Talk:Sarah Palin: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
m Reverted edits by 12.207.125.124 to last version by Sidonuke (HG)
dsagfasdfadfasd
Line 6: Line 6:
{{talk header}}
{{talk header}}
{{FAQ|collapsed=yes}}
{{FAQ|collapsed=yes}}
{
{{Failed GA|14:24, 25 September 2008 (UTC)|page=1| subtopic=Politics and government|status=}}
{{WikiProjectBannerShell|activepol=yes|blp=yes|collapsed=yes|1=
{{WPBiography|living=yes|class=B|priority=High|politician-work-group=yes|subject=Person|listas=Palin, Sarah|nested=yes}}
{{WikiProject United States presidential elections|class=B|nested=yes|importance=High}}
{{Project Alaska|class=B|importance=High|nested=yes}}
{{WikiProjectPolitics|class=B|importance=High|nested=yes}}
{{WPIDAHO|nested=yes|class =B|importance =Low}}
}}
{{pressmulti
| collapsed=yes
| title= Wikipedia Edits Forecast Vice Presidential Picks
| author= Brian Krebs
| date= 2008-08-29
| url= http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/08/29/AR2008082902691.html
| org= [[The Washington Post]]
| title2= Palin's Wikipedia Entry Gets Overhaul
| author2= Yuki Noguchi
| date2= 2008-08-29
| url2= http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyid=94118849
| org2= [[NPR]]
| title3= Tug of war over Wiki entry on Palin
| author3= Chris O'Brien
| date3= 2008-08-29
| url3= http://www.mercurynews.com/business/ci_10338833
| org3= [[Mercury News]]
| title4= Sarah Palin Wikipedia edits--fast and furious
| author4= Natalie Weinstein
| date4= 2008-08-30
| url4= http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-10029598-38.html
| org4= [[CNET News]]
| title5= Don’t Like Palin’s Wikipedia Story? Change It
| author5= Noam Cohen
| date5= 2008-09-01
| url5= http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/01/technology/01link.html
| org5= [[The New York Times]]
| url6= http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-10029598-38.html
| org6= [[CNET News]]
| title7= Sarah Palin's immensely flattering Wikipedia entry
| author7= Jemima Kiss
| date7= 2008-09-01
| url7= http://blogs.guardian.co.uk/digitalcontent/2008/09/sarah_palins_immensely_flatter.html
| org7= [[The guardian]]
| title8= Sarah Palin Wikipedia entry gets glowing make-over from mysterious user Young Trigg
| author8= Mike Harvey
| date8= 2008-09-01
| url8= http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/us_elections/article4653971.ece
| org8= [[The Times]]
| title9= Wikipedia e la biografia “ripulita” di Sarah Palin
| author9= Roberto Reale
| date9= 2008-09-02
| url9= http://www.rainews24.rai.it/ran24/rainews24_2007/magazine/scenari/scenari_estate_09.asp
| org9= [[RAI]]
| title10= Wikipedia war emerges over details about Palin
| author10= Mark Sabbatini
| date10= 2008-09-02
| url10= http://www.juneauempire.com/stories/090208/sta_326628504.shtml
| org10= [[Juneau Empire]]
| title11= Who scrubbed Palin clean?
| author11= Iain Simons
| date11= 2008-09-02
| url11= http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/culture-tech/2008/09/usa-vote-palin-wikipedia
| org11= New Statesman
| title12= The Odd Lies Of Sarah Palin II: The Bridge To Nowhere
| author12= Andrew Sullivan
| date12= 2008-09-15
| url12=http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2008/09/the-lies-of-s-2.html
| org12=The New Statesman
| title13= Sarah Palin winning the Wikipedia popularity contest
| author13= Stephanie Condon
| date13= 2008-09-17
| url13=http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-10044085-38.html
| org13=The Atlantic
| title14=Why Google's online encyclopedia will never be as good as Wikipedia
| date14=2008-09-22
| url14=http://www.slate.com/id/2200401/
| org14=Slate
| author14=Farhad Manjoo10
| title15= Updating a Reference Site on the Fly
| author15= Noam Cohen
| date15= 2008-11-09
| url15= http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/10/technology/internet/10link.html
| org15= [[The New York Times]]
}}
{{messagebox|
{{hidden|'''Milestone article versions'''|content=
:
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sarah_Palin&oldid=25893140 First version] (19 October 2005)
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sarah_Palin&oldid=234718011 Pre "Young Trigg"] (27 August 2008)
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sarah_Palin&oldid=234778085 "Young Trigg" edition] (28 August 2008)


Giant Airhead!!!
}}
}}
<!-- Metadata: see [[User:MiszaBot I]] -->
{{User:MiszaBot/config
|archiveheader = {{Talkarchivenav}}
|maxarchivesize = 150K
|counter = 43
|minthreadsleft = 10
|algo = old(48h)
|archive = Talk:Sarah Palin/Archive %(counter)d
}} <!-- Note: regardless of "algo" setting, the bot only visits once per day -->
{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn
|target=Talk:Sarah Palin/Archive index
|mask=Talk:Sarah Palin/Archive <#>
|leading_zeros=0
|indexhere=yes}}
<big><big><big>'''Put new text under old text.''' <span class="plainlinks">[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title={{TALKPAGENAMEE}}&action=edit&section=new Click here to start a new topic]</span>.</big></big></big><br>
Adding your text to an older thread of discussion may be more appropriate than starting a new one

== Rape kit material ==

{{RFCpol|section=Rape kit material !! reason=Should material about the cost of rape kits be included in this bio?" !! time=20:50, 21 November 2008 (UTC) }}
*''Should material about the cost of rape kits be included in this bio?''
*'''Refuse''' to dignify this subversion of the poll process with an answer. Consensus was reached, and you have provided no reason to change it. Poll is being used as an excuse to delete material. [[User:Anarchangel|Anarchangel]] ([[User talk:Anarchangel|talk]]) 20:05, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Can a wiki lawyer help out with my attempt at this RFC? Any thoughts on other types of mediation here? I am hoping that if enough nuetral eyes take a look, this will work out. Thanks in advance. --[[User:Threeafterthree|Tom]] 19:55, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
:Hopefully my 3rd attemp will work, but I doubt it :) --[[User:Threeafterthree|Tom]] 20:54, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

::I'm not a lawyer (and wholly agree with Shakespeare about the entire slimy breed), and frankly I can't be arsed to go through the archive that show whether or not a consensus was reached. Anyway consensus can be changed. I do think that the abbreviated version of the text in question is more appropriate as it bears directly on Saint Sarah. The long version that Tom or whoever it is tends to revert contains material re the police that does not; and also a cite to the effect that there's no conclusive evidence as to whether or not Saint Sarah was in the know. I've come round to favoring the cut. Incidentally I think the previous accusations of vandalism and WP:TAG are a bit strong. The vandalism one in particular is, ahem, outré. And de trop. Merci. — [[User:Writegeist|Writegeist]] ([[User talk:Writegeist|talk]]) 22:13, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
:::As I suggested above, I do not think the content at issue is relevant to Palin's biography. In any case, its inclusion focuses [[WP:UNDUE|undue weight]] on a minor city policy issue she may or may not have been closely involved in administering. '''Leave it out.''' --[[User:Evb-wiki|Evb-wiki]] ([[User talk:Evb-wiki|talk]]) 02:44, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
::::I agree. --[[User:Threeafterthree|Tom]] 13:06, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
:::::I have removed this "material". --[[User:Threeafterthree|Tom]] 14:51, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
::::::...With this http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sarah_Palin&diff=253828398&oldid=253827027 edit]. The summary of which states, " see talk page RFC. Please comment there, thank you." And the 3<3 edit above is his most recent after that, so I guess it is supposed to be a RFC now. Buahaha. Seriously, if you say, 'I deleted some stuff' as a reason for undoing prior consensus, you're going to have to expect some skepticism as to the propriety of your procedure. If you had one reason that hadn't been considered before, then fine. If you want comments from us about why we object to your reverts of that material, 3<3, just look at the archives of the previous handful of times you've done it. I personally find no reason to add any. If only this was like Chess, where if someone makes the same move over and over, it's a draw. [[User:Anarchangel|Anarchangel]] ([[User talk:Anarchangel|talk]]) 18:25, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) Hopefully others will comment here, not only folks involved in this content dispute. --[[User:Threeafterthree|Tom]] 18:31, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

You never did explain what you're trying to say, aside from mentioning a non-existent Fallon article and unexplained talk about "lies." If you ever want to explain what you're talking about, that might be the place to start.[[User:Jimmuldrow|Jimmuldrow]] ([[User talk:Jimmuldrow|talk]]) 23:50, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

:Previous discussions on this subject included dozens of editors. You plus a couple people revisiting the subject are not a substantial enough "consensus" to delete this. I'd like to add my impression that Writegeist "voted" to cut this merely because he was miffed that I deleted [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sarah_Palin&diff=prev&oldid=253101003 these] comments in which he openly mocked the names of Palin's children, with no intent whatsoever to improve the article, just using the talk page to ridicule Palin. Sorry Write, but that one was over the line. [[User:Factchecker atyourservice|Factchecker atyourservice]] ([[User talk:Factchecker atyourservice|talk]]) 18:39, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

:::Actually no, Factchecker, it had nothing to do with your deletion — I didn't give a second thought. You should know from my post to your talk re. deletion of previous material, also of a totally frivolous, irreverent and irrelevant nature — that I don't bear malice. You are almost always, IMO, reasonable and fair. Oh dear I've gone all gooey. Give me a moment to compose myself. That's better. Anyway, my "vote" was, in fact, entirely to do with having a weak grasp of the subject and opening mouth, or rather tapping keys, before engaging brain. Now that I've labored through the squillions of words squandered on the issue at issue, I appreciate the nuances better. With the result that I have totally come around to your argument for inclusion. I just forgot to mention it. Sorry! And Threeafterthree's obdurate, autocratic editing doesn't help anyone in a collaborative endeavour. — [[User:Writegeist|Writegeist]] ([[User talk:Writegeist|talk]]) 05:56, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

::Deleting material out of spite is fine :) Just kidding :) Seriously, I/we/you should try to get more eyes involved or seek other types of mediation. --[[User:Threeafterthree|Tom]] 18:49, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

:::Repeatedly deleting the material which you are seeking comment on tends to defeat the purpose for seeking a consensus to delete it in the first place. This is just an ongoing POV-pushing edit war for you. You have deleted this same sourced, relevant, notable material ''dozens of times'', without seeking compromise at any point. [[User:Factchecker atyourservice|Factchecker atyourservice]] ([[User talk:Factchecker atyourservice|talk]]) 18:56, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
::::Repeating lies still doesn't make them true. --[[User:Threeafterthree|Tom]] 19:04, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
:::::Huh? Which "lies" would those be? Please elaborate. [[User:Factchecker atyourservice|Factchecker atyourservice]] ([[User talk:Factchecker atyourservice|talk]]) 19:07, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
::::::"Lies"? Well, there's a cogent argument. Minus a cogent argument, and plus an irrelevant cliche with personal attack overtones. [[User:Anarchangel|Anarchangel]] ([[User talk:Anarchangel|talk]]) 19:17, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
:::::::Tom, due to your dozens of deletions and apparent unwillingness to discuss or compromise, I have sought to have you blocked from editing this article. Sorry it had to come to this. [[User:Factchecker atyourservice|Factchecker atyourservice]] ([[User talk:Factchecker atyourservice|talk]]) 20:19, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
(outdent) Why not seek some type of dispute resolution rather than seeking to block me? --[[User:Threeafterthree|Tom]] 20:25, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
:At no time have you given any indication that you were amenable to discussion or compromise. You have simply deleted it over and over and over again. Even while "seeking comment" in an RFC you have just continued to delete the material. Frankly, I only have limited time to edit Wikipedia and cannot afford to waste time in arbitration with someone who is simply trying to toss out roadblocks with no intention of stopping the problematic behavior. Your conduct has warranted blocking multiple times, and I have let it slide -- and the result has just been more work for me, undoing your continued deletions. On top of that, we held discussion on this for weeks and all you really said was "this goes in the Fannon bio" while repeatedly deleting it. It's disingenuous to now claim that you seek discussion. [[User:Factchecker atyourservice|Factchecker atyourservice]] ([[User talk:Factchecker atyourservice|talk]]) 20:41, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
::I still think that others need to be involved here rather that just going back and forth with each other. --[[User:Threeafterthree|Tom]] 20:50, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

