so that those who want more details can find them, outside of Wikipedia.

The value of Wikipedia is to provide an overview of a topic, and at some point adding details actually detracts from helping readers to understand a topic. (I've argued before, for example, that lengthy details about the charges against Wooten only obscure the main issue - was the dismissal of Monegan proper or not? That's what the legislature and the Personnel Board are investigating; and that's what the Attorney General investigated; the Wooten case itself is closed, and has been since 2006, and no one is proposing to reopen it, because that would be illegal.) Writing a good Wikipedia article requires good decisions about what to leave out as much, or even more than, what to include. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 20:49, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

John, I agree. I also want to mention that you and Grover and others have done a nice job of trimming things down when I've added material that's too lengthy. I appreciate that. Jukeboxgrad (talk) 21:57, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Logical flow

Issue

This has gone long past an overview. From an outsiders point of view, if you read the article as it currently stands it does not paint a logical picture. It picks quotes and details out, but there's no information as to what these quotes relate to (or the timing or legal reasoning has been culled in trying to trim stuff out). It's pretty much impossible at the moment to garner what is actually going on and why, for what reason - because the actual crux of the issue is only covered halfway down the page.

It follows a somewhat unusual order of events, throwing 2008 in amongst details from 2005. Really Palins accusations should be clubbed together as part of the later response away from the "closed case" (otherwise you're creating an argument). It appears, glancing at Wootens wiki, that at some point a lot of the language has been copied over wholesale - then subsequently added to (and culled of presumably irrelevant detail). This has caused a degree of confusion. I'm not sure if all that information is required (or indeed if anything but a very quick overview of the charges and outcome is needed - an in-line link would suffice here to Wootens wiki really because otherwise it's just repeating itself).

To hit on a few points: Why does the article start in 2005, reference allegations from 2007/08, then bounce back to 2000/01, then back to 2005 and allegations again from 2008 (looks similar to the format of Wootens wiki). It then goes on through a length section in 2005, before again introducing Palins comments in the midst of the article. We have had no information about Palin, why these comments are emerging or what relevance they have to the 2005 case other than she's making these claims. Inserting the 2008 stuff next to 2005 again is creating an argument in a supposedly closed case.

It then moves to 2005 for the divorce hearing, and here we have actual relevant information from 2006 and 2008. This is relevant because it is ongoing. Then we have a list of his crimes/charges. Do we really need this in its entirety? These details appear to be included in Wootens own wiki page? Can they be condensed, made sharper and clearer? Again provide an in-line link to the Wooten wiki page where they can be covered in detail?

Then we come to the suspension - at which point we have the confusion of the 2005 stuff, then for some reason a batch of quotes from 2008 again. Why the quotes from 2008? I mean what has prompted them to come out at that point to say these things. There's no prior information as to what has gone on in the intervening 3 years since Wootens suspension (other than the child custody battle).

I think it would be clearer to place Palins quotes/claims in with the 2008 details and claims subsequent to the 2005 case, rather than trying to fit them in.--Koncorde (talk) 23:17, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Removed content

I'm going to start removing non-chronological stuff; as Koncorde has pointed out, the logical flow of the article has become totally distorted by adding in comments such as how Palin (in September 2008) has characterized the 2005 domestic violence restraining order. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 23:49, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

John, I'm going to generally withhold comment until I see the whole batch of changes you're in the process of making, because I think your prior editing has been very astute and helpful. But at the moment I'll just quickly comment that I think the character reference should at least be mentioned somewhere, perhaps in just one sentence. I can see that it doesn't deserve its own section, but I think it shouldn't disappear entirely. The core of the story is Palin making claims about Wooten's character, and Palin's extremely positive statements in this regard are highly relevant, I think. Jukeboxgrad (talk) 00:50, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I'll help however I can to try and keep the topic strong. I wasn't intending originally to cause such issues :D Hopefully you can retain a lot of the hard work that has been put in, or convert it over to the Wooten article. Hopefully as it becomes clearer the structure will become more obvious and I can take part more constructively :) --Koncorde (talk) 11:09, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Contact between Palin and Wooten prior to controversy

