Talk:Sarah Palin

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

POV Tag on "Mayor of Wasilla" section re: the rape kit controversy

I have added a section POV tag to the "Mayor of Wasilla" section due to the abusive and non-policy-based edit warring that has kept any brief mention of the rape kit issue out. While Wikipedia policy states that I should simply add the rape kit material in a fashion that observes the relevant core policies, the reality is that anything I add will simply be reverted. Thus I am adding the POV tag and here I will substantiate that all burdens for inclusion have been met. That done, it will be incumbent upon other editors to make substantive and policy-based arguments why it should be excluded.

For reference, here is my original edit. I have never stated that it was beyond objection, but I think so far the primary objection has been that the passage I wrote was too long. In my defense, I was trying to do the best job of fairly representing each side without over-representing either, yet giving a slight balance toward the subject rather than the critics, and all that resulted in some wordiness. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sarah_Palin&diff=245282445&oldid=245281592.

The criticism is sourced ... attributed to at least 5 major news outlets, most of whom directly quote Alaskan politicians speaking on the issue. (As an aside, the issue is also treated fairly in these reliable sources, just as they were treated fairly in my original article text, so there really is not much cause for objection.)

The criticism is relevant to Palin's notability, as it reflects a statewide controversy involving one of Palin's appointees, coupled with the allegation that Palin knew about the issue and would have been in a position to stop it. Both the secondary sources and the primary sources they quote assert relevance to Palin's status as mayor of Wasilla at the time the practice was employed and then outlawed.

The criticism is notable. Besides that it is carried in multiple reliable sources, the critics themselves are notable politicians, not just fringe individuals interviewed at the county fair.

The criticism does not have to be worded in a way which violates WP:Weight. In fact, my original wording did not violate WP:Weight, with the lone objection that the text was too lengthy. In any case, WP:Weight is not an issue unless someone words the article in a way that violates WP:Weight, in which case this can simply be corrected. The mere possibility of a violation is immaterial.

Our goal here is to neutrally reflect published opinion without inviting the reader to form one conclusion or another. By serially reverting, edit warring, and otherwise insisting on excluding the material outright, some editors are second-guessing major reliable sources, forming and favoring their own conclusions, totally in violation of the letter and spirit of policy. The bar has been met for inclusion. Substantive, non-incorrect arguments must be made for exclusion if editors wish to exclude it. When I say "substantive, non-incorrect arguments" I mean that arguments should directly cite Wikipedia policies, rather than just vaguely mentioning them, and simultaneously the arguments should not largely contradict the policies being cited. This is not too much to ask; to the contrary, I'd say it's the bare minimum.

Thus, for example,

• WP:NPOV cannot be used to claim that criticism of a subject should be excluded just because it is criticism, rather than properly sourced and stated in neutral, factual terms
• WP:BLP cannot be used to claim that only confirmed matters of objective fact are reflected in a BLP (facts about opinions are explicitly OK, and it's widely acknowledged that there are few confirmed, objective facts that will be of interest in a Wikipedia article -- see WP:POV)
• WP:BLP cannot be used to claim that allegations by a subject's critics not go into the BLP just because they are allegations by a critic
• WP:BLP cannot be used to claim that a BLP about a politician should not include sourced, relevant criticism
• WP:Verifiability cannot be used to claim that major newspapers are not reliable sources
• WP:Verifiability also cannot be used to claim the editors should actively seek evidence of bias in articles published by reliable sources and exclude such articles based on Wikipedia editors' opinions that the sources are biased and therefore not reliable (this represents original research and is expressly counter to the Verifiability policies)
• WP:Synth cannot be used to claim that articles including synthesis should be excluded (since that's not what WP:Synth says)
• WP:Weight cannot be used to say that a topic must be excluded just because it's conceivable that some editor could insert material on that topic that would violate WP:Weight -- if the actual article text does not reflect undue weight, the undue weight policy does not come into play
• WP:Consensus cannot be used to claim that core Wikipedia policies are trumped by the opinions of editors, no matter how numerous their accounts may be
• WP:Summary cannot be cited simply for the purpose of creating a POV fork -- see WP:Content_forking

For reference, although I'm sure there are more, the specific five sources I cited were:

