Talk:Sarah Palin

This page is intended ONLY for discussion relevant to the improvement of the article. Please do not comment on other editors on this page.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
Adding your text to an older thread of discussion may be more appropriate than starting a new one

Semi protect the talk page IMO

N/T —Preceding unsigned comment added by Factchecker atyourservice (talk • contribs) 11:18, November 27, 2008

Post-election information

Just curious about how we should handle this article going forward, post-election...looking at the discussion above, the Campaign '08 rhetoric seems to be going full swing. However, we've got some new notable information happening since the election, and I'm wondering how we should structure this article as a result. Some of the information undoubtedly belongs in the "Governorship" section and/or subarticle (like the rollout of her comprehensive energy plan for Alaska), but other things are not directly related to her governorship...for instance, Saxby Chambliss credited her as a significant factor in his Senate runoff victory[1], Human Events named her Conservative of the Year[2], and she's been invited to speak at the Conservative Political Action Conference[3]. Assuming the info is notable enough for inclusion, where should we place it? Kelly ^hi! 16:01, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

We could create a "Campaign '08 Rhetoric" section and put it there...  ;) Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 17:21, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Kelly, if you can incorporate the Conservative of the Year and CPAC appearance in the article here, I suggest this is the appropriate place. The Chambliss content IMO is more appropriat3ely kept on his article. KillerChihuahua^?!? 18:29, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Sounds logical...I guess what I was asking was whether we should create a new section, or maybe restructure the political career sections somewhat. If nobody has any ideas I'll try to be bold and think of something. Thanks. Kelly ^hi! 18:31, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

I suggest trying to fit it in the Political careers section first; if it seems to be getting unwieldy perhaps we can examine splitting the pre- and post- vp candidate career, or trimming the section. KillerChihuahua^?!? 03:44, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Consensus Three guidelines from WP:ETIQUETTE aka WP:EQ are particularly useful:

• Work towards agreement.
• Do not ignore questions.

'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'. Do Not.

• 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.

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. Faced with these guidelines being ignored, go to arbitration. This is intended to focus attention on these three rules, as key to beginning a consensus-building process. It is not intended to focus attention away from other rules such as WP:NPA or WP:AGF.
Additions?

Disputed Talk page addition

Can we please try to use this page for discussing how to improve the article rather than just linking to garbage (see above)? Also the single purpose trolls still seem to be out in force here. Oh well, --Tom 18:01, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Garbage? I'm actually trying to have a serious discussion about how we integrate new developments into the existing structure. Kelly ^hi! 18:07, 24 December 2008 (UTC)Sorry for the misunderstanding, the information referred to was, indeed, garbage. :) Kelly ^hi! 18:13, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

I was referring to the "material" that was deleted, not towards you. It was the run of the mill muckracking, see history if interested.--Tom 18:09, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

I will continue to remove the POV pushing essay crap which is being posted here as vandalism, and will start blocking vandals if you do not cease. Puppy has spoken; puppy is in no mood to tolerate this crap. KillerChihuahua^?!? 18:17, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

The appropriate course of action would be for editors to discuss the essay, briefly or not, and why it is/is not appropriate as a source. There's absolutely no need or basis for simply deleting the comments instead of answering them and just saying the source is not appropriate or the material therein is not relevant/notable/etc. This was not vandalism by any stretch of the imagination. I'm sure you're within your authority, Killer, but you're wrong. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 18:30, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

I've had my disagreements with KC in the past, but she's correct here. I'd expect her to slap me down just as hard if I included Ann Coulter essays about Palin on this page, and she'd be right to do so. Kelly ^hi! 18:37, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Apples and oranges. Jonathan Raban is not a rabid extremist. He does not make his living by iconoclasm, provocation and controversialism. He's just a serious English author who lives part-time in America, and whose views are taken seriously across all political spectra. (Except yours and KillerChihuahua's, apparently.) — Writegeist (talk) 03:00, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

If the source or subject of the article is truly inappropriate, then it should be a simple matter to dispose of that here. That's what the talk page is for, after all. Simply deleting the comments and refusing to even discuss the merits (or lack thereof) does a serious disservice. I mean, I can see how some people would dismiss Huffington Post out of hand, but the London Review of Books? Bit of a stretch if you ask me. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 18:50, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

I'd object strongly to blocking anyone just for bringing potential sources to this page for discussion. By no means would that fall under the definition of vandalism. All that's necessary is to say that it isn't a suitable source. Blocking would be overkill, and it would be especially inappropriate if done by admins who have edited this article. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:42, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Whether you agree with the comments in question or not, they seemed to be posted as a good faith attempt to improve the article, as opposed to the obvious attempts at vandalism.Jimmuldrow (talk) 00:28, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. I have raised the sysop KillerChihuahua's behaviour here at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents# User:KillerChihuahuah. Unacceptable behaviour by this admin at Sarah Palin talk., where, unfortunately, so far, responders apparently prefer to swap red herrings (some kind of American seasonal tradition?) than address the overriding issue of her behaviour. — Writegeist (talk) 00:41, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Meh - people are pretty much laughing at your complaint. Why don't you try approaching things from a neutral, encyclopedic, perspective? Kelly ^hi! 02:17, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Meh - why don't you? — Writegeist (talk) 02:33, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Agree with Kelly on this one. Don't assume that just because they're not agreeing with you, they're not listening. Dayewalker (talk) 02:20, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

I've learned not to assume anything at WP. Hearing is not the same as listening. — Writegeist (talk) 02:33, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

So true. Also, "writing a bunch of stuff" is not the same as "proving." Dayewalker (talk) 02:35, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Retraction: My self-reverted assertion about Dayewalker's edit was mistaken. Since this is the only thing I have ever said about Dayewalker, it might just be simpler to say, everything I have said about Dayewalker up 'til now is wrong. I misread the diff. This isn't the first time that I have been seen to be deleting people's edits, but I assure you it was not with my knowledge, and since I can't attribute it to my mistake, I am thinking what I thought the last time, that there is some technical glitch or bug in the Edit Conflict or some such software. This time isn't as clear as the last, where separate edits many paragraphs apart were individually deleted, which would have been completely impossible to do by accidentally backspacing over highlighted text or some such. I got in the habit of always checking Show Changes immediately preceding Saving for a while, but it never happened again, so I slacked on it. Guess it is time to start again. Anyways, it wasn't intentional. Happy whatever you call your personal holiday; mine is Yule, on account of its astronomical verifiability :o). Anarchangel (talk) 00:48, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

So true. And ignoring the facts staring you in the face in a "bunch of stuff" is not the same as having the bottle to stand up and be counted. However, the SP Talk page is no place for this discussion. Thank you. Happy Christmas. — Writegeist (talk) 02:52, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

You are right. About Christmas I mean, on the other stuff, you're being rightfully ignored. Merry Christmas and Happy Holidays to all. Dayewalker (talk) 02:54, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Nice. — Writegeist (talk) 03:01, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) What was posted here was in no way a suggestion for improving the article. It was links, with very long excerpts, to opinion pieces. If someone has a suggestion for article improvement, we all welcome it. Make it concise, please, and make it clear. Do not edit war when a long post with no reference to the article is removed from an article talk page; this is appropriate and I will continue to do it if it happens again. I play no favorites (Well ok, Bishonen and Giano and a few other editors will virtually always get my support but that's because they write too damn well to disagree with) and have little patience for WP:TE. I also keep no grudges, so shall we move along now? I for one am past done with this; it is a closed subject, or should be. Enough bits have been wasted on it. KillerChihuahua^?!? 03:49, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

That's plain nonsense. The comment included two links, one long-ish excerpt, and suggested that either or both articles could be cited in the article. It was not vandalism by any stretch of the imagination, nor were the comments disruptive or made in bad faith, nor was the linked material irrelevant or offensive. Deleting the comments was inappropriate and unnecessary, and my restoration of the comments was not "edit-warring".. rather, it was preventing talk page abuse. The appropriate place and manner in which to address the comments was to simply rebut them in talk and state that the articles would or would not be fit as a source.

You made an error of judgment and your decision was backed up only by your ability to hand out punishment. I'd suggest you simply acknowledge the mistake rather than exaggerating the circumstances under which you made the decision, issuing renewed threats, and wrongly accusing editors of vandalism. You also might want to consider acting either as an administrator or an editor when dealing with a controversial article, but not both. Otherwise it may leave people with the distinct impression that you are using your authority to bully other editors.Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 17:29, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. KillerChihuahua^?!? 21:31, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

• This thread is not helping us improve the article. Let's just drop it, OK? The spirit of the season favors forgiveness and good will. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:56, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Proposed changes for consideration

All of the below changes up to 'Public image section' were originally added to the main article in my edit of 22nd Dec 08 at 1:25 although earlier versions of the kit material and the Critters material were added on 19 Dec 08 at 21:07 and 21:09 respectively. As the kit material summary says, the Palin quote itself had been in the article before that, in and out since September, as I recall, but I haven't checked lately.

An early proponent, and as far back as I have checked, the originator of the idea of including some reference to the questions that Palin was asked was [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sarah_Palin&diff=249463399&oldid=249462526 Factcheckeratyourservice on 3 Nov.

Editor Coemgenus was the originator of the Stambaugh-mentioned-SB177 material on Nov 3, although not in this form, and he removed the Palin quote and replaced it with the negative proof fallacy mentioned below. One step forward, one step back. He also removed the Obama-Meyers material, which had remained for quite a long time, right up until election day.
I have changed my position on the Stambaugh-mentioned-SB177 issue considerably. From what I can tell, everyone including myself were reading the bill wrongly; making this text a perfect case of not only why primary sources are considered a problem, but also why they are not banned outright. They are extremely easy to misuse (our error) and yet they can be, as in this case, the most reliable source of information if they are used properly. To clarify the error: The underlined text is deleted from AS whatever it was, and the CAPITAL LETTERS text is what is added. SB177 turns out to be a much different bill than anyone was representing it as, including Stambaugh and Knowles. Whether that was due to perfidy or lack of knowledge, I wonder if we'll ever know. In Stambaugh's case, I doubt very much if it was perfidy; he had every opportunity to misunderstand the bill, as he didn't even have access to the information we have, and he was just a small town cop. It may well have been misrepresented during the debate. Now I can bet you think that that means we should automatically discard this sentence. I contend that is not so, although this does complicate the issue so much that we may have to. SB177 wasn't a gun bill that would have allowed guns in schools. There's that. But neither was it legislation that prohibited guns in schools; my initial edit was to replace a sentence saying that, with the sentence saying it allowed guns in colleges, which was also wrong, as they had always been allowed in colleges, before SB177, and weren't allowed by SB177, and for all I know, are still allowed. Stambaugh believed SB177 to be gun control legislation that would have allowed guns in schools, he reported as such in every interview that brought the subject up, and for all we know, Palin believed it to be so, but we can't rely on that in any way. Stambaugh is reported in various news sources, and this is reflected, although not confirmed, in the Alaska Legislature's own record of Tony Knowles' veto, as having objected to Knowles about SB177, leading to Knowles' veto. Palin had been supported by the NRA since early in her career, and you better believe they knew about the veto, and possibly who influenced Knowles to veto. We can't prove that yet.
So I dunno. Include or not, revamp, whatever, we'll see. I thought I ought to give the whole story though.

First term / Sexual assault evidence gathering kits section

Propose adding this to the First term section, and preferably make separate subheadings within that section per Mayoralty of Sarah Palin Palin appointed<ref name="WasMuniCode">{{cite web|title=Wasilla municipal code|url=http://www.codepublishing.com/AK/Wasilla/Wasilla02/Wasilla0216.html|accessdate=22 Dec 08}}sections 2.16.020 & 2.16.040</ref> [[Mayoralty of Sarah Palin#Police matters|Charles Fannon]] to replace Irl Stambaugh as police chief. Fannon's department charged the cost of sexual assault evidence collection kits to the victims;<ref name="Fquote">{{cite web|url=http://www.frontiersman.com/articles/2000/05/23/news.txt |title=Knowles signs sexual assault bill |publisher=Frontiersman |first=Jo C. |last=Goode |date=May 23, 2000 |accessdate=2008-11-09}}""In the past we've charged the cost of exams to the victims insurance company when possible. I just don't want to see any more burden put on the taxpayer", Fannon said. According to Fannon, the new law will cost the Wasilla Police Department approximately $5,000 to $14,000 a year to collect evidence for sexual assault cases." -Mat-Su Valley Frontiersman</ref><ref name="CNNCharge">{{cite news|title=Palin's town charged women for rape exams|url=http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/09/21/palin.rape.exams/index.html|publisher=[[CNN]]|date=22 Sep 08|accessdate=22 Dec 08}}includes link to video: "Multiple sources tell CNN...her police department charged some rape victims the cost of the forensic exam..."</ref> he opposed a 2001 state law requiring police departments to pay for the kits.<ref name="Fquote"/> Palin, who was responsible for creating and overseeing the budget,<ref name="WasMuniCode"/> cut funds to the "Contractual Services" line item for the kits;<ref name="Budget"/> Stambaugh said he had included the line item to cover the kits when he was police chief under Stein.<ref name="CNNCharge"/><ref name="Budget">{{cite news|title=New Evidence: Palin Had Direct Role In Charging Rape Victims For Exams|url=http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jacob-alperinsheriff/sarah-palin-instituted-ra_b_125833.html|author=Jacob Alperin-Sheriff|publisher=Huffington Post|date=September 11, 2008 08:30 PM (EST)|accessdate=Dec 22 08}} The exam kits, and other "Contractual Services", including removing snow from the nearby airport runway, were allocated an average of $2,600 for the years 1998-2001, compared with $3000 for the previous four years. Includes link to budget PDF; line item-page 42.</ref><blockquote>Frontiersman: 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>Sarah Palin: "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> - Mat-Su Valley Frontiersman, September 30, 2008<ref>{{cite web|url=http://frontiersman.com/articles/2008/09/30/breaking_news/doc48e1e1294d418713321438.txt|title=FRONTIERSMAN EXCLUSIVE: Palin responds to questions|publisher|Mat-Su Valley Frontiersman|date=Tuesday, September 30, 2008 12:39 AM AKDT|access=3rd Dec, 08}}</ref></blockquote> The above text to replace the current version below: Palin appointed<ref name="WasMuniCode"/> [[Mayoralty of Sarah Palin#Police matters|Charles Fannon]] to replace Stambaugh as police chief. Fannon later publicly opposed new legislation preventing police departments from billing adult rape victims or their health insurance for evidence collection kits,<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.frontiersman.com/articles/2000/05/23/news.txt |title=Knowles signs sexual assault bill |publisher=Frontiersman |first=Jo C. |last=Goode |date=May 23, 2000 |accessdate=2008-11-09}}</ref> stating that the Wasilla police had sometimes billed victims' health insurance in the past. An investigation by the St. Petersburg Times found no evidence that Palin had explicitly supported or opposed this policy. Note that the current version ends with a sentence that, as it is not cited, is currently unverifiable. Note also that it in fact can never be verified, even by a citation, as it is a near-perfect example of a negative proof fallacy.

My edit changed the material above in a way such that the below comments on my previous edit may seem out of place. This was caused by me editing during the time that the below comments were added, resulting in an edit conflict, and was not my intention. See my previous edit diff for the version they were responding to. Anarchangel (talk) 09:37, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

I am not sure that Anarchangel understands the negative proof fallacy. It is when the lack of evidence that something is true is used to definitively state that that thing is true. That is not the case here. We are using a citation from a reliable source which says only that they didn't find evidence that Palin knew about something. The article doesn't state that Palin didn't know about something. The difference is huge.LedRush (talk) 13:43, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Interesting. When did Wikipedia become Wikitrial (and with such thin circumstantial evidence to boot?) Anyway, on the substance, are we to understand that "Contractual Services" specifically identifies these evidence collection kits as a budget line item as you imply here? In other words, you're stating Palin signed a budget that explicitly identified these rape kits, right? Next, your phrasing of Stambaugh's statement implies he created this "Contractual Services" budgetary line item specifically for these kits, and only these kits. Is that correct? Next, one of your cited references states that Fannon felt the new law would cost the city between $5K-14K annually. Is that the exact delta in amounts between when Wasilla stopped billing to the insurers? By the way, the item will never say "billed... to the rape victims", as that is simply a lie. No victim was ever billed. Finally, I notice you missed the reliably-sourced information from the Saint Petersburg Times, an award-winning investigative print and online publication, which investigated all available records and found no evidence Palin either supported or opposed this practice. That will be in the final iteration of this item, I assure you. I can help you dig up the reference if you like. Fcreid (talk) 06:01, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Help me dig it up? Were you not among those who have added that information to the article? You certainly take every conceivable opportunity to sing SPT's praises. They won an award? Which, and when? Best editorial? Anarchangel (talk) 09:37, 25 December 2008 (UTC) No, you're supposed to go look in the article and follow the link, where you can see the budget PDF, that has Palin's signature on it, that was first mentioned in this discussion in September, and the line item within it, on the page of the PDF I specified, that is mentioned in the citation note that I added to the main article page in the edit that you deleted, with your own eyes, actually. Please rephrase 'exact delta in amounts between when Wasilla stopped billing to the insurers?' so that I can respond to that. Anarchangel (talk) 09:37, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I really suggest you derive a new method of working on your comments, as it makes it very hard to participate in a discussion when you add large numbers of hard breaks at various places in text. Cut/paste works fine and usually foils edit conflicts. If not, you can always cut/paste again. Now, back to substance... the budget says nothing about rape kits or evidence collection, so there is no way we're going to mislead our readers into thinking that Palin knew "Contractual Services" included them. More importantly, you're citing as noteworthy a delta of a mere $400 from prior years. Again, there is no way we will mislead our readers by implying Palin could or should have had insight into the reason for a $400 budget submission difference. Most importantly, how many rape kits did $400 buy, particularly given that Fannon said the law would cost him $5-14K/year? There is absolutely no case for inclusion of this level of detail in the article except to provide WP:UNDUE weight on this, and my recommendation is that your WP:OR not be included, particularly given that more experienced investigative teams have done far more extensive research and refute your fundamental premise. Fcreid (talk) 11:45, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

More to the point, how much "Medical testing, road maintenance, equipment rental, airport snow removal" would $2600 buy? (Page H-5 of the PDF linked to in the HP article) Fannon was only budgeted $1000 that year.(link to budget PDF in article) Therefore it can't have cost $4000-15,000. Fannon was lying about how much it would cost. End of story. Against facts like that, your subjective assertions without supporting facts, like weight, go -poof- and disappear. How many rape kits did $400 buy? None. They charged for them all. Come on, admit it, you were really asking for that one. The real answer is complicated by the fact that rape exam procedures varied case by case; the Frontiersman estimate of $300-1200 is the commonly used one so far. There wasn't enough in the FY 2000 budget for a single rape kit at the upper levels of that estimate, let alone the other FY Contractual Services of "medical testing, road maintenance, equipment rental, airport snow removal". 1.Please show how cutting the budgeted amount for the line item by 13% ($400 of $3000) is "WP:UNDUE weight". 2.Please show "WP:OR". 3.Please show how 'investigative teams...refute (my) fundamental premise" 4.Show where and for what SPT won an award. 5.Explain 'delta'. Until you have gone to the site and look at the PDF and seen Palin's signature on the 2000 budget, and the "Contractual Services: Costs for medical blood tests for intoxicated drivers and medical exam / evidence collection for sexual assaults" line item you really aren't in a good position to criticize my research. Anarchangel (talk) 14:02, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Fannon was lying on the impact of the law, eh? Are you suggesting we discredit Fannon's testimony in all of this or just the pieces that don't make your case? Perhaps he never actually billed insurers at all, and he was simply hypothesizing on the matter in the Frontiersman article (in which Fannon's self-admission remains the only contemporaneous evidence the practice ever occurred in Wasilla). Do you have any evidence that insurers were ever actually billed by the Wasilla Hospital for these kits? By the way, the items in the "Contractual Services" seem to be the most variable possible, and a $400 difference could be easily explained as the Wasilla PD opting not to have their landscaping done in the spring. This is now getting into the realm of ludicrous. Fcreid (talk) 14:15, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Oh, if you're really interested (and we know you're not), SPT's "Politifact" award is described here. Also, I'm glad you're at least admitting it's my research above which, it would seem, is the very definition of WP:OR, no? Fcreid (talk) 14:30, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

One lie is evidence that a person is capable of others, but not proof that others occurred. I take the evidence as it comes. I was responding to your usage of Fannon's quote about the 4-15K; the fact that he was lying about it costing that much means that amount shouldn't be used in our equations. I concede that the variety within the Contractual Services line item is a problem in obtaining verifiable evidence of exactly what happened, but that has never been the objective of my proposals; I don't think there is a verifiability problem with us including cites to the line item itself or even mentions of it; my proposed text contains no assertions about its contents other than verifiable ones.
No, only evidence victims were charged from the Alaska State Legislature Finance Committee hearings and possibly other Committees.
Ok, that's it "(and we know you're not)". That's the third time, at least. I absolve myself of the responsibility of ever answering another of your insinuations. I am always interested in a response. I don't agree with the The National Press Foundation, of course; they found the graphics 'exciting', whereas I find the Truth-o-meter to editorialise and oversimplify issues. But thank you for providing the cite.
So does that misconception, or misrepresentation, or whatever, explain why you won't go find the cite, I wonder, you're afraid that if you do it's original research? Surely not.
Please show numbers 1-5 above, or retract. Anarchangel (talk) 04:21, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

I have no idea what you're talking about with "show numbers" or whatever, Anarchangel, but this thing has been an WP:OR project for you since the start. You're apparently convinced Palin was involved in Fannon's ad hoc practice (which we now must suspect may never have actually occurred). My suggestion is you imagine Palin didn't know and see how readily the facts support that position, rather than cherry-picking facts and other contrived bits and arranging them in an order that leads only to your desired conclusion. Palin is not on trial here. It's nonsensical to introduce a WP:OR budget submission reflecting a $400 difference from (already variable) prior budget submissions as evidence she knew. That difference isn't enough to buy a single rape kit, and it's certainly not an amount that would red-flag within an operating budget for a town of 5,000 people! I really need a break from this, because it gets quite frustrating chasing all this circuitous logic, but I will say the more you outline your case, the weaker it appears. And I doubt anyone here is going to accept your WP:OR as more sound and authoritative than an award-winning investigative publication. (By the way, if you really don't like SPT, the same fact--that no evidence indicates Palin supported the practice--is reported in multiple other sources... yours to find if you really wanted your research project to be objective!) Fcreid (talk) 10:09, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Show = prove your previous statements, as I requested earlier, in the now-numbered sentences above. It is a time-saving device.