Wooten's behavior prior to 2005 or so isn't an issue; while there is clearly some irony here, the issue at the heart of the article - whether or not the firing of Monegan was an abuse of power - is totally unchanged even if Palin hadn't written a character reference. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 00:34, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

On January 1, 2000, Sarah Palin wrote a character reference for Mike Wooten. She described him as "a fine role model for my own children," and said "I beleive [sic] the United States Air Force has been fortunate to have the services of Mike these past 10 years." The recommendation was written when Palin was Mayor of Wasilla, and the letter was on her official letterhead. Molly McCann was dating Mike Wooten at the time. With the aid of this character reference Wooten became an Alaska State Trooper in March 2001.

Someone has since re-added this, obviously without replying here. As previously stated by John above (and myself) it holds no relevance to article, and in fact detracts from it by seemingly clouding the issue. The issue at hand isn't even Wootens behaviour - it's the actions of Palin in bringing around Monegans firing.--Koncorde (talk) 22:36, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

(Characterization of Wooten)

Palin (beginning in 2007) and the McCain campaign (beginning in September 2008) appear to have made a number of statements about Wooten that are contradicted by the known facts in the case. But the article doesn't contain any discussion about the contradictions, presumably because the mainstream press hasn't covered the matter. More importantly is the extent to which such statements matter for the purpose of the article - that is, the extent to which the article covers how the various parties involved describe what has happened. And if we do decide to include such things, shouldn't they be chronological, rather than breaking the flow of the article? -- John Broughton (♫♫) 00:49, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I think there's always going to be a basic tension between organizing material by topic, as compared with organizing material chronologically. And organizing material chronologically isn't always as simple as it sounds. It someone makes a statement in 2008 that is a description of an event in 2005, where does that statement belong, in the storytelling? I think the answer is not necessarily clear and obvious.

Anyway, I think you see the key point, which is the contradictions. I'm sure the organization of the material can be greatly improved, but I think it's important to not erase or obscure the contradictions. Jukeboxgrad (talk) 01:03, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm also reluctant to remove the contradictions entirely, but where they were was disruptive. As for chronological, there is a difference between a (belated) statement that "I'm bringing forward new information, that X happened" and a statement that "I want to comment on X, which happened a while ago - it was a terrible thing, but I'm not adding any information that isn't already available". We normally handle the first by writing that "In (whatever later month/year), person A said that X happened at this point". The second - very different - is what we have to deal with here. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 01:44, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

The Memorandum of Findings and suspension letter mention no acts of violence by Wooten against any person, aside from the Taser incident. On several subsequent occasions Palin, and the McCain presidential campaign, have referred to the DVPO as evidence that Wooten had been violent towards McCann. On February 7, 2007, Palin said the "restraining order … was lifted when [Wooten's] supervisors intervened." On September 2, 2008, Palin said "the Anchorage Superior Court [had found] that [Wooten] had engaged in serious, violent misconduct," and that Wooten was guilty of "violent behavior … directed against … my sister." On September 15, 2008, Palin's attorney described Wooten as "violent and abusive." On September 17, 2008, McCain-Palin spokesperson Meg Stapleton said Wooten "abused her [Palin's] sister."

(More characterization of Wooten, and Wooten's denials)

Again, we had 2008 stuff inserted into the middle of the discussion of events in 2005. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 01:10, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Palin has alleged that Wooten has made other threats against the family which were witnessed by Molly McCann alone. For example, in a legal filing on September 1, 2008,

In the Memorandum of Findings, there is no mention of any allegation of any threat, other than what is described above (a death threat against the father, and a threat to "make life difficult for Sarah"). In a legal filing on September 15, 2008, Palin stated she was "concerned about threats of violence directed at her father, sister and nephew by a state trooper." In September 2008, Palin described Wooten as "a trooper who is making threats against the First Family." On September 18 she again mentioned "his threats against the First Family." Palin's September 2008 legal filings do not detail any threats that took place after Palin became governor, or at any time since April 11, 2005, when the divorce was filed. Palin's filing on September 1, 2008 said "no one in the Palin family ever filed a formal complaint," subsequent to the complaints the family made in 2005.