:::If "others" become involved, wouldn't they want to know what your reasons are? You talk about discussion but keep repeating the same stuff about a non-existent Fannon page and unspecified "lies." You should explain your reasons before more agitating.[[User:Jimmuldrow|Jimmuldrow]] ([[User talk:Jimmuldrow|talk]]) 23:56, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

:::Others '''were''' involved when the material was added. They just haven't kept a constant watch on the article to prevent people from going in and deleting things. And the block request is not about the material itself, but rather your actions of repeatedly deleting it. Edit warring with the hope that the other party will simply give up and go away is not the correct method of attempting to build consensus for a change in the article. And so far, while "seeking comment", you have simply continued to delete the material. [[User:Factchecker atyourservice|Factchecker atyourservice]] ([[User talk:Factchecker atyourservice|talk]]) 20:56, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

As I recall, we came to an agreement on a compromise that mentioned the police chief she hired and his opposition to the kits. The compromise was fair and balanced and agreed-on by all sides. Now if some enterprising person can just go to the archives and dig it out, it will be kindly appreciated. :-) [[User:GreekParadise|GreekParadise]] ([[User talk:GreekParadise|talk]]) 02:37, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
:I'll jump right on it. With only 43 archives, it shouldn't take more than a week or two :). --[[User:Threeafterthree|Tom]] 14:58, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
::Check the [[Talk:Sarah_Palin/Archive_index|Archive Index]]. The rape kit matter is mentioned in only 13 thread titles. [[Special:Contributions/Will_Beback| ·:· ]][[User:Will Beback|Will Beback]] [[User talk:Will Beback|·:·]] 18:22, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
:::Archive 40 at the bottom has alot about this "issue" it seems. Also see archive 20, 25, 29, 33, and 35. --[[User:Threeafterthree|Tom]] 18:34, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Greek, the compromise that was consensus, is what Tom deleted. Don't you get it? He just keeps coming along and deleting every once in a while to keep us busy. WP:CCC is for new people coming in, or new arguments. 3<3 is and has neither. [[User:Anarchangel|Anarchangel]] ([[User talk:Anarchangel|talk]]) 20:05, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
:::My handle is 3after3, not 3lessthan3. Anyways, no biggie. --[[User:Threeafterthree|Tom]] 20:48, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
::::It makes sense if you see the < sign as signifying the course, or direction, of events. 3 follows (after) < 3 [[User:Anarchangel|Anarchangel]] ([[User talk:Anarchangel|talk]]) 21:40, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
:::::I could have sworn you were just referring to him as "3" and using the emoticon <3 to indicate that '''you love him'''. [[User:Factchecker atyourservice|Factchecker atyourservice]] ([[User talk:Factchecker atyourservice|talk]]) 21:52, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
::::::So that's what that means. No, I didn't mean that. [[User:Anarchangel|Anarchangel]] ([[User talk:Anarchangel|talk]]) 15:15, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

:[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sarah_Palin&oldid=248653726#POV_Tag_on_.22Mayor_of_Wasilla.22_section_re:_the_rape_kit_controversy Here]is where we agreed to disagree and started hammering out a compromise version. The actual fashioning of the wording tends to begin under the headings "Fcreid's proffered language" and "was there a controversy?" It was an awful lot of discussion, awful lot of give-and-take, awful lot of work... and awfully annoying when Tom resumed his preferred method of simply deleting the entire thing repeatedly without discussion. [[User:Factchecker atyourservice|Factchecker atyourservice]] ([[User talk:Factchecker atyourservice|talk]]) 20:45, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
::I note that '''I and others did not sign off on your personal consensus. ''' Sorry to disillusion you. [[User:Collect|Collect]] ([[User talk:Collect|talk]]) 20:53, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
:::Is fcreid still around? He was a saint working with folks on this. Anyways, --[[User:Threeafterthree|Tom]] 20:57, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
::::He was around a couple days ago. You could try dropping a note on his talk page, I just did exactly that. [[User:Factchecker atyourservice|Factchecker atyourservice]] ([[User talk:Factchecker atyourservice|talk]]) 21:09, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
:::::Still alive and well, thanks. Been following the conversation daily but haven't seen the need to chime back in. As everyone knows, I've never been a fan of including the rape kit material in the first place. However, a compelling argument was made that Palin's apparent lack of knowledge in Fannon's practice was important (in that some felt she *should* have known what he was doing). The compromise we reached was to include the fact that the controversy existed, as evidenced by the ''Frontiersman'' May 2000 article, but to include the fact that there was no evidence Palin was aware of his practice (using the SPT article). [[User:Fcreid|Fcreid]] ([[User talk:Fcreid|talk]]) 22:26, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
:::Your personal signature is not required, Collect. Nor was it "my personal consensus" – as the compromise was reached amongst several editors including quite a few who were "on your side", such as yourself, Fcreid, Evb-wiki, and Zsero. Everybody gave up something they wanted... that's what made it a compromise. [[User:Factchecker atyourservice|Factchecker atyourservice]] ([[User talk:Factchecker atyourservice|talk]]) 21:02, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

(outdent from above) Jim, this issue boils down to two fundamental perspectives. There are those (myself included) who believe that Police Chief Fannon took this practice upon himself in an ad hoc manner and without Palin's implicit or explicit endorsement in order to conserve his "miscellaneous" budget. The evidence supports this assertion. (While totally irrelevant, Fannon probably felt that no "harm" was done in charging insurers for these kits when the victim had appropriate coverage and given that the procedure was administered in the hospital, but that's a different debate.) In contrast, there are also those who feel Palin was aware of and possibly even involved in Fannon's practice, despite that no evidence supports that position. The compromise was reached earlier because you, among others, contended that if Palin didn't know, she should have (given that she was mayor). That is a compelling argument, so it brought us to the current verbiage that describes Fannon's statements and also states that no evidence indicates Palin knew or endorsed the practice. Any attempt to insert more or less than this simply isn't supported by reliable sources. For example, citing the Huffington Post piece that the fiscal year 2000 budget for miscellaneous items was lower than prior years is purely speculative. For the record, we have an official statement from Wasilla that provides their fiscal year 2000 and beyond budgets and shows no victims or insurers were charged in 2000 or beyond. So, if Fannon amended his FY-2000 budget submission based on the money he saved by this practice in FY-1999, it's really irrelevant. [[User:Fcreid|Fcreid]] ([[User talk:Fcreid|talk]]) 00:08, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

::Never have believed Fannon acted alone. The budget proves it, you can barely get 2 rape kits out of that, let alone clearing the snow off of the runway and whatever other "Contractual Services" were the responsibility of the PD. [[User:Anarchangel|Anarchangel]] ([[User talk:Anarchangel|talk]]) 15:15, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

I strongly agree that it would be a mistake to "insert more or less" than the current version.[[User:Jimmuldrow|Jimmuldrow]] ([[User talk:Jimmuldrow|talk]]) 00:22, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

:Thanks, Jim. It's worth mentioning that the current debate was precipitated by removal of the secondary fact that no evidence indicates Palin was aware of the practice. That triggered a spate of new debate on whether it belonged in the article whatsoever without a mention of Palin, and the onslaught of removals/reverts that followed. Essentially, if one removes either "leg" of the discussion as it is, both legs fails. [[User:Fcreid|Fcreid]] ([[User talk:Fcreid|talk]]) 00:27, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

:::Absence of evidence is, in short, not notable. See [[Negative proof fallacy]] for the full details. The Palin statement, by contrast, is desirable, and its full context should be shown, i.e. the question was, extremely paraphrased, but accurately: as Fannon has been shown to charge, did you oversee Fannon's charging of victims? and she dodged both the charging implication and the question and answer that she never believed that people should be charged. 15:15, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

:: Why is this even a discussion. The longer I am on Wikipedia, the more that I am surprised by how much truly extraneous, irrelevant, biased detail ends up in articles here. Is Wikipedia supposed to be a warehouse of all of the small but ultimately historically insignificant details that pass for news in the era of 500 cable TV channels with nothing on. I don't think the Rape kits should be in the article. That is not what is significant or relevant to Sarah Palin. Wikipedia should not be used as a weapon to perpetuate rumors and baseless insinuation about people or groups of people. In case it is relevant to someone reading this, I am not defending Sarah Palin. I did not vote for her and McCain, I just think that enough is enough.[[User:Elmmapleoakpine|Elmmapleoakpine]] ([[User talk:Elmmapleoakpine|talk]]) 01:52, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
:::::Hi Elmmapleoakpine, oh course this doesn't belong in the article. Unfortunately, articles like this is where wikipedia is very weak. Single purpose agenda pushing editors gravitate to articles like this where things aren't black and white unlike an artilce like say [[Iron ore]]. The only saving grace is Wikipedia's some what transparancy so troll like behavoir becomes evident after awhile and lies can be seen. Hopefully enough eyes that don't want to smear or puff up this article will take a look so some NPOV will rise. Anyways, --[[User:Threeafterthree|Tom]] 14:09, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

::::::You are the one trying to POV push by pretending this wasn't a significant controversy and wasn't related to Palin. Oh well... just keep deleting it over and over, I guess. PS I wouldn't have started editing this article in the first place if it wasn't the agenda pushing nonsense and attempt to spread lies and one-sided accounts of reality such as having the article state that Palin was an anti-pork hero for canceling the bridge project. Wikipedia is not an outlet for PR, but I guess you'll never understand that. [[User:Factchecker atyourservice|Factchecker atyourservice]] ([[User talk:Factchecker atyourservice|talk]]) 16:50, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

:::Elmmapleoakpine, after you've been editing for a few months I think you'll come to terms with the fact that Wikipedia reflects published material on specific issues more or less in proportion to the attention paid to them in those publications. While you may feel that the news articles on this subject were baseless slander, it's not our position to judge that. Indeed, we cannot contradict, second-guess, or re-interpret the published thought that is reflected here, as that runs counter to the central goal of [[WP:Verifiability]]. We can't substitute our own judgment in place of the judgment of the sources we cite.

:::Realizing this, you may also come to be frustrated when you feel that newspapers or other sources are being too conservative, or not conservative enough, or expressing too much/too little detail on a subject. But I think over time you will appreciate the fact that Wikipedia is more or less a mirror of those publications whether you agree with them or not. That is the essence of its neutrality.