You repeatedly ignore my arguments; I chose numbers as a way of bringing your attention to them without having to repeatedly write out the questions. Please show numbers 1-5 above.
As for the rest of your statement:
'OR' three times, 'Cherry-picked', 'contrived', 'arranging them in an order that leads to desired conclusion', 'nonsensical', 'circuitous logic' as it is not backed by an example, or it would be worthy of consideration, 'if you really wanted'...nah, I won't address this sort of stuff anymore. Especially since arguments 1-5 are still awaiting consideration for concession or rebuttal. Anarchangel (talk) 11:00, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Re: lie. Although really, why should I be having to respond to that? Still, I am used to it by now. The CNN cite, and in fact the text above includes the citation note with this quote verbatim, "Multiple sources tell CNN...her police department charged some rape victims the cost of the forensic exam...". The Fannon quote also specifically states that he charged victims. Your contention that it makes a difference that he billed insurance companies has long been noted, as has my contention, and that of others, that it does not.

Wait, so 7 out of 8 editors who responded to a proposed change above agreed that the compromise language or no language at all was appropriate, and now we have to discuss the same thing again? This is the very definition of tendentious editing.LedRush (talk) 06:11, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

7 out of 8?
Oh, you bet your rare and strange hind end we're starting again. That is the very definition of an administrative review. - Anarchangel Bizarre statement even to me, in 'hindsight' Anarchangel (talk) 04:21, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Branchflower section

Have not been happy with this material since it was first introduced; just never had the time to deal with it. The article is referencing earlier statements by Palin's lawyers, not its own conclusions, when it mentions partisan smear job. It never considered that argument worthy of anything other than a mention, until this passage, which is in my opinion, an attempt to seem unbiased simply by including a mention. This is hamhanded, but neither should we misrepresent the material by giving this peripheral nod to an argument not addressed in the article the weight of inclusion in ours.

Suggest removing the material inside { }
"{Whether or not the Branchflower report -- which was launched by a bipartisan committee -- was a partisan smear job is debatable. What is not debatable is that }the report clearly states that she violated the State Ethics Act. Palin has reasonable grounds for arguing that the report cleared her of 'legal wrongdoing,' since she did have the authority to fire Monegan. But it is the reverse of the truth to claim that she was cleared of "any hint of any kind of unethical activity."
The ref for the material is Washington Post

The entire section regarding the firings should be severely shortened because it currently allows undue weight on this issue, which seems not to be worth 10% of Palin's life. In shortening the section to about 1/3 its current length, let's work to make sure we are all happy with the language.LedRush (talk) 13:35, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Agree in the direction you appear to be going with this, toward a reassessment of the section and its length etc, due to the issue being older, but I will never agree with an assertion of undue weight without evidence.

...And I never agreed to unilateral removal of words, let alone key sentences. Proposals here. I'm all ears. Anarchangel (talk) 07:06, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

While I would argue nothing I deleted was key, I understand of course that you didn't agree to the unilateral removal of anything. I was bold and tried to make uncontroversial edits to a controversial subject. I am trying to achieve some of everyone's goals and get a better tone of discourse on this article.LedRush (talk) 15:13, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Speaking of proposals, if you look at the discussion above, my insertion of the lawyer's quote, way back in September, was so that the part of the Dobbs quote at the bottom that I proposed deleting, could be removed; the first part of Dobbs' sentence only referred to the lawyer's statement; its inclusion makes equivocal what was intended to be a statement on her post-proceeding claim of victory. The author wasn't writing his sentence so that he could be quoted unequivocally, he was writing so that the article flowed nicely. What had been done is take his statement dismissing the previous material: the lawyer's statement, and move on, to Palin's quote, in one sentence. It's misleading to include the first part of the sentence. As I said, I had included the 'smear' quote in order that both sides be given a chance to speak. Her lawyer already said it; Dobb's opinion was focused in another direction. Here's the cite, you can see for yourselves. Anarchangel (talk) 07:06, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

I am not quite sure I understand your proposal. Could you present it more specifically (or with more illustration)? I don't see the quote your talking about.LedRush (talk) 15:13, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Palin's "silly claim about the Branchflower report"

Palin's public response to the Branchflower report was to claim that it had cleared her of any wrongdoing, prompting criticism alleging that it had not in fact cleared her of wrongdoing. This assertion by Palin, and the corresponding criticism, has now been removed by another editor on the grounds that Palin's claim was "silly".

While I agree that the claim itself was silly, it was also politically significant, as was the report itself, and the criticism made in response to Palin's assertion. I cannot think of a legitimate reason to remove this from the article. The actual effect of deleting this was to eliminate a significant criticism that was made. I'm not firing any shots in an edit war, but this deletion does not seem appropriate to me. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 01:14, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

I restored it but slashed the commentary.Ferrylodge (talk) 01:27, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

I thought that the entire coverage of the incident was too great as a percentage of the article and tried to trim it down while not affecting the balance of the article. My deletion took out Palin's claim, the reply, and the reply to the reply...basically 2 claims pro-Palin and one anti-Palin. I thought the balance was a good one seeing as none of it really adds anything we didn't already say in the article.LedRush (talk) 03:55, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Also, you shouldn't use quotes unless they are accurate.LedRush (talk) 03:56, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

I hope maybe it's okay now: much shorter, with emphasis on facts rather than commentary. What we have is accurate ("Palin said that she was 'very very pleased to be cleared of any legal wrongdoing, any hint of any kind of unethical activity there'") whereas it might be inaccurate if we said something like "Palin was 'cleared of any legal wrongdoing, any hint of any kind of unethical activity,' as she put it."Ferrylodge (talk) 04:28, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

You seem by the sweeping nature of your edits to have missed the ongoing discussion regarding the Branchflower section. The material should be restored to its former state before continuing the discussion. I don't suggest you do this, Ferrylodge, as you are currently at 5 nonconsecutive edits. Your WP:3RR warning to other editors was ill considered. Anarchangel (talk) 06:15, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Anarchangel...I tried to do some modest trimming without affecting the previous balance...and quite honestly I thought I veered closer to what I thought some critics of Palin would prefer. On the whole, what did you think of the edits?LedRush (talk) 06:21, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Although I appreciate the gesture, and not intending to take advantage of your generous speech to make a snappy comeback, it really isn't about pleasing one side or another. I really am here for the balanced article. There may be another Palin quote that may be relevant to her position during the investigation, but her quote after it is relevant to her supporters and critics alike. Ferrylodge was quite right to restore it, although I object to his deletion of the comments on the quote. The rest of what I have to say is pertinent to the above discussion. Anarchangel (talk) 07:06, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

I thought a balanced article must keep this material shorter than it is. My edits tried to do this while keeping the current balance of the article, something I thought was done quite successfully. Oh well...LedRush (talk) 15:10, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Political positions section

This material was previously proposed for addition by myself in the talk section Critters above. After a couple of days with only positive feedback, I made the error of inserting it without checking discussion, in which comments against inclusion had been posted. It was deleted by Kelly. Should it be restored, as is my hope, there is a redundancy to be removed from what I believe to be an inappropriate place: Public image section.

She brought suit to overturn the listing of [[polar bear]]s under the federal [[Endangered Species Act]],<ref>{{Citation | title = Alaska: Suit Filed Over Polar Bears | newspaper = New York Times| pages = A19| year = 2008| date = August 6, 2008| url = http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/06/us/06brfs-SUITFILEDOVE_BRF.html?_r=1}}</ref> and also opposed strengthening protections for [[Beluga (whale)|beluga whales]] in Alaska’s [[Cook Inlet]].<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1837868,00.html|title=Palin on the Environment: Far Right|date=2008-09-01|accessdate=2008-09-04|publisher=Time|author=Bryan Walsh}}</ref>

Collect, in section Critters above, has expressed the opinion that this does not include a press release issued by Palin's staff. I noted, somewhat curtly, that he should add this information rather than deleting the material. This is my opinion still, although of course to be exact, it would be more proper to introduce it here beforehand as the material is currently under discussion, just as it would have been proper for Kelly to discuss the deletion of the above material here both before deleting it or once it had been deleted, or after my reply to Collect's comment about its deletion. Kelly has not discussed the material that Kelly deleted in any way, other than the ironic summary: "(remove the critter stuff per discussion on talk page)" I restored it along with other material, and LedRush, who had actually supported its inclusion in Critters section, reverted its a second time. Must have been the other material, I guess, but for every time I have been told that I shouldn't do large edits, I have also thought that editors ought to do a little more preserving of valuable material and not just reverting everything in a large edit, this being a prime example.

I am inclined to agree with Anarchangel on this one, both on the content and on my actions. I reverted both because I didn't see that I was reverting this. I should be more careful...I apologize.LedRush (talk) 13:37, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

(...where's that irony switch...turns it Off) Can't thank you enough for this concession! Congrats, you are the first ever on this page to make one! Pretty sure. Anyways, honorable unequivocal apology, thank you very much. (irony back On) Anarchangel (talk) 03:00, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm not convinced this issue has the weight to be included in this biography...however, it would be inappropriate to include without presenting both sides of the issue. A technical quibble is that Palin herself did not bring suit, the State of Alaska did. There's a difference - and the stated reason for the positions is that the State of Alaska feels they can do a better job protecting these species than the federal government can. Kelly ^hi! 15:37, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

If included, I agree that some "official" explanation of the bill should be included. The whole thing problem shouldn't be more than a sentence, and while I think it's borderline to include in the article, it does explain her political position on an issue.LedRush (talk) 17:02, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. The issue has sufficient weight to be included in the biography. Both sides of the argument should be included, but the topic is relevant to the biography. Manticore55 (talk) 05:17, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Public image section

In addition to the redundancy mentioned above that would be created by the edit above, there is a redundancy already in this material. Should the above edit be accepted, the current material : |title=Is Palin foe of big oil or a new Cheney? |publisher=Reuters|date= September 12, 2008}}</ref> In turn, others have said that she is a "friend of Big Oil" due to her advocacy of oil exploitation, including her push to open the [[Arctic National Wildlife Refuge]] to drilling and an effort to de-list the [[polar bear]] as an [[endangered species]], since this could hinder oil searching.<ref name="politifact1"/><ref name="reuters1"/> would be replaced by |title=Is Palin foe of big oil or a new Cheney? |publisher=Reuters|date= September 12, 2008}}</ref> In turn, others have said that she is a "friend of Big Oil" due to her advocacy of oil exploitation.<ref name="foenews"/><ref name="Factbox">{{cite web|title=FACTBOX: Palin, Alaska and oil|url=http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSN1150444220080912?virtualBrandChannel=10112||publisher=Reuters|date= September 12, 2008|accessdate=22 Dec 08}}</ref> Note that this adds a new ref, which is a Factbox linked to by the Reuters page cited already. This new ref, from the Reuters site of impeccable quality, replaces what is in my opinion an editorial posing as a top 10 countdown posing as a news story from the extremely low rent St. Petersburg Times, which news outlet has in turns provided me with much grief due to its inclusion here and much amusement at seeing its opaque attempts to sway public opinion with cherry picked rehashes of other news outlets' news stories given an editorial spin. Anarchangel (talk) 09:37, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Anarchangel, no one cares how you feel about SPT, and it will remain among the reliable sources used here no matter how much you malign it. No one cares about your motivations for editing (while methinks thou dost protest too much), but your agenda here is obvious and unwelcome to me and I suspect many other editors. I suggest you take a good, long read of WP:NPOV particularly as it discusses neutrality and the use of sources. If you've found another reliable source for some of the material in the article (which Huffington Post--a self-described liberal blog--will never be) that presents material of a differing but verifiable perspective, you're welcome to propose revisions that mention that viewpoint without placing WP:UNDUE weight on that particular viewpoint (and certainly without removing any opposing viewpoints from equally reliable sources). Your present methodology appears to be a wholesale attempt to transform this article into some political hit-job by removing the neutrality that was gained during several months of prior discussion. We get that you despise Palin... write a book or something if you want a forum for that, but let's try to keep the encyclopedic value of WP intact. Happy holidays. Fcreid (talk) 12:23, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Happy Holidays.Ferrylodge (talk) 22:58, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Negative proof fallacy

I have been aware of both negative proof and the impossibility of proving the non-existence of God just as logical realities that must be, long before I looked logical fallacies up.
From the page, which admittedly I left a red link to, by including fallacy in the link. This logical fallacy is so far as I know unique in not being titled on its page with the complete name :

"Negative proof, the fallacy of appealing to lack of proof of the negative, is a logical fallacy of the following form:

"X is true because there is no proof that X is false."

It is asserted that a proposition is true, only because it has not been proven false. The negative proof fallacy often occurs in the debate of the existence of supernatural phenomena, in the following form:

"A supernatural force must exist, because there is no proof that it does not exist".

However, the fallacy can also occur when the predicate of a subject is denied:

"Religious people haven't been able to produce conclusive evidence to support the existence of a "God", therefore such a being must not exist."

"I am not sure that Anarchangel understands the negative proof fallacy. It is when the lack of evidence that something is true is used to definitively state that that thing is true. That is not the case here. We are using a citation from a reliable source which says only that they didn't find evidence that Palin knew about something. The article doesn't state that Palin didn't know about something. The difference is huge." - LedRush

Now, consider the statement, currently in the article uncited, "An investigation by the St. Petersburg Times found no evidence that Palin had explicitly supported or opposed this policy."

X=Palin never "explicitly supported or opposed this policy" . It is true because "An investigation by the St. Petersburg Times found no evidence that Palin had explicitly supported or opposed this policy."

A perfect match to "X is true because there is no proof that X is false."

This statement is a negative proof fallacy.

But there is evidence, although it has its own baggage, that Sarah Palin had nothing to do with Fannon's misdeeds, namely her statement of it; I have been supporting its inclusion in the article.("And the answer is direct from Palin. I support its inclusion most strongly,"-3 Dec. Because that statement is itself suspect, however, I have insisted that the question that prompted the answer be included, the question being notable as it is notable that anyone notable would evade a question put to them regarding a notable issue. Notable. Sorry, I ordered one too many 'Notables' and didn't have anywhere else to put it. Merry X. Anarchangel (talk) 03:00, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

As stated above, I don't think that the response does anything to further any evidence of anything. The interpretation of the response is original research, and the inclusion of the questions and answers is undue weight. Anarchangel (and a couple of others) and I (and several other editors have been over this ad nauseum and I doubt we'll ever agree on either point.

But the real reason I responded was because I don't think the negative proof fallacy is relevant here. Anarchangel incorrectly states (or implies?) that the current language in the article says that "PAlin never 'explicitly supported or opposed this policy'". That is not true. The article merely states that the SPT didn't find evidence that she explicitly supported or opposed this policy. This is a statement about what the SPT found (or didn't find) and allows the reader come to any conlusion about this that they want (i.e., that there is no evidence or that there is evidence that has just not yet been uncovered by the SPT).LedRush (talk) 04:16, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Tell me, Led, how'd you do in math? Specifically, algebra? Anarchangel (talk) 09:47, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

This is just stupid. The wording I used comes directly from the article. The formula is a 100% transposition. You're wasting my time. Anarchangel (talk) 09:52, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

What is stupid is that you've clearly made a mistake and you can't bring yourself to admit it. The wording you use comes from the article, but you've deliberately changed the meaning from a statement about what the SPT found (which is what the article says) to a statement Wikipedia is supposedly making about a fact (which helps your argument but just doesn't exist).LedRush (talk) 14:41, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Rape kit "material"

I have changed Fannon's "involvement" to Fannon later did not agree with new legislation per the citation given. Are there more citations about his "involement" in this "matter" so it can be clarified?. Thank you, --Tom 21:28, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

See below for details, accuracy should be your concern, with or without quotiness. How's your imaginary Fannon page coming along?Jimmuldrow (talk) 22:10, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Fannon is quoted in:

• The Frontiersman Fannon interview
• Frontiersman Palin interview
• CNN
• Huffington Post
• McClatchy
• USA Today
• SPT

 Anarchangel (talk) 06:04, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

"does not agree with..."

This is yet again about Fannon. While The Frontiersman article did include the phrase "does not agree with the new legislation," a direct quote should be optional, and honestly describing the article should be required. The phrase "does not agree with" by itself is (perhaps intentionally) misleading, in that it portrays public opposition before the Alaska state government and the local newspaper as though it were a private, personal opinion. More important than a direct quote, could the article clarify that Fannon's disagreement was in the form of very public opposition to an Alaska state law. The quote is ok on that condition, but accuracy is more important than quotiness.

I personally think it would combine conciseness and accuracy (even though at the expense of being less quoty) to say that Fannon "publicly opposed" the law, not as "POV pushing" but because this is true.

Inaccurate and misleading statements fit the definition of "POV pushing" more than lack of direct quotes, as does Tom's imaginary Fannon page and imaginary (up to now) love of discussion and consensus.Jimmuldrow (talk) 22:07, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not about the "truth", but about the facts. Your repeated lies about me still don't impress me.Do you have a citation to support your "truth" that Fannon "publicly opposed" the law??? If so, just post it here and let the communitty decide.--Tom 21:47, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

How about the same article we've been discussing for months?

"Wasilla Police Chief Charlie Fannon does not agree with the new legislation"Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 01:24, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

How about it?? Just look at the title of the article!! No where in that article does it say "Fannon publicly opposed" anything, but that is the verbage you want??. What a joke this is. --Tom 22:20, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Rape kit stuff

I've been involved with this article since before Palin was nominated for VP...the whole rape kit meme is prime FRINGE material, and that includes the section at Mayoralty of Sarah Palin#HB 270. Nobody has ever come up with a case that Palin supported billing rape victims, and it just doesn't pass the common sense test anyway. Palin is a feminist, a woman, and the mother of three daughters - all of that aside, even the most misogynistic politician wouldn't support billing rape victims, it would be political suicide. And although many argue that Palin wasn't ready for a national campaign, everyone who knows her seems to agree that she has killer political instincts. All of this rape kit nonsense seems to originate in an attempt to drive a wedge between Palin and feminists for the 2008 national campaign - that's fine as a campaign talking point, but it doesn't belong in the encyclopedia. Propose removing all of the rape kit stuff from both here and Mayoralty of Sarah Palin. An argument could be made for keeping it in John McCain presidential campaign, 2008, since it was a talking point of Obama supporters, but it should be removed from the Palin biographical articles. Kelly ^hi! 22:23, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure Palin is not pro-rape. However, the person who makes hiring, firing and budget decisions, whether the CEO at Merrill Lynch or the mayor of Wasilla, is responsible for decisions made. Also, the facts that are mentioned should not be deliberately misleading. Also, while it should not be said or implied that Palin was pro-rape, there is a great deal of evidence that her hiring and firing decisions were based more on loyalty than competance.Jimmuldrow (talk) 22:27, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Jimmuldrow, you don't think Palin is pro rape?? For real?? Are you sure?? Don't you think that way down deep she is really for rape?? Please come clean. --Tom 21:54, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

If there's evidence to support that, then so be it. But how does that point apply to the rape kit meme? Kelly ^hi! 22:33, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

At the very least, Palin's many hiring and firing decisions were based on something other than getting a police chief more competent than Fannon, and there was no oversight or any attempt to monitor Fannon's competence. If anyone wants to add referenced material indicating that Palin was not pro-rape, I would support that. However, she was probably an imperfect administrator, and not ready for prime time. I agree with the least bad interpretation of these events, which is still far from perfection. The other possibilities would make Palin appear to be much worse.Jimmuldrow (talk) 22:38, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

anyone wants to add referenced material indicating that Palin was not pro-rape is anybody falling for this idiotic garbage??--Tom 22:29, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

So the point of the rape kit stuff is to express Palin incompetence, rather than Palin misogyny? I guess my base question would be "How many rape victims were billed for rape kits, due to either Palin's policy or incompetence?" If the answer is "none", then this issue is completely in the realm of the theoretical and doesn't belong in Palin's biography. Kelly ^hi! 22:43, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

The whole rape kit meme might have been a political tactic to tarnish Palin's name for all we know. The issue was a critical point in the election and as demonstrated by the article, it is covered extensively by numerous references. This whole point is vaguely reminiscent of the Willie Horton issue in the Dukakis campaign. Dukakis did not personally release Horton as part of the weekend furlough program (although he did play a key role in keeping the program in place), yet he drew tons of flak from opponents for Horton's murderous rampage during his release. I don't think Dukakis would have released a murderer who he didn't think was rehabilitated, if the decision had been in his hands. However, what I think does not matter. What matters is the extent of the controversy's notability. This is the only thing which I think should be taken into account here. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 22:55, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Willie Horton is a great analogy...like I said, it may be notable as a campaign meme but not as a bio entry. Kelly ^hi! 23:06, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm not going to compare the level of notability of Willie Horton vs. rape kits, but the furlough controversy is included in its own section in Michael Dukakis. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 23:37, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

But the the "rape kit issue" was not nearly as known as the Horton issue, which was the centerpiece of an unfair attack on Dukakis. I never heard rape kit billings discussed as a serious criticism of Palin. I have argued, with the agreement even of pro-Obama liberals who edit the Obama page, that even mentioning this puts undue weight on a fringe theory.LedRush (talk) 23:50, 26 December 2008 (UTC

Discussion degenerates into squabbling and mudslinging here, mainly finger pointing, accusations, and dare-like challenges to escalate.