Wooten has repeatedly denied these various allegations of threats. On September 6, 2008, Wooten said "that did not happen … I haven't threatened to kill anyone in that family." On May 5, 2005, he told a police investigator "he has not threatened his father in law" and "he denied saying he would 'bring her sister down.' " In the police interviews and Memorandum of Findings, there is no statement from any other witness (aside from Molly, Sarah and Track) alleging they ever heard Wooten threaten anyone.

(Wooten's comments in September 2008 re taser incident)

One way to handle comments made after July 2008, when Monegan was fired, by Palin and other parties to the Wooten case, concerning that case, is to leave them out of the article. Opponents of Palin add in text to make the argument that Wooten wasn't so bad a guy; supporters of Palin add in text designed to paint Wooten as evil; and all of it seems (to me) to fail WP:NPOV because it gives undue emphasis to Wooten's character (good or bad). -- John Broughton (♫♫) 01:24, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

This is a rehash of what was discussed above. See what Grover said ("I agree with Jukeboxgrad"). On the other hand, I think these particular remarks by Wooten can go, because they aren't terribly factual. Jukeboxgrad (talk) 11:19, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Wooten said that he "deeply regretted" the Taser incident.

He also said that he "would like to put this behind me and get on with my life," and wished Palin and her family good luck..

(Disciplining of Wooten)

I've removed the comments by union officials, as well as September 2008 comments by Palin and her lawyer. Again, this is part of the battle of characterizations - Wooten as not-so-bad versus Wooten as really-really-bad. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 01:37, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I think you're reopening an issue that was discussed above, pretty thoroughly (in the section "Excessive detail about Wooten"). I think the information can be organized more clearly, but "the battle of characterizations" is at the heart of the story, and shouldn't be removed. Jukeboxgrad (talk) 11:23, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

In late July 2008, union president Rob Cox denied that Wooten was a "rogue cop" and pointed to his service on an emergency reaction team. At the same time, union executive John Cyr said that many of the negative items in Wooten's personnel file were minor. Cyr said in August 2008 that the only complaints ever filed against Wooten were those by Palin and her family. In early September 2008, Palin said "there were a lot of concerns from not just my family, but from the public about this trooper's activities." On September 15, Palin's lawyer wrote that "the Palin family was not the only group of people concerned about Trooper Wooten's behavior." On September 1, 2008, Governor Palin said "that the troopers' investigation into Wooten was negligently or deliberately slipshod. … many witnesses to wrongful or possibly illegal behavior by Wooten were never interviewed … investigators seemed more concerned about exonerating Wooten than protecting public safety or the Palin family." Palin has also described the trooper investigation as "a joke."

On September 15, 2008, Palin's lawyer said that "according to the Grimes report, Trooper Wooten had been disciplined a dozen times before he was the subject of a Domestic Violence Protective Order from Molly McCann."

As of September 2008, Wooten was still a state trooper.

Oh, well that's confused matters a bit - now the Mike Wooten article itself has been AFD'd and redirected here.--Koncorde (talk) 11:16, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Options

Here are what I see as the options regarding the above removed content:

1. Leave it out entirely. (Advantage: shortens article, keeps focus, restores chronological order. Disadvantage: is well-sourced, is related to subject matter)
2. Add it back in, where it was. (Advantages and disadvantages: reverse of #1)
3. Add back in as footnotes. (Advantages: same as #1, plus content is now somewhere; disadvantages: long footnotes, information isn't as visible.)
4. Add back as a separate section, later in the article, titled something like "Differing characterizations of the Wooten case". (Advantage: info is back in article, full text size. Disadvantages: still not clear where to place in article without disturbing flow, or how to title section so heading is not POV; WP:SYN issue; still increases size of article.)