• [CNN]http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/09/21/palin.rape.exams/
• [McClatchy newspapers] http://www.mcclatchydc.com/100/story/52266.html
• [NY Times opinion piece] http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/26/opinion/26fri4.html?em
• [USA Today] http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2008-09-10-rape-exams_N.htm
• [St. Petersburg Times] http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2008/sep/22/palin-rape-kit-controversy/

Let's try to have a discussion that is focused and on point. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 20:23, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

"due to the abusive and non-policy-based edit warring that has kept any brief mention of the rape kit issue out. " Try phrasing your objections in a non-attack mode, please. And please do not threaten editwarring either. Thank you most kindly. Collect (talk) 20:30, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Maybe this "material" should be added the the Fannon article when or if it gets created. Have I said that before? Nevermind. --Tom 20:34, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Does either of you have a substantive response? And I'm certainly not threatening anything.Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 20:48, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Okay, here's my proposed compromise. "Palin appointed[46] Charles Fannon to replace Stambaugh as police chief. Fannon later become embroiled in controversy regarding the Wasilla police department's policy of billing evidence collection kits to health insurers." (with proper citation, of course). That seems neutral to me and doesn't accuse Palin of anything not substantiated by the scant facts of this issue. Fcreid (talk) 20:50, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, I think we should first discuss the issue of inclusion. The last time we let the discussion go off in the direction of a "compromise", the "compromise" text was unilaterally deleted. Regarding your paraphrase, though, I would unfortunately call it WP:Synth as it appears to push one position over the other. It's better to cite the articles as directly as possible and let the POVs be presented by the articles themselves and by the primary sources cited in the articles.Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 20:57, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Synthesis? Is "evidence collection kit" not a neutral and easily sourced term, or must we call them "rape kits" to meet your need? Though no reliable source indicates Palin knew about the issue, will we be forced to include a source that says, "well, yeah, she probably did know?" Please, now... I'm trying. Fcreid (talk) 21:05, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, you have conveniently omitted the "victims" part of the policy requiring "victims or their health insurance companies" to be billed for the evidence-collecting kits. That's crux of the POV-pushing synthesis I saw in your paraphrase. And again, for about the 200th time, there IS at least one reliable source providing an allegation she knew about the issue. To wit: "But Croft, the former state representative who sponsored the law changing the practice, says it seems unlikely Palin was not aware of the issue. '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,' Croft said."Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 21:11, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

I see no leeway on "I find it hard to believe.. the mayor did not know about it" as meeting any level of notability for inclusion in a BLP article, particularly given that the statement was made eight years later during a Vice Presidential campaign. It's an entirely unfounded accusation without even believing itself, and it's exactly the type of thing we're cautioned to avoid in such articles. As far as victims being billed, that's contradicted by the only actual contemporaneous article we have on this incident, which clearly states Fannon (or, more accurately, the hospital) was billing the insurer. Fcreid (talk) 21:28, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

It's an allegation, the allegation is made by a notable critic, the topic is relevant to Palin's notability, and the whole thing is reliably sourced. When you say it "doesn't mean any level notability of inclusion in a BLP article", are you basing that on any part of BLP policy whatsoever? Please note the criteria for criticism and allegations are what I just stated, and they are met. Please cite policy clearly and directly in any objections you make. Please also note that attempting to use one source to contradict another is appropriate WITHIN THE TEXT OF THE ARTICLE, citing the opposing viewpoints taken by the two sources, but it cannot be used to DISQUALIFY one of the sources. That is synthesis, a form of OR.

Pht. It could scarcely -be- more equivocal. He said "we try" to bill the insurer. More on the side of, sometimes we didn't, than, what? "We try but sometimes the victims want to pay"? What scenario even fits him trying and being unable, that doesn't involve the victims themselves paying, btw? Hospital? That's one of two places I can see victims going to first, the other being the police station. When Stambaugh was police chief, they didn't have to go to the hospital to be examined, -or- treated. Stambaugh made a response team for that, and Stein paid for it. When Fannon was chief, they got sent to the hospital and were then charged. And Palin cut off the piece of the budget that had been that response team, all measly $2,000 of it, and held it aloft as a trophy. What's the difference between that and charging? Making them wait longer, that's what. Anarchangel (talk) 20:07, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Huh? "We try" means exactly what it says. We bill the insurer; sometimes it pays and sometimes it doesn't. What else could it possibly mean? What happens if it doesn't pay? Fannon didn't say, and you have absolutely no basis for assuming anything. If you think that in such cases they would bill the victim, that's coming straight out of your own imagination. -- Zsero (talk) 20:59, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure what an "unfounded accusation without even believing itself" is supposed to mean. The allegation is founded, just not proven, and the whole point of an allegation is that it has not been proven. In any case it is not up to us to judge whether the allegation is accurate or not... that's what Verifiability and NPOV are for. Finally, the claim that no actual victims were ever billed (during the brief time before the policy was made illegal) does not contradict that the policy requires victims or their insurance companies to be billed. That's been pointed out repeatedly. Please pay careful attention to the comments you make.Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 21:36, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