:::At the same time, you may have unwittingly given yourself a distorted picture of Wikipedia by diving right into charged political topics just a day or two after registering your account. Election politics can be quite a sensitive issue. Anyway, best wishes with your editing. [[User:Factchecker atyourservice|Factchecker atyourservice]] ([[User talk:Factchecker atyourservice|talk]]) 02:45, 26 November 2008 (UTC)


(outdent)Factchecker, it is good that you want to fight people who are trying to push their agenda in here of puffing up this bio. Any material that does that should be removed and I will support that. Maybe you should also try to fight folks who want to smear and mudrack as well? Just a thought. Also, please do not move my comments on this page, thank you.--[[User:Threeafterthree|Tom]] 17:28, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

:I was trying to preserve the chronological order. I believe Collect did that at one point for the same reason, and also accused me of "interpolating" a comment in order to deceive readers... still not sure what he meant by that since it was obvious where my comments were directed. Anyway as long as you're undoing that, could you at least put my comment back under yours, since it was replying to yours? Anyway, I do plenty to prevent smears from appearing here. Recall my successful effort to shut down the guy who insisted on coming here and making references to the Palin porno, among other things. [[User:Factchecker atyourservice|Factchecker atyourservice]] ([[User talk:Factchecker atyourservice|talk]]) 19:31, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
::Factchecker, I tried to indent my comment beyond yours so folks could see I was replying to Elmmapleoakpine and people could see your reply as well. Nobody should move any comments around unless an ip puts a comment at the top of the page ect. It is good that you fought off the porno inclusion. Just to recap, this whole "rape kit" controversey domahigee first broke in earnest after Palin was announced as VP. Its been through the ringer and wash cycle so manny times and what has really come out? Seriously. She knew or she should have known or what? If there is any reliable source that concretely ties her to this "issue" (thats being kind), then fine, include it, but as it is, it really does not belong in her bio. It already has way to much coverage in the sub artilces, imho, but I have not even gone there.--[[User:Threeafterthree|Tom]] 19:42, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
:::Tom, you surely know I'm not a fan of including the rape kit material in this article, for many of the reasons you stated above and for others I won't reiterate. I had also hoped it would whither on the vine after the election. All that said, I think it is wrong to "edit war" about its inclusion today as long as sincere editors still feel it belongs. Factchecker, Anarchangel and Jimmuldrow are among those. I recognize consensus can and often does change, but these editors still feel it warrants mention because it occurred "on Palin's watch" in Wasilla, if nothing more, and I have to agree. My caveat remains that we clearly convey there is no evidence Palin knew about the practice, and that aspect of the article was tampered with in recent days (replaced by "never commented about" or something). To maintain a friendly and cooperative atmosphere, and in the spirit of Thanksgiving, I suggest we revert to the version prior to Anarchangel's changes several days ago. Perhaps if no new information arises in a month or two, those other editors may be willing to reconsider its inclusion in the first place. [[User:Fcreid|Fcreid]] ([[User talk:Fcreid|talk]]) 20:32, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

(outdent)Oddly, Fcreid, it was Collect who changed the material to read "never commented on it at all". I thought that was a little strange because I thought the "no evidence" phrasing presented a much stronger defense. Anarchangel, meanwhile, wanted to remove that sentence entirely, and while there was substance to his argument, ultimately I did not agree with it. Anyway, back to responding to Tom,

Here, in a nutshell, is what has come out of the news coverage:

1) Palin fired the guy who had the city paying for the kits; 2) ...replaced him with the guy that started, or wanted to start, charging the victims' insurance; 3) ... cut the funding for the budget item that had been previously used by the city to pay for th exams; 4) a state law was proposed banning the practice of billing victim's insurance; 5) debate on this issue continued for months, with Fannon being a central opponent of the proposed law, and the controversy made it into the local papers at the time, with Fannon complaining it would have cost the city up to $14,000 a year to pay for the exams ; 6) at least one notable critic (a political opponent) has said on record that she probably knew; 7) a NYT opinion piece opined that if she didn't know, she should have known; 8) a Palin spokesperson specifically addressed the issue by saying Palin had never believed rape victims should ever have to pay for an evidence gathering test, but refused to answer a specific question as to whether Palin knew about the policy or not

I could go on, but that's the nutshell, and it's all been thoroughly discussed before.

Palin herself responded the same way to a direct question posed by the Outdoorsman, as above. Agree with all, including the qualification that there is more. [[User:Anarchangel|Anarchangel]] ([[User talk:Anarchangel|talk]]) 15:15, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Now, ''of course there are all kinds of ways in which all this information might be inappropriately woven together to produce an OR conclusion'' that Palin DID know, or was behind the policy, or any number of other conclusions that were never reached in any particular source -- ''all of which would be inappropriate''. But none of the versions that's ever been put into the article, from my [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sarah_Palin&diff=prev&oldid=245281138 original] attempt to reflect it in an NPOV fashion, to the more recent [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sarah_Palin&diff=254251021&oldid=254228455 compromise version] which you keep deleting, suffer from such weaknesses. In fact, I believe the central objection to my original version was that it was simply too long. Regardless, since a compromise was reached, and it's brief and conservatively worded, I think we should preserve it. [[User:Factchecker atyourservice|Factchecker atyourservice]] ([[User talk:Factchecker atyourservice|talk]]) 20:42, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
:Um -- nope. You misstate facts multiple times. First -- the police department did not exist in Wasilla until 1993, and the official records show a trivial number of TOTAL sexual assaults. Cite already given. Second, per a cite you gave on the law, minors covered by Alaska Cares currently have that program pay for all rape exams (the new law applies only to those over 16). Thus Wasilla always did have "insurance" pay for rape exams. Third, the Police Department asked for budget monies, and there is no evidence Palin cut one cent from the budget asked for, Fourth, the state law does NOT stop the A;aska Cares insurance from paying for rape exams, Fifth, there is no evidence Fannon said anything about the proposed law until it was enacted, Sixth, there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that Palin knew anything at all about a policy which affected so few people (not a single case of a person being billed has shown up, and you know that the media would have reported if they found even a single case) Seventh an edtorial is only worth citing as an opinion, not as a fact per WP guidelines, Eighth, if a spokesperson does not know a "negative" how is the spokesperson supposed to handle the question other than saying she does not know and so can not answer? Ninth, this has been an editwar, and I would have hoped you had learned a lesson from being quite nearly blocked. Thank you most kindly. [[User:Collect|Collect]] ([[User talk:Collect|talk]]) 21:51, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

::1a. How exactly does Palin starting the PD with Stein and Stambaugh in '93 prevent her from having done anything Factchecker said? It is only proof that she discards people once they have outlived their usefulness. 1b. The low number of sexual assaults proves that Fannon was either incompetent or lying when he said $4-15K cost to the PD. I will be keeping track of the times I say that and it isn't addressed, from now on.
::2a. Currently, the law now is the law now. And the current discussion is the 1990s. First time I have had to say that, thank Frick. Earth to Collect, come in Collect. <br>
::2b."Second, per a cite you gave on the law, minors covered by Alaska Cares currently have that program pay for all rape exams (the new law applies only to those over 16). Thus Wasilla always did have "insurance" pay for rape exams." Wow. A new low for obfuscation.<br>
::2c.Insurance is an asset of the insurance buyer, and thus the charge and the bill are against the victim's assets. Insurance is irrelevant as an ameliorating distinction. I will be keeping track of the times I say that and it isn't addressed, from now on. <br>
::3. Incorrect. [http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jacob-alperinsheriff/sarah-palin-instituted-ra_b_125833.html Follow the link]. I will be keeping track of the times I say that and it isn't addressed, from now on. <br>
::4. Alaska Cares may or may not have paid in '96, and not relevant as per 2c. Hopefully I won't have to say that again. <br>
::5. Are you going for the record of most wrong things said in one reply? Fannon to the Frontiersman: [http://www.frontiersman.com/articles/2000/05/23/news.txt May 22 2000], three days after the law was [http://www.legis.state.ak.us/basis/get_minutes.asp?chamb=B&date1=010181&date2=120180&session=21&Root=HB270 passed on the 19th], but before it was enacted. I will be keeping track of the times I say that and it isn't addressed, from now on. <br>
::6. This is the one and only point worth answering, really. There are multiple reasons why she should have known, most notably Fannon's conspicuous presence in the local paper, the empirically observable fact that she is his boss, the fact that she cut the budget, and should have known it wasn't sufficient, etc, and our task should be to delineate those, preferably less vaguely than the [[Alberto Gonzales]] page currently does. [[Alberto Gonzales]] was fired for much the same behaviour; evidence of impropriety he failed to convincingly explain, leaving investigators with no choice but to assume his incompetence. This is the first time I have answered this, so I'll let it sink in.
::7. I can only speculate on what this refers to, so I won't. Please elucidate.
::8. Interviewees, I should imagine, have exactly the difficulty you describe with questions for which there is no answer, which is why they would avoid asking them. I am going to take a stab at it even though I am only guessing which question you refer to. If you mean, 'During your tenure as mayor in 2000, then police chief Charlie Fannon commented in a May 23, 2000 Frontiersman article about legislation Gov. Tony Knowles signed protecting victims of sexual assault from being billed for rape kits collected by police as part of their investigations. Fannon revealed then that Knowles’ decision would cost Wasilla $5,000 to $14,000 a year, insinuating that the department’s policy was to bill victims for this testing. During your tenure as Mayor, what was the police department and city’s standard operating procedure in recovering costs of rape kits? Were any sexual assault victims ever charged for this testing while you were mayor?"...<br>
::...Then hopefully the answer would be, "Fannon didn't charge. The PD paid for them. No victims were ever charged." <br>
::Instead, Sarah Palin answered, "The entire notion of making a victim of a crime pay for anything is crazy. I do not believe, nor have I ever believed, that rape victims should have to pay for an evidence-gathering test. As governor, I worked in a variety of ways to tackle the problem of sexual assault and rape, including making domestic violence a priority of my administration."<br>
::This is a little like being asked, "Your employee put pressure on Justices and DAs to conform to a partisan agenda" and answering, "Putting pressure on Justices for a partisan agenda is bad". If Gonzales had said that, his hearings and subsequent firing would have been completed considerably sooner. Again, 1st time said.<br>
::9. The only lesson to learn from an edit war on this page is that if 3<3 doesn't start one, there won't be one, and that tagteaming works, until the arbitration. I am here for the long haul. [[User:Anarchangel|Anarchangel]] ([[User talk:Anarchangel|talk]]) 15:15, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

(outdent)This is more of the same nonsense as before. You haven't refuted a single thing I've said -- in fact you seem intent on refuting things I '''didn't''' say!! See below. I have put my quotations of you in ''italics''. PS, I notice that most of your arguments not only don't refute mine, but are based on your own analysis of primary sources. My arguments, on the other hand, are based on '''already-published analysis made by reliable secondary sources'''. '''Please also note''' that I wasn't suggesting the 8 points I outlined above should go into the article itself... merely using those points to argue against your claim that this whole thing is somehow unrelated to Palin and that the published accounts don't even '''suggest''' any connection... a claim which I find patently false, and which I was raising those 8 points in an attempt to refute.


''Um -- nope. You misstate facts multiple times. First -- the police department did not exist in Wasilla until 1993, and the official records show a trivial number of TOTAL sexual assaults.Cite already given. ''

Are we in the same universe? Did I say all of this occurred in 1989? Did I say anything at all about sexual assaults other than rapes? '''How would what you've said even begin to contradict or refute what I said?'''


''Second, per a cite you gave on the law, minors covered by Alaska Cares currently have that program pay for all rape exams (the new law applies only to those over 16). Thus Wasilla always did have "insurance" pay for rape exams.''

Is this supposed to contradict something I said? Please help me understand by showing me what I said that this contradicts. I said Stambaugh had the city paying for the rape kits... this is supported by one of the references; I said Palin fired Stambaugh... also supported; I said Fannon started charging, or wanted to start charging, victim's health insurance companies for the exams... also supported. '''Mounting arguments to refute things I never said is quite different from refuting the things I actually said!! '''


''Third, the Police Department asked for budget monies, and there is no evidence Palin cut one cent from the budget asked for''

One of the sources says "Before Palin came to City Hall, the Wasilla Police Department paid for rape kits out of a fund for miscellaneous costs, according to the police chief who preceded Fannon and was fired by Palin. That budget line was cut by more than half during Palin's tenure, but it did not specifically mention rape exams."

So, please explain how this is not evidence of '''exactly what it says''', e.g. that the fund used to pay for the rape kits was cut by Palin? And don't go flying off the handle as though I'm trying to put the budget line item into the article itself. I never tried anything of the sort.


''Fourth, the state law does NOT stop the A;aska Cares insurance from paying for rape exams, ''

That's wonderful, but '''I never said it did'''... I said the state law prohibited victim's insurance from being billed. A statewide program (is it even an insurance program?) that has nothing to do with any individual victim is not "the victim's health insurance". '''The law prohibited anyone from billing the victim's health insurance,''' as clearly stated in the Frontiersman article... "The new law makes it illegal for any law enforcement agency to bill victims or victims insurance companies for the costs of examinations that take place to collect evidence of a sexual assault or determine if a sexual assault did occur."


''Fifth, there is no evidence Fannon said anything about the proposed law until it was enacted, ''

OK, sources are ambiguous on the timing. It doesn't matter all that much... the point is that he was a central opponent of the law while the debate went on. See also "I find it hard to believe that for six months a small town, a police chief, would lead the fight against a statewide piece of legislation receiving unanimous support and the mayor not know about it", attributed to Croft in the CNN article.