(Continued from above) The only reason the current language remains is as a compromise with some editors who wished to explode this article into a full sized witch hunt.LedRush (talk) 23:50, 26 December 2008 (UTC) I enjoy seeing how there is no good faith assumed for anybody who argues that this is a significant and relevant issue whose media coverage ought to be reflected per Wikipedia policy. We are all just a bunch of evil trolls, right? Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 01:05, 27 December 2008 (UTC) (outdent) "evil trolls"? Don't know about evil, but troll definately fits. --Tom 21:56, 27 December 2008 (UTC) Still continuing in the tradition of on-topic, substantive discussion and diligently avoiding the ad hominem stuff, I see. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 00:59, 28 December 2008 (UTC) I assume good faith for people for all their arguments until they prove otherwise. You are an example of this: you've proven that you don't have good faith by personally insulting my intelligence and saying my contributions are stupid...both within the last 24 hours.LedRush (talk) 02:31, 27 December 2008 (UTC) Ok, so am I allowed to stop assuming good faith for the half-dozen editors who have shown this same behavior to me? (You're one of them). I think not... AGF means AGF. It doesn't mean you don't have to assume good faith but others do. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 02:52, 27 December 2008 (UTC) I don't think you have read what AGF means. "This guideline does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of contrary evidence." You have attacked my intelligence on a point in which you are proven incorrect a short time after I thought you had at least acknowledged that I was willing to apologize to you when I believed I was incorrect (which by all accounts is an act of good faith). Your actions on this issue demonstrate bad faith. However, I have still engaged in arguing against your points and treating your arguments as if they were in good faith, though sometimes my exasperation at your bad faith does creep out.LedRush (talk) 08:21, 27 December 2008 (UTC) Your accusations of "bad faith" have always been rhetorical in nature -- a tool to attack my credibility so that you don't have to engage in discussion. The AGF guidelines page explicitly states that if you honestly believe someone is acting in bad faith (do you?) then you should seek intervention rather than make accusations -- as sitting there making accusations just makes it appear that you are acting in bad faith, attempting to smear me instead of seeking appropriate resolution. To be quite honest, I am fairly confident that no administrator conducting a thorough review of our discussions would find that I have been acting in bad faith. My involvement in this article, besdies being confined almost entirely to the talk page (in the interest of avoiding edit wars) has been characterized by thorough, patient, and reasonable discussion, albeit occasionally punctuated by a heated exchange -- and those heated exchanges nearly always occur with the same two or three editors, and often in direct response to their own insults and incivility. As you yourself noted, getting frustrated in the course of an honest discussion is nowhere near the same as acting in bad faith. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 18:22, 27 December 2008 (UTC) Your continued personal attacks against me and accusations of my bad faith belie your protestations of other motives.LedRush (talk) 19:23, 27 December 2008 (UTC) "Continued personal attacks" ? Now you are just making stuff up. Anyway, if you honestly think I am acting in bad faith, please take it to an administrative noticeboard. That is the appropriate course of action; sitting here pointing fingers, instead of discussing anything at all related to the article, is not. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 00:56, 28 December 2008 (UTC) Maybe it is time you stop your personal attacks or take your own advice.LedRush (talk) 04:06, 28 December 2008 (UTC) I'm not making personal attacks. Again, AGF specifically says you should take it to an admin board instead of sitting here tossing out accusations. Please either seek a block or start treating me like an honest editor with honest opinions. Enough with the finger-pointing. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 20:22, 28 December 2008 (UTC) Yes, you are making personal attacks. Yet I will not take it to the admin board as I don't want to further escalate issues here. You have accused me here several times...take it to the admin board and follow your own advice or just let it die already.LedRush (talk) 03:00, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

(undent)I'll agree with Kelly and LedRush. Except I'd like to point out that there is no Willie Horton here; no rape victim in Wasilla is known to have come forward or lodged any complaint with anyone, saying that she was billed. No news article or government record indicates that any victim in Wasilla was ever billed (though insurance companies were evidently billed), so it's understandable why no outraged victims came forward to complain to then-Mayor Palin about having been billed. There's no indication she became aware of this issue during her time as mayor., the notoriety of this matter is not comparable to the Horton matter. And, Dukakis had personally vetoed a bill to ban furloughs for first-degree murderers, saying that it would “cut the heart out of efforts of inmate rehabilitation.”[4] Where is Palin’s statement supporting billing victims for rape kits?

It's hard to see why we should hang Fannon’s position around Palin’s neck. Fannon said that the proposed legislation would prevent rapists themselves from being billed, which is a perfectly normal sentiment. Fannon also acknowledged billing insurance companies, but did not acknowledge billing victims. There is no indication that Palin was involved in any of this.Ferrylodge (talk) 00:15, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

"Fannon said that the proposed legislation would prevent rapists themselves from being billed, which is a perfectly normal sentiment" -- he did not say that, nor would it have been true if he had ever said it. He complained that prohibiting Wasilla from charging rape investigations to the health insurance of the victim would have cost the city budget up to $14,000 per year. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 01:05, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Fannon: "Ultimately it is the criminal who should bear the burden of the added costs."Ferrylodge (talk) 02:16, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Ferry. That is precisely the article in which Fannon does not say that the new law would prevent rapists themselves from being billed. He didn't say it, and it wouldn't have been true if he had said it. Please the article read more carefully.Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 02:44, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

I have no idea what you are referring to. The cited article says that "The new bill would also make law enforcement agencies that are investigating a sexual assault responsible for the costs of testing victims for sexually transmitted diseases and emergency contraception." Fannon clearly preferred that the rapists be responsible for such costs.Ferrylodge (talk) 02:51, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

(1) the law only prohibits victims' insurance from being billed, but does not specifically say who must actually pony up the cash; (2) Making police departments responsible for costs does not imply that they can't pass the costs on to the criminals that commit the crimes; (3) Fannon still clearly did not say that the law would prevent rapists from being billed, and if he had, he would have been mistaken Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 02:56, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

This is not complicated. The bill in question said: "A law enforcement agency or other authority that is investigating a sexual assault that is alleged or suspected to have occurred within its jurisdiction is responsible for the costs...."[5] Fannon objected: "Ultimately it is the criminal who should bear the burden of the added costs."[6] Those are direct quotes, and I'll let them speak for themselves. However, if you were trying to slime Fannon for being a neanderthal, and were trying to smear Palin using guilt by association, then I could understand why you'd like to deny that Fannon made a rational comment.Ferrylodge (talk) 03:04, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

"Ultimately it is the criminal who should bear the burden of the added costs" does not even begin to say "this new law prohibits me from billing rapists for their crimes", in any sense whatsoever. You are saying "I'll just let these quotes speak for themselves" because there is no logical or rational way you can make Fannons actual words seem to say what you are trying to say they say.

Nor does the law say anything except that rape victims' insurance companies may not be billed. I'll ignore your deliberately insulting comments about sliming, etc, even though I'm sure you would immediately seek a ban if I said anything similar. For your convenience I will quote the entire text of the bill here:

(outdent)"00 CS FOR SPONSOR SUBSTITUTE FOR HOUSE BILL NO. 270(HES) 01 "An Act relating to payment for certain examinations in cases of sexual assault." 02 BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF ALASKA: 03 * Section 1. AS 18.68 is amended by adding a new section to read: 04 Sec. 18.68.040. Sexual assault victim may not be required to pay for 05 examination. A law enforcement agency, health care facility, or other entity may not 06 require a victim of sexual assault under AS 11.41.410 - 11.41.425 who is 16 years of 07 age or older to pay, directly or indirectly, through health insurance or any other means, 08 for the costs of examination of the victim necessary for 09 (1) collecting evidence using the sexual assault examination kit under 10 AS 18.68.010 or otherwise; or 11 (2) determining whether a sexual assault has occurred. "

If you try to place text in the article indicating that Fannon complained the law would prohibit him from billing rapists, you will be distorting reality and making a conjectural interpretation of a source, which is original research. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 03:16, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

What the "law" says is irrelevant. Fannon was objecting against a bill not a law. And, the initial bill said: "A law enforcement agency or other authority that is investigating a sexual assault that is alleged or suspected to have occurred within its jurisdiction is responsible for the costs...."[7] Please heed your own comments about distorting reality. The initial bill said that Wasilla would be responsible for the costs. Fannon objected, saying that the rapists should ultimately be responsible. And, regardless of this eminently sensible objection by Fannon (which you forbid us to include in this Wikipedia article), Palin had absolutely nothing to do with it. The whole rape kit issue has nothing to do with her mayoralty, because she did not know about it, there is no evidence that she knew about it, no rape victim has said that she was billed (as opposed to her insurance company being billed), and the whole thing is a red herring.Ferrylodge (talk) 03:27, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Again, you are profoundly wrong. The text I reproduced above is the exact text of the bill which Fannon objected to. He objected to the bill as it had been passed. What I quoted was the bill exactly as it was passed. And I am not forbidding you from reflecting Fannon's comment that he'd like to bill rape victims for rape investigations. I am simply saying it will be an egregious violation of policy in numerous ways if you distort his statement by paraphrasing it to say something completely different than what it actually says. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 03:33, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

No, you are profoundly wrong. The initial bill (which I have quoted here twice) would have precluded payment by the rapists. The final enacted bill corrected that problem. Your theory that Fannon only became concerned about that problem after the problem had already been corrected is preposterous. It was very obviously one of the reasons why he opposed the initial bill. And it's not even clear he knew that the problem had been corrected.Ferrylodge (talk) 03:42, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Very obviously? It might have been one of the reasons. Your claim to know for certain is more than just mistaken. It is not logical. Anarchangel (talk) 11:00, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Fannon didn't express any opposition to the bill until it passed. I've been over this already with Collect. Kudos to him for pointing it out to me. If you'll notice, the headline for the article in which Fannon's complaints are expressed is Knowles signs sexual assault bill... meaning it had already passed. Notice the date of the article... May 22 2000... a full month after it had passed the Alaska house and senate. Plus, Fannon's actual complaint as quoted in the article clearly does not say that the law prohibited him from billing rapists... nor did the law in fact prohibit him from billing rapists. No matter what you say you are not going to be able to make a credible claim that this plain English statement is meant to say anything other than what it actually says.Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 03:50, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

“Tara Henry, a forensic nurse who has been treating rape victims across Alaska for the last 12 years, told CNN that opposition to Croft's bill from Wasilla Police Chief Charlie Fannon was memorable…. Croft has a similar memory. He said victims' advocates suggested he introduce legislation as a way to shame cities into changing their practice, and Wasilla resisted.”Ferrylodge (talk) 04:00, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

That doesn't say the opposition took place before the bill passed.. just that it was memorable. Nor have you produced any quote by Fannon complaining that the law prohibited rapists from being charged. And in fact, the law did not prohibit rapists from being charged... which is probably why he didn't say that it did. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 04:04, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

"...opposition to Croft's bill from Wasilla Police Chief Charlie Fannon." After it passed, it wasn't a bill anymore.Ferrylodge (talk) 04:13, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm really not so sure that a nurse recalling the event 12 years later would know to use the exact legal terminology differentiating between a law that has passed and law that has not passed. Anyway, that still doesn't turn Fannon's actual quote, "Ultimately, it is the criminal who should bear the added costs... The forensic exam is just one part of the equation. I'd like to see the courts make these people pay restitution for these things" into a complaint that the new law would prohibit police departments from charging crime perpetrators for the investigations resulting from their crimes.

In fact, the next sentence in the article, "Fannon said he intends to include the cost of exams required to collect evidence in a restitution request as a part of a criminals sentencing.", clearly indicates that he knew the law would not prevent him from passing the costs along!! So again, changing his actual quote into a distorted "paraphrase" -- saying that he complained the new law would prevent rapists from being billed -- would be a conjectural (and, I think, false) interpretation of a source, which is expressly prohibited. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 04:49, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

I have to say, again, that is not a certainty. This argument is over the factual basis of two conjectures. I do agree with you insofar as deletion of the mention of HB 270 and Fannon's quotes about the cost and the charging. Insertion of the quote about his brand new idea that he had just that week thought of, or during the interview for all we know, after it turned out -he- had to pay, of charging someone other than rape victims, is completely out of context in its current usage. Its current usage is completely out of the question. Anarchangel (talk) 11:00, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Usually people who oppose bills make their opinions known before the bills pass. Otherwise, they are known as ineffectual, stupid, or insane. In any event, I have removed Fannon's opinions from the article. They are much less relevant than what he and his department actually did, which is of very questionable relvance anyway.Ferrylodge (talk) 04:53, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

His quotes, as you well know, are the proof that victims were charged. It is pointless even trying to remove it, as it is quite obviously the primary evidence for the case. You would be laughed out of any hearing on it. I am interested to hear of why you have changed your position on those quotes, Ferrylodge. When I first came to this article, you were at great pains to include as much as possible about Fannon and what he said as you possibly could, to the extent of adding his quotes to what is normally the spot for citation clarification, and which ended up looking more like footnotes. Anarchangel (talk) 11:00, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Actually not. The quote of a person in Dallas are not proof that anyone shot from the "grassy knoll." Proof requitres what is known as "facts" and so far no one has shown that any victim was ever billed. And with all the media scrutiny, had one been billed in the period claimed, I would suspect that the case would have been found. From personal experience, I know that police officials do not know who is billed for what. And so I suspect that using a "quote" as proof falls into that same category. Collect (talk) 13:37, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

You are absolutely right, I was mistaken to use the word proof, I should have used the word, 'evidence', as I did in the second sentence. However, you don't need spurious subjective analogies such as the 'grassy knoll', above, to point this out, nor are they in fact an assertion with weight, and if it's all the same to you, I think this discussion is better off without them. Anarchangel (talk) 22:21, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

That's still no excuse to distort the quote. And what's with this edit? Is it no longer relevant that the practice was made illegal by state law in response to complaints from victims' advocates? That's the whole essence of the criticism. By making that wholesale change, you've basically just sort of resumed the multilateral edit war that went on for weeks and subsided only when we reached a compromise. The whole point of talk is that we keep talking until we can agree on something. Each of us is now speaking, on the roughest terms, for a large number of editors. We don't all agree on the details, but people in each camp agree on the fundamentals, and each camp now has to agree on representing this issue, the purported criticism, and the salient defenses. Each side probably agrees that the compromise version was not perfect, but do we now stick with it, or come up with a new one? I am not going to revert you back to the prior compromise, but I'm going to point out that you have basically just decided to arbitrate this issue by force. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 05:34, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

The article presently is simple and brief and totally free of any distortion: "Palin appointed[29] Charles Fannon to replace Stambaugh as police chief. Fannon and his department sometimes billed rape victims' health insurance for evidence collection kits.[46] An investigation by the St. Petersburg Times found no evidence that Palin had explicitly supported or opposed this policy.[47]"

Not any more. Currently it says, "Palin appointed<ref name="WasMuniCode"/> [[Mayoralty of Sarah Palin#Police matters|Charles Fannon]] to replace Stambaugh as police chief. Fannon later did not agree with new legislation preventing police departments from billing adult rape victims or their health insurance for evidence collection kits,<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.frontiersman.com/articles/2000/05/23/news.txt |title=Knowles signs sexual assault bill |publisher=Frontiersman |first=Jo C. |last=Goode |date=May 23, 2000 |accessdate=2008-11-09}}</ref> stating that the Wasilla police had sometimes billed victims' health insurance in the past. An investigation by the St. Petersburg Times found no evidence that Palin had explicitly supported or opposed this policy. It still needs work, as I mistakenly picked up the version that existed at my last edit, forgetting that people had already messed it up by then. I wanted to take it back to the version that was on the page for a month or so. Someone has been trying to make some obscure point by adding 'later' and such. The 'later did not agree' part in particular was something I had been wanting to fix before all this started; when you keep messing with the edits, I don't have time to set things right. And of course the SPT thing relies for its notability on a negative proof. As it is not true that finding no evidence means that Palin did not support the policy, the sentence has no notability. No one so far has been able to wrap their head around that one. Ask yourselves, does this prove that Palin did not support the policy? It does not. So if it doesn't mean that, what exactly does it mean? Only the implication that it in fact means anything keeps it going. Anyways, even if you don't understand it, someone else will, I am not bothered about that. Just prefer to get you on board if possible. Anarchangel (talk) 11:00, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

The practice was ultimately made illegal by state law, "But a search of the committee minutes for the bill found no mention of Wasilla or Palin."[8] The most egregious things happened elsewhere, as in Juneau where a woman (not her insurance company) was billed. All of this is covered in the sub-article, and it's extremely tangential here. Mentioning the subsequent bill would be a vehicle for saying that victims were sometimes billed in Alaska, which would be extremely misleading since there's no indication such a thing ever happened in Wasilla. "Bloggers have portrayed it as a heartless rule seeking money from rape victims, but they have neglected to mention that the policy seems to have been aimed more at getting money from insurance companies than from victims."[9] Many types of official actions are subsequently ended by legislation, but that's no reason for Wikipedia to mention the subsequent legislation every time we mention the official action. If we mention that George Washington offered a toast to the Marquis de Lafayette, we don't have to mention that alcohol was subsequently banned in the United States during prohibition. Anyway, I hope maybe everyone can live with the text as it is; obviously, many of us would prefer to remove it entirely as having marginal relevance.Ferrylodge (talk) 19:03, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

What a load. The most egregious thing is that the victims got either a bill straight from the source, or got an item on their statement from the insurance company, reminding them of the rape, as the expert in the Committees pointed out. The money is incidental, it is the emotional impact. All this dreck about insurance is completely beside the point in the first place. That's a new low, and no surprise it came from that scumpit SPT.
I really think it is about time you considered that the difference between a person being personally sent the bill and their insurance company being sent the bill is no more than matter of them having sent their hard earned cash to the insurance company; a person's insurance is their asset, that they paid for. I first mentioned this in October. The insured person is charged; note that the law specifically states, "A law enforcement agency, health care facility, or other entity may not require a victim of sexual assaulta victim of sexual assault ... to pay, directly or indirectly, through health insurance or any other means," See, they say 'a victim...pay', even when it is via insurance. Also, the reason for specifying insurance was based on a narrow interpretation of Fannon's statement. There is the possibility he meant, "tried to bill", as in, when we weren't able to bill the insurers, we had to bill the victims. And although you don't know that he didn't, and I don't know that he did, there is the possibility. So the language should reflect that victims were charged for three reasons; the Legislature considers a charge to the insurer as 'requiring the victim to pay'; we don't know that Fannon only billed insurance; a bill to the insurer is a charge to the insuree in any case.
It is true that there was no specific mention of Wasilla, but there was a mention of Mat-Su Valley among other areas. And neither was Wasilla excluded as a place where it happened. Wasilla is 50% of the population of Mat-Su Valley, once you exclude Palmer, whose police chief, in the Fannon interview story, said he would 'never charge' in very strong terms. Plus Fannon said he charged. It's obvious they meant Wasilla, and were just being discrete, or being seen to be discrete, as far as I am concerned. Anarchangel (talk) 11:00, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

So no mention of Wasilla? It appears that since Palin was not "Mayor of Mat-Su Valley" then that any claims about ther fail instantly, right? Collect (talk) 13:37, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

The distortion I was talking about was your suggested factual distortion of the Fannon quote. I was pointing out that this would have been original research on your part, and likely false as well. And, I'd still say the current text totally fails NPOV by neglecting to mention that the practice was made illegal. You have just taken the article back to two months ago, when there was no explanation or context offered -- since anything else was promptly reverted by Threeafterthree. You've completely eliminated any mention why there was any criticism on this issue in the first place. Anyway, if you are really hoping to make everyone happy, how about we roll back to the compromise version that was actually arrived at by consensus among multiple editors? It's much preferable to your version, which is so vague as to be useless. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 00:58, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Show me where I made a "factual distortion of the Fannon quote." And it was you who misstated the consensus, so I am unsure what you consider a "factual distortion." Thank you in advance for your apology on this one. Collect (talk) 17:56, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Pardon me, Collect, are you also Ferrylodge? If so, we've got some serious problems. If not, thanks in advance for your apology. PS, you are the only person I've met who can manage to give an insulting tone to the word "thanks". Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 20:27, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

He is not.Ferrylodge (talk) 23:24, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Actually, it has never been as bad as this. Unless you mean, when it was utterly deleted. Anarchangel (talk) 11:00, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

For BLPs, consensus is generally needed to include, not to remove. The present text says what actually happened, not what others subsequently thought about it. If it leaves people scratching their heads wondering why it's notable, that's fine. If the actual facts about what Wasilla did are "so vague as to be useless" then that perfectly conveys the truth.Ferrylodge (talk) 01:10, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Seriously, check that sentence. No consensus needed to remove? You might want to amend that statement. You are confusing need for consensus with the burden of proof. The burden of proof for inclusion lies on the included material, which is why the negative proof of the SPT is OUTTAHERE. Anarchangel (talk) 11:00, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Check WP:BLP about contentious material and the like. It is up to those who wish to INCLUDE to provide proof. Absent that, there is an obligation to remove. Collect (talk) 13:37, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

BLP guidelines say contentious material must be sourced. The burden of evidence is on the person including the material, to show that it is properly sourced. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 20:30, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Your deletion undid consensus, and the material you replaced it with is horribly inadequate in that it is somewhat POV pushing and completely fails to provide any context or explain the significance of the event. It's like saying "Johnny went to the store" without indicating why he went, why it's mentioned in the article, or why anyone should care. It is not ok to leave the reader scratching their heads wondering why it's notable. Criticism is supposed to be reflected in BLPs, not entirely stripped out, leaving an inexplicable and random description of events without any suggestion of why they are relevant. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 01:20, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

(outdent-mostly) While I prefer Ferrylodge's language to the consensus language above (and most prefer to delete the entire section), I have to agree with Factchecker on this. We fought for weeks on this language (on two separate occasions) and the agreed upon language was mostly agreed to so that we could move on and focus on other areas of the article. While some people have unilaterally tried to add more detail to the section, they have been rightly reverted. The same should be true for further removals or significant changes (meaning changes not for grammar or clarity). Can't we just keep the consensus language from above and move to other sections of the article?LedRush (talk) 06:01, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

All the known facts about what Wasilla actually did are presented. And please, enough of the mythical consensus that I've destroyed. You know that numerous editors are arguing to remove every last word about rape kits from this article.Ferrylodge (talk) 01:29, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

An unbacked assertion, in lieu of concession. Some facts are presented, that seems indisputable. Your statement is even now, as the conversation ensues, being disputed, 'by' the current conversation. How can you expect it to be considered a statement of fact?
I would agree that it wasn't a consensus as it is known by WP:CONSENSUS, but then I am not entirely convinced we mean the same thing by that word, F. You have certainly never used it as it is described on that page. It was a truce. And as this page goes, that's not too shabby, and we must respect as much as possible what vestiges of WP rules are to be found here. Anarchangel (talk) 11:00, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

WP:CONSENSUS defines "consensus" as it is used on WP. Sorry -- you have just indicated a belief that WP guidelines do not apply to your definition of "consensus." Collect (talk) 13:37, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Anarchangel and Factchecker are right about this. We had agreed to the language very recently, and changes made to that should be done with respect to the process that has preceded it. As I said above, if I were making the edits I'd delete the whole section as a violation of BLP and as providing undue weight. But I'm not. I was part of weeks of discussions to come to a compromise, and now we should respect the process and make edits after at least some agreement has been reached on this talk page.LedRush (talk) 15:36, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Facts about criticism and other opinions are expected to be included. This ongoing, pedantic discussion of "facts", as if we are only permitted to mention Palin's eye color, blood type, etc, is not constructive and has no grounding in policy. And you know that numerous editors have argued for inclusion of this incident and criticism. That the two sides disagree was the whole reason we worked to reach a compromise in the first place. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 01:42, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

The facts here speak for themselves. We also don't need opinions and criticism about her family's 5 km and 10 km races, or about her reduced spending on the town museum, new library and city hall.Ferrylodge (talk) 01:50, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

BLP guidelines specifically require that criticism and praise relevant to the subject's notability should be included. And "the facts here speak for themselves" is just vacuous rhetoric... if the facts spoke for themselves, the context and significance of the events would be obvious just by mentioning what happened. But they're not. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 01:56, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

"But a search of the committee minutes for the bill found no mention of Wasilla or Palin." The legislators didn't criticize Fannon, much less Palin.Ferrylodge (talk) 02:01, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

That's false. See the outdented quotes by bill sponsor Croft, below:

(outdent)"I can’t imagine any police chief, big city or small, who would take on the entire State Legislature on a bill that passed unanimously and not mention to their mayor that they’re doing this,” Mr. Croft said. Even if he didn’t inform her, the newspaper article would have been hard for her to miss." and 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," and also "It's incomprehensible to me that this could be a rogue police chief and not a policy decision. It lasted too long and it was too high-profile,"... see also the NYT opinion piece which opined that even if she didn't know, she owed voters an answer on the issue, as she was asking to be elected VP and presenting her credentials as mayor of Wasilla as evidence of her leadership experience. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 02:08, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Please provide links. I did not remove any remarks by Croft from this article, as you know. But maybe I would if you insert them. Were those remarks made at the time, or in the middle of the 2008 campaign? Is Croft a Democrat or a Republican?Ferrylodge (talk) 02:10, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Croft was the bill sponsor, and was interviewed in the CNN program in the video link. Note the Mat-Su reference in the Committees; Wasilla was not specifically excluded either. Democrat or Republican? Not going to listen to that 'not a reliable source because they could be not a reliable source because they might be biased because they might hold a grudge or might be partisan' crapage again. You'll notice I have always criticized SPT on merit, not on partisan affiliation. Anarchangel (talk) 11:00, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

You know the links and the answers to all those questions. We've been over this issue repeatedly for months. This is filibustering on your part. And regardless of whether you removed any claims by Croft, your assertion that the legislators never criticized Fannon or Palin is false, because Croft did criticize her. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 02:19, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

I do not know the links, and I do not want to investigate to find them. If you think I already know all this information, then don't quote it. If you quote it, then provide links. It's common courtesy, and you can see that I've done my best to provide links as well. Not providing links makes it very difficult for me to see the context, and makes it impossible for newcomers to see the context too.