Note: Koncorde has suggested, with regard to #4, that two possibilities are (a) a section on the legal submission made by Palin and her lawyers September 1 and September 15), somewhere within the "Investigations and reviews" section, and/or (b) at the end of the existing Wooten section. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 16:05, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Other possibilities? Advantages and disadvantages I've missed? Preferences? -- John Broughton (♫♫) 13:04, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

John, those are excellent suggestions, and I'm sure a solution can be found by combining them.

I was going to mention moving stuff into footnotes. I think there are instances where the main text needs to only have a short paraphrase (e.g., 'Palin routinely describes Wooten as violent and abusive'), and then the lengthy, multiple quotes would be fine in the footnote. This has another advantage. Some of the important quotes are buried in long pdfs, often non-searchable. Putting the info in a footnote gives us a natural place to mention the page number.

Personally, I think it's fine for the footnote section to get much longer. It will be ignored by all except the most motivated readers. I think this approach is a nice compromise, where the info is sufficiently available, while also letting us streamline the main article. So I think moving a lot of material into footnotes is probably the best overall solution.

I think your idea #4 would invite a lot of WP:SYN arguments.

I think there are probably some instances where #1 is the right answer, and other instances where #2 is the right answer.

Anyway, I would encourage you to continue editing, with these various considerations in mind. I think the view-count is going to be fairly low for a while, and then spike a lot around 10/10, when Branchflower issues his report. It will probably also spike a week from today, when Palin debates Biden. So I think it makes sense to experiment with some changes for a few days. Jukeboxgrad (talk) 13:49, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I think a section on the legal submission made by Palin and her lawyers would allow for some of the quotes and details to be reintroduced. Alternatively, at the end of the Wooten section have a simple "Subsequent to the selection of Palin as running mate, and scrutiny of the above actions, Palin has made several comments, disputing the findings of the original tribunal and the evidence put forth. These include assertions of alleged domestic violence [cite] previously not disclosed bla bla bla". Obviously in more wiki type language. You can then use a system of footnote and cites to qualify the statements without burdening the topic with too many quotes. A combination of 3+4. I'll go through the article and see if there's a better way to perhaps list certain items.

I would guess Palins comments should really go in with the Investigation and Reviews as part of a partisan section - seeing as we have a section on "Disputes of witness" and "testimony".--Koncorde (talk) 14:52, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Contrary to what I said earlier, I now think that maybe the best approach is #4, as John described and as Koncorde has mentioned. Maybe a new section could be called "Factual contradictions," or something like that. It could just be a dry recitation of how certain facts are described differently, via different sources (e.g., claims that Wooten was 'violent and abusive').

Comments? Suggestions? I don't have time to work on this right now, but maybe someone would like to jump in and start creating something like this. Jukeboxgrad (talk) 00:23, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

If no one else does this first, I'll probably take a shot at this, in the next couple of days. But the word "contradictions" is problematical; perhaps we can just say "not consistent with documents from the 2005-2006 period". And I don't want to rehash those documents; yes, that may be unfair to Wooten, but again, the reader can do his/her own comparison to confirm that there are differences. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 01:26, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

I completely agree that some phrase like "not consistent" could be much better than "contradictions." I'm not sure what you mean by "rehash those documents." I picture something pretty simple, just highlighting the major inconsistencies. I'm pretty busy for the next few days, but I'll check back later and try to pitch in. Jukeboxgrad (talk) 07:42, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

This article is way too long and controversial

Why was this article created only after Palin was announced as McCain's running mate? It's interesting, yes, but the timing and length suggests this article was put here mainly to serve as something negative to throw at Palin. In comparison, the Reverend Wright controversy article is almost half as long. Normer (talk) 00:10, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