''Sixth, there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that Palin knew anything at all about a policy which affected so few people (not a single case of a person being billed has shown up, and you know that the media would have reported if they found even a single case) ''

Yeah... and I'm pretty darn sure every revision I've ever put into the article ''explicitly stated there was no evidence she knew about it.'' '''So don't you think it's highly deceitful for you to suggest that I put something in the article saying there was evidence? And don't you think it's wrong of you to completely distort my point #6 above,''' which clearly states "at least one notable critic (a political opponent) has said on record that she probably knew", which is borne out by the quote above from Croft? Shall I reword it slightly? "At least one notable critic has stated ''his opinion'' that she probably knew" ? To me, it's clear that it's a fact about an opinion either way.


''Seventh an edtorial is only worth citing as an opinion, not as a fact per WP guidelines, ''

I never tried to cite it as anything other than an opinion. This issue goes straight to your fundamental misunderstanding about policy. '''Facts about opinions are still facts.''' So if you say in the article that it's a fact so-and-so has an opinion, that's being presented as a fact about an opinion.


''Eighth, if a spokesperson does not know a "negative" how is the spokesperson supposed to handle the question other than saying she does not know and so can not answer? ''

If the spokesperson didn't know, she could of course have said "I don't know the answer to that." '''The source doesn't say she answered the question by saying she didn't know... the source says the spokesperson didn't answer the question''' ...


''Ninth, this has been an editwar, and I would have hoped you had learned a lesson from being quite nearly blocked. ''

The edit war was initiated by Tom every time, from the times he deleted it over and over again while the rest of us tried to reach a compromise, to the time where he began deleting it over and over again long after we reached the compromise. I came no closer to being blocked than Threeafterthree/Tom, who after all is the one who has deleted the whole section 25 times, even continuing his deletions after we reached a compromise.

So, while your edit summary says "8 errors out of 8 -- a record!" it would appear more like it was <s>ZERO</s> ONE error out of eight (a pretty minor one on timing... Fannon was still a central opponent even if it was only after the law was passed), but <s>EIGHT</s> SEVEN separate distortions of my words by you, plus a frankly deceitful implication that *I've* been edit warring this issue all by myself. '''This is plain abuse. You make me waste time refuting nonsense in an effort to make it look like there is some basis for what you are saying.''' [[User:Factchecker atyourservice|Factchecker atyourservice]] ([[User talk:Factchecker atyourservice|talk]]) 22:46, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

== No evidence -equals- No notability ==

=== Scientists, UFOs, and 3 people who lie ===
*Scientists design an [[experiment]] in which three people are asked if they have seen UFOs. Their [[hypothesis]] is that if none of these people have seen UFOs, then UFOs do not exist. All three say they haven't. The scientists report these findings, saying, "We found no evidence of UFOs. No one that we talked to has seen UFOs".
The points:
*UFOs represents a degree of disbelief which one might expect facts to be received by someone who does not know and accept the [[scientific method]]. If you're thinking right now, of course UFOs don't exist, why would it matter, then you do not have the right attitude to the scientific method yet to be editing Wikipedia. Listen and learn. It matters because the data is wrong, the hypothesis is wrong, the conclusions are wrong. Your or my or the scientists' assumptions about the hypothesis do not matter; if someone proves through the scientific method that UFOs exist, then they do, as far as we know, until someone proves differently.
*Now if, on the other hand, you thought, but UFOs aren't likely to be seen, so it doesn't relate to the St Petersburg report, because the chance of them finding what they were seeking would be much higher, if it existed, well done. But the thing in question happened 10 years ago, pretty much within the walls of the City Council, or the Police Department, and the required evidence is of a pretty narrow focus for the purposes of verifiability, which would affect witnesses too (is anyone going to believe what I say, all I saw was X, and then it is my word against theirs anyway, and I don't need the hassle, and it isn't like anyone broke any laws or anything, so why bother, even). And even accepting that there is a great difference between the likelihood of UFOs and the likelihood of there being good evidence for the St Petersburg team, it is the difference between being hit by a meteorite and knowing that a meteorite was kept in the storage area of the local museum; if one didn't have access to the museum's inventory lists, one just wouldn't know, even if one ''worked'' at the museum.
*Furthermore, this is the only fault that UFOs as part of the hypothetical scenario has. For the sake of argument, let's change UFOs to a green 1997 Mercedes, any model you like. Looking for proof of the non-existence of a green '97 Mercedes doesn't change the above argument, because the hypothesis that Green Mercedes don't exist would still be possible, according to the scientific test for evidence. No good scientist would design an experiment to find out, there is too much good evidence that they do. But if they hypothesized that, then the scientific method, used properly, would always prove it if it was true, and show no evidence, or evidence to the contrary, if it was not.
*The [[survey sampling]] is not quantified. St Pete talked to 'people in Wasilla'. So, more than one. Other than that, we don't know.
*The survey sample is, one can only assume, seeing as the St Petersburg news team cannot reasonably be expected to have covered the entire [[Wa-Su Valley]], at best insufficient to account for variability or even error, and at worst laughable. No, I take that back. It ''is'' laughable, at ''best''.
*The hypothesis could never be borne out by the method of asking the people, even if the sample size was the entire planet. People [[lie]]. And as regards the thing in question, they wouldn't even have to. They don't even have to get out of town before the cops come to question them, because the St Petersburg press aren't cops. They don't have any significant clues to know who to ask, other than common sense, no one even has to answer them, and if they did answer, the great likelihood is that more bad things would happen to them than if they lied.
*Most importantly, even if the whole planet, not lying, testified, the hypothesis can still never be borne out. It is a negative. UFOs might not have come to this planet. They might be observing from somewhere in the [[Asteroid Belt]]. They could be too small to see. Doesn't matter, really. The point isn't the explanations of why, the point is that science always admits when it doesn't know. It never assumes. Scientific knowledge is tested very thoroughly and rigorously, and only if it never can be challenged by evidence does it even become a [[Theory]]. So, this information is rock solid, and yet it is called a Theory. That's because even that much evidence is still nothing to Science, it can be blown away tomorrow by new evidence. Scientists -never- assume. Apart from our bad scientists above. And you want to print them on Wikipedia? Not if I can help it. [[User:Anarchangel|Anarchangel]] ([[User talk:Anarchangel|talk]]) 22:59, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

:::::Effectively unanswered, two. [[User:Anarchangel|Anarchangel]] ([[User talk:Anarchangel|talk]]) 20:05, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

:Huh? Is anybody proposing adding a discussion of UFOs to this article? [[Special:Contributions/Will_Beback| ·:· ]][[User:Will Beback|Will Beback]] [[User talk:Will Beback|·:·]] 23:06, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
:Another joyfully irrelevant digression. [[User:Collect|Collect]] ([[User talk:Collect|talk]]) 23:08, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
::Another cocktail umbrella stuck at the base of a mountain of text,<s>verifying</s> that it's former owner points to as proof of having conquered the mountain. [[User:Anarchangel|Anarchangel]] ([[User talk:Anarchangel|talk]]) 23:20, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

:::The large above section is an illustration of what is known as the [[negative proof]] fallacy, apparently. Wish I had known that at the start, and saved myself some time. [[User:Anarchangel|Anarchangel]] ([[User talk:Anarchangel|talk]]) 02:59, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

:::Also known as '[[evidence of absence]]' as in the phrase ""absence of evidence is not evidence of absence". [[User:Anarchangel|Anarchangel]] ([[User talk:Anarchangel|talk]]) 03:02, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
:::::Clarification and additional points unanswered. Three. [[User:Anarchangel|Anarchangel]] ([[User talk:Anarchangel|talk]]) 20:05, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

:::There has never been consensus on this page. There has never been an attempt to try to start a consensus, other than Writegeist, Factchecker, Greekparadise, (among others) and my scrupulous addressing of issues that are brought up.<br>
That's the start. Actually addressing the issues. Time and time again the primary focus of our arguments are just flat out ignored. I can't recall a single time I made more than one point and had them all answered.<br>
This above is a perfect example. [[User:Anarchangel|Anarchangel]] ([[User talk:Anarchangel|talk]]) 13:50, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
:Eh? I suggest you look at the number of times I have proposed or accepted compromises, asked for comments, etc. Ditto '''many other editors whose names you elide here.''' Assertions that only your side wants consensus is absurd. [[User:Collect|Collect]] ([[User talk:Collect|talk]]) 14:00, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
::Collect. Please. Anarchangel took the trouble to include the words "among others" so that contributors who are closely associated in our minds with consensus — not to mention collaboration, courtesy, rationality, reasonableness, open-mindedness and endearingly idiosyncratic usage of ''français sans accents aigus'' — wouldn't feel left out. I assure you, whenever one of those attributes is implied or mentioned you spring instantly to mind. It's really not necessary for you to be named in every contribution. It would be outré, n'est-ce pas? Also and more importantly, the habit of dismissing other editors' contributions as "joyfully irrelevant", and without offering any explanation, tends to undermine the dismisser's efforts to project a persona that puts great emphasis on courtesy (not least to himself). Anarchangel effectively picks apart the St Petersburg report. Relevant, surely if not joyfully. — [[User:Writegeist|Writegeist]] ([[User talk:Writegeist|talk]]) 21:05, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
:::Some examples, Collect? Perhaps I missed something. [[User:Anarchangel|Anarchangel]] ([[User talk:Anarchangel|talk]]) 03:29, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

::::Unanswered, Four. [[User:Anarchangel|Anarchangel]] ([[User talk:Anarchangel|talk]]) 20:05, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

== Consensus ==

The conflict resolution section of Wiki is particularly badly organized; there is a flow chart of the order which processes in discussion should be followed, but nothing about how to conduct a discussion. Nevertheless, I think these three guidelines from [[WP:ETIQUETTE]] aka [[WP:EQ]] are so useful they should be on another page, in bold type:
*Work towards agreement.
*Do not ignore questions.
It says flat out, do not. Not, it is best not to, or it is good to respond to questions, or, responding to questions is part of the process.
*If another disagrees with your edit, provide good reasons why you think that it is appropriate.
In other words, respond to responses.
*Concede a point when you have no response to it, or admit when you disagree based on intuition or taste.<br>
And that doesn't mean, respond to some relatively unimportant aspect related to it, nor does it mean, respond with a new issue, it means, aid the process of definition of the consensus by defining the boundaries of your argument.<br>
Faced with these guidelines being ignored, go to arbitration. <br>
Additions? [[User:Anarchangel|Anarchangel]] ([[User talk:Anarchangel|talk]]) 13:50, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Effectively unanswered, five. [[User:Anarchangel|Anarchangel]] ([[User talk:Anarchangel|talk]]) 20:05, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

:I trust you will act by these rules. [[User:Collect|Collect]] ([[User talk:Collect|talk]]) 14:13, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

== Additions / for consideration ==

=== Fannon: "when possible" ===
Why, "when possible"? What's stopping him?<br>
"In the past weve(sic) charged the cost of exams to the victims insurance company when possible. I just dont(sic) want to see any more burden put on the taxpayer, Fannon said." (unsigned)

:Seems this is not aimed at improving this article (sigh). There is NO evidence that any great sums were spent on rapes as Wasilla had very few rapes (unless you think there was a huge downturn in 2000, the probability is under one rape per year, based on the official crime reports), By the way, using (sic) where the source is a transcript of some sort, is meaningless, '''People do not spell out words when they are speaking. ''' [[User:Collect|Collect]] ([[User talk:Collect|talk]]) 14:12, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