Additionally, I made no edits to this article from November 8 to November 26, nor from December 4 to December 27. You may have been saying things during that time, but it doesn't mean I was reading them.Ferrylodge (talk) 02:29, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

It would be nice if you would familiarize yourself with the sources before making blanket assertions about them and insisting that only your position could possibly be the correct one. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 20:20, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

In this above argument, we have seen:

• Fannon made his comments after the bill was signed.
• Fannon said he charged. Whether he meant he charged victims insurance only or, failing that, victims directly, we don't know. The description of this must take care to include all possibilities.
• A person pays for insurance; it is their personal asset against which charges are levied. It is argued that by this, they are

charged.

• In any case, the distinction between the charge being to the insurer and to the insuree is a fine one and its notability is questioned.
• It is not specifically stated what the outcome of the policy was, or would have been, for victims without insurance.
• Pursuant to the above point, A.S. Legislature calls billing insurance, billing the victim. They don't make a distinction between paying directly and the insurance covering it. Still counts as the victim paying.
• The Legislature said nothing in the hearings directly about Wasilla.
• They did not specifically exclude Wasilla
• They mentioned Mat-Su Valley.
• Wasilla is 50% of the population of Mat-Su Valley, if you exclude Palmer.
• Palmer police chief said he would never charge

Anyone have anything to add? I haven't gotten to conclusions or disputed statements yet, but it's quittin' time. Anyway, by this hopefully you've got an idea of how this should be run. Point, counterpoint, note all the results, til we arrive at a Consensus.

The WP:EQ points are back up in the Post-election information section, as they were deleted in this last round of Archiving. Anarchangel (talk) 11:00, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Billing victims

To my mind, it is completely 100% unacceptable for this article to mention anything about billing victims. There was a concerted attempt in the blogosphere to confuse billing victims with billing insurance companies: "Bloggers have portrayed it as a heartless rule seeking money from rape victims, but they have neglected to mention that the policy seems to have been aimed more at getting money from insurance companies than from victims."[10]

There is zero evidence that Wasilla ever billed a victim. There is zero evidence that Palin even knew the town was billing insurance companies, and less than zero evidence that she conspired to bill any victims. It's simply not appropriate to mention in this article a horrible, disgusting billing practice that occurred in Juneau (not Wasilla), thereby sliming Palin in the process. I don't care how long this article mentioned billing victims, the fact is it shouldn't be in this article. At most, we can mention billing insurance companies. Otherwise, it's an egregious BLP violation, guilt by association, WP:Undue weight, original research, POV, and a whole bunch of other acronyms that I can get into if you like.Ferrylodge (talk) 20:03, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Rape stuff break-new above

You've never explained exactly how the above rationale applies to a biography of Sarah Palin, even if true. As an example, Jon Favreau, Barack Obama's speechwriter, was photographed groping the breast of a Hillary Clinton cutout, an event that got extensive media coverage. Does that event belong in the biography of Obama? I think not. Kelly ^hi! 01:11, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

On the one hand, we have a mayor of a tiny town, lauded in the press for her micromanagement of town affairs, who fired the city police chief and whose handpicked replacement then began to charge (or intended to begin charging) the insurance companies of rape victims for investigations into the victims' rape, but was subsequently prohibited from doing so when such practice was made illegal, and complained about the increased cost to the city due to not being able to make the insurance companies pay. Palin, it was also noted, went over the budgets line by line and cut the budget item that the city had previously used to pay for the rape investigations (although that budget item did not explicitly mention the rape kits). Palin was criticized by various notable parties for either not knowing about it, or for knowing about it but not prohibiting the practice herself without the need for a state law.

On the other hand, we have a campaign staffer who got photographed in the midst of an offensive party gag?

You think these two are comparable? Really? I don't see how you could think that, but I also don't know where you get off calling Kathleen Parker a "non-entity", but anyhoo... where's all this press that you mentioned criticizing Obama for it? Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 01:31, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

"Lauded for micromanagement"? That's a new one. So if the guy who drove the snowplow in Wasilla chipped concrete off the curbs, that should be placed in the biography of Sarah Palin? I'm guessing you would say yes, since it's a probably approaching certainty that the snowplow driver did damage the streets a time or two, but there's zero evidence that any rape victim paid a dime for evidence collection. Kelly ^hi! 01:37, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

He means the CNN article: "She does recall Palin going through the budget in detail. She said Palin would review each department's budget line by line and send it back to department heads with her changes." She being Judy Patrick, "Palin's deputy mayor and friend". Anarchangel (talk) 01:42, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

I was going to say, ironically, but since almost all the stories reported that victims were charged for rape kits, perhaps it isn't so surprising that the CNN one does also. See, "multiple sources told CNN" in an above section. Anarchangel (talk) 02:02, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that is the article we're discussing. It's nothing but supposition and innuendo (despite the sensational headline) and there's zero evidence that any rape victim in Wasilla was ever charged or that Palin was aware of her subordinate's position on the relevant policies. It's pure campaign rhetoric. Kelly ^hi! 01:48, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Just as directly above, your example is ludicrous and not comparable to the actual issue we are discussing. It's a straw man. And Fannon himself said on record that they had charged rape investigations to victims' insurance companies. That, presumably, is why he complained that prohibiting the practice would cost the city an additional $14,000 a year. By all means, bring on the original research, though. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 01:55, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

So it seems that you too, Kelly, are hellbent on destroying what credibility you had left after your edit warring and one sentence unbacked assertions, by ignoring the evidence of Fannon's statement and the CNN article. Anarchangel (talk) 02:02, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

The article only gives the example of a woman in Juneau being charged - nobody in Wasilla. Kelly ^hi! 02:09, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Was Fannon lying/mistaken when he said they'd charged rape investigations to victims' insurance in the past? Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 02:26, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Try the video link. It is in the first line of the video report. Anarchangel (talk) 02:21, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

And this brings us back to the root point which you never seem to address - exactly why does this belong in Sarah Palin as opposed to, say, the history of Wasilla, Alaska? Kelly ^hi! 01:57, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Does it? Does not being able to answer rebuttals always bring you back to a point that has never been discussed in the history of a talk page? Anarchangel (talk) 02:02, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

I have addressed it repeatedly and at length. Check the archives. The summary version is Because it's a subject relevant to her notability -- the standard for inclusion -- on which she has received substantial criticism on record by notable parties, reflected in numerous reliable sources, and which she has directly addressed in the media. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 02:05, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, ok, fine, you answered Kelly's point, I answered Kelly's point and her false analogy combined. And the issue of not answering rebuttals is a long standing one. In case you haven't seen it, Kelly, it was addressed at the beginning of the Palin quote section. Anarchangel (talk) 02:21, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

There are also notable people in reliable sources who claim that Palin didn't give birth to her own chldren (and she has directly addressed those allegations in the media). But it's a fringe theory and doesn't belong here. Kelly ^hi! 02:09, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Another false analogy. Anarchangel (talk) 02:21, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

How so? Kelly ^hi! 02:23, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Much the same way as the first was. It isn't my responsibility to think for you. Anarchangel (talk) 02:48, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

If you expect us to take this supposed counterexample seriously (seems like just another straw man to me), please provide articles to indicate substantial and serious coverage of this issue by multiple reliable sources and reflecting criticism from multiple notable primary sources. Please also suggest how that would be relevant to the source of Palin's notability -- i.e. her career as a politician. Otherwise, again, it's not even the same ballpark as the rape kits issue.

By the way, if you bother to read WP:Fringe it doesn't even apply to this. Have you noticed that the examples of "fringe theories" given on that exact page are: "Face on mars" theory, "Apollo moon landing hoax" theory, "Paul McCartney is dead" theory... you know, actual fringe theories? Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 02:24, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

The problem with Factchecker's arguments, and all arguments on this subject (of course including mine), is that it comes down to a matter of opinion, not some clearly objective "yes" or "no" answer. In his opinion it's relevant to her notability. In mine it's not because I don't believe that there is evidence that she knew of this issue or that it was relevant to her political history. While it has been mentioned in reliable sources, so have lawsuits about Obama not being a natural born citizen. In my mind, it is clearly off topic and the mere inclusion of this type of inflammatory innuendo is a violation of our BLP standards. Alas, this policy, like almost all, is rarely cut and dry in its interpretation. I honestly belive both sides of this issue have clearly stated their reasons numerous times, and both sides can be defended, and we seem to be at an impass. That's why we agreed on the consensus language above.LedRush (talk) 03:00, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Move to Fringe Noticeboard

Should we move discussion of the rape kit thingy to Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard? Kelly ^hi! 02:23, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

It's a minority criticism, not a fringe theory, as I think is pretty clearly indicated by WP:Fringe, but knock yourself out. Please go ahead and give notice here if you start a discussion on that noticeboard to get it removed. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 02:27, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm thinking that maybe the BLP Noticeboard might be a better venue.Ferrylodge (talk) 02:30, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

I thought that at first, but the Fringe folks seem to have a better nose for crap like this. How was the Barack Obama birth certificate stuff handled? That seems similar in terms of it being a campaign talking point, and receiving extensive media coverage. Kelly ^hi! 02:36, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Out of curiosity, who are the primary sources making the claim that Obama's birth certificate is fake? Are they elected officials from his home state, or just non-notable wackos? Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 02:40, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

See Barack Obama citizenship fringe theories for a rundown. Kelly ^hi! 02:42, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Only skimmed it, but those people look like non-notable wackos to me, as opposed to elected officials from the state of Alaska. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 02:47, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Heh, those wackos have been heard by the U.S. Supreme Court at least twice already (they got turned down, though). Kelly ^hi! 02:50, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

According to that fringe theory, Obama is ineligible to be president. According to this fringe theory, Palin is somehow responsible for poor billing practices regarding rape kits. This Palin thing might be appropriate for the fringe noticeboard, but the Obama ineligibility seems more outlandish. Suggesting Palin might be responsible for the rape billing seems less like fringe and more like smear/undue weight/coatrack/summary style. Maybe we could ask the fringe noticeboard folks if they think we're in the right place.Ferrylodge (talk) 02:44, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I guess you're right - WP:COAT seems the best fit to me. Trying to figure a good way forward, the normal consensus model is failing under the usual filibustering. I take it a request for comment has already been tried? The problem is that Sarah Palin has a horrific reputation as an article since the Arb case and nobody neutral wants to touch it with a ten-foot pole. Hell, I stayed away for a couple months because it was driving me crazy. Kelly ^hi! 02:49, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

The normal consensus model produced the compromise language included in the article. You are filibustering to try to undo consensus. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 02:57, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Just for the record, the above is total bull feathers. Lies being repeated over and over and over and over are still...lies...I still love your handle :)--Tom 21:43, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't know if an RfC was tried. I haven't been here much lately.Ferrylodge (talk) 02:54, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

This would be fringy if any allegation that Palin is pro-rape were made, or if any Willie Horton level of exageration was made of it. However, is the CEO at Merryll Lynch responsible for massive failure? Is anyone in a decision making decision ever responsible for anything, including poor leadership and management decisions and complete lack of oversight? I think this is what is getting lost in the shuffle.Jimmuldrow (talk) 02:56, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

I get you, but we circle back around to the elephant in the room - I've looked through all of the given sources and can't find a single piece of evidence that a single rape victim in Palin's jurisdiction was ever charged for an evidence kit. It's all theoretical, I understand how theoreticals become campaign talking points, but how does something that never provably happened belong in an encyclopedia biography of a living person? Kelly ^hi! 03:06, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

It's not an elephant in the room. It's being ignored because it's irrelevant. And we don't rely on the original research of editors to "disprove" the claims of primary sources that are reflected in reliable secondary sources. Finally, even if no rape victim ever received a bill, that doesn't show that no rape victim ever had her insurance company billed.. nor does it disprove Fannon's complaint that the new law would cost Wasilla up to $14,000 in costs to pay for rape investigations, nor his claim that "In the past weve charged the cost of exams to the victims insurance company when possible." Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 03:21, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Insurance companies evidently were billed in Wasilla for the costs of rape kits. But there's no indication that any rape victim ever objected to palin or to anyone else about that, which is understandable since the money would not come out of the rape victim's pocket. Palin evidently knew nothing about the practice while mayor. It belongs in a description of the 2008 campaign, rather than in the section about her mayoralty.Ferrylodge (talk) 03:33, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Nobody ever said the state law was proposed because of Wasilla. Wasilla, under Fannon, just happened to have the practice that was banned. The sources do in fact indicate complaints about the practice of charging insurance.. just not people specifically from Wasilla complaining about it. Finally, lack of evidence that Palin knew is not the same as evidence she didn't know, so it's a bit misleading to say "Palin evidently knew nothing" about it. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 03:38, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, or possibly in the article on Wasilla. Kelly ^hi! 03:37, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Obviously the fact that victims were charged for their own rape kits in Wasilla is not a fringe theory, as the Fannon quote and CNN article prove. It does not speak well of your time on this page, as evidenced by your user page, that you are not familiar with those facts. I suggest not ignoring them again. I have an interest in acquainting myself with the appeal process and a nice low learning curve is very appealing. Anarchangel (talk) 03:18, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Anarchangel, I appreciate your repeated use of those two articles, but they ignore the facts that the Wasilla Police Dept, and Palin herself, have denied any policy of charging victims. By the way, I'm not sure what you mean by that last sentence. Kelly ^hi! 03:22, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Your 'elephant in the room' was that no one was charged. I refuted that. Once you concede that your elephant was a pink elephant in your imagination, we can move on. Anarchangel (talk) 05:42, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

How many rape victims were charged for rape kits? Kelly ^hi! 19:15, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

You know all you need to to concede the point. Stalling doesn't help your position. Anarchangel (talk) 21:33, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Why in this article?

Could someone explain why the rape kit thing belongs in Sarah Palin, as opposed to Wasilla, Alaska, History of Alaska, United States presidential election, 2008 or some other more general article? Kelly ^hi! 03:55, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Come on.. is it really necessary to start a whole new section heading each time you have a new point to make, or a new way to rephrase a point you've made, just inches above, in a discussion that took place 20 minutes ago? Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 04:01, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

I know you don't have much experience with Wikipedia outside this article and maybe one or two others, but it's customary to try to break the arguments down into separate points to find areas of agreement. Kelly ^hi! 04:05, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Seems to me you are just, as you said above, "filibustering". I already expressed why it should be included in this article, just minutes ago. I'll reprint it for you, otherwise your creation of the new section might give others the impression that the question has not already been addressed over and over and over again.

Because it's a subject relevant to her notability -- the standard for inclusion -- on which she has received substantial criticism on record by notable parties, reflected in numerous reliable sources, and which she has directly addressed in the media. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 04:12, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Not all such subjects in the sub-article can be included in this article. See WP:SS. Additionally, inclusion can be accomplished by moving it to a more appropriate location focussing on the 2008 campaign. Note the heading of this talk page section uses the word "this".Ferrylodge (talk) 04:31, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

It is relevant beyond the 2008 campaign. Palin is notable for TWO (not one) reasons: she ran as the GOP's VP nominee and she is the Alaskan governor, therefore this alleged belief, assuming there has been significant news coverage, should be in this article. This is not an article on "Palin the person". Now I'm not saying that this thing should get it's own giant section ("THERE WAS A CONTROVERSY!" lol), but a mentioning, similar to what we currently have, is probably appropriate.--danielfolsom 14:50, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Kelly mentioning Factchecker's experience is close to an attack - it's completely irrelevant and you were obviously saying it as a way of disregarding his points. Kelly and Factchecker: both of you might want to take a step back - this argument seems to be getting a little politicized. What we need to do is to find sources that directly comment on the Palin issue. If there are enough sources, i.e. if the topic is notable, it should be mentioned. Controversy surrounding Palin's alleged beliefs is relevant to the article as her notability exists outside the realm of the 2008 presidential race; as the governor of a state her beliefs are relevant, and therefore a belief that she is alleged to have is relevant if there has been significant news coverage (and if there has been significant news coverage, to my understanding WP:FRINGE would not apply, as it is not a matter of whether many people believe Palin wanted to charge rape victims, it is a matter of whether there was significant coverage of this alleged belief - and the latter is what would be mentioned in the article). My word is obviously not final, so I don't mean to distract too much from the debate, I'm just saying that compiling sources might give us a place to start.--danielfolsom 04:36, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

With respect, Daniel, note who is initiating each exchange. WP:EQ recommends that assertions be answered. What's missing is conceding when points are made. Anarchangel (talk) 05:42, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

True - and I did make a point of addressing both of them, I'm simply trying to make the talk page slightly more on focus by pointing out the most recent uncivil claim; I really think that we need to move on from the political side of this argument, and perhaps that means moving on from using this talk page as a medium. If there are any serious questions over policy, perhaps mediation or discussion on that policy's notice-board (assuming there is one) would be best --danielfolsom 14:50, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Just a heads up Danielfolsom, single purpose muckrackers have been here a while, actually some time now, actually come to think about it, since Palin was nominated. There are still a few here, they know who they are. The amount of feeding they have recieved is pretty amazing. You probably already know this, but it is still worth noting. --Tom 15:49, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Do you have a substantive comment to make on this subject, or will this be like the two dozen times you simply ignored ongoing discussion and attempts to reach a compromise, and deleted the whole section? Edit warring and innuendo about other editors are not a substitute for discussion. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 18:29, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Are there any other editors besides "Anarchangel" and "Factchecker" who believe the rape kit crap belongs in this article? Kelly ^hi! 18:53, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, probably a couple dozen overall. They have just not stuck around for the full 18-week "who can last the longest" extravaganza. Have you bothered to check the extensive archives in which we've discussed this "crap"? Did you notice that Daniel's comments, just a couple inches above this, seem to indicate that he is of the opinion that it is notable and relevant, though it doesn't have to be reflected in a full-blown expose? If so, he's far from alone. Anyway, I can't say your comment, or calling the topic "crap", is constructive ... sort of looks like an effort to attack editors who favor inclusion rather than debating the actual issue. 96.243.252.122 (talk) 19:24, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Writegeist has also been here the whole time, and Jimmuldrow edited a lot recently. Greekparadise was writing in favor of it when I first got here in early October. Not an exhaustive list by any means. We get a lot of support from IPs and people who come in and post two or three times and then leave. Probably they don't realize it's a siege.
But that is all peripheral. What matters is reaching consensus. You have an opportunity to start, above, by conceding that there is in fact evidence that victims were charged in Wasilla. Anarchangel (talk) 21:31, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Oh look, another SPA IP just happened to show up. Or maybe somebody(ahhumm) loged off and posted?? Nahhh, that never happens here. Oh course there are no other NPOV editors that feel this "material" belongs in this bio. --Tom 19:34, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

I get that SPA is a depersonalizing propaganda term, but what is it an acronym for? Three such questions have gone unanswered, so I am not holding my breath for an answer. Anarchangel (talk) 21:31, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Single purpose account. It has been used to describe editors on both sides of several issues here. SPAs aren't necessarily bad because they can bring specific knowledge on a subject area, but they are generally considered more likely to be destabilizing to an article than a non-SPA.LedRush (talk) 21:46, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Ok, totally my bad. Retract "depersonalizing propaganda term" unconditionally. Thank you LedRush. I hope, nay, trust you are finding adhering to consensus promoting procedure agreeable. Anarchangel (talk) 22:11, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

No, I mean now that the campaign is over and we're hopefully back to the people interested in an actual scholarly biography as opposed to campaign talking points. Kelly ^hi! 19:55, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

So will there be any actual discussion, or is this just the section for casting aspersions on editors with whom you disagree? Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 01:02, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

I can see that the rape kit section is once again being mediated by edit war rather than by discussion. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 02:11, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