No, it's not that it's a chance for something negative, but that the incident has become much more important since Palin became a national candidate. Such an article could have been written earlier (although much of the material wouldn't have been readily available in reliable sources). There are lots of subjects that Wikipedia could and should cover, but currently covers inadequately or not at all. That's how a volunteer project works. The happenstance that resulted in the creation of this article is no reason to shorten it. We have no rule against articles on controversial subjects. The rule is only that our material be neutral. If a passage in the article strikes you as non-neutral, please cite the specific passage here and explain why you're criticizing it. JamesMLane t c 00:17, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

It's long because there is a multitude of information about it from reliable sources. In fact, there is a new development almost every day. It's controversial because the topic is controversial. It was created after Palin was selected by McCain because that was when many people became more interested in her. If you have more information from reliable sources to add to the Reverend Wright article, no one here is stopping you. Grover cleveland (talk) 02:57, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I think it's timing is because surely all the August/September 2008 quotes have come out recently? I.e. it's a current event...--Koncorde (talk) 12:51, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Normer, if you think important information is omitted from the Wright article, I would encourage you to add it. Like Grover said. Jukeboxgrad (talk) 13:51, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't think I have seen such a long and researched article on such a thin topic. This "scandal" has the appearance of a case of grasping at straws, even more than Obama's association with Ayers. Mike Gravel, former representative from Alaska and democratic presidential candidate, insists that this will play in Palin's favor in the end, that this trooper was a risk to others and should have been fired, and the police union is corrupt in preventing dangerous cops from being fired. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.87.1.204 (talk) 10:07, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Wooten's information;

Have been reading through Talk:Mike Wooten (trooper) and it seems that the reason for the MW article being deleted, is the existence of the same information here on this page. Now to me this means we have a sizeable problem.

A - we have a big section in this article about Wooten. The article is not about Wooten however. He's merely the subject.

B - Are his "crimes" relevant? Seeing as he is pretty much unable to defend himself, and has not entered into defending himself in the press I am concerned that effectively giving Palin a platform in this topic could be inferred as justification for her later actions (and justified or not, what prompted her or didn't prompt her is not part of the article?)

C - Currently there is undue weight being given to Wooten, in an article about Palins actions. I'd therefore like to see a cull of the allegations against Wooten etc, a condensed pre-history would suffice.

I have no issue with the actual work that has taken place with regards to the information/case history on Wooten, and would not in any shape or form oppose a seperate wiki for him. Though I feel that his actual status as a person of prominence is weak at best. Obviously - I hate to remove the good work of editors, so I'm not going to do it myself and will defer to those who have done the work so far to discuss, I hate hi-jacking topics :) --Koncorde (talk) 23:05, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

The importance of including details about Wooten was discussed at length, above, in the section "excessive detail about Wooten." Jukeboxgrad (talk) 23:57, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

There clearly needs to be sufficient detail for a reader to understand Palin's involvement and state of mind with regard to Wooten's actions; this is critical context in evaluating her actions between January 2007 and July 2008, and statements thereafter about those actions. But we don't need to provide excessive detail from documents.

And the discussion of details, above, was not conclusive (no consensus).

I've just removed some more detail (see below). Maybe it belongs in a footnote (I think not, but I'll defer to others), but nothing more, I strongly believe. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 00:03, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

I read it earlier (I believe it's the same topic in the Wooten chat copied over in one direction or the other) and the decision was to create an wiki article for Wooten (and presumably move info over?). However that same info was never culled from this article as (I presume again) people felt it was relevant, or were unwilling to make such changes.

Unfortunately, since that point, the wiki article for Wooten has gone which has rendered this page the default page for Wooten's info (and will therefore continue to accrue further information). Unfortunately (as I have got to know the topic a bit better) it has become obvious (from the intro of the article itself) that Wooten's info isn't really relevant unless you're into the ins and outs of a persons private life of no relevance to the actual investigation. I feel there has been a kind of Catch 22 situation. The details are not relevant, but are obviously salacious and well documented. They were copied wholesale in one direction or the other (causing duplication/forking of information). This was subsequently AfD's as unfortunately he has no specific notability of his own, and the details were duplicating information, so therefore his stub has now been stubbed out.... so why does the information remain?