:::There is evidence, in the same article that quote came from. Fannon stated HB 270 would cost the city $4000-15,000. However, because the budget for rape kits was only $1000 that year, shared between kits and heavy equipment to clear the airport runways of snow,[http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jacob-alperinsheriff/sarah-palin-instituted-ra_b_125833.html budget html link] he was obviously either foolishly mistaken or lying. However, that's not even close to what I meant. If you recall, I was the one who got you to actually cite an assertion, the one time I remember seeing you do it. I've seen the FBI crime stat page, remember? I will fill Writegeist in if I get a break from having to explain myself, consensus building procedure, and why very little of what you do adheres to it. If, as seems likely, I won't get a break from that, you'll have to explain yourself to Writegeist. Hint: try using a cite, maybe? The point is one I made the first week after I came to this page, which is, that he meant he charged victims, but was excusing himself by (lamely) asserting that he -tried- to charge the insurance company. You asserted then and repeatedly that there is no proof of that, and usually you paradoxically follow that by saying that it ''must'' be that he meant he only charged insurance companies, where there is no proof of that either. What I am saying now is, that there ''is'' evidence of it. He's the Police Chief, if he wants to charge to insurance, he can. Why wouldn't he be able to? Can you think of a reason? Because I can. This is important for you to answer. Think of a plausible reason why he couldn't. If you can't, it will lend credence to my reason as not only being the only plausible reason, but the only conceivable reason.<br>
Here's a hint, and a proposal, which is after all the point. Remove 'insurance companies' from the article, it is an unfounded distinction. It still is, even if he billed them. The charge is to the victim, as I have said before. They pay for the insurance, it is their resource, they pay the deductible, and the charge still shows up on their statement. Receiving a bill as being a reminder of the rape was addressed in the Committee hearings on [http://www.legis.state.ak.us/basis/get_minutes.asp?chamb=B&date1=010181&date2=120180&session=21&Root=HB270 HB 270]. [[User:Anarchangel|Anarchangel]] ([[User talk:Anarchangel|talk]]) 13:10, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
Answer not on topic through misunderstanding or obtuseness or obfuscation, no count [[User:Anarchangel|Anarchangel]] ([[User talk:Anarchangel|talk]]) 20:05, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

:Huh? So far there is no evidence that any victim had to pay one cent, and you want to make it look like they were dunned for money? Making a POV bit MORE POV is unwise to say the least. [[User:Collect|Collect]] ([[User talk:Collect|talk]]) 13:34, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
:::::It is called reasoning, c. And my explanation is apparently quite safe as being the only conceivable (at least by c) reason. So, Fannon must have meant that he charged victims if they didn't have insurance, because there is no other reason for him to not charge the insurance companies. When he said, 'when possible', he was admitting that the rest of the time, when they had no insurance, he charged them instead. So we can get rid of the insurance, then? [[User:Anarchangel|Anarchangel]] ([[User talk:Anarchangel|talk]]) 17:20, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

:And from your minutes (which are, indeed, a "primary source" to WP) "MR. SMITH said he asked the Violent Crimes Compensation Board if they knew of anybody who had been billed directly. '''He has not been able to find a circumstance where the bill actually went to the victim. " ''' As claimed. [[User:Collect|Collect]] ([[User talk:Collect|talk]]) 19:29, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
You neglect to mention the woman from Juneau, or specify that you mean Wasilla. Smith was lying, imo. He didn't know one way or the other, he is a bureaucrat in the Safety Dept., and knows bigger all about police work. CNN found some people, though. CNN has people who say Wasilla PD charged, for that matter. And since it would seem likely that not all the people who were charged by the hospitals were sent to the hospitals first, then the PD was sending them there to be charged. [[User:Anarchangel|Anarchangel]] ([[User talk:Anarchangel|talk]]) 20:05, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

::You've repeatedly stated this claim that there were almost no rapes or that there was almost no cost. Obviously it's original research, but you've never even provided anything to substantiate it, so I'm not even sure it's original research, just speculation on your part. Fannon himself complained that if forced to pay for the investigations, the city would pick up a cost of $5000 to $14000 a year -- those sound like fairly significant sums to me. Since we're tossing out our personal opinions here, I'll just say that seems like a lot of money to bill to victims' health insurance companies for conducting police investigations. And since we're apparently going to debate the issue itself, instead of the coverage of it, is there some rationale explaining why we would expect a health insurance company to pay for police investigations? Do homeowner's insurance policies reimburse police departments for burglary investigations, or fire departments for arson investigations? [[User:Factchecker atyourservice|Factchecker atyourservice]] ([[User talk:Factchecker atyourservice|talk]]) 19:32, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
2 questions of 3 points unanswered. Admittedly, rhetorical ones, but the points were not addressed. [[User:Anarchangel|Anarchangel]] ([[User talk:Anarchangel|talk]]) 20:05, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
::::Official crime reports are not "original research" as you well know. The FACT is that Wasilla was a small town. Rapes from 2000 to 2003 averaged circa one per year. Before that, Wasilla was smaller (not OR) and the 1999 crime reports did not show rapes in Wasilla either. '''ALL OF WHICH has been cited here before.''' At that point, someone said all assaults should be counted, which was outre. (accents aigus are not needed per online usage, I can give more cites if you like for that, but I do not try to be precisous on such matters - is like people being on (sic) patrol). Fannon is not a reliable source when all the official reports appear to belie his claims. Physical exams in a hospiotal generally fall under "medical insurance" while investigations of burglaries do not fall under "homeowner's insurance." Comparing apples and oranges is not sensible. [[User:Collect|Collect]] ([[User talk:Collect|talk]]) 12:54, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
:::::Wikipedia allows you to cite bare facts and statistics from primary sources. However, '''any analysis you make''' of those facts and statistics '''is original research''', and thus it can't be included in the article, and it '''especially''' can't be used to refute analysis that has actually been published by a reliable source. If you feel a piece of published analysis is wrong, unfortunately you will need to get your views published before they can be reflected on Wikipedia. Policy is crystal, crystal clear on that. Regards. [[User:Factchecker atyourservice|Factchecker atyourservice]] ([[User talk:Factchecker atyourservice|talk]]) 20:29, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
You are confusing my mistaking the all sexual assaults category as a rape category, with demanding that all sexual assaults be included. [[User:Anarchangel|Anarchangel]] ([[User talk:Anarchangel|talk]]) 20:05, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
:::Would it be fair to include that Palin spokesperson Maria Cornella did not answer USA Today's questions [http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2008-09-10-rape-exams_N.htm] as to "when Palin learned of Wasilla's policy or whether she tried to change it" ? (I.e. instead of the inconclusive St P Times "investigation") Plus, if not proscribed by [[WP:UNDUE]], the subsequent USAT sentence: "The campaign cited the governor's record on domestic violence, including increasing funding for shelters." — [[User:Writegeist|Writegeist]] ([[User talk:Writegeist|talk]]) 01:21, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
::::Not answering something when one does not know the answer is of no importance at all. [[User:Collect|Collect]] ([[User talk:Collect|talk]]) 12:54, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
::::::You know that she didn't know the answer how, exactly? And it was important enough for, as you believe, someone to make a hoax about, wasn't it? [[User:Anarchangel|Anarchangel]] ([[User talk:Anarchangel|talk]]) 17:20, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

:::::::Unanswered, six.

:::::::::Collect, by saying Cornella "did not" answer I was offering you a neutral interpretation of the referenced text. But given your sniffy dismissal it's time to point out that in fact, according to USAT, she ''would not'' answer. I.e. refused to supply the requested information, rather than saying, for example, "I’ll try to find you some and I’ll bring ‘em to ya!" — [[User:Writegeist|Writegeist]] ([[User talk:Writegeist|talk]]) 19:10, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
::::::::::Since the spokesperson ''specifically addressed'' the issue by saying Palin didn't believe victims should have to pay for an evidence-gathering test, I think it's pretty relevant that the spokesperson also declined to answer questions about whether Palin actually knew about the policy or not. Just my opinion, though. [[User:Factchecker atyourservice|Factchecker atyourservice]] ([[User talk:Factchecker atyourservice|talk]]) 20:35, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
:::Incidentally although I don’t know the stats for rapes in Wasilla when in Saint Sarah's care, the same USAT article states: "In 2000, there were 497 rapes reported in Alaska, FBI statistics show. That's a rate of 79.3 per 100,000 residents, the highest in the nation." So one might think that Saint Sarah would have taken an interest in her city's responses to rape. — [[User:Writegeist|Writegeist]] ([[User talk:Writegeist|talk]]) 01:21, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
::::The stats for Wasilla for 2000 on and for 1999 have been posted here before. Amazingly enough, the largest number of rapes occurs in large cities. A town of 5,000 generally has a lower incidence of rape. Again -- all of the stats have been cited here before. [[User:Collect|Collect]] ([[User talk:Collect|talk]]) 12:54, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
::::TOTAL "sexual assaults" (including '''all''' sex crimes according to the WPD) averaged under 12 per year when Palin was Mayor, and are now under 10 per year average over five years. [ http://www.cityofwasilla.com/index.aspx?page=103] Since rapes do not make up a majority of "all associated sex crimes", the UCR figures seem accurate. For those who were upset that there were no separate Wasilla figures before 1993, Wasilla did not have a police department before then. Most of the WPD work is for motor vehicle accidents, DWI, larceny and shoplifting. Not really a criminal hot spot, to be sure. As this '''confirms''' the 1 or 2 rapes per year from the UCR, and covers the "missing years" of so much interest, I trust this lays the controversy to its final rest. [[User:Collect|Collect]] ([[User talk:Collect|talk]]) 15:37, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

:::::Hi, drawing your own conclusions from primary sources is original research. '''Only analysis that has already been published can go in Wikipedia.''' For example, if Fannon says the new law would cost $5000 to $14000 a year, and then you go look at city statistics and somehow come up with a conclusion that FANNON WAS WRONG, unfortunately your opinion cannot be reflected in any way on Wikipedia. That includes the following: ''your originally researched opinion cannot be used to contradict or disqualify published opinion that has appeared in reliable sources.''

:::::Again, you've repeatedly tried to claim that the cost would be negligible and that based on that, the whole thing is irrelevant, and based on that, we should suppress all the media accounts on this issue. This is OR on so many different levels -- using OR analysis as the foundation for further OR analysis which is then used as the foundation for claiming that ACTUAL, PUBLISHED ANALYSIS is false. Kind regards. [[User:Factchecker atyourservice|Factchecker atyourservice]] ([[User talk:Factchecker atyourservice|talk]]) 19:42, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

:::::::2 points unanswered. No admissions by Collect or Tom of being wrong as per WP:EQ anywhere on this page. The correct form is, address points logically, or concede the position, as noted above.
::::::::Simply un-possible. You will be met with silence whenever you successfully make a point that goes unrefuted.[[User:Factchecker atyourservice|Factchecker atyourservice]] ([[User talk:Factchecker atyourservice|talk]]) 20:40, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

::::::I was concerned, Collect, that there weren't FBI stats on the page you cited a couple of weeks ago, that had no figures for before <s>1999</s> 2000 (I was thinking 2000, but as usual I second-guessed myself) on them. I was the one using the Wasilla city stats, and as you quite rightly pointed out, they only show sexual assaults. I guess it goes to show how malleable your judgement is, depending on your perception of what your interest is. Both the FBI and the Wasilla stats were, at different times, information you relied upon for your arguments, and you have backed one against the other, and now backed that other. [[User:Anarchangel|Anarchangel]] ([[User talk:Anarchangel|talk]]) 03:35, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Nothing. Seven [[User:Anarchangel|Anarchangel]] ([[User talk:Anarchangel|talk]]) 20:05, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