And now, lies. There is consensus to include this. Just no consensus on how it should be worded, except for the compromise text we reached earlier. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 02:23, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

The Rape Kit must be included in the article. Given the history on this topic, any attempt to remove it is a deliberate and flagrant attempt to violate consensus if any of those attempting to remove it were involved in previous consensus. I will immediately escalate to mediation if it is removed. Manticore55 (talk) 05:12, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

I disagree with your ultimatum, and, in fact, consider such a position to be contrary to WP principles entirely. "Immediately escalate" indeed! Collect (talk) 17:59, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

I suggest everyone ignore and move past the several posts above. Work with your fellow editors to build consensus, Manticore; do not accuse them of ill motives or make ultimatums. Collect, please do not escalate but rather attempt to calm the situation, ok? And Factchecker, accusing others of lying is beyond unhelpful; I would appreciate it if you would strike your accusation. KillerChihuahua^?!? 18:49, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

I was just responding in kind to other users who treat me like a Wiki-criminal, openly accuse me of bad faith, of spreading "lies", make claims about personal attacks that seem false to me, etc.. I will stop, [personal remark redacted] Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 20:16, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

"Personal remark" in full.: "I will stop, but I think singling me out for a single infraction belies the more widespread abuse to which I have been subjected, with nary a comment by you"-Factchecker atyourservice Anarchangel (talk) 21:58, 29 December 2008 (UTC) I can attest to this. So can the record of this very page, without even having to go to archives. Anarchangel (talk) 21:58, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Responding in kind, unfortunately, keeps the hostility going, and does nothing to improve the article. KillerChihuahua^?!? 20:55, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Noting FCAYS comment -- KC, my comment was made in order to defuse the ultimatum, I fear you might possibly have misread my intent, for which I apologize. Collect (talk) 19:19, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

After reading this article which says that rape victims in North Carolina were billed for evidence kits until recently, and that rape victims in Illinois, Georgia, and Arkansas are continuing to be billed, I looked at a few random biographies of executive and legislative politicians from those states - and can find no mention of their states' rape kit policies in their biographies. Why the disparity? Kelly ^hi! 20:28, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

You are kidding right? The disparity is due to muckrackers run amok. --Tom 21:35, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Those legislators didn't run for Vice President of the United States and weren't subject to the same level of media scrutiny. They probably also were not budget-micromanaging mayors of small towns which held such policies. The article you read probably also doesn't question specific politicians and ask them what the policies are/were. In a nutshell, Palin is more notable than all of those people and so has received greater attention. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 20:38, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Heh - John Edwards from North Carolina ran for vice president of the U.S. Barack Obama of Illinois ran for (and won) the office of president. Kelly ^hi! 20:43, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Were either of them mayors of small towns that enacted such a policy? Did either of them hire a police chief that publically complained when the policies were made illegal? Were either of them questioned or criticized in the media regarding such policies? Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 20:46, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Link dump

Just a dump of some evidence links regarding the rape kit controversy...Kelly ^hi! 21:14, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

1. Wasilla police chief to blogger on billing for rape kits[11]
2. National Review on the story[12]
3. Jim Geraghty on the story[13]
4. Testimony in the Alaska legislature, including Del Smith, the Deputy Commissioner of Public Safety, stating that "he does not know of any police agency that has requested payment"[14]
5. More links, including the fact that any billed victim can receive restitution from the Alaska Violent Crimes Compensation Board[15]

1. SART was an operation allowed to use the City of Wasilla police facilities. Their charges to the hospital are not relevant, and as one might expect from a biased blog, are used in a misleading way. It is made up to look like an official bill but it isn't. I forgot this even existed, it was so obviously fabricated.
2. Opinion piece. Its first opinion runs along the lines of, although Wrong A was done in this case, Wrong A was done all the time, so why is everyone complaining?
3. This is at least based on fact. It attempts to gloss over the mention of Mat-Su Valley by rating it by size, rather than population. As noted above, Wasilla was half the population of the Mat-Su Valley once you take out the second biggest town, Palmer, whose police chief vowed he would never charge. To say nothing of the fact that the point is moot as Fannon already had said he charged. Slam dunk all over the debunk. Del Smith the desk jockey at Safety, speaking for police departments all over the state that he had quite obviously never visited, let alone supervised, was contradicted by both other witnesses in that they all reported victims were charged. Not content with reporting the fact that the other two witnesses at the Hearings told that hospitals charged, the article adds "not police stations", which the witnesses did not and would not have said, as their field of expertise did not include that.
4. Naff link. Better one with all the committees' links on one page, above. 5. Interesting. Is this to be considered proof that this compensation was readily available and widely known? Or that Fannon was incompetent in not advising victims of their options as well as charging them? It seems sure that he was less competent than the room full of Palin supporters with an internet connection it took to track this down, or he would have mentioned it in the Frontiersman interview. Shame they weren't there when victims were charged. Anarchangel (talk) 06:29, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Anarchangel (talk) 06:29, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Neat idea! "once you take out the other town, the biggest town becomes half the population of the county" is the gist of your argument? Um -- but that does not take the other town out of the county. As to saying something was "obviously fabricated" -- find a reliable source for that claim, unless, of course, you assert that you have specialist knowledge in that field. Thanks. Collect (talk) 13:12, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

"Palmer police chief Laren Zager said that to his knowledge, no sexual assault victim has ever been billed by the city of Palmer for an exam to collect evidence of a crime. Zager, who has been police chief since January, said he would never expect a victim to be burdened with the cost of a police investigation.

Im prepared to pay every dime in an investigation. As long as I am chief, I would never bill a victim, Zager said." Frontiersman

The letter from, you claim, the police chief, to a blogger, is manufactured evidence after the controversy started, let alone after the bill was passed and other time frames that have been brought up to show irrelevance ad nauseum. If it confirms anything it is that the police dept. had a backlog of charges that it felt required to settle with the hospital after the law was passed. I had, and still have, considerably better evidence that police depts. were handing along the charges to the hospitals, and therefore, most likely the job of collecting evidence. Which can't be very good for the reliability of the evidence. There is no way you can slice this and not come up with something rotten. And we haven't even gotten to the takeover of the hospital. Anarchangel (talk) 20:50, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

1. I made no claims at all about any letter. You might wich to redact that part of your post. 2. You stated that something was "obviously fabricated." In normal English, that means you felt it was faked. Are you asserting the item you describe was "faked" in some way? Is it dated with a false date? Not to or from the people it is purported to be to or from? In what way do you mean it is "fabricated"? Thanks! Collect (talk) 21:01, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

1. I do wish to retract. You did not describe it as from the police chief. It is the original label of the link that describes it as from the police chief. I made a mistake.
2.I find my use of the word "fabricated", in the initial comment on the links, regrettable. That was rhetoric. However, you are cherry picking. I did not refer to it as fabricated in the reply to your edit, but 'manufactured'.
The form and content of the letter were misleading; the source would therefore seem to be either biased or incompetent. In this way the appearance of an official document is, 'manufactured'; it is not even a copy, merely a list. The conclusions drawn from it in the accompanying article are erroneous, and the forum in which they appear, excruciatingly biased. The veracity of the information in the letter remains unclear. Anarchangel (talk) 22:37, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Problem with editing links

Something is wrong with the "Edit" links; they don't all bring up the correct section. The problem seems to start with the link for "Budget, spending, and federal funds". (I haven't tested all of them, but most of the ones before "Governor of Alaska" seem to be OK.) I used the overall "edit this page" tab to make my (noncontroversial) edit. BAM ("tripodics") (talk) 21:13, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

It seems to work for me?? Maybe reboot and relog in or wiggle your mouse :) --Tom 21:48, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

When tried it several times, the other day, with two different browsers (Firefox, Safari), several of the (later) links always went to the wrong section. Now, the "edit" links all seem to have disappeared! BAM ("tripodics") (talk) 19:30, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

• Since today I have for the first time the same problem. Cannot be me or my PC and wonder what it is.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 00:47, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

talk page courtesy

Just a reminder to assume good faith and be nice. I don't actually care if you really truly are agf'ing; but if you parse your posts as though you were the end effect is virtually the same. Demanding apologies, accusing others of deliberate falsehoods, etc are unhelpful. I will start removing uncivil posts if you cannot learn to moderate your tone (this is a blanket message to all who have become a little heated.) KillerChihuahua^?!? 18:46, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Straw poll on rape kits

This is not intended to be binding, just a way to gauge where we currently stand. We can figure where to go from here based on what kind of numbers we see. I'm only trying this technique because it helped to break a deadlock on another controversial article I was involved with (John Edwards) Once we figure out whether to keep or include we can work more on the specific wording.

Can we agree to keep this poll open for awhile, say 1-2 weeks, before presuming to draw any conclusions from it? Less than that would seem a bit hasty given that this debate has fairly raged for at least 3 months. The article is full-protected for the next 3 weeks anyway. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 20:54, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable, absolutely. Basically what I'm looking for is clear consensus one way or the other from established editors. If consensus isn't clear from this, we should try to assemble all of the evidence and proceed to a request for comment with an attempt to draw in established users with a neutral point of view. Kelly ^hi! 20:57, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

In other words, it appears like editors want to keep on discussing this month after month until they find a way to eliminate it. QuackGuru (talk) 21:09, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

No, more like finding a reasonable way to handle this now that the majority of campaign partisans have moved on. Kelly ^hi! 21:16, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

WP:PRACTICAL : "Polls are structured discussions, not votes. Opinion has more weight when you provide a rationale during a poll, not just a vote. Convince others of your views, and give them a chance to convince you."

In that this is not a poll in any real sense of the word as regards WP policy, WP:PRACTICAL points specifically to another procedure to be followed, and lack of respect for the WP process towards consensus is already a problem on this page, I find it not only irrelevant, but counterproductive to the process of consensus, and refuse to participate. However, I will give a short precis of my views here outside of the main body of this would-be poll, in the manner of a real poll.
In addition to relevance in its own right, it has significance in the Stambaugh firing because of Stambaugh's assertion that he had proposed a line item in the budget to cover the cost of the kits. It is indispensable to an understanding of Palin's choice of subordinates, her handling of their policies, and her treatment of political rivals. I support the inclusion of any of Fannon's quotes, any and all material from the Legislature, the CNN article, and the source material on the budget from the Wasilla City Records department if links to that can be found, otherwise the HuffPo piece that links to that as a last resort, and anything I forgot. I specifically exclude support for inclusion of material from the SPT article as all of its material that doesn't rely for its notability on a negative proof can be found from other sources that reported earlier and with less editorializing. Anarchangel (talk) 22:21, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

I took a few days away from this rape kit fiasco to see if I was part of the reason we couldn't bring the matter to closure. I am comforted to see anarchy still reigned in my absence. I will withhold my position in the straw poll another day or two, however. Fcreid (talk) 01:02, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for your opinion, but we're really just looking for a quick read here going forward, not repeats of points made above. However, if you wish to abstain, that's your choice. Once everyone has weighed in, we can look at the !voters to see who are established editors and who are SPAs, weight opinions accordingly, and go from there.Kelly ^hi! 22:35, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Eliminate mention of rape kit billing from Palin bio

1. Kelly ^hi! 20:41, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
2. --Evb-wiki (talk) 20:46, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
3. Billing insurance companies can be briefly mentioned in sub-article but not in this main article (cuz Palin may not have known about it), and billing victims should be in neither article (cuz no evidence it happened in Wasilla).Ferrylodge (talk) 20:50, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
4. after reviewing the arguments on the talk page, this seems to be essentially an election meme without real evidence that any victims were billed. Dman727 (talk)
5. This is purely and totally talking head muckracker that reared its ugly head 2 hours after Palin's nomination. It is a totally minor blip on the radar of Palin's mayorship and nothing to date has even really tied this to Palin other than she was the mayor when Fannon objected to a bill when asked by a local newspaper. This crap would last a nano second on the Obama article and rightly so. Cheers and Happy New Years to all!! --Tom 21:31, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
6. The undue weight given to this issue is ridiculous. Political figures are more than the sum of their blog-generated controversies. Coemgenus 22:49, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
7. As an analogy, Stephen Conroy's internet censorship plans (a massively controversial plan which is a major part of his political career) consists of half a sentence in his biography, with the main information rightfully being placed elsewhere. The payment of rape kits in Wasilla is not as major an issue in Palin's career as Conroy's internet censorship plans, therefore should have half a sentence less. If people really cared about rape kits rather than wanting a talking point, maybe the rape kit article would mention that some jurisdictions are still billing victims. Andjam (talk) 02:38, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
8. I think that this is clearly an issue that is not notable in Palin's biography, but only in the campaign article. As I have stated many times, I believe its inclusion is a violation of BLP guidelines and put undue weight on an issue which seems never to have really related to Palin directly. However, I am willing to keep the consensus language to which Factchecker refers below if it will end this discussion once and for all.LedRush (talk) 02:48, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
9. Beyond the attention this never-invoked policy to which no direct Palin connection has been made received during the campaign, I fail to see how this is relevant to Palin's biography. I hate to draw parallels between this and Obama's article, but Obama's connection to Bill Ayers earned far more notoriety in the press, yet his biography appropriately makes no mention of it. I think the same standard should be applied here. »S0CO^{(talk|contribs)} 03:40, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
10. This "controversy" is much ado about nothing. Nothing happened. It has nothing to do with Palin. It is notable only as an illustration of the absurd reaching that partisan attacks can take during a political campaign. Its inclusion makes the article and Wikipedia look absurd. It is ridiculous that it was ever allowed into the article.--Paul (talk) 04:56, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
11. No connection has been established to Palin and the underlying activity, charging the insurance companies of victims, is far less sinister than the original attention-getting claim of charging victims themselves. National political campaigns typically produce a large number of accusations that receive press coverage but are never substantiated. They may belong in an article about the campaign, but not in a bio.--agr (talk) 14:14, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
12. After watching arguments on both sides of this issue over the past couple months, I see no reason to include this information in a bio of Palin. JenWSU (talk) 14:55, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
13. The rape kit stuff is inappropriate in the Palin bio. I am also opposed to the compromise statements which have proven to be a camel's nose under the tent kinda thing where not only does the whole camel come in but the caravan along with it. WTucker (talk) 18:38, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
14. Agree with the large number of editors who have already weighed in on the material which is not only not relevant to a BLP, is filled with conjecture, hits the lines of WP:UNDUE and more, but which consensus seems to be clear on as not belonging in the article. Collect (talk) 18:43, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
15. An utterly silly attack --B (talk) 20:59, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Keep mention of rape kit billing in Palin bio

1. QuackGuru (talk) 20:44, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
2. User:Factchecker_atyourservice And I specifically recommend the version that was reached via compromise. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 20:48, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

   And that version would be???? --Tom 21:32, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

3. Per my comment above, saying that the controversy surrounding the alleged belief is notable because this article exists for two reasons, the first being that Palin is governor (the second being her run for vice-president), and in either case Palin's alleged political beliefs are notable.--danielfolsom 03:22, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

   Are you suggesting that since Palin is a Governor and was on the Republican ticket as Vice President that we should include every specious charge ever made against her or anyone she ever knew?--Paul (talk) 05:09, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

   No, you're deliberately ignoring a big part of my post. If the controversy surrounding the alleged beliefs is significant then it should be included. Please read my entire post above if you're going to try and pass it off as silly. --danielfolsom 06:34, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

   The more common way to describe it is that he is using a straw man to describe your position, so that it looks weaker. Don't feel compelled to answer when someone uses a logical fallacy to attack your position; most people here are experienced editors and know better. Anarchangel (talk) 06:52, 29 December 2008 (UTC) Restored, I stand by this statement. I removed the 'scruples' charge, but only because I haven't had long experience of Paul's editing style. 'Specious charge' is not includable as rhetoric. To continue to use it as though it were, would indeed show a lack of scruples, as have the actions of other editors in the main discussion.
   

   I should note that I would have preferred that editors not respond to other editors' comments here, and would welcome the deletion of all such comments, starting with "And that version would be?" I am going to try it that way, after this edit. Anarchangel (talk) 21:58, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

   Didn't work. KC says nothing here is a violation of WP:CIVIL and I do mostly agree with that assessment. However, I still think that one does not conduct a discussion in the middle of a poll, for similar reasons to the laws prohibiting campaigning in polling places. Anarchangel (talk) 02:49, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

   Discussion in the middle of polls is messy but not against policy nor even guidelines; polls are non-binding on WP and are used to gauge opinion and to spark productive conversation. KillerChihuahua^?!? 14:17, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

   But that is the whole point. This has NOT been significant except here on Wikipedia and also breifly by the talking heads after it was first thrown against the wall to see if this mud would stick. The entire world (except here) has moved on from this non-issue and rightly so. The agenda pushers would like to keep this going, but.....--Tom 14:52, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

   "moved on"? Wikipedia isn't a news-outlet that let's go of old stories. It reports present and past. And jeeze - first Paul says I support an absolutely ridiculous idea (which I don't) and now you call me an agenda-pusher, why can't people around here stick to the arguments? And it's the news-coverage that determines whether there has been significant coverage.--danielfolsom 16:04, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

   How much news coverage has this really recieved? Also, the agenda pushing comment was sort of generalized and not really directed towards you in perticular. --Tom 17:56, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

4. Jimmuldrow (talk) 14:50, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Edit request

{{editprotected}} Per the above, please remove the following sentence from the "Mayor of Wasilla - First term" section:

Palin appointed[29] Charles Fannon to replace Stambaugh as police chief. Fannon and his department sometimes billed rape victims' health insurance for evidence collection kits.[46] An investigation by the St. Petersburg Times found no evidence that Palin had explicitly supported or opposed this policy.[47]

Thanks - Kelly ^hi! 20:55, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

 Done Arguments for removal are strong enough reason to remove the sentence for the time being. --SB_Johnny | ^talk 11:02, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

• See my refutation of three of the arguments below, and my reasons for it being only three so far. You fail to cite any.
• And what of the arguments for inclusion? You fail to mention them at all.
• What of the two weeks promised before action was taken? Do you not find Kelly's request precipitous and a breach of consensus?
• What of your connection to Killerchihuaha, and your admitted inexperience on BLPs? "since it's my first "venture" into the kwazy world of protected BLPs :-)" http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:KillerChihuahua&diff=prev&oldid=261553620
• How would you describe Kelly's behaviour on the talk page recently?

...I've looked through all of the given sources and can't find a single piece of evidence that a single rape victim in Palin's jurisdiction was ever charged for an evidence kit....Kelly hi!03:06, 27 Dec

Obviously the fact that victims were charged for their own rape kits in Wasilla is not a fringe theory, as the Fannon quote and CNN article prove...03:18, 27 Dec

Anarchangel, I appreciate your repeated use of those two articles, but they ignore the facts that the Wasilla Police Dept, and Palin herself, have denied any policy of charging victims.Kelly hi!]]03:22, 27 Dec

Your 'elephant in the room' was that no one was charged. I refuted that. Once you concede that your elephant was a pink elephant in your imagination, we can move on. Anarchangel 05:42, 27 Dec

How many rape victims were charged for rape kits? Kelly hi! 19:15, 27 Dec

You know all you need to to concede the point. Stalling doesn't help your position. Anarchangel (talk) 21:33, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

The conversation ends with my refusal to cooperate further with the ad nauseum presentation of peripheral points before receiving a concession on a point Kelly was directly refuted on. Awaiting the concession was a further refutation of the contention "the Wasilla Police Dept, and Palin herself, have denied any policy of charging victims." The latter is obvious; it is refuted by the same cite as the first. The first is a misunderstanding of the nature of Palin's reply in her own Frontiersman interview, in which she replies to

"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?"
with

"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."

So she never denied that she had knowledge of the practice, she never denied charges, she denied nothing. I find this frustrating, and it makes me feel better to categorize her answer as saying, 'charging for rape kits is bad'. It amounts to little more.
Note that 'your repeated use of those two articles' shows that Kelly was aware of the articles and yet could find none of the evidence I presented, in them.

So basically, Kelly knows Jack about this issue. Kelly refuses to participate in discussion. Kelly is more interested in the fast track. We are subjected to a demolition of the material. And you have allowed the former and facilitated the latter. What say you? Anarchangel (talk) 03:40, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Per the above? You mean the section entitled 'Straw poll on rape kits'? You mean like very first sentence of the poll, where you defined it? : "This is not intended to be binding, just a way to gauge where we currently stand" - Kelly.
I thought it was intended to mislead when I first saw it; it appears I was right.
Moving a little fast doesn't quite cover it. When the results of a real poll or a RFC indicate deletion, then you may have authorization to request this edit. Anarchangel (talk) 23:33, 2 January 2009 (UTC) Reword the last phrase to: "then -it would be appropriate- to request this edit". And I should clarify: A real poll would be a good reason for a RFC, a RFC would be a good reason for requesting deletion. Just want to make sure my goalposts are anchored really tightly; goalposts have a way of drifting around on this discussion page; kind of disturbing when they wander a ways up the playing field. Anarchangel (talk) 23:59, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

It's just that nobody has offered a new opinion for several days...and it's 15 current editors for removal, 4 for retention. And now some folks are trolling the archives looking for archeological evidence of old opinions on the subject. In any case, the consensus seems fairly clear to at least remove the controversial material for now - this is, after all, a BLP. Kelly ^hi! 01:09, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

There is no part of the process of people casting their votes for a non-binding poll at which it is appropriate to change it to binding other than before they start. Anarchangel (talk) 02:20, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

While no "vote" exists, nor can any "binding vote" occur on WP, nor can a "real poll" (whatever that means) trump consensus on a matter, the reasons given by the 15 are real and substantial evidence of a consensus on the matter. And retention of contentious material contrary to a consensus violates WP principles. Collect (talk) 02:30, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Who are you and what have you done with Collect? He doesn't make reasoned arguments.