To answer both questions at once, and regardless of whether you feel a Democrat partisan during a VP campaign is a notable critic worthy of steering a biographical article, you are confusing allegation and accusation. An allegation is a statement that believes in itself as fact, for example, "It was Palin's job to know about these billing matters." An allegation can actually be proven by an external source, e.g. reviewing her job description, talking to contemporaries who would testify that she did, etc. In contrast, an accusation (smear) is usually something that can never be known factually, e.g. "Factchecker must have known about this nonsense, because he was on the WP talk page every day." See the subtle but distinct difference? Again, we have hit a brick wall. I feel I've compromised in good faith, and tried to explain why neither of these points merit inclusion because of the potentially contentious material leading up to an election. If you feel the same, then it's probably time for some external moderator to intervene, lest we waste much more of each other's time. In parting, an interesting side-note I encountered during my searches today (that I have not verified)... the Boston Globe, Washington Post, NY Times and several others RS who would normally have jumped both feet into an anti-Palin issue like this has actually refused to carry the story except in their Op-Ed pages? It appears they see the same problems with it as I do. Fcreid (talk) 22:23, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

"Steering" the article? That's a ridiculous exaggeration with respect to simple inclusion of an issue in a very long article. Anyway, I'm not sure if this is some technical or legal definition of the word allegation, or where you're saying this distinction derives from; in common usage, allegation and accusation are synonyms, both meaning claims against a person or entity that are unproven or unsubstantiated. Regardless, this allegation by Rep. Croft could be easily proven by an external source such as a written exchange or the testimony of a witness that had discussed the issue with Palin. If this subtle distinction you propose exists, the allegation still falls well within the standard of proof required. On the other hand, if it were an allegation that "Sarah hates puppies", there would be no way of proving it, because even a videotape of Palin saying she hated puppies would not reveal what she actually felt on the subjec, whereas a conversation or email exchange about the rape kit issue would provide clear and direct proof that she knew about it. On the newspapers comment, are you suggesting that op-ed pages are where reputable newspapers print their shameless tabloid slander and blatantly false allegations? Once again, I want to remind you that contentious material, opinion, controversy, and criticism are all expected to be reflected here -- properly sourced, conservatively presented.Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 22:53, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Using this logic, we would be correct in including an RS that quoted a notable Republican official accusing Obama of sharing Reverend Wright's racist views? The standard is that one simply makes the accusation, but there is no burden of proof necessary before Wikipedians should include such "notable" accusations in his biographical article? Fcreid (talk) 23:06, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Accusations about people's beliefs fall into that same "can't be proven" category as "Palin loves puppies" because only the person's internal state of mind could confirm the truth (their outward actions may be deceptive). On the other hand, knowing/not knowing about the rape kits refers to an external state of affairs, and the accusation is merely about her knowing about it, not that she supported it promoted it, so as I said a mere conversation or email exchange directly discussing the topic, in which Palin made a statement she could not have made would be evidence that she knew about it, whereas a video of Palin saying "I love puppies" or Obama saying "I agree with Rev. Wright" would still not confirm the truth because they could be lying about their beliefs.Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 23:35, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Acknowledged. How about a quote from an RS from a notable republican stating, "I don't know how Obama could not have discussed acts of domestic terrorism with Bill Ayers." That's provable on the same terms, i.e. that one of the two parties would admit to it. Would that be more analogous? Fcreid (talk) 23:47, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

The answer to why Obama would not have discussed it would be, politeness. Would you discuss alcoholism and its effects on the family with a recovered alcoholic in your workplace? Assuming candidness reciprocated by forthrightness, they may well have spoken about Ayer's regrets about his past. Or were you proposing a scenario of them planning terrorist acts, lol? One of these hypotheticals is obviously a fantasy, and neither are analogous to Palin's knowledge or lack of it, in that Palin is damned if she does and damned if she doesn't. If she didn't know, she is incompetent, as Gonzalez was found to be incompetent. If she did know, she is mean spirited. Anarchangel (talk) 20:07, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