(Begin excerpt from Archive 36)
::::::Average one rape per year (crime stats already cited). Cost per kit $500 on average (cited long ago). 1 times $500 = $500. Some years, zero. In no year prior to 2002 did they apparently see 2 rapes. Unless, of course, you can demonstrate that Wasilla has exceptionally expensive rape testing? [[User:Collect|Collect]] ([[User talk:Collect|talk]]) 14:37, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
:::::::Uniform Crime Reports and Index of Crime in Wasilla in the State of Alaska enforced by Wasilla Police from 1985 to 2005
Enforced by. That's prosecution. Bottom of the page: "National Criminal Victimization Survey, 1996 estimate that only 37% of rapes are reported to police". The remaining 2/3 would not have been charged for rape kits, but they might explain the discrepancy with the city reports. <br>
It fails to list '96, '97, '98, and '99.<br>
The city stats show no less than 10 sexual assaults (not rapes specifically, rapes included) for the years '96-2000. <ref name="WasCrime">[http://www.cityofwasilla.com/index.aspx?page=103 Wasilla city crime stats]</ref> [[User:Anarchangel|Anarchangel]] ([[User talk:Anarchangel|talk]]) 04:47, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
:So we have a '''maximum''' of 2 rapes per annum if all sexual assaults were rapes? Um -- rape kits are used for rapes, not general sexual assaults, so it looks like you concede a maximum of about 1 rape per year then? [[User:Collect|Collect]] ([[User talk:Collect|talk]]) 13:00, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
(outdent) I have removed this material as there is no consensus to include it. Again, maybe flesh this out in a sub article, as it is now, if at all. --[[User:Threeafterthree|Tom]] 13:31, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
(End excerpt from Archive 36) [[User:Anarchangel|Anarchangel]] ([[User talk:Anarchangel|talk]]) 05:28, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
The above revert of all Fannon material by 3<3 above is not just the second time. There is at least one other instance of this in the archives. [[User:Anarchangel|Anarchangel]] ([[User talk:Anarchangel|talk]]) 05:28, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
:Actually, as of yesterday, Tom has deleted the entire rape kit section at least 22 separate times, without much discussion other than "this is irrelevant" or "this goes in the Fannon bio". [[User:Factchecker atyourservice|Factchecker atyourservice]] ([[User talk:Factchecker atyourservice|talk]]) 20:39, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
::Nothing. Eight. [[User:Anarchangel|Anarchangel]] ([[User talk:Anarchangel|talk]]) 20:05, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Who knows where the 'crime stats already cited' are, although it is likely they are the FBI material that Collect cited at one point. Note my objection to the FBI stats; the title of the FBI page uses the word 'enforced' to describe the stats. It could just be law enforcement jargon for 'reported and occurring in their jurisdiction' or it could be even more inclusive, or it could be as I stated with what seems now to be unsuitable conviction, cases brought to trial only. I don't really care anymore, but, full disclosure and all that. It isn't part of my current assessment of this issue anymore, or rather, the higher the stats are, the weaker my current argument, which is, that Fannon seriously misspoke when he estimated $4,000 - $15,000, as the budget only allowed $1000. Therefore, he had been sending victims to the hospital, to be charged there, as is confirmed by the Committee Hearings, and understandably upset by the thought of having to come up with the money himself, as Palin had slashed his budget for it so severely. Remember, he had to pay for getting snow off of the airport runway and other "Contractual Services" out of that $1000. Palin jetting off to become Governor halfway through that fiscal year must have been a relief. [[User:Anarchangel|Anarchangel]] ([[User talk:Anarchangel|talk]]) 05:28, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
Nothing. Nine [[User:Anarchangel|Anarchangel]] ([[User talk:Anarchangel|talk]]) 20:05, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

=== Hospital vigil ===
Palin's pressure on the hospital to prohibit abortions is verifiable. It was claimed that the hospital's funding status allowed this, but that was discredited, as the hospital did not receive sufficient funding for them to fall under such restrictions. And before anyone start about how it wasn't given much press, the repeated characterization of these and other stories as smears has categorized exposure as being a reason -not- to include; this story was not used against the Rep. campaign [[User:Anarchangel|Anarchangel]] ([[User talk:Anarchangel|talk]]) 13:50, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
No request for cite, just an accusation of no cite. Apparently no memory of the prior discussion on this topic. No count. [[User:Anarchangel|Anarchangel]] ([[User talk:Anarchangel|talk]]) 20:05, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

:Cite? Absent a solid cite, this is not apparently intended to improve the article. And considering the smears actually pushed here, the added category of smear that "there is proof but I won't give it" is pretty far down the list. [[User:Collect|Collect]] ([[User talk:Collect|talk]]) 14:03, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
::Please explain. I truly have no idea what you just said. Other than the bit about not being intended to improve the article, which of course would require a mental power you can't possibly ever hope to possess. [[User:Anarchangel|Anarchangel]] ([[User talk:Anarchangel|talk]]) 17:20, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

::I really do not see how you could have forgotten about this. You can find the sourcing within the extensive conversations that you and I already had on this subject. For your convenience, I'll provide links to the discussions ("Involvement in 1997 abortion ban" [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sarah_Palin&oldid=251135602#Mayor_of_Wasilla_-_involvement_in_1997_abortion_ban here]) and ("Separation of church and state" [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sarah_Palin&oldid=245128307#Church_and_State here].) [[User:Factchecker atyourservice|Factchecker atyourservice]] ([[User talk:Factchecker atyourservice|talk]]) 19:31, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

:::I found NO cite for her exerting "pressure on the hospital." None. Congrats on making unsupported claims again. In your first cite, the closest I can find to a claim of "pressure" is your statement "Personally, if I have to drive 100 miles to the next town to get an abortion because a bunch of religious nuts started telling doctors what they could or couldn't do." But you gave no cite for Palin being one who was exerting that pressure, even if we posit that you consider her a "religious nut." In the second, you state "She used her political office to oust members of a hospital board that supported abortion rights and to influence that hospital's application of abortion laws during a controversial period where those very laws were under immediate challenge in the state's supreme court. She gave tainted donation money to a "charity" aimed at "sharing God's love" to dissuade young women from having abortions.. translation: religion-neutral taxpayer money used to pay a religious pro-lifer to try and convince a pregnant teenager to bring the pregnancy to term instead of having an abortion.. at what cost to the state and society " Again no cite for her forcing people off the board. And lots of anger at a person giving money to a religious charity. In no case do you give a single cite for your claims at all. Thank you most kindly -- but you still have given no cite for her doing any of what you claim about exerting pressure on anyone. Try checking FACTS someday. [[User:Collect|Collect]] ([[User talk:Collect|talk]]) 13:01, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
Cites below as 'requested'. We have the AP press people's assertion, with whatever evidence they have for that, that she put pressure on the hospital. The AP is a reliable source, as far as I know. [[User:Anarchangel|Anarchangel]] ([[User talk:Anarchangel|talk]]) 20:05, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

::::Hi, you asked for a cite for Palin's efforts to keep the hospital from performing abortions. I provided the cite and pointed out that you already knew about it. ''There's two '''facts''' for you.'' [[User:Factchecker atyourservice|Factchecker atyourservice]] ([[User talk:Factchecker atyourservice|talk]]) 19:38, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

<s>Do you have the original web addresses or other citation material, Factchecker? The second quote looked very solid on the matter of funding, but we need the actual pressure. I didn't see any links on the archive page. Anything, what the site was called, words from the article to search?</s> [[User:Anarchangel|Anarchangel]] ([[User talk:Anarchangel|talk]]) 17:20, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Found it. [http://www.foxnews.com/wires/2008Oct11/0,4670,PalinChurchandState,00.html Church and State] [[User:Anarchangel|Anarchangel]] ([[User talk:Anarchangel|talk]]) 18:03, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

:The cite does not even try to claim Palin ousted anyone, '''nor that she undertook anything more controversial than attending "faith based" events.''' " The state ensures all faith-based groups keep a strict separation between their work in the community and their prayer services to ensure recipients don't feel coerced, said Tara Horton, a special assistant to the Alaska Department of Health and Social Services." So on the claim made -- that Palin ousted hospital board members -- there is no cite. None. Zero. And as for her using religion as deterining her political positions -- isn't it odd that she did NOT back the church in reducing hours for bars? Claims which are not borne out by cites, fail. [[User:Collect|Collect]] ([[User talk:Collect|talk]]) 18:35, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Concede that the actions taken by the groups Palin belong to cannot be directly attributed to her by -that- document. However, it definitely shows a pattern of support for a pattern of action. I also have another [http://touchngo.com/sp/html/sp-4906.htm document], showing an Alaska Supreme Court decision relevant to the article, and a [http://www.reproductiverights.org/pr_99_1203alask.html document] that I believe relates to legislation relevant to that decision; I hope to find more.

::Hi, you asked for a cite for Palin's efforts to keep the hospital from performing abortions. I provided the cite and pointed out that you already knew about it. When I get around to it, I will put a reference to Palin's involvement in the 1997 abortion ban in this article, or put it in the Political Positions and add a summary reference here. For reference, the consensus from our earlier discussions was to '''include''' although I don't believe we discussed which article it should go in. Have a great day.[[User:Factchecker atyourservice|Factchecker atyourservice]] ([[User talk:Factchecker atyourservice|talk]]) 19:39, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I knew I should have separated those two entries. See above. I found a cite already. [http://www.foxnews.com/wires/2008Oct11/0,4670,PalinChurchandState,00.html Church and State]

:Oh? The Burking of Palin article? It says she joined an (unnamed) "grass roots faith-based movement" without any other basis for the claim. And it is the only article to make that claim. Also, in the 25 horrid religious events she attended, Burke includes -- FUNERALS!! Lastly, your claim that she ousted anyone on the hospital board, '''not even Burke backs you up.''' Sorry, your claim that she ousted anyone is busted. And your claim that '''she pressured the hospital''' is weird if she were only a member of an unnamed "movement" -- Burke does not claim she put pressure on the hospital as a person at all. And you have no consensus for "include" as you well know. [[User:Collect|Collect]] ([[User talk:Collect|talk]]) 11:55, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
::Burke? Pritchard and Sutton are the names of the AP journalists on the Church and State story. Please explain 'Burke'. I ask that you cease waving bits of info that you decline to explain, let alone cite, in front of us as though they meant something to us, when we are not privy to them. [[User:Anarchangel|Anarchangel]] ([[User talk:Anarchangel|talk]]) 20:05, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I think he is referring to the AP article by Garance Burke, also featuring contributions from Justin Pritchard in Anchorage and Anne Sutton in Juneau. ''That'' article clearly quotes Karen Lewis, the director of Alaska Right to Life, as saying that Palin joined the hospital board in 1997 in order to ensure the hospital enforced its abortion ban while the courts considered whether it was legal. The story was carried in multiple outlets, since it's from the AP. [http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/2008-10-11-4193591209_x.htm Here] is an example from USA Today.

Anyway, it's clearly relevant to her political positions, specifically her pro-life stance, so it ought to go in that sub-article and then have a brief summary reflected here. [[User:Factchecker atyourservice|Factchecker atyourservice]] ([[User talk:Factchecker atyourservice|talk]]) 20:22, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

== SNL / Tina Fey parody redux ==

So having been moved from the article, to the notes, to the discussion, where it was deemed "irrelevant" to Sarah Palin, Tina Fey's spoof is, as of 2008 November 22, back in the article on Palin. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarah_Palin#2008_vice-presidential_campaign and related notes.

Intimations that the spoof was "irrelevant" are archived at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Sarah_Palin/Archive_31#Tina_Fey, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Sarah_Palin/Archive_31#Irrelevant_to_mention_Tina_Fey.27s_SNL_parody.3F, and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Sarah_Palin/Archive_22#Saturday_Night_Live.2FFey_parody. The viewpoint that the spoof deserves mention in the Palin article has won out.

Claiming that Tina Fey's spoof is "irrelevant" to Sarah Palin was like claiming that John Wilkes Booth's bullet was irrelevant to Abraham Lincoln. [[User:Richard David Ramsey|Rammer]] ([[User talk:Richard David Ramsey|talk]]) 22:13, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

:Also, there was a lot of published commentary on the impact that Fey was having on Palin's election bid. See [http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/oct/08/tina-fey-soars-sarah-palin-struggles/] for an official RS, and there are many major media blogs I found that say similar things.[[User:Mattnad|Mattnad]] ([[User talk:Mattnad|talk]]) 10:40, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

::The spoof is not relevant to a BLP, but may be relevant in a campaign article. [[User:Collect|Collect]] ([[User talk:Collect|talk]]) 13:02, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

:::I agree that it's less relevant to BLP than other material, but Fey shaped some people's opinion of Palin (per the Washington Post article). So it might help if you elaborate on why you don't think it's relevant. Just saying "no" does not make a case. Futhermore, Palin personally appeared in a couple of SNL skits related to this. We certainly don't need to dwell on this so probably a passing mention of the impersonation is all we need, and then link to the meat of it is in the campaign article.[[User:Mattnad|Mattnad]] ([[User talk:Mattnad|talk]]) 20:23, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

::::I'm not taking a position on this material, but your request for detailed, on-topic, honest discussion will not be fulfilled. What you are about to experience is an onslaught of abuse and repeated misstatements of policy in an effort to wear you down until you get so tired of arguing the issue, and pointing out policies to deaf ears, that you simply give up. [[User:Factchecker atyourservice|Factchecker atyourservice]] ([[User talk:Factchecker atyourservice|talk]]) 21:18, 23 November 2008 (UTC)


:::::[[WP:AGF]]. Frankly your last comment is removable as it contributes absolutely nothing to discussion about improving the article at hand. [[User:Collect|Collect]] ([[User talk:Collect|talk]]) 22:43, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