There's just one problem with your assertions : "Wikipedia does not base its decisions on the number of people who show up and vote; we work on a system of good reasons" - WP:Consensus#Forum shopping. Therefore 115 votes do not constitute consensus. Interesting you should use the phrase 'reasons given by the 15', as that was the reason I gave originally that the straw poll was not contributing to consensus: that it called for no (and unsurprisingly received little) reasoning. Anarchangel (talk) 10:17, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

The editors who have shoiwn up have given good and substantial reasons for their positions. Absent a crystal ball, we can not try assigning former editors who made one or two edits into any camp in determining consensus, and we certainly can not ascribe reasons for thier ESP positions. It appears at this point that not only is their a "numerical consensus" but also a "reasoned consensus" on the matter. Collect (talk) 21:56, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Ah, there he is. I concede that editors have given reasons, which deviates from the poll's description as non-binding "Can we agree to keep this poll open for awhile, say 1-2 weeks, before presuming to draw any conclusions from it? Factchecker atyourservice 20:54, 28"; "Sounds reasonable, absolutely. Kelly hi! 20:57, 28 December" I concede that polls are not binding. Not a real poll means one that was introduced as -no big deal and we're just trying to further the conversation here, we won't be taking any action- despite the fact that conversation already existed and still exists on this page that has not been answered. Negative proof. Palin's own words. Kelly's own refusal to concede that Kelly's statement that there is no evidence Wasilla charged for rape kits is false. The rebuttal of Kelly's fallback position, that both Palin and the Wasilla police dept have denied charging for rape kits, that awaits Kelly's concession of the first point. This is an involved discussion, it requires involved editors. Newbies to it charging in and dictating policy is not helping.

The point about assigning positions to absent editors has been conceded already, below. Proceeding without them also has its difficulties, particularly around the holiday season. The list below has its merits, as described below.

Substantial? "Stephen Conroy's internet censorship plans" - who? Ultimately articles should not be compared with each other at all, but Sarah Palin is a mainstream political party's pick for VP, and Stephen Conroy is not. "...If people really cared about rape kits rather than wanting a talking point, maybe the rape kit article would mention that some jurisdictions are still billing victims." Good point for inclusion, thanks. And I should add, I am interested in this information for inclusion. You can go ahead and try and paint a sign on me of what you think my agenda is, but I won't be there. Another point to consider: a nationwide law was enacted, despite opposition from Senator McCain, to ban billing victims. Not sure whether that makes these instances that you mention crimes, or attempts by states to evade national law. So, although I have not been able to extensively show it here, as neither time nor the framing of the discussion has permitted: interesting perhaps, but not substantive arguments against inclusion by any means. As this poll was introduced as no big deal, I didn't bother addressing the points. That's just a first stab at one picked at random, that looked like it had more substance than the others. Others include assertions that have been refuted long ago, (and incidentally, have to be refuted over and over again, until I am just so sick of it I can't tell you) such as "after reviewing the arguments on the talk page, this seems to be essentially an election meme without real evidence that any victims were billed. -Dman727. I refer you to the very first piece of evidence that editors who start on this issue practically know the URL of by heart, Fannon's interview with the Mat-Su Valley Frontiersman on the 22nd (from memory) of um, May, it says here, '08. Then, the misleading and evasive. "Billing insurance companies can be briefly mentioned in sub-article but not in this main article (cuz Palin may not have known about it), and billing victims should be in neither article (cuz no evidence it happened in Wasilla).Ferrylodge (talk) 20:50, 28 Dec". Not only is billing victims mentioned in the subarticle already, but as Ferrylodge should know, charging victims is mentioned, and I notice he now knows to use the word 'billed' to distinguish who gets the bill, from 'charged', to denote who carries the weight of the charge: the victim who has to have paid for health insurance. I know this because I was the one that pointed it out. Victims -were- charged in Wasilla. We don't know if victims were billed in Wasilla. To say that they weren't is false, and additionally misleading, as they were charged. Then there are assertions that can 'never' be proven, as they are 100% rhetoric and/or subjective, such as "The undue weight given to this issue is ridiculous. Political figures are more than the sum of their blog-generated controversies.Coemgenus 22:49, 28 Dec" Anarchangel (talk) 03:40, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

While I think a strong (and winning) case could be made for consensus, it is not appropriate for us to ask for this edit now for a couple of reasons. 1. Some posters have asked that the straw poll be included for at least 1 or 2 weeks. This discussion has been going on for a long time, and there is no reason to rush it. 2. While the straw poll is an excellent source of gauging opinion, it doesn't replace consensus building. The option in the poll is binary and doesn't give the editors who support inclusion the opportunity to argue for some different form of included material which may result in some editors who don't favor inclusion (like me) to support that language. I could easily see myself agreeing to some language in order to end this dispute (in fact, I already have).

Anyway, I don't see a reason to rush this...in a week or so we should close the straw poll and try to civilly listen to each other's arguments and proposals one more time and respectfully come to a decision.LedRush (talk) 04:27, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I am working on a list of conceded, refuted and disputed points, and a list of accepted and disputed sources. Anarchangel (talk) 10:17, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Anarchangel, when you copy and paste material onto this talk page, would you please remove signatures (i.e. the four tilde "~" things)? The only person who should be signing is the person who clicks the "Save Page" button. Otherwise, things get very confusing. Thanks.Ferrylodge (talk) 04:01, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

In reference to prior discussions on this subject

I think it's important not to lose sight of preceding debates on this same subject, but I don't want to be accused of canvassing or whatever other forms of bad faith people will inevitably try to ascribe to me. So I have attempted to create a list of past debate participants and to characterize each user's position on the debate. Where I am somewhat uncertain of somebody's position, I put a question mark (?) after their name. Where I am completely unsure, I have placed them in a "neutral" category.

If I have mischaracterized anybody's position, I am sorry. I'm sure this is also not a 100% complete list as I only went back about 4 months in the talk page history. I also did not include any IP's ... as far as I am concerned these are not editors. Finally, I did not list anyone who has already voted in this straw poll.

For inclusion
User:LamaLoLeshLa
User:Jim62sch
User:JamesMLane
User:Manticore55
Moved to Neutral; JcSoco's assessment is correct, his position is unclear Anarchangel (talk) 21:47, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
User:Slrubenstein(?)
User:Tvoz
User:Homunq
User:GreekParadise
User:Anarchangel
User:Writegeist -- has since been indefinitely blocked
User:Appraiser
User:Facts707
User:Zeamays
User:Geo_Swan
Removed; JcSoco's assessment is correct, only one edit Anarchangel (talk) 10:02, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
Removed; JcSoco's assessment is correct, only three edits Anarchangel (talk) 10:02, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
User:Fresheneesz
User:Pmanderson / Septentrionalis

Against inclusion, or for moving to subarticle
User:Wallamoose
User:Elmmapleoakpine
User:Zaereth
User:Zsero
User:oren0oreno's comment on Joe the Plumber talk:
User:Hobartimus
User:Wikidemon (? -- WD suggests to put in mayoralty article)
User:Fcreid(? -- FC opposed inclusion but agreed on compromise language after discussion with Appraiser)
Moved to neutral; passage had language this user supported Anarchangel (talk) 10:02, 3 January 2009 (UTC) User:MastCell (? -- suggests mayoralty article)

Neutral or I can't figure out their position
User:KillerChihuahua (? -- KC made suggestions on how to word material in NPOV fashion, also reverted at least once when the section was deleted by Ferrylodge, but also stated he/she didn't have a strong opinion on whether to include)
User:Grsz11 (?)
User:Probios no evidence either way. This is evidence of nothing, hence Neutral. Anarchangel (talk) 21:47, 3 January 2009 (UTC) User:BenAveling(? -- Ben states he has seen no evidence Palin knew this was happening); this has been supported for months by the passage's final sentence in two forms: the SPT cite and Palin's own email interview answer.
User:11dimensions-only one edit, removed from Support.Anarchangel (talk) 10:02, 3 January 2009 (UTC) User:Oldmann_d - only three edits, removed from Support, Anarchangel (talk) 10:02, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

(comment) I am not sure why this guy gets in the list and IPs don't...he was an editor for four minutes only (3 edits all to this talk page four months ago.LedRush (talk) 15:51, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

I removed him from Support. Anarchangel (talk) 10:02, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Just FWIW. Again, I'll state my own opinion that this was a criticism by notable parties which was relevant to Palin's notability as a politician and which received significant media coverage. Better to address it in NPOV fashion than to simply pretend it didn't happen. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 18:00, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

"See WP:VOTE and WP:DEMOCRACY. Far worse conflicts than this have been resolved by discussion; a majority vote is never going to convince anyone of consensus anyway. Oren0 (talk) 20:28, 6 December 2008 (UTC)" -Quote from Joe the Plumber talk page.
oren0 is currently listed as Opposed. Regardless of how he might prefer to be listed, I think it would be hypocritical for him to choose.

I give up looking for MastCell's opinion; closest I could find was that he felt that someone was right to delete contributions to the SP talk page. Which is funny, 'cause he was right there to say just that exact same thing on the ANI page too. If anyone can find any examples of him objecting to the kit passage, go right ahead and cite them, otherwise I personally will be not crediting any count with his name in it as bona fide. Anarchangel (talk) 10:02, 3 January 2009 (UTC) I agree with JcSoco's statements about the value of Probios' contributions (here and on my talk), but it just isn't egregious enough to be relevant to a list of editors' stand on inclusion.
I totally agree that Probios had nothing whatsoever to say about inclusion, and for this reason I will move him from Support to Neutral. Anarchangel (talk) 21:47, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I have a couple of thoughts on this list:

1. The idea of this was to see where we were with editors who have moved on since the partisan attacks of the election.

2. The list includes people who've been indefinitely blocked and who've not contributed for a long time.

My feeling is that this list was put together to make it look like the poll was not an accurate assessment of what the editors of the page feel. However, it is deeply flawed in both concept and execution.LedRush (talk) 18:27, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Disagree. In what ways do you feel the concept and execution are flawed? Anarchangel (talk) 21:47, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

1. Yes, one of the purposes was to indicate that current straw poll is not an accurate assessment of what the editors of the page feel. But it's also to ensure any "consensus" that is taken is actually a broad consensus which reflects the scope of discussion which has taken place. "Consensus" isn't synonymous with "agreement among only those editors who have been watching this page in the past two weeks"... especially not when both the article itself and the issue we're debating have been the subject of intense discussion for months.

I thought we were trying to assess where we are now, not count where we once were.LedRush (talk) 21:51, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

I do not believe you would categorize your argument as being based on this, but just to clear the air : the belief that the opinion of editors who edited before the election is worth less than those who edited afterwards is quite hollow, as would be the reverse. Anarchangel (talk) 21:47, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

If you're not dismissing the positions of those people, then why does the list not successfully show that the straw poll results are not an accurate assessment of how editors of the article feel? And how is listing the positions "deeply flawed"?Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 14:43, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

I have already answered this.LedRush (talk) 17:17, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

If you mean, "I thought we were trying to assess where we are now, not count where we once were.", then you have not answered. That is a rhetorical question. Anarchangel (talk) 21:47, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

And I have shown that the current straw poll is not an accurate indicator of the opinions of editors who have debated this issue. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 21:52, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

2. So is it your claim that anyone who discussed this issue prior to this new straw poll, and who argued for inclusion, was just a partisan hack attempting to make a smear, and so we should not only disregard the prior discussions themselves, but declare anyone who participated in them to be unfit as editors -- except for those who argued against inclusion, who are to be regarded as exemplary editors? This really just sounds like a mass ad hominem argument.

You have yet again created a straw man. My claim is exactly what I have said it was...see where we are with the editors who have stayed on after the election.LedRush (talk) 21:49, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

See again, point above. I'm just trying to stress that the discussions that took place earlier were no less valid, nor the participants less sincere, during the election cycle. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 14:43, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, you've almost admitted you were wrong. Will you apologize for your baseless insulting attack?LedRush (talk) 17:17, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

How about you apologize for your own personal attacks before publically demanding an apology for my alleged attacks? Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 21:53, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

3. Please mention the users who have been permanently blocked and I will either remove them from the list or make a note of the block in the list.

WritegeistLedRush (talk) 21:49, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

4. Could you please describe more explicitly how this list is "deeply flawed" in both concept and execution? Neither of your objections really supports this claim.Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 18:44, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

No. I have explained it sufficiently and my objections support the claim perfectly: the first is the problem with your idea, the second with execution.LedRush (talk) 21:49, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

The idea was to remind everyone of the previous discussions that took place on the subject, as well as the positions taken by users involved. The execution of the idea was to list the users as well as a general statement of whether they favored or opposed inclusion. It was a well-founded and well-executed idea, and your comments have done nothing to undermine that except to case doubt on the users involved in these previous discussions by implying that they were involved in "partisan attacks". Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 14:43, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

OK, you've proclaimed your ill-conceived plan a success. I've proven otherwise and others seem to agree. Why do editors who come here once to make minor additions get listed yet IPs don't? Poor execution of a flawed idea. We all agreed to keep this thread up for a long time to get the opinion of all who are interested. If you don't like the results, maybe there is a problem with your underlying position. Please don't facilitate the degeneration of this discussion with personal attacks, accusations, and attempts to undermine the consensus building process with bad lists.LedRush (talk) 17:17, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

And you've proclaimed it a failure without beginning to show why. I included people with user accounts because we can contact them and track their activity. Not so with IPs. Creating an account also shows that the person has some basic interest in Wikipedia beyond posting a single comment on a single page. Please stop your constant accusations of bad faith and simply admit that I am an honest editor who strongly disagrees with you and who is attempting to substantiate that numerous other editors have shared my position on this issue. This is not "facilitating the degeneration of this discussion" -- it's simply showing that your position has been argued against by numerous editors other than myself. This in no way undermines the consensus building process but instead provides a convenient reference to numerous others who have contributed to the debate -- just in case anyone cares that others have held opinions on the subject in the very recent past and wants to give those opinions a fair hearing.Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 22:00, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

mention the users who have been permanently blocked Is indefinate the same as permenent??See User:Writegeist. --Tom 19:29, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

deeply flawed in both concept and execution, to quote Hannah Montana, "yaaa thinnnkkk"?? Of course its flawed since probably 5 of the inclusionists are the same person :). Factchecker is at it again with his "facts" :) --Tom 18:32, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Of course since probably. Anarchangel (talk) 10:02, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Once again all you offer is ad hominem attacks. You're calling other editors sock puppets with no basis, and insulting me, in lieu of a serious response. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 18:48, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

ps received significant media coverage?? You are kidding, right? --Tom 18:34, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

No... I'm not kidding. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 18:50, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Attributing opinions to editors without their permission (or even confirmation) is problematic. Coemgenus 18:36, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

If I had contacted them I would have been accused (and somebody would have sought a block) for "Canvassing". So it's sort of a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" situation. Also, each attribution was based on their comments... it's not like I am just making it up. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 18:50, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

pss Factchecker, IPs are just as much editors to this project as registered users. I actually sometimes prefer to edit as an IP but they are treated as 2nd class sometimes which, imho is unfair and not right. Anyways, --Tom 18:38, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

I see no way we could possibly involve IPs with discussion since we have no way of contacting them and they probably don't have the same IP address now, anyway. PS, the IPs I saw that I didn't include were in favor of including this issue, so it was a bit of a concession to your side that I excluded IPs. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 18:50, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

How bout the IPs who thought inclusion was "silly"? I know, I know, all you offer is ad hominem attacks, isn't that line getting a tad old? Anyways, --Tom 19:33, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

I didn't notice any. Like I said, the IPs I excluded were in favor of inclusion. And anytime you wish to actually discuss something without insulting me, I'll be glad to oblige. So long as you constantly make ad hominem attacks, I will constantly call attention to that fact. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 19:39, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

You didn't notice any? How convienient is that?. I know, I know, another ad hominem attack. --Tom 20:24, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Do you have anything to add other than that I am a big fat poopypants who is not to be trusted? Shall we settle this on the playground at recess? Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 14:51, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

(undent) People can change their positions after discussion. That's the whole point of discussion. Positions from a long time ago are of even less relevance in a situation like this, where an election has intervened, and many people with more political or propagandist motives have either moved on or relaxed.Ferrylodge (talk) 18:53, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Really just seems like a way of dismissing everyone who has contributed to prior discussions on this issue by subjecting them to a mass ad hominem attack in which you accuse them all of having propagandist motives, in one fell swoop. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 19:00, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

No one is being dismissed. This RfC will be open a good long time, so that anyone can chime in. And perhaps the idea that no one at this article has ever had a propagandist motive is just a tad naive?Ferrylodge (talk) 19:05, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

You, Led, and Kelly are all dismissing these users by implying that they had "propagandist motives" when they debated this issue and suggesting that we should now ignore the positions they took in the debate. I'm going to ignore your last comment as it makes a pretty grand and incorrect assumption about my views. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 19:14, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

You have again falsely accused me of making personal attacks. I have never ascribed propagandist motives to anyone, nonetheless dismissed their opinion for this reason. Please try to remain civil and correct this misrepresentation that you've made.LedRush (talk) 21:49, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Your comments left the distinct impression that you were trying to minimize or dismiss the contributions to this debate that have been made prior to the past 2 weeks. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 14:51, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Again, this is almost an admission of wrongdoing. I hope you'll retract your false personal attack openly and completely.LedRush (talk) 17:17, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Courtesy is a two-way street. Apologize for repeatedly and directly stating that I act in bad faith, and perhaps explain what wrongdoing I am expected to apologize for, and then maybe our mutual hatchet-burying will be a constructive addition to this talk page? For the time being, I don't see the value in constant accusations (without any specific detail about what the accusation is about) and demands for apologies. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 22:08, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

You said "You, Led, and Kelly are all dismissing these users by implying that they had "propagandist motives" when they debated this issue and suggesting that we should now ignore the positions they took in the debate." I never said or implied that anyone had "propagandist motives, I never dismissed any users, and I never suggested that we should now ignore users. Please show an example of me doing this in relation to your post or apologize. The closest I can find to your assertion is that I mentioned the point of the straw poll was to see where we were after the partisan attacks associated with the election have ended. This is, of course, directed at both sides of the fence and wasn't attributed to any specific editors or any political parties or positions. The same was true of the Obama article...after the election the partisan attacks from both sides died down, and people were generally able to strike a more civil tone. I had hoped the same would happen here, but...

Your assertion of courtesy being a two-way street is correct. We have both had heated disagreements in the past and I admit that I have not always been civil, (though I would meet Wikipedia's standards of civility). For that I apologize. I have apologized in the past when I have made mistakes or crossed lines. But when I start a new discussion I treat people with respect. However, you continue to make personal attacks on me, create strawmen arguments, and say I've done things I haven't. Seeing I have proven your above statements about me are false, I would appreciate an apology.LedRush (talk) 05:36, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

I would also like an apology for your accusations of bad faith, use of strawmen, misrepresentations of what I have said, etc. Basically, you are demanding an apology for things that you yourself have done but are not willing to apologize for. See the incongruity? And once again, this finger-pointing which you seem to insist upon is not productive for the article. Take it to my talk page, or an admin board? Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 15:18, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Above I have apologized for past actions which may have crossed the line. However, in this case, I have done none of the things you accuse me of, and I have proven you have done them to me.LedRush (talk) 15:53, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

I am unable to locate any apology. And your claims of innocence, as well as your claims of having provided proof of anything, ring hollow. This discussion and these demands for apology are pointless and unproductive. Let's end both. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 16:48, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeh, he did, Fact. "We have both had heated disagreements in the past and I admit that I have not always been civil, (though I would meet Wikipedia's standards of civility). For that I apologize." He then went and made some more accusations, but he did at one point apologize. And Led? Factchecker does not owe you an apology. Thanks for yours. Might have seemed more noble if you didn't demand one from him afterwards. Nobody has said anything that can't be just ignored. So start ignoring it already. On the other hand, noone has said anything purely civil the entire, very long, conversation. This jabbing while acting as wounded as possible back and forth is making me queasy. Any chance you could wrap it up? Anarchangel (talk) 10:02, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Sure, assuming no one makes any more false attacks on me, this will be my last post on the subject: My reply below (repeated from above) proves without doubt that Factchecker misrepresented my position (despite a clear statement that my purpose was precisely not what he accused it to be) and made false accusations about me. If he is unwilling to either back up his claim or retract it, there is nothing I can do. But I will not accept false statements about me to go unanswered.LedRush (talk) 19:29, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I repeat my apology for unspecified past incivility and my proof that you've attacked me without reason below.

You said "You, Led, and Kelly are all dismissing these users by implying that they had "propagandist motives" when they debated this issue and suggesting that we should now ignore the positions they took in the debate." I never said or implied that anyone had "propagandist motives, I never dismissed any users, and I never suggested that we should now ignore users. Please show an example of me doing this in relation to your post or apologize. The closest I can find to your assertion is that I mentioned the point of the straw poll was to see where we were after the partisan attacks associated with the election have ended. This is, of course, directed at both sides of the fence and wasn't attributed to any specific editors or any political parties or positions. The same was true of the Obama article...after the election the partisan attacks from both sides died down, and people were generally able to strike a more civil tone. I had hoped the same would happen here, but...

Your assertion of courtesy being a two-way street is correct. We have both had heated disagreements in the past and I admit that I have not always been civil, (though I would meet Wikipedia's standards of civility). For that I apologize. I have apologized in the past when I have made mistakes or crossed lines. But when I start a new discussion I treat people with respect. However, you continue to make personal attacks on me, create strawmen arguments, and say I've done things I haven't. Seeing I have proven your above statements about me are false, I would appreciate an apology.LedRush (talk) 05:36, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

End quote...LedRush (talk) 17:03, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

I wish you wouldn't ignore that last comment, because it accurately describes my view.Ferrylodge (talk) 20:39, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Then try not using "your view" to rhetorically imply something about me that is untrue. You said "And perhaps the idea that no one at this article has ever had a propagandist motive is just a tad naive?" You clearly and obviously said this in order to suggest that I am naive because I supposedly believe that "no one at this article has ever had a propagandist motive". But I don't believe that no one at this article has ever had a propagandist motive.. not by a long shot.. or I wouldn't have started editing it in the first place.Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 14:51, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Ferrylodge is correct. Nobody's being dismissed here, but the consensus of what belongs in an article changes over time. This is especially true of figures in an emotional national election. As an example, I admit I was initially horrified at the thought of Obama as president (which was the main reason I never edited his biography). Now that we are past the election rhetoric, I'm encouraged that he is appointing centrists and Republicans to his cabinet, and has even espoused some socially conservative policies, so I now feel all right with the thought of him representing me as President. The campaign memes about him, like abandoning the mission in Iraq or bankrupting the coal industry, seem silly and exaggerated in retrospect and would never belong in his biography. I would assume that the same sense of resolution/calm has prevailed with many editors who were horrified at the thought of Palin as VP, and many have moved on, changed their minds, or just don't care anymore. The poll above seems to be indicating that, but we're in no hurry. Kelly ^hi! 20:41, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

What you're seeing is roughly the same set of editors who have always opposed inclusion of this. It's not evidence that editors who favored inclusion have "moved on" or "changed their minds". I'm sure if you posted on the talk page of each user, the majority of them would express the same opinion that they originally expressed. I wanted to do this but judged that I would be accused of dishonesty in some way. Most of these people also probably did not assume that their opinion would be discarded later simply because they didn't keep a vigil over this article, while the people they debated against did.