I'm not sure Palin's state of mind is relevant. She can explain that herself in 2008 using her own quotes in contrast to the claims of the original findings, without the need for large chunks of Wootens bio.--Koncorde (talk) 00:09, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

We are under no obligation, just because a redirect is in place for the Wooten article (pointing to this article), to add detail that we don't think is relevant. I think we all agree that Wikipedia wouldn't have any article with any information about Wooten if Palin hadn't fired Monegan.

As for how much background we need to provide, I really think that it's impossible to properly understand what Palin did in 2007 and 2008 unless one knows about what she said and did in 2005 (the basics, not lots and lots of detail; that's what links are for). And certainly it makes no sense to discuss the 2007 and 2008 events in which suggestions were made that Wooten should be fired, without providing information about what happened in 2006 (when he was not fired).

I think I've addressed points A and C (I support reducing content, but keeping critical info). Regarding point B - I'm willing to trust that most readers will understand that (a) what one side says happens doesn't necessarily mean that something actually did happen; (b) that the state trooper investigation is probably the least biased analysis available about what did happen; and (c) regardless of what actually happened, legally the matter became closed when Wooten was disciplined. The alternatives are (in my opinion) worse - either we try to summarize the evidence (see WP:NOR), or we provide lengthy detail (see WP:NPOV regarding space and weight).

Finally, I note that the AfD result was no consensus, rather than delete. As I may have mentioned earlier, WP:NOT says that we are under no obligation whatsoever to include details that aren't important to the article (again, if we do, that's actually a WP:NPOV violation). "Well-documented" isn't a criterion for inclusion in a Wikipedia article (it's a threshold, a minimum). What we should consider when evaluating information is things like "noteworthy" and "relevant" and "important".

I agree totally. I have started clipping parts out. Notably we do not really need to provide transcript information as it's clearly and relevantly recorded and can be included in a footnote if absolutely desperately required - plus I'm not sure what purpose it was serving aside from making Palin repeat herself or others, the death threats and the allegations for a second or third time. I've renamed the section simply because it didn't really cover anything but the actual death threat and didn't mention the other items investigated.

In reading a few statements and memorandums I have located a few inconsistencies that I will try to clear up.--Koncorde (talk) 13:07, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Just stopping by for a quick comment after being away for a few days. I just want to mention that I think the article is generally improved because of the extra detail that's been removed. I think the most important details have been preserved. Hopefully in a few days I can come back and look at things more carefully, and I may find some things I'd like to add back. But for now I wanted to speak up and express my support for what's been done lately. Jukeboxgrad (talk) 07:36, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Removed detail

Note: See section immediately above for discussion. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 00:03, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

In a police interview discussing this event, Palin stated that she and Track were not in the same location as Wooten and McCann; rather, Palin and Track were in their own home, and listening in via a telephone connection. According to Track, they were listening in order to determine whether Wooten was having an extramarital affair. Sarah Palin went on to say that after hearing the threat

“ I jumped in my truck to drive over to M[olly]'s house because I was sure M[ike] was gonna he was, like a ticking time bomb and I thought he was gonna blow and physically harm M[olly] or the kids or my dad. ”

After making observations through a window, Palin asked a neighbor to monitor the situation on her behalf:

“ I had to head on into C[hugiak], I had ah a meeting that I couldn't miss. I told the neighbor … "could you stand by … cause it it's looking dangerous" … after standing there watching M[ike] freaking out for however long probably, 15 minutes umm, I had to leave. I took off. ”

The trooper internal investigation reported that

“ Sarah Palin and Molly McCann both stated that Wooten made threats that he would "bring down" Sarah and her family. McCann stated that Wooten made this threat to her several times and that she understood him to mean that he could use his position as a trooper to make life difficult for Sarah. ”