The proof of the pudding is in the eating, and s/he who laughs last laughs best. The discussion of whether Tina Fey's spoof is "irrelevant" has itself been rendered "irrelevant" by the fact that it IS, as of 2008 November 23, in the article on Palin. That settled, 'tis time to return to the other earth-shaking controversy—whether seekers after "Palin" should be sent to a disambiguation page. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Palin#A_Modest_Proposal ''et passim''. [[User:Richard David Ramsey|Rammer]] ([[User talk:Richard David Ramsey|talk]]) 02:15, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

:I have to agree that this article should mention the Fey impersonations on SNL. First off, Palin herself commented on them. Second, she herself appeared on SNL. Third and probably most important, the caricatures had a strong effect on the public image of Palin as reflected by numerous discussions of the skits in the mainstream media. However, details of the skits belong in one of the SNL articles or the Fey article. Most important here are the effect of the skits to Palin's image and her reactions to them. The two sentences in there now are probably enough. [[Special:Contributions/Will_Beback| ·:· ]][[User:Will Beback|Will Beback]] [[User talk:Will Beback|·:·]] 02:07, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

== Palin Turkey Interview ==

This is interesting [http://www.upi.com/Odd_News/2008/11/21/Palin_spares_1_turkey_others_not_so_lucky/UPI-30011227291620/] Sarah was interviewed in front of a turkey slaughter and declined to move on. How should we include this in her biography?[[User:Mattnad|Mattnad]] ([[User talk:Mattnad|talk]]) 23:14, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

:Nope. [[User:Collect|Collect]] ([[User talk:Collect|talk]]) 23:40, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

:Why would we include that in the biography? "In later November, Palin was interviewed while turkeys were being slaughtered"? What conceivable purpose would that serve? Some years back, AG Ashcroft gave a press conference in front of a bare-breasted statue, and at the next event the statue was hidden by curtains. That event is included in his biography because it became a controversy when it was found that the curtains had cost $8,000. I just don't see how being interviewed at a turkey farm is notable. [[Special:Contributions/Will_Beback| ·:· ]][[User:Will Beback|Will Beback]] [[User talk:Will Beback|·:·]] 23:42, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

::I guess you are new to this talk page? Turkey farm and Palin? Definately include. Not! --[[User:Threeafterthree|Tom]] 00:24, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
::::No, he is not new. Neither of you are exactly regulars, despite your pose of being an old hand, 3>3. Or was your point, he should have known of the cabal? BTW, I will reinsert the foreleg bounty material whenever it is deleted, and if it shows signs of becoming an edit war, I will take it to arbitration. You should probably consider using edit summaries in the future; it shows good intent.[[User:Anarchangel|Anarchangel]] ([[User talk:Anarchangel|talk]]) 15:17, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

:::I did not delete your forelegs, but I will not back you in any editwar. I consider such a threat to be inimical to seeking consensus. The bounty, by the way, was not created by Palin. [[User:Collect|Collect]] ([[User talk:Collect|talk]]) 16:01, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
The bounty was Palin's. The cite still remains in a different section of Palin page. The agency you are referring to never offered a bounty as such, they allowed hunters to sell the pelts, information that was deleted by 3<3. [[User:Anarchangel|Anarchangel]] ([[User talk:Anarchangel|talk]]) 20:05, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
:::Amongst both hardcore meat advocates and hardcore vegetarians some variation may be found the opinion that it is hypocritical to eat meat if you don't like the sight of blood. Perhaps that's why she declined. However, I agree with Will, Mattnad, that it would be hard to include. I wouldn't waste my time on it, but if you want, work something, and we'll see. [[User:Anarchangel|Anarchangel]] ([[User talk:Anarchangel|talk]]) 15:17, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
::::Not sure it's worth the effort. If Tina Fey is considered too far afield by an editor, Palin's turkey [[concentration camp]] interview will probably cause great consternation. In retrospect, it's amusing, and probably one for a list of Palin gaffs somewhere else.[[User:Mattnad|Mattnad]] ([[User talk:Mattnad|talk]]) 17:44, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
:::::Under 'Unclear on the Concept'. [[User:Anarchangel|Anarchangel]] ([[User talk:Anarchangel|talk]]) 18:09, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

The turkey thing was a funny incident but definitely not important enough to be worthy of a biography.[[User:GreekParadise|GreekParadise]] ([[User talk:GreekParadise|talk]]) 02:39, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

"Gobble....Gobble" (Happy Turkey Day to all).......--[[User:Buster7|Buster7]] ([[User talk:Buster7|talk]]) 02:55, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm looking forward to eating some delicious animals this Thursday! I'm no fan of factory farming, though, so I'm morally at odds with my choice of diet. Cranberry sauce helps me forget the hypocrisy inherent in it all. [[User:Factchecker atyourservice|Factchecker atyourservice]] ([[User talk:Factchecker atyourservice|talk]]) 20:50, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

:Gravy equally shields the brutal reality. Enjoy Thanksgiving! [[User:Fcreid|Fcreid]] ([[User talk:Fcreid|talk]]) 22:27, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

::By a curious coincidence our neighbours' turkey was called Sarah. (Now she's called Dinner.) And goshdarnit, to compound the coïnkidink, the turkey Sarah would have made a hopeless VPOTUS. Shouldn't this highly notable coïnkidink go in the SP article? — [[User:Writegeist|Writegeist]] ([[User talk:Writegeist|talk]]) 01:20, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

== Palin image ==

If the image of Palin standing in front of the podium wearing a red jacket is not copyrighted, let's stick with that. The one of her wearing the turquoise fleece is not especially flattering or statesmanlike, even if it has higher resolution. The current one just looks better. Actually the ''best'' one is the "official" studio-quality photo. If that's copyrighted, couldn't someone write the gov's office and obtain permission? [[User:Factchecker atyourservice|Factchecker atyourservice]] ([[User talk:Factchecker atyourservice|talk]]) 23:43, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

:Concur. I never really liked the green GORE-TEX(?) jacket one either. [[User:Fcreid|Fcreid]] ([[User talk:Fcreid|talk]]) 23:46, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
:We have permission to use the original photo, and it ''does'' look better on her, despite the nitpicky complaints. Besides, as someone pointed out, the consensus was to switch back to the original. If we can obtain a professional-quality image that makes her look more "stateswoman-like," by all means, get permission and upload it. Otherwise, stop being, in your words, "silly" and let's just keep the professional-quality photo we got. [[User:SchutteGod|SchutteGod]] ([[User talk:SchutteGod|talk]]) 00:18, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

::''Besides, as someone pointed out, the consensus was to switch back to the original.''
::Actually I was kinda wrong or not so right at least as I just pointed out here [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Factchecker_atyourservice#Sarah_Palin_image]. So unless there will be a real good image available we have to find consensus about what to stick with for now. I prefer the 2nd image but the quality is very unpleasant compared to the original one. So here you have my preference but I'm basically fine with either of them. No real "vote" from my side.--[[User:The Magnificent Clean-keeper|The Magnificent Clean-keeper]] ([[User talk:The Magnificent Clean-keeper|talk]]) 00:29, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
:::Actually, [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Sarah_Palin/Archive_36#User:Avala_changing_the_picture the last time the infobox image was discussed], the "original" (winter-coat) picture was no longer even being considered as an option. The Carson City picture had won consensus prior to that. --[[User:Evb-wiki|Evb-wiki]] ([[User talk:Evb-wiki|talk]]) 00:54, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

== Section: Public image ==

I don't think this should be belabored, but the section "Public image" is mostly off target, particularly the third paragraph; the section doesn't display Palin's public image in the least. Essentially, the first paragraph notes people who found her unqualified (although, oddly, everyone listed is a conservative), and the second paragraph represents her conservative support as the image of a strong working woman comfortable and confident in both the public and private spheres. But again, we have a political figure speaking - which by its nature will be a step from the ''public''. The third paragraph is entirely policy disputes, just as much relevant to this section of the article as (actually, less than), say, the bridge to nowhere t-shirt image.

The fact is, a central part of Palin's image is as a buffoon, entirely out of her depth ([http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/us_elections/article4746999.ece such as this], which was written before even the Couric interview), a dolt unable to name a newspaper she reads, claiming that as governor she had responsibilities about Putin "rearing his head," even possibly not knowing that Africa was a continent and not a country. The Tina Fey and other parodies are central to this image - notably, by even parodying her by saying nearly the exact same words as Palin had said - and only mentioned in the campaign section of the article. The other side of this image is a pitbull with lipstick, one unjustly attacked and smeared by the liberal media, an strong honorable woman with a good public presence, one who revitalized the social conservative base and brought a boatload of energy to the campaign.

I'm not supporting either side - not at all. I just think that the current section on her image is entirely lacking, from both points of view; and, further, that for a person notable almost entirely for her vice-presidential nomination, that the pre-nomination extent of the article is more than twice the size of the the rest of the article is off-balanced. (And, in addition, but not very importantly, I think the "Personal life" section should be moved below the "Political positions" section. Or, conceivably, but probably not, up with her "Early life and background" section, to unite her non-political details.) [[User:Zafiroblue05|zafiroblue05]] | [[User talk:Zafiroblue05|Talk]] 06:35, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

:Fully half or more of the entire BLP is irrelevant in point of fact. Duye primarily to those who viewed a BLP as a political campaign tool. Were it up to me, it would become, of all things, a biography of a living person sans inanities. [[User:Collect|Collect]] ([[User talk:Collect|talk]]) 14:26, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
::Unless we climb in a time machine Collect and go back 12 months, little chance of that happening here. I love to use the history tool and compare versions of articles from a year or two back to their current state. Many articles are much improved and many have become quite contentious. I sort of compare Wikipedia to the Grateful Dead. ''They aren't the best at what they do, but they are the only ones who do what they do'' :) --[[User:Threeafterthree|Tom]] 14:44, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

:::Sounds like your complaints date back to the arrival of YoungTrigg and the subsequent polishing of this article as campaign PR. [[User:Factchecker atyourservice|Factchecker atyourservice]] ([[User talk:Factchecker atyourservice|talk]]) 18:18, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

::::Factchecker, yes, if Palin operatives or supporters added material that puffs the piece up, that is a problem and should be removed. Like wise, if Palin detractors want to add smear and muckracking, that to should be addressed and delt with in like turn. Anyways, --[[User:Threeafterthree|Tom]] 19:17, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

:::::Ok, I just sensed a bit of one-sidedness in your indignance. [[User:Factchecker atyourservice|Factchecker atyourservice]] ([[User talk:Factchecker atyourservice|talk]]) 19:34, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
(outdent) Maybe that is because the number of smear merchant muckracker editors to neutral editors has been running about 5-1 in here lately. Again, if you point out any puffery or unsourced material that you believe is questionable or unduely favorable to this bio, I would be happy to review and remove it if neccessary. --[[User:Threeafterthree|Tom]] 14:33, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Like I said; your indignance is quite one-sided.. and repeatedly deleting the rape kits paragraph is unduly favorable puffery. [[User:Factchecker atyourservice|Factchecker atyourservice]] ([[User talk:Factchecker atyourservice|talk]]) 17:44, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

== Palin disambiguation redux ==

Sarah Palin continues to be one of the most-googled topics in Wikipedia, and the article on her is surely the intended target of ≥90 percent of "Palin" searches. Isn't it time now to send seekers for "Palin" directly to the "Sarah Palin" article and, compensatingly, to head that article with a link to "Palin (disambiguation)" for wikers who are looking for "Michael Palin" or other Palins? For some background on this tempest, see

- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Palin (especially http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Palin#A_Modest_Proposal)

- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Palin/Archive_1

- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Sarah_Palin/Archive_1#Should_.27Palin.27_redirect_here_or_to_the_disambiguation_page.3F

- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Biden

- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Sarah_Palin/Archive_25#Redirect

- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Michael_Palin#Palin

[[User:Richard David Ramsey|Rammer]] ([[User talk:Richard David Ramsey|talk]]) 19:52, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

:Wait a while. We in the US are still not recovered from the billion dollar campaign season. [[User:Collect|Collect]] ([[User talk:Collect|talk]]) 21:53, 26 November 2008 (UTC)



== Concealed weapons ==

As I said in edit summary, the cited sources say zilch about permitting weapons in banks, bars, colleges. This is also synthesis, picking through primary sources. And, the cited "AS 11.71.900 Definitions" does not even mention SB177. We should just stick to the cited secondary sources regarding Stambaugh's lawsuit against Palin.[[User:Ferrylodge|Ferrylodge]] ([[User talk:Ferrylodge|talk]]) 23:26, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
:Yeah, I looked through the sources and found the same thing. [[User:Kelly|<span style="color:#060;font-family:Monotype Corsiva;cursor:help">'''Kelly'''</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Kelly|hi!]]</sup> 23:30, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
:Synthesis indeed. Also SB177 seems to actually specifically forbid carrying in financial institutions, i.e. banks. --[[User:Skew-t|skew-t]] ([[User talk:Skew-t|talk]]) 03:23, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
::[[WP:SYNTH]] is more complicated 'picking through primary sources', Ferrylodge. What you describe is cherry picking, which is completely separate from synth, has nothing whatsoever to do with my process, and would require of a conscientious editor who claimed it, a good deal of evidence, whereas you provide none at all. AS 11.71.900 is the law that SB177 modified, as the cite itself notes, and therefore, as a preexisting law, could not possibly mention SB177. Kelly was even more mistaken, claiming that the definitions did not mention schools. SB177 used the definition from the existing law, so the absence of said definition would have been a serious oversight by the lawmakers.