Finally, I'll point out that several people in that list are still actively editing this article. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 14:51, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

And several of your "list" NEVER "actively edited" here at all, or officially made "minor" edits and who have not made the position you ascribe to them in any recent posts at all. Collect (talk) 15:43, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

There are people on both "sides" of the list who have not been major contributors to the article content. Others have contributed substantially but have not put the article on their Watch list and don't patrol it for recent changes. There are also, in general, numerous people who comment on subjects related to an article, but do not actively edit the article itself. None of this is really relevant to anything, nor does it mean their contributions to the discussion are to be ignored or minimized. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 15:55, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

If they are actively editing, this list is unnecessary. If not, listing them here doesn't help as we're trying to get a sense of where we now stand with editors who have decided to remain and make the article good after the bitter election ended. I've explained this several times, but...LedRush (talk) 17:17, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't believe it would be inappropriate to, in a NPOV manner]], inform the users who previously weighed in on the issue that a new poll is being had. See WP:CANVAS. --Evb-wiki (talk) 17:27, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree that ascribing positions to editors is problematic. However, consider the alternatives: Canvassing. This is right out. No can do. Citing the listed editors' support for inclusion. This is messy and time consuming. Additionally, it is arguably not possible, as deleting the material has not come up as a serious discussion since the material was first introduced in August.

I think the list is valuable as far as it goes. It is obviously not to be incorporated with the poll. And it obviously shows a completely different conclusion, one which has prevailed since August, when the material was first introduced. In an environment where five or six deletions a day of a single sentence is common, that's notable. Anarchangel (talk) 19:55, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

There has never been a clear consensus to include this material in the article. And the material has not been in the article since August, as it didn't make its first appearance on a liberal blog "Stop All Monsters (like Sara Palin)" until September 8th. In fact since mid September when this controversy first arose, the material has been out of the article more than it has been in.--Paul (talk) 20:59, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Now that I think upon it, neither poll is consensus either, as oren0's quote from Joe the Plumber page points out. Anarchangel (talk) 10:02, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree about consensus. My thoughts on consensus in this article are known to the regulars in discussion. It has been my strong contention on numerous occasions that true consensus has never existed on any issue since October.

You're right, my bad. It entered the article in September where it remained until it was deleted by Threeafterthree on September 14 at 2:40 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sarah_Palin&diff=238276447&oldid=238276121 , returning in October to be deleted in its entirety four times in one day, the 15th, by Threeafterthree; four of seven nonconsecutive edits and 11 total edits to SP he made on that day. I had it confused with something else, either the first edits Tom made on the article, which was in August, or the first rush of edits on SP, in the same month.

Overall, it may have been out more than in, but since October, it has been in more than out. It seems fairly obvious that the arguments that it does not have support therefore it should be deleted, and it has support therefore it should remain, are both unfounded, and relative to other arguments for and against inclusion, of little consequence in any case. Anarchangel (talk) 23:33, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, the reason I pointed out the flaws of the list are for this very reason. It doesn't effectively "show" anything. Someone has already removed his name from the list for misattribution, one of the guys is indefinitely banned, the list doesn't include IP contributions so it doesn't show the real thoughts of all contributors on this, names are duplicated from the straw poll so it gives the false impression of where the board was at the time...it's just a bad idea to have done this and it was done badly. I also disagree with Anarchangel's opinion that the list shows a conclusion which has prevailed since august for different reasons than the above mentioned ones: many editors like myself have participated in the discussion about the wording of the language as a compromise to our real position that it doesn't belong at all.LedRush (talk) 20:06, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

It shows that numerous people have supported inclusion, in order to contradict repeated claims that almost nobody has. Anyway, there were *maybe* 2 or 3 IPs excluded from the list. Which names are you saying are duplicated from the straw poll? I didn't see any. Anyway, I completely disagree that it was a bad idea... since it has been claimed over and over and over again that "only a few" editors have ever supported inclusion, it's important to at least reference discussions in which numerous people have argued for inclusion. And it was done about as well as it could be done without actually contacting the editors in a canvass... which would have prompted even more accusations of bad faith (and possibly block attempts) than the list itself has.

Finally, many editors such as myself also offered heavy concessions in crafting the compromise. There were those who contributed but felt it should be excluded entirely, then there were those who contributed but felt that the compromise text failed to convey any sense of why there was a criticism directed at Palin in the first place, omitted the complaint of bill sponsor Croft, etc. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 21:51, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm not convinced the list is reliable. One person has already removed himself/herself.[16] And why is Buster7 listed as supporting inclusion?[17] Anyway, as I said before, the list does not seem relevant at this stage of things.Ferrylodge (talk) 20:26, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

That was a -long- time ago, before the Huffington Post information was introduced, before I proved the 'no evidence' statement relied on negative proof for notability, before the connection with Stambaugh was established. He has consistently supported including more facts in the rape kit budget passage, such as this one; his objection was based on the information discussed at the time, which was a lot weaker.Anarchangel (talk) 10:02, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Consider some of the editors who are listed in support of inclusion. User:Probios presented Munger's allegation of "Palin the YEC" as fact on the article^[18] and then went on the talk page and argued in defense of this distortion of the source he cited. User:11dimensions has archived only one edit on Wikipedia; a talk-page rant about the "whitewash" of the Sarah Palin article. User:Oldman d has only three. Are these not exactly the kinds of come-and-go POV-warriors LedRush was talking about? Should they be fully weighted against editors who have regularly contributed both to this article and the project as a whole? Clearly, the answer is "no." »S0CO^{(talk|contribs)} 04:32, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Distortion of the source? Pht. The Palin as YEC story would be in the article now if the source had been good. The source gave evidence that, if believed, showed Palin was a YEC.

I totally agree about 11dimensions and Oldman d and have removed them from Support. Anarchangel (talk) 10:02, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Replied at your talk. »S0CO^{(talk|contribs)} 20:45, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

So this is about the rape kit thing? I saw the edit request above, then saw this section, and got to tl;dr before seeing what the actual topic here is (no offense, but it's really not clear!) --SB_Johnny | ^talk 00:06, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes it is. I prefer to call it the 'rape kit budget' thing, these days, it makes it so much more difficult to assert that Palin had nothing to do with it. Anarchangel (talk) 10:02, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Removed

As per the arguments above (waaay up there!), the referenced material doesn't establish enough of a connection to Palin herself to withstand the arguments for removal. --SB_Johnny | ^talk 11:05, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Fannon was Palin's employee. Palin made the budget that cut funding for rape kits.The links in this article have the information directly from the budget. Even St Petersburg Times explains that her budget was related to Fannon's policy "she indirectly endorsed it by approving city budgets that relied on the revenue".Anarchangel (talk) 06:07, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

The arguments are way up there because there have been many more arguments to the contrary that you have not even mentioned, and indeed, whose nature you seem to have not understood, right up until very near the time of your edit. Anarchangel (talk) 03:40, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I disagree with the well-intentioned removal of this content. We're meant to be writing a factual article on Sarah Palin, not editing facts into or out of her life. We write facts; Readers draw conclusions. Any variation on this pattern on our part lets the reader down and impedes our goal of writing an encyclopedia.

Palin was a hands-on mayor, according to secondary sources and to her own statements. The police chief reported to her directly. A factual statement of what happened, without overstating her part in the controversy, belongs in the article, as it is intrinsically connected to Palin's tenure as mayor and became a point of contention in Palin's later political activities, as well, transcending her maoralty and impacting on other activities of hers, including her run for Vice-President. To omit mention of this issue entirely gives the misleading impression that the controversy both didn't involve her and didn't have any effect on her activities, either as mayor or afterward. It's better to trust the reader with the facts than to sculpt their impression by presenting a subset of those facts. --SSBohio 18:06, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

While I may disagree with the procedure of the removal, I cannot say I disagree with the substance of the decision...it is quite correct in my opinion. The "controversy" wasn't really widely covered in the mainstream press (yes, we will find many hits on articles about it, but it never became a substantial campaign issue), there is no evidence that it involved Palin, and there is no evidence it effected the events of her life in any meaningful way. This doesn't meet the standards for entry into a BLP (or perhaps any biography) in the same way that the far more discussed and covered Ayers controversy doesn't belong in the Obama biography.LedRush (talk) 19:21, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Don't worry too much about the procedure... it's certainly a matter of dispute, so it makes sense not to have it in while discussions are taking place. I'll happily edit war with myself and add it back if that's where the sense of the tides leads me :-). The point of protecting the page is that it's better to discuss than edit war over it, but it's still a wiki, and any problem can be fixed. --SB_Johnny | ^talk 23:55, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Are you assuming that the burden of proof has not been met by previous editors? Or is there another reason that it makes sense not to have it in while discussions are taking place? Anarchangel (talk) 03:40, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Birth of grandchild

According to People,[19] Bristol Palin gave birth to a son on 28 December. Not sure if details need to be mentioned, but this article currently mentions her pregnancy and leaves the issue unresolved. Anyone have ideas for rewording this? Kelly ^hi! 00:43, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Suggested rewrite of second paragraph of Personal life section:
Palin describes herself as a hockey mom. The Palins have five children: sons Track (b. 1989)[170] and Trig (b. 2008), and daughters Bristol (b. 1990), Willow (b. 1995), and Piper (b. 2001).[171] Track enlisted in the U.S. Army on September 11, 2007, and was subsequently assigned to an infantry brigade. He and his unit deployed to Iraq in September 2008 for 12 months. Palin's youngest child, Trig, was prenatally diagnosed with Down syndrome. On September 1, 2008, Palin announced that Bristol was five months pregnant and that she intended to keep the baby and marry Levi Johnston, the father of the child. The baby, a boy named Tripp Easton Mitchell Johnston, was born on December 28, 2008. [add People mag ref] --Crunch (talk) 01:40, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Sounds non-controversial. Admin, please add the following sentence and ref as described above:

The baby, a boy named Tripp Easton Mitchell Johnston, was born on December 28, 2008.<ref>{{cite news |first=Lorenzo |last=Benet |title=Bristol Palin Welcomes a Son |url=http://www.people.com/people/article/0,,20245389,00.html?xid=rss-topheadlines |work=[[People (magazine)|People]] |date=2008-12-29 |accessdate=30 December 2008 }}</ref>

Thanks! Kelly ^hi! 01:47, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

I have weighed this carefully, and I'm commenting out the request until we get a little more feedback. We're not Breaking News; we can afford to be a little bit slower reporting the birth. With the wars this page has spawned over the most trivial stuff, I'm not inclined to treat any content change as non-controversial. We have the input of two editors; that's not enough for me to view this as consensus even on such a clear-cut thing. I'm giving it a little more time. Berate me if you will; but editing a fully protected page requires a good deal more assurance that consensus supports the edit than I have now. KillerChihuahua^?!? 11:52, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, looks like Dravecky already did it, and didn't bother to post here. I'll leave it, unless and until there is a protest. KillerChihuahua^?!? 12:02, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

The article also says they were going to get married, but doesn't follow up on that either. Grundle2600 (talk) 21:01, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

And that means we can't do either till they do and we're in no rush since there is no dead line. Great, isn't it?--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 00:47, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Correction needed

People has corrected their initial report to state the child was born on Dec 27, not Dec 28. Can we fix this, and reflect the reference as People magazine instead of the Washington Post? Kelly ^hi! 21:15, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Kelly, give me the correction as you want it and I'll paste it in. Content and ref pls, thanks much. KillerChihuahua^?!? 23:46, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Here it is, Puppy - thanks! Kelly ^hi! 01:25, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Bristol Palin's child, a boy named Tripp Easton Mitchell Johnston, was born on December 27, 2008.<ref>{{cite news |first=Lorenzo |last=Benet |title=Bristol Palin Welcomes a Son |url=http://www.people.com/people/article/0,,20245389,00.html?xid=rss-topheadlines |work=[[People (magazine)|People]] |date=2008-12-29 |accessdate=31 December 2008 }}</ref>

Done: I kept the Post ref as well, there being no particular request nor reason to remove it; I changed the word "boy" to "son" in keeping with the previous content. KillerChihuahua^?!? 14:12, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Puppy - looks good. The paragraph on family needs to be eventually reworked for prose and flow, I think, but that can wait. Kelly ^hi! 20:32, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

You are more than welcome - and I agree; the rewrite is needed but can wait. There are enough debates right now without start a rewrite session for the section. Who knows, we may actually have the article unprotected by then and be able to progress in a more usual fashion (hey, I can hope.) KillerChihuahua^?!? 23:01, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Protection

Why is this page protected? Jonathan321 (talk) 04:17, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

See the logs. KillerChihuahua^?!? 12:03, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Looks like it's tagged incorrectly -- icon says semi-protected but it's full protected, right? Gerardw (talk) 20:26, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Please change tag from pp-semi-vandalism to pp-vandalism Gerardw (talk) 02:34, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Shouldn't it be pp-dispute?? --Paul (talk) 02:38, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

No disagreement, it just shouldn't be listed as semi-protected. And please don't move other editors (or at least my) comments -- the guidelines for {{editprotect}} say to put the reason for the request right after the template. Thanks! Gerardw (talk) 02:50, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

{{editprotected}} Please change tag from pp-semi-vandalism to pp-vandalism or pp-dispute, as appropriate Gerardw (talk) 02:45, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Done. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 19:57, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

See also 2nd request by another editor Gerardw (talk) 12:01, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

removal of extra spaces

Admin (killer or others) could you please remove the extra spaces Branchflower Report section (and before the beginning of the State Personnel Board Investigation section)? I had done this before but it got reverted when someone reverted some other edits to the section.LedRush (talk) 05:27, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Done. KillerChihuahua^?!? 11:48, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Net Worth

In the personal section, it is claimed that they have a Net Worth estimated over $1 million. However, the article only says that they have Assets estimated to be over $1 million. Assests do not equal net worth. The article states that their liabilities would be reported later (which I am guessing that they have). So either a new source confirming the net worth must be found, or the section has to be reworded or removed as it is currently not verified with the provided source. And unless they own their house free and clear, I highly doubt they have a net worth over $1 million. Arzel (talk) 16:22, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

I tend to think the whole issue is irrelevant to a BLP. Collect (talk) 16:50, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Remove the sentence as misleading/incorrect unless an alternate reference is provided. Kelly ^hi! 16:54, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, most bios, except maybe Bill Gates :) do not get into net worth unless there is some relevancy. Anyways, --Tom 18:16, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Is nothing going to be done about this? The current wording is not factually correct, and since the article is locked this continues to be libelous. Arzel (talk) 16:13, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Maybe contact KillerChihuahua,*blowing dog whistle* she seems to be admin willing to be a voice of reason in here and this seems pretty inocuous and has not been edit warred over in the past. Also, not sure how bad it is to say Joe Blow is worth a million bucks, even if not true, unless you are fighting over who should pick up the meal check :). This hasn't been posted that long anyways and it is a holiday today so maybe give it another day or two. Thanks, --Tom 16:52, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

{{editprotected}}

Please remove the sentence on net worth from the "personal" section, per discussion above. Kelly ^hi! 15:26, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Y Done --SB_Johnny | ^talk 19:43, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

{{editprotected}}

The noncontroversial change I see in the discussion above is changing the sentence to read assets instead of net worth. There appears to be nothing libelous about having assets; Could the sentence be restored with the term net worth replaced by assets? --SSBohio 20:56, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Stating simply "assets" gives a misleading picture. I'd have no objection to a "net worth" statement, however. Kelly ^hi! 20:58, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree. Assets are missleading as any farmer will tell you. If actual net worth could be determined then I would have no problem with inclusion. Arzel (talk) 23:49, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Because of the two issues (whether to include the asset information and whether there was a demonstrated consensus to remove it), I'm splitting my response into two subsections: --SSBohio 17:45, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Should asset value be reported, since we know it?

Assets are a clearly defined category, as are liabilities. How does stating the factual amount of the Palins' assets mislead the reader? It says nothing about their liabilities or net worth. Stating only the assets tells the reader precisely what we know without redacting information that we know but elect not to share. I'm at a loss to understand how one would be misled by an accurate numerical asset valuation. --SSBohio 17:45, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Was there a demonstrated consensus to remove the asset value?

To return to my initial concern, however, I'm not seeing the consensus for removing the sentence in preference to editing it. The concrete objections raised are addressable by editing the sentence to accurately reflect the sources, so the stated consensus appears to be absent. --SSBohio 17:45, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

The proposal for removal was on this talk page for several days without any objection. And I'm not really understanding why we would want to include the value of the family's assets in this biography. Kelly ^hi! 21:23, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Can an admin add a wikilink?

The page for John Stein, the mayor of Wasilla that Sarah Palin defeated in 1996, has been created. Can an admin please add this wikilink to the Sarah Palin article? Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 00:52, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Done. KillerChihuahua^?!? 14:15, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

First term: the amendment to Alaska gun law SB 177 is incorrectly shown as HB 270 Anarchangel (talk) 19:23, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

POV needs correction: Oil "exploitation" should be "exploration".

While technically correct, "exploit" carries negative connotations. Better to say exploration. I can't make the change due to the edit lock. Leotohill (talk) 01:41, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

You're correct. For the sake of NPOV it should be changed but you need to get an admin involved to get it done.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 02:05, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

You can place the {{editprotected}} template to request an edit on a fully protected page. You can find instructions here Template:Editprotected.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 03:00, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

I made a similar change back in September so I would like to see this changed, too. I am going to take a shot at it. I hope you don't mind. WTucker (talk) 06:42, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

{{editprotected}} Please change the one occurrence of the word "exploitation" to "exploration" in keeping with NPOV. Thanks. WTucker (talk) 06:42, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

FYI, the paragraph in question is in the "Public image" section (3rd paragraph from the bottom up).--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 16:01, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Are you sure? "Exploration" and "exploitation" refer to different stages in the oil business (looking for oil reserves vs. pumping the oil from the ground). I don't think exploitation has a negative connotation when used in this sense, but "production" or "extraction" could be substituted if it's a serious concern. --SB_Johnny | ^talk 19:39, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Good point - I like "production". Kelly ^hi! 19:52, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Disabled the template for now, (since the "other" box is checked :-)), if y'all like "production", re-enable it. --SB_Johnny | ^talk 23:34, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Exploitation has clear negative connotations -- I doubt very much you will find many oil companies advertising their "exploitation" of oil. "Production", "development", "extraction" or "exploration" are all fine -- just not "exploitation". I now like "development" a little bit more than the others simply because that is the word which is used by the first source for the statement (the PolitiFact article). I will let someone else reissue the request since I took a shot and missed -- though not by much I suspect. :) WTucker (talk) 23:49, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

As a non-expert on "oil terms" I agree with WTucker. The terms "development" and "exploration" are both fine with me too. "Production" is a no no as is "extraction". And no, it's not a big deal but it would be nice to change this w/o having to discuss this indef.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 00:05, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Changed it to "exploration and development", if that's no good, I'll be around :-). --SB_Johnny | ^talk 00:42, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

That would be indeed not just a compromise but an enhancement to the article (even so a little one but hey...). I say let's do this! Anybody against it or else?--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 00:55, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

It's already done, actually :-). Feel free to holler at me if it's evil ;-). --SB_Johnny | ^talk 01:01, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Not at all. I like it and endorse it.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 01:08, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Good edit, thanks. Kelly ^hi! 01:13, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Article probation?

FYI, I proposed article probation, similar to what we have for Barack Obama, here. Kelly ^hi! 20:44, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Favorite for 2012 nomination?

The Hill is placing Palin as the favorite for the 2012 GOP nomination.[20] Should we include this here, or possibly in the "Public reception" subarticle? Kelly ^hi! 22:14, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Crystal ball opinions like that just don't belong in an encyclopedia. In four years the world will not be the same.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 22:48, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm - should we remove the other opinions of Palin from that section? Kelly ^hi! 23:05, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

I won't check now all the opinion pieces in the article but as for your question: No, of course not. It's just about this opinion I gave my input.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 23:23, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

And there is no need to get "smart with me" and it doesn't belong here anyway. Thanks ;) --The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 00:24, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree with the Magnificent...it doesn't belong in the article here. I don't feel strongly about this info, though.LedRush (talk) 01:32, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

After edit conflict. ::::Kelly, if more opinion pieces from RS's weight in on this we might be able to mention it somehow but not just with one source since it is a real "long-shot" [crap-shot] right now.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 01:39, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I was thinking along those lines too...I thought that a poll showing wide belief may get a half-sentence mention. However, we don't want to be a news service, either.LedRush (talk) 01:58, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

All I can say is: DITO. After time has passed and maybe, just maybe if things evolve in the media we'll see but till then we just can't include any news, especially when there are just crystal ball opinions of that kind.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 02:31, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Clean-up

There's a stray sentence fragment in the section "2008 vice-presidential campaign." In the fifth paragraph, there is a sentence fragment reading "Among the news organizations that criticized the restrictions were." This should either be made into a complete sentence or deleted. Niremetal (talk) 19:13, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

RFC or ANI?

This is not intended to be a vote. Constructive comments only, furthering the process of deciding whether to begin proceedings to RFC on the rape kit budget material or go to ANI to get SB Johnny's removal of the rape kit budget material reversed.

From the bottom of 'Straw poll on rape kits' section, subsection 'In reference to prior discussions on this subject' : "So this is about the rape kit thing? I saw the edit request above, then saw this section, and got to tl;dr before seeing what the actual topic here is (no offense, but it's really not clear!) --SB_Johnny | talk 00:06, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
Yes it is. I prefer to call it the 'rape kit budget' thing, these days, it makes it so much more difficult to assert that Palin had nothing to do with it. Anarchangel (talk) 10:02, 3 January 2009 (UTC)"

The only sign that SB Johnny noticed the half of the discussion indicating inclusion was to say, as I read it, Huh?
However, he had been advised that the discussion was about the rape kit article as of his removal of the entire rape kit budget passage as of 11:00 on 3 January

In light of this, the summary given "(rm "rape kit" discussion per talk page discussion)" really reminds me of Threeafterthree's edits and summaries. For 'Per talk page discussion', read, 'despite half the talk page being given over to a discussion of reasons for inclusion'.