"Recovered"? "Regrets"? Ayers is not a "recovered" terrorist, merely a retired one. His only "regrets" are that he didn't do more. And he never made any secret of this, so it's inconceivable that Obama didn't know it. Now why would Palin conceivably have had occasion to inquire into how Fannon handled the billing for rape kits? Do you imagine she also asked about toilet paper or printer toner? -- Zsero (talk) 20:59, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Again, let's stop please until someone decides for us. My contention remains that the distinction is subtle but significant. It is quite different that someone notable (loosely defined) says, "Palin knew about the rape kits" as opposed to "I don't know how she could not have known about the rape kits". The latter is an absolutely laughable position. It doesn't even put the burden of proof on the accuser, as he's not telling you she knew, but simply telling you that he thinks she could have known. It's ludicrous. I'm sorry that you can't differentiate between the two, but this back-and-forth is frustrating us both, so let's just ask someone else to have a look at it, okay? Fcreid (talk) 23:16, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

One final point, as I missed part two above regarding "billing the victims". That information is not in the cited source Frontiersman article. In fact, the source states exactly what I proposed, i.e. "In the past we've charged the cost of exams to the victim's insurance company". Again, you are making a synthesis that presumes if the insurance company didn't pay that someone (presumably the hospital) would, in turn, bill the victim. Where that event never actually occurred in Wasilla, that is entire WP:SYNTH of the known facts. You can speculate all you like, and you could even do some WP:OR on Wasilla General billing procedures to propose that established policy would have ultimately billed the victims, but nothing in the cited source supports that. Fcreid (talk) 23:32, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

The first line of the CNN article states "Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin's hometown required women to pay for their own rape examinations while she was mayor, a practice her police chief fought to keep as late as 2000." That is also the article that includes the bill sponsor saying he felt she probably knew about the policy. How he worded it is fairly immaterial.. he makes it clear that he doesn't know for a fact but that he thinks she probably knew. It later quotes him as saying "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," The article also states that the practice began when Palin fired the predecessor and hired Fannon. The synthesis is being done by the sources. That is not WP:Synth.Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 23:44, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Let's stop talking content and talk intent, Factchecker. It doesn't bother you at all that this edit may not be conveying the truth, does it? I provided the only extant contemporaneous record of this event in the Frontiersman citation below; yet you scurried to find something (anything) that told the story the way you wanted it told, completely ignoring the only known truth in the story that was there. In addition, it doesn't seem to influence you in the least that this story was so flimsy that even the usual partisan smear machines refused to touch it? Fcreid (talk) 23:56, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Pretending for a moment that we actually are supposed to ignore articles that weren't published before Palin became a candidate for national office, I'll point out that the May 2000 Frontiersman article states: "While the Alaska State Troopers and most municipal police agencies have covered the cost of exams, which cost between $300 to $1,200 apiece, the Wasilla police department does charge the victims of sexual assault for the tests."Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 00:15, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Yet you completely ignored a direct quote from the man at the center of the controversy, on record and cited verbatim in the original article, stating that it was the insurance companies that where charged and not victims. You completely ignored the fact that it states no victims were ever billed for these kits. (Oh, yeah yeah, that's just a red herring... heard it before!) Well, I pride myself in being able to work towards consensus, but you've got me this time, Factchecker. Do whatever you think you need to resolve it. Slap POV tags all over the article. Call for arbitration. Call the WP police. Fcreid (talk) 00:22, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Ok, so there's only one article that you're willing to listen to and only certain parts of it because others are false? Sheesh.72.91.198.209 (talk) 00:45, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Not in the least, IP72. In fact, I wish there were hundreds of articles about this, but the one I provided is the only one. It was the article that Aravosis found online on the Frontiersman website, and it's the only historical piece of news we have about this. Everything since synthesizes facts and conclusions based on this article and, in some cases, elicited recollections. Did you ever play that game when one person whispers in another's ear, and you continue on down the line and then compare the original story to the one told by the last guy? That's what we have here. Fcreid (talk) 00:51, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