"The bill, SB 177, would have permitted [[concealed weapon]]s in banks, bars, colleges, and other public places.-[http://www.legis.state.ak.us/BASIS/get_bill_text.asp?hsid=SB0177A&session=19 Alaska Statute 11.71.900 as it was to be amended by SB 177]- -[http://www.touchngo.com/lglcntr/akstats/Statutes/Title11/Chapter71/Section900.htm AS 11.71.900 Definitions] Includes definition of 'school grounds' used by SB 177- Governor Tony Knowles' Senate Journal entry announcing his veto of SB 177 mentioned the opposition of, among other parties, the City of Wasilla.-[http://www.legis.state.ak.us/BASIS/get_jrn_page.asp?session=19&bill=SB177&jrn=4402&hse=S Alaska Senate Journal] Notes veto of SB 177-

"If the sources cited do not explicitly reach the same conclusion, or if the sources cited are not directly related to the article subject, then the editor is engaged in original research." -[[WP:SYNTH]] Since there is material that can be cited that does not come to conclusions, and paraphrasing is common, not all sources cited 'explicitly reach the same conclusion' as their use in wiki. This is not synth, this is the reason for the second part of the sentence. There are few things more directly related to a law than what it permits and what it bans.

Where I do agree with you is that SB 177 prohibited guns in schools. The section is about Stambaugh's reference to his objections to the law as a reason why he was fired, so I originally felt that only what he objected to should be stated. To be scrupulously inclusive, the facts that SB 177 allowed guns in colleges and bars and public places should be added to by the fact that it also prohibited guns in primary and secondary schools. [[User:Anarchangel|Anarchangel]] ([[User talk:Anarchangel|talk]]) 03:57, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

:I have consistently objected to turning the section on the Stambaugh firing into a Second Amendment debate, Anarchangel. It's not the place, and it wasn't even cited during Stambaugh's own filing of the lawsuit. (The lawsuit was based on gender discrimination.) The significance of this gun nonsense (and particularly anything to do with schools) is a ''Campaign 2008'' afterthought. Its significance in his firing pales in comparison to many other obvious factors--notably, his public insubordination and disrespect for Palin. As before, I suggest we curtail that into a simple statement of "policy differences" (as there were others). Based on the contemporaneous reliable sources, I'd have more choice words to describe Stambaugh, but I've already been cautioned once here to be conservative in my language! [[User:Fcreid|Fcreid]] ([[User talk:Fcreid|talk]]) 10:37, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

== editprotected ==

{{Editprotected}}

Please make the protection notice at the top of the page less conspicuous. Thanks. ♪[[User:Tempodivalse|<span style="color:#8B0000">Tempo</span>]][[Special:Contributions/Tempodivalse|<span style="color:Green">Di</span>]][[User Talk:Tempodivalse|<span style="color:Blue">Valse</span>]]♪ 03:29, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

: Why? Is it embarassing? [[User:William M. Connolley|William M. Connolley]] ([[User talk:William M. Connolley|talk]]) 09:19, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

::It's an eyesore. It defaces the article and could possibly <s>confuse/</s>distract readers. Could it be at least made smaller?♪[[User:Tempodivalse|<span style="color:#8B0000">Tempo</span>]][[Special:Contributions/Tempodivalse|<span style="color:Green">Di</span>]][[User Talk:Tempodivalse|<span style="color:Blue">Valse</span>]]♪ 14:20, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

:::Just wondering, in what way could it possibly confuse a reader? [[User:A new name 2008|A new name 2008]] ([[User talk:A new name 2008|talk]]) 16:07, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

== Protection ==
"This protection is not an endorsement of the current version." Well, I guess the Emperor isn't not wearing any clothes, because their arse is covered. That would be the Royal 'their'. [[User:Anarchangel|Anarchangel]] ([[User talk:Anarchangel|talk]]) 02:07, 27 November 2008 (UTC)<br>
3 minutes, it took Helpful, to make (edit)and revert(edit) two typos ''and'' decide that Sarah Palin was a disaster area of excessive edit-warring. <br>[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ARequests_for_page_protection&diff=254329529&oldid=254321410 Requests for page protection] <br>[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sarah_Palin&diff=254323665&oldid=254322484 last edit and protection].[[User:Anarchangel|Anarchangel]] ([[User talk:Anarchangel|talk]]) 02:14, 27 November 2008 (UTC)<br>
How ironic that an indirect analogy between the preservation of the deletion of material and denying the nakedness of the Emperor should be then covered up by deleting it. You don't see criticism of decisions made regarding the article as contributing to it, Halfshadow, but that isn't really news to me. I have seen many people say that criticism is not constructive, and I doubt that I shall be stopping any time soon. [[User:Anarchangel|Anarchangel]] ([[User talk:Anarchangel|talk]]) 03:57, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Please restore [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sarah_Palin&diff=254315315&oldid=251755978 material that existed in the article for 12 days], and was reverted at the last minute. Is this not the intended outcome in extremis of [[WP:3RR]]? That the original remain? Should we ask less of a full page protection? I think not. [[User:Anarchangel|Anarchangel]] ([[User talk:Anarchangel|talk]]) 03:57, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
:Sounds like they protected the wrong version. See [[WP:WRONG]]. [[User:Dman727|Dman727]] ([[User talk:Dman727|talk]]) 05:14, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
:: Request denied. Protection is *not* to get your favourite version there. It is to make the edit warriors wake up and realise they need to talk sense [[User:William M. Connolley|William M. Connolley]] ([[User talk:William M. Connolley|talk]]) 09:18, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
:::::Edit protection got the edit warriors their favorite version up there. It got the contributors whose version had stood for weeks, their version deleted. My favorite version is entirely irrelevant to the subject of the good of the article, and I would ask you to assume good faith. Please restore. [[User:Anarchangel|Anarchangel]] ([[User talk:Anarchangel|talk]]) 15:27, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
:::::::More of the pot calling the kettle black? --[[User:Threeafterthree|Tom]] 15:35, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
:::Yeah. Good luck with that. Seriously. --[[User:Evb-wiki|Evb-wiki]] ([[User talk:Evb-wiki|talk]]) 14:34, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
[outdent] Please see [[WP:SUMMARY]]. Where [[Charles Fannon]] is mentioned in this article, it links to [[Mayoralty of Sarah Palin#Police matters]]. The "rape kit" stuff is covered there in more than enough detail. It doesn't need to be repeated here. Not only is it really not relevant to Palin's biography, it carries [[WP:UNDUE|undue weight]] here. --[[User:Evb-wiki|Evb-wiki]] ([[User talk:Evb-wiki|talk]]) 14:48, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
:Agreed. --[[User:Threeafterthree|Tom]] 15:22, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
:::::Subjective judgement of weight without evidence. The story was covered extensively, we have been through all this before. I will be counting the number of times I have to repeat that from now on. [[User:Anarchangel|Anarchangel]] ([[User talk:Anarchangel|talk]]) 15:32, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
::::::Yes, and it's covered extensively at [[Mayoralty of Sarah Palin#Police matters]]. Again, please see [[WP:SUMMARY]]. --[[User:Evb-wiki|Evb-wiki]] ([[User talk:Evb-wiki|talk]]) 15:34, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
:::::::Per [[WP:BLP]] "Content should be sourced to reliable sources and should be about the subject of the article specifically. Beware of claims that rely on guilt by association." The disputed paragraph can be abstracted as "Palin appointed Fannon and Fannon did X." There is no assertion that Palin did X, approved X or even knew about X at the time. I don't think that tenuous a connection meets the quoted standard no matter how widely reported. Note that under BLP the material must stay out of the article until there is an acceptable justification for its inclusion.--[[User:ArnoldReinhold|agr]] ([[User talk:ArnoldReinhold|talk]]) 16:06, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

::::::::Also from BLP: "In the case of significant public figures, there will be a multitude of reliable, third-party published sources to take material from, and ''Wikipedia biographies should simply document what these sources say''. '''If an allegation or incident is notable, relevant, and well-documented by reliable published sources, it belongs in the article — even if it's negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it.''' If it is not documented by reliable third-party sources, leave it out."

::::::::Like it or not, there are numerous sources and some notable critics on record connecting the issue to Palin, either by saying that she probably knew about the policy, or that she should have known. As noted in the sources, she signed the budget that cut funding paying for the rape kits, and that she reviewed these budget items line by line. This is on top of the fact that she fired the police chief who had the city pay for rape kits, and replaced him with a police chief who wanted to bill it to victims' insurance. Palin herself had the chance to deny knowledge of, or involvement in this incident, but did not. As noted in one source, her spokesperson would not answer whether she had known about the policy or not. Hiding from an issue rather than addressing it doesn't make it irrelevant.

::::::::Notice, no one is trying to say Palin "hates rape victims" or anything of the sort. My original edit on this subject gave prominent position to the Palin spokesperson's observation that this was primarily a budget dispute. But the whole idea that this could have somehow "flown under her radar", despite the fact that Wasilla is a ''tiny'' town, and despite the fact that this was a ''statewide debate that was featured in the local newspapers'', is not only highly unlikely, but no one representing the governor has even suggested that she didn't know about it, even when specifically prompted to do so and put in a position where denying knowledge of it would have put the issue to rest.

::::::::The issue of [[WP:Weight]] only comes into play if we represent the critics' allegations or opinions as somehow being widely held or definitive. If the opinions are clearly attributed to the people who made them, and the presentation is brief, then there is no undue weight being imparted. And [[WP:Summary]], meanwhile, would require that we summarize here any details from the sub articles. [[User:Factchecker atyourservice|Factchecker atyourservice]] ([[User talk:Factchecker atyourservice|talk]]) 17:35, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

:::::::::We should not include in the biography of a candidate every allegation published in a major newspaper during a hotly contested national political campaign. The disputed paragraph in its recent form does not even make an allegation, sourced or otherwise, that connects Palin with this matter. It does not meet the specificity test quoted above. --[[User:ArnoldReinhold|agr]] ([[User talk:ArnoldReinhold|talk]]) 18:53, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

::::::::::Exclusion of the allegation was just a concession made as part of the compromise according to which some editors dropped their objections against inclusion. It has always been my opinion that the allegation was central to the issue and its relevance to Palin. Anyway, the rape kit controversy is not just any allegation; it was featured rather prominently. [[User:Factchecker atyourservice|Factchecker atyourservice]] ([[User talk:Factchecker atyourservice|talk]]) 19:00, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

==Creationist?==
I'm sure I read somewhere that she is a creationist, but I can't seem to find any links to back this up (and thus add to the 'Creationists' category). Can anyone clear this up?[[User:The flying pasty|The flying pasty]] ([[User talk:The flying pasty|talk]]) 15:58, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Revision as of 19:43, 27 November 2008

{

Giant Airhead!!!

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sarah_Palin&oldid=254473642"