I am so very uninterested in censuring action. It is so irrelevant. I support only restoration of the material as an action in ANI. However, I am concerned about the length of time that an RFC would take, and 'using up' of an RFC. Later on, should we need an RFC on another issue, the fact that we had had one already would be used against the new RFC, in the same way that 'tendentious editing' claims are used against our proposals even now on ANI, RFC, and other administrative pages. If it is possible to reverse the deletion in ANI, I want to do so. Anarchangel (talk) 01:37, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I just want to be clear on your reasoning. Do you believe that because SB Johnny didn't post a lot on the talk page that he couldn't have made a correct decision about whether the rape kit language should be removed and therefore want to know whether people want to join you in questioning his thought process on this issue in either RFC or ANI format? If this is indeed your opinion, he seems to indicate very clearly above that he will put the language back in the article if that is where the talk page discussion goes, so this whole post seems unnecessary. If this is not your opinion, could perhaps state what it is for me again so I can properly and productively respond?LedRush (talk) 06:09, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Because he will correct his mistake, he didn't make a mistake?
Kelly said the poll would be up two weeks, no big deal, not binding. There is no way I believe anyone anymore when they say things like, it is no big deal, I can put it back no problem. SB Johnny was wrong in many ways to remove the material, I have noted my reasons above. Kelly and SB Johnny have together done exactly what Threeafterthree did exactly 30 times. Same amount of comment, same amount of reasoning, same amount of attention to the opinions of editors. Anarchangel (talk) 06:44, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I have steered clear of this for the past week to see whether I was no longer seeing things clearly, Anarchangel. In my time of observation, it has become clear to me that this has become an obsession for you. Paul's advice above is sound. Take a break. I and everyone else appreciates that this is a sincere cause for you, but your anger and activism is misdirected in this matter. Palin may well represent the antithesis of every woman's cause you hold dear, but it's illogical to think she would target rape victims. When you have to dredge up support from a Huffington Post piece in order to make a case against her in this rape kit issue, it's time to assess whether this is a winnable battle. Fcreid (talk) 11:51, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Fcreid, categorizing others as obsessed and suggesting they "take a break" from the page is, frankly, not helpful. If the person is "on the other side" it looks, I am sorry to say, either baiting or condescending. Realize that this is a heated topic, with strong views, else we would not be working with a protected article which may well be officially moderated in the near future. Given that parameter, most of the editors could be described as obsessed to one degree or another, else they'd be off editing grammatical errors on My Little Pony article. See what I mean?

Your post is almost 100% commentary on another editor. It is unacceptable. Don't do this again. Comment on content, not on the contributor. KillerChihuahua^?!? 12:54, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I have been debating content for nearly four months, from the day this issue first surfaced and with multiple editors before Anarchangel. In its initial iteration, it was presented as unequivocally involving Palin. In one form, it actually perpetuated a lie that these kits included "morning after" contraception (later debunked as they weren't even available then). Despite these lies being perpetuated by liberal blogs as campaign smears--Huffington Post and dKos notably--I was among a few who conceded it should be included with the rationale that, while multiple reliable sources found Palin had no direct involvement in the ad hoc practice by her police chief, her lack of awareness might call into question her management acumen. In fact, I still feel that way, i.e. the article should state succinctly that her police chief admittedly practiced this, yet there is no evidence Palin supported or opposed it--both points are fully supported by reliable sources. In contrast, I object to the position of this particular editor who has apparently made it a quest to bring Palin to trial here in her BLP on flimsy evidence from questionable sources. The editor's argument is simply that Palin must have been complicit in the practice based on a $400 difference between budget years in a line item which included variable contractual services costs, such as snow removal--an amount insufficient to pay for a single evidence collection kit and certainly not the $5K-14K claimed by her police chief. Moreover, there is no conceivable motive for Palin's involvement, save nonsensical attribution that Palin had a vendetta against rape victims. You're right on one point--this issue will never die, because there will always be an editor wanting again to bring Palin to trial on the matter. Fcreid (talk) 13:39, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

(Outdent) Great. Keep up the good work. However, I state again, since you seem to have missed or ignored this pint: Don't attack your fellow editors. KillerChihuahua^?!? 13:52, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I'll try to say this delicately and without hostility, but there comes a time when mediation means telling otherwise well-intentioned editors that the material they hope to introduce (and the sources being presented to support it) represent a fringe perspective. That doesn't negate that future evidence might emerge that prompts reevaluation, but rather that the present evidence and arguments are not convincing to other well-intentioned editors, no matter how many times the evidence is rehashed and repeated. I thought we had achieved that months ago with the consensus wording on this issue, which made virtually no one happy (and, thus, was likely the best conceivable presentation of the material). Fcreid (talk) 14:54, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Notes of opposition to either RFC or ANI

Please let's not reiterate the same stuff over and over again. The consensus of the editors who participated in the straw poll couldn't be more clear. There's not a chance that ANI would overturn Johnny's reading of the consensus. Kelly ^hi! 01:48, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

That's not an issue for the above discussion, as the opening sentence shows. Your opposition is noted. Anarchangel (talk) 03:40, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

• Note: I have reverted the edit which removed the rape kit budget bit. There was clearly NOT a consensus for removal, or the section "RFC or ANI?" would not have appeared. Please note, this is not an endorsement of this section. I have, officially, no opinion. I am acting as moderator of this page only, and undoing what was a slightly hasty reading of consensus by SBJohnny. I am sure he acted in good faith and believed he was enacting consensus; subsequent posts have made it clear he was not doing so. Puppy has spoken. KillerChihuahua^?!? 12:49, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I do not want to go bark to the future -- the issue has been discussed as nauseam, and per BLP I consider 1. it is "contentious" and 2. that per BLP it requires a clear consensus to INCLUDE the material for it to be included, and does not require, therefore, a clear consensus not to include. Thus I would demur on your interpretation of SBJohnny's actions. Thanks! Collect (talk) 13:07, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

That's more or less what my impression of the approach was... similar to how something "iffy" would be removed for discussion until a strong reference was found. This is my first foray into the BLPs though, so I'll bow to Puppy's mentorship here :-). --SB_Johnny | ^talk 13:12, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Not a BLP uissue. This was in a plethora of mainstream news sources, online, onair, and printed. She's a politician. She's not a housefrau with only minor claims to notability. The issue was raised, thoroughly, during her vice-presidential campaign. The debate at hand is not whether this is a BLP violation (which is good, because that's nonsense) but whether it should be included in the article. That is a content debate and requires consensus. KillerChihuahua^?!? 13:17, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

KC, I totally disagree with your assesment that This was in a plethora of mainstream news sources, online, onair, and printed...this was brought up by muckracker talking heads, the same folks who brought us Palin didn't give birth nut jobs. This was not even a blip on the political radar until the election. It was covered in how many articles beforehand?? One or two local newsclippings? This is distortion to say this was some huge story before the mud started flying. --Tom 17:09, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I demur. In fact, this article has been often discussed as a BLP, and no one in the WP discussions has ever said BLP does not apply to "a politician." In point of fact, it is political articles where BLP issues have most often arisen, and ruled to be BLP issues. I would most kindly ask that you ask those involved in (for example) [ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Sarah_Palin_-_article_probation.3F] , [21], [22], and scores more -- all of which assert that this is a BLP article, and that BLP guidelines and rules apply. Thank! Collect (talk) 13:46, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh heck yes, the ARTICLE is a BLP. The disputed content is not, however, a BLP issue. KillerChihuahua^?!? 13:47, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Contrariwise (I like that word) it is a contentious BLP issue. Just look at the reams of electrical paper used on it. Collect (talk) 14:00, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Contentious in a basic disagreement and argument sense, not contentious in a BLP sense. Think of the great Gdansk/Danzig war - far, far more hostility and argument was expended there, for a country name. Was it contentious? Indeed, yes. Had we been editing in the same place in real time, there would have been violence committed. However, contentiousness alone does not make something a BLP issue, even on a BLP article. The content in question must be questionable and contentious - whereas the very purpose of this content, when originally introduced to the press, was arguably to cause contention, or at least doubt in Palin's judgment or abilities. The questionable status must be concerning the veracity of the actuality of the subject - for example, if we were uncertain whether there were rape kits, or a police chief, due to the borderline or even complete non-reliability of the sources, if you follow. This is not unsourced or poorly sourced, where we may legitimately question whether there ever was a rape kit, or budget rules which affected rape kits, or whether Palin was gov. at the time. The BLP phrasing is currently "Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons—whether the material is negative, positive, or just questionable" and frankly, the rape kit stuff doesn't fit the criteria. Now, if someone has placed a personal rumor without sourcing in the article, such as "Palin told the lawmakers that paying for rape kits should be the victims' responsibility because it was their fault they were raped" - or "Palin pocketed money intended to pay for rape kits" - then that would fit the BLP criteria. Unless, as has happened in American politics over similarly unflattering positions on events and issues - think Blagojevich, as no one is arguing that the accusation that he tried or planned to sell a senate seat is a BLP violation (admittedly the FBI charges help, but this is key: It was not a BLP violation even before he was charged) - there was actually strong sourcing for those accusations. In which case there might be a huge debate about whether to include, or how much, but not a BLP removal. KillerChihuahua^?!? 14:18, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Again I demur. The questionable claim about the amounts spent on "rape kits" when only one rape per year was reported. The issue of whether the budget for "rape kits" was reduced. The issue of whther Palin as Mayor ought to have known of every police policy. All of these are contentions and, indeed, questionable issues. We may indeed legitimately question whther any significant number of "rape kits" were used, were covered in any budget, and were billed to any victims at all (so far, no evidence has been found to verify the claims made). In short -- it completely and precisely fits the BLP usage of "contentious." Thanks! Collect (talk) 15:01, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

That's content. I suggest you discuss inclusion/exclusion and or phrasing with your fellow editors. KillerChihuahua^?!? 17:13, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

One of the most difficult aspects of dealing with this material from the onset has simply been a potentially unfair association with "Palin" and "rape kits", given WP's conspicuous and prominent placement in Internet searches. In fact, the correct (and more neutral) name is sexual assault evidence collection kit (as I'm quite certain one would not find rape in the nomenclature on either hospital inventories or budget plans). From the start, the intent here was to associate the subject of this BLP with rape, and my own attempts to use the more neutral and accurate term several months ago were foiled. Fcreid (talk) 16:00, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

several editors have suggested inclusion utilizing htat aspect - iow, include, but as a "an attack raised against Palin during the campaign" as the notability aspect, rather than the core funding issue itself. IIRC, your suggestion was shot down due to sourcing, yes? The sources all refer to "rape kit" rather than "sexual assault evidence collection kit", is that correct? KillerChihuahua^?!? 17:13, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

There are sources for either, and a Google of "palin sexual assault kits" turns up ~125K matches versus "palin rape kits" ~450K. Rape sells more newspapers or blog eyeballs, of course. Fcreid (talk) 18:07, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

You may wish to broach the subject again, with your best sources linked here in the section below. KillerChihuahua^?!? 19:07, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

• Short version: Just because you argue about something on a BLP article, does not make the argument a BLP issue. Really truly. Otherwise all we'd have would be whitewash articles, because supporters could argue, then claim "Oh look, its contentious! Remove per BLP" and everything remotely unflattering would begone from all BLP articles overnight. Which would really gut some of our articles. KillerChihuahua^?!? 14:22, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

• This is a nice summary, but as with most things in Wikipedia and life, there are gradations. If being a public figure automatically exempts an article from the rules of a BLP, the material charging Palin faked her pregnancy with her son Trig would be in the article. The fact that there was a controversy, and that it was widely reported is verifiable, and editors made just such arguments for its inclusion. However, it is not in the article because editors of good faith used judgment in determining that it did not belong in a biography of a living person - sometimes you have to be fair. On the other side, the article is full of examples of controversial criticisms; there are hundreds of words in this article describing contentious matters from libraries to polar bears, and they remain in the article because a majority of editors view the criticisms as fair. This is not the case with the rape-kit material. The majority of editors clearly feel it is not fair because it is a tempest in a teapot connected to Palin only by the finest silk thread from the Emperor's new wardrobe. I think SB_Johnny's edit was a good one, -- especially since it was by an disinterested editor who reviewed the arguments and came to a unbiased conclusion. If the edit had stood, this controversy would have been behind us.--Paul (talk) 16:10, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) While I strongly disagree with Killer's statement that there wasn't a consensus for removal, I agree that the current language should remain as a procedural matter...until we agree on what of several options (not of a yes or no vote) should do. My problem with the language and its inclusion (which I do believe is against the policy on BLPs) is that an issue which was not a campaign issue of any significance and which has had no provable affect on Palin's life whatsoever has been included in her biography, ensuring that the mere mention of charging victims for rape kits will taint Palin, whether or not the material is written in a NPOV manner. The issue is such a third rail that we cannot write it in any manner which will not seriously harm her reputation, yet there is no evidence that she knew of or approved the policy (and mixed evidence of whether the practice even happened.) This may be a content dispute, but it is also clearly a BLP issue.LedRush (talk)

Well said Ledrush as always, thanks for posting what I am thinking and feeling :) Cheers! --Tom 17:00, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Puppy, with respect, you probably should have recused yourself from overturning another admin's action with regard to this particular issue, because you've been involved in this particular content dispute in the past.[23] Kelly ^hi! 16:16, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

KC, also with respect, you seem to have been a voice of reason, but I must admitt I am amazed that you do not see the consensus for not including this so called "material" in this bio. It seems that there should be a clear consensus for including material in bios and not the other way around, ie, consensus for removal. This garbage, yes garbage, was introduced by agenda driven muck rackers, pure and simple during a heated campaign. Again, how long would this trash last at the Obama article? About a nano second. Archangel can attack me all day long but the facts are the facts are facts. I was pleased to see the number of totally uninvolved editors comment above how this "material" had no part in this bio and the few number who argued for inclusion. KC, what numbers of editors would have to argue for non-inclusion to have you say a consensus has formed? 15? 20? 25? 50? Very curious. Thanks, --Tom 16:58, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

With all due respect to all, did you read my edit summary when I reverted? "No consensus for removal of rape kit budget, as is clear by the outrage on the talk page (Section "RFC or ANI?"" Now get back to discussing this content issue on a BLP, and be sure to note the points made by others above. KillerChihuahua^?!? 17:08, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

You aren't looking for consensus, you are looking for unanimity. Given the history of this article and this material, we aren't going to get it. Outrage? So what? The Trig pregnancy folks were outraged. The Alaska Independence Party pushers were outraged. It's difficult to say this in a completely neutral way, but how many people were outraged?--Paul (talk) 17:41, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

KC, the nut job wackos are outraged that there is no mention that Obama was supposidely not born in Hawai, should that be a reason for including that nonsense? Oh course not. --Tom 17:12, 4 January 2009 (UTC)ps, I did read your edit summary and 1) I thought there was consensus forming for non inclusion and 2) Since when do people being outraged or threating ANI sway consensus?? --Tom 17:15, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Puppy, what kind of numbers are necessary for consensus in your view? Kelly ^hi! 17:16, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

After ec x2:

Tom, I'm not editing. I'm watchdogging a fully protected article. Edits to fully protected articles only happen when there is vandalism to clean yup; when there is a clear BLP violation; when there is strong consensus. If you wish to discuss Obama, do so on his article. If you wish to draw a comparison in order to sway opinion, address yourself to those who are active on this talk page, who are 'not me or SBJohnny. You are wasting time and space talking to either of us unless you're asking about Rules and Guidelines or other Wikipedia related queries, or unless there is actually consensus and an edit is desired. KillerChihuahua^?!? 17:19, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Kelly: Numbers is a really bad way to judge consensus. Consensus is actually everyone agreeing, more or less, that even if the content isn't the best, it at least is acceptable. In practice, we tend to go with majority, but that's not consensus. KillerChihuahua^?!? 17:19, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I get you, but I have to say I'm uncomfortable with you making the call on this, given your prior involvement in this issue. So basically you're saying that if anyone makes a good argument for including the material, the material has to be included, regardless of the numbers of editors that make arguments for its exclusion? This seems odd to me. This example has been given before, but the word "Ayers" appears nowhere in Barack Obama (a decision I agree with, by the way) despite countless passionate arguments for its inclusion. I'm not understanding the different approaches to BLPs here. Kelly ^hi! 17:26, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I understand your concern. FWIW, I am certainly NOT saying that one fringe view can trump all the other editors - in fact, I mention the system gaming aspect of that somewhere else on this talk page - What I have seen is that there was a poll, which has not run very long - and please recall Polls are not binding, etc - and an edit request, followed by an edit to a fully protected page, which led to a strong protest. The entire process was a little rushed. As Anarchangel, while not the only person to argue here for inclusion, is the only one currently available AND the one who voiced the protest, I am encouraging you all to discuss Anarchangels views w/him; attempt to discuss, civilly and rationally, your reasons for feeling the content should not be included, and discuss whether there are any compromise positions which would work for all. The entire reason this page is protected is because of people wanting to rush in and OMG Fix it Now! Now! Now! and I'm saying, a little patience and discussion with another editor is more in keeping with our ways here, and will not kill anyone. Puppy has spoken; puppy is done. KillerChihuahua^?!? 19:05, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

No comment on your previous involvement with this content issue?[24] Kelly ^hi! 19:08, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

What's wrong with the comment, "I understand your concern", with which I began my reply? KillerChihuahua^?!? 19:21, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Please resist the temptation to make this personal, but my issue is that you overturned (I don't think we're into wheel-war territory yet) another admin to re-insert the material, you've previously been involved in this content dispute, and you haven't explained why you're now an uninvolved admin in regards to this content issue. Kelly ^hi! 19:27, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I have asked on WP:BLP/N in a neutral manner about the issue in question. I hope we can get some third opinions from the outside world. Thanks! Collect (talk) 17:21, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

New RK section

RK being "sexual assault evidence kit", as I'm sure you've all surmised. I suggest Anarchangel, at least, state what his rationale for inclusion is here; that others politely state what specific objections they have to current verbiage; and you all try to work towards something acceptable, at least, to all. KillerChihuahua^?!? 17:23, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

• When the connection to Palin is that she did not say she even knew of any policy about sexual evidence collection kits, what is the nexus to Palin in what is supposed to be a biography? I might as well have a section for U.S. Grant saying he did not know the Star Spangled Banner if "he did not know" is considered important (or unimportant - this seems like the trial of the Knave of Hearts). I asked my local mayor what the library late book fees were, and he had no idea. And he was on the board for the library. In his biography would that be an important fact to note? Collect (talk) 17:30, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

• <sigh> Once again, and echoing the other 14 people who stated this in the straw poll above, the language should be completely eliminated from this article. This is her biography. I have no objection to the mention in Mayoralty of Sarah Palin (since apparently a member of her administration had some involvement, and that article is about her administration, not her personally) or in the campaign article, since her opponents attempted to make an issue of it. But to place it in her biography is a coatracking and undue weight issue, since she had no involvement or knowledge. Kelly ^hi! 17:32, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeah sorry, but Anarchangel clearly disagreed, as have a number of others in the past. It takes as long as it takes, and while I am all sympathy for those of you who feel this is well-trod ground, it is well-trod ground in which no clear consensus exists. So if you can respectfully work to clarify your view to your fellow editors, where that might help achieve said consensus, and leave the sighing and eye-rolling off the page, it would be most helpful. (Sighing and eye-rolling request is a blanket request to all who edit here, no one is being singled out.) KillerChihuahua^?!? 17:37, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

• I do cringe at the "not her personally" line. Kelly, take a look at Ulysses_S._Grant#Scandals; there is precedent for the reporting of administrative affairs not necessarily controlled by the article's subject in the article itself.--danielfolsom 17:45, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I get your point but the historical significance doesn't compare. I would instead make the comparison to Palin's political contemporaries, particularly Barack Obama in regards to his involvement with Bill Ayers or Rod Blagojevich. Kelly ^hi! 17:48, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Well those two are entirely different in themselves. One is a controversy over who Obama knew, the other is a controversy over what an Illinois governor did. the first one doesn't compare to the Palin situation at all ... because here we're talking about a policy, not a relationship. The latter does not, because Palin appointed the guy who billed people seeking rape kits. Had Obama appointed Blagojevich, that would certainly go on Obama's page.--danielfolsom 17:53, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm, I see. I guess a better example would be Obama's opposition to the Illinois version of BAIPA. Kelly ^hi! 18:04, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Wow - are you really just going to rip out examples, then say, "oh I take those back, here's another". I don't see how that relates at all, because that's something that Obama did, it's not something that someone he appointed did. Quite frankly I don't know why you would even think that the two scenarios are similar. So far, again, the best example is the corruption under Grant: which even though he was not aware of it as it happened, and even though he would be against it had he been aware of it, is mentioned in his article. I honestly don't see a problem with how it's handled right now - two sentences are dedicated to it, the second of which merely states that Palin was not aware of the charging.--danielfolsom 18:18, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Look, I've got no desire to get into a political argument. My point is that the historical notability of the scandals under the Grant administration simply don't compare to this rape kit stuff, which was a partisan campaign argument from start to finish, that's all. Kelly ^hi! 18:30, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh I agree that their notability isn't similar - which is why I think the Grant scandals would be grossly under-represented if there were only two (and, really one) sentence on them (the only reason I brought up the Grant scandals was to prove that someone didn't have to be personally involved in an action their administration did for the action to be included in their article). However, the rape kit charging was pretty notable, it did get quite a bit of media coverage, and they did not start out as a partisan campaign. They started out because someone Palin appointed charged for rape kits. Again, given the significant coverage, I strongly believe that what we have now is the best solution. We mention it, but we clearly state that Palin had no knowledge of it.--danielfolsom 18:40, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Understood - I still think it's undue weight in this article, guess we'll have to agree to disagree on that point. Kelly ^hi! 18:43, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

• Comment: Mention has been made that the phrasing is objectionable. I suggest it might be worthwhile to try to work out a compromise, wherein the controversy is mentioned, but rewritten and possibly trimmed. Note that this also is not set in stone: rewriting does not mean that later it cannot be removed. I've seen a number of controversial sections of articles which were rewritten several times and then finally removed (or moved to another article.) Again, not arguing for or against any of this, merely suggesting that it might be easier to negotiate rephrasing, and then when the content is less objectionable, to discuss inclusion/removal with less heated feeling about it. KillerChihuahua^?!? 19:11, 4 January 2009 (UTC)