No offense, but when you start making objections that are grounded in policy, instead of making objections that contradict policy, I will start paying serious attention to them.Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 15:36, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Anyone still following this has long since stopped paying serious attention to you, "factchecker". -- Zsero (talk) 17:57, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

This issue has been decided by a clear majority of the editors here. Disruptive attempts to hijack the article are petulant and childish. Just because your opinion didn't win out doesn't mean that you can take your ball home and end the game. Until consensus changes, the article will remain as it is under a clear mandate of wikipedia policy regarding BLPs and general editing.LedRush (talk) 23:23, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

The statement about a clear majority is false; but even so, consensus doesn't mean unilaterally ramming your way down the throat of numerous other editors. Please see WP:What_is_consensus?.Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 00:17, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, so stop unilaterally cramming your already defeated ideas down the throats of the majority of editors.LedRush (talk) 00:31, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Fcreid's proffered language

For what it's worth, my good faith compromise remains on the table: "Palin appointed[46] Charles Fannon to replace Stambaugh as police chief. Fannon later become embroiled in controversy regarding the Wasilla police department's policy of billing evidence collection kits to health insurers." using the citation above. I can't suggest that would be agreeable with others, however. Fcreid (talk) 23:40, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

It's a reinterpretation of the sources if you don't mention the victims.Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 00:17, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Okay, now we're making progress. How about one more try: ""Palin appointed[46] Charles Fannon to replace Stambaugh as police chief. Fannon later become embroiled in controversy regarding the Wasilla police department's policy of billing evidence collection kits to the victim's health insurance." (again, using the Frontiersman citation above). Does that work? I only speak for myself, mind you. Fcreid (talk) 00:40, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

While you're thinking it over, let me ask a way-out-there hypothetical. Let's say we move towards a universal health care system under a "common payer" approach, e.g. the government buys insurance on behalf of individuals to get better rates, but leaves the medical billing practices substantively unchanged, i.e. if a billed procedure exceeds the typical costs for the associated ICD, then the excess is billed to the insured (you). Say the government provided guidance that police departments were to use that as the means for billing evidence collection (hypothetical, I know, fed versus local)... still, would that also be tantamount to billing the rape victim? Just some food for thought. Pretty heavy stuff. Fcreid (talk) 00:45, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Fcreid's wording is fine with me.Jimmuldrow (talk) 00:44, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Jim. It actually exceeds the modest demands you've made in the past week or so. I think the main objection to that was the lack of context. At least in this one we provide some context that the subarticle can expand upon. Fcreid (talk) 00:46, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Still lacks important context. Which victims? All? Victims of burglary, theft, murder, assault? Why health care insurance? I'm sure one can get away with not recognizing that this refers to rape victims? --Evb-wiki (talk) 00:52, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

For the record, I'm not really in favor of its inclusion. --Evb-wiki (talk) 00:54, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Understand, and I know you've participated in this at several stages. I just want to put it behind us, so we can move on to the next argument. :) It also gets to the root of why most editors objected to the mention in the Palin article in the first place, i.e. by including "rape kits" we create a "Google magnet" that gives credence to the unsubstantiated accusations against Palin, and I don't think that's the consensus we've reached here. Do you think it would be too contrived to read: "Palin appointed[46] Charles Fannon to replace Stambaugh as police chief. Fannon later become embroiled in controversy regarding the Wasilla police department's policy of billing sexual assault evidence collection kits to the victim's health insurance." Fcreid (talk) 01:04, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

That's way too tortured. IF it is be included, perhaps: "Palin appointed[46] Charles Fannon to replace Stambaugh as police chief. Fannon later become embroiled in controversy regarding the Wasilla police department's policy of billing evidence collection kits to rape victims' health insurance." --Evb-wiki (talk) 01:12, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

If you want to put the "blame" on him you need a source that is stating this.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 01:19, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't follow, Magnificent. Do you mean Fannon? The cited source Knowles signs sexual assault bill specifically quotes him as doing so. Fcreid (talk) 01:26, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

I admit I didn't check the source (again) but just go with what I think to know. Anyway, if Fannon gets the "blame" why include it at all? Either Palin has something to do with it (and therefore we can mention it) or if not, it is pointless. Get it?--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 01:39, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Many editors have concluded exactly that as the basis for excluding this controversy via consensus before, including me. Some feel very strongly that it should be in there. Maybe they no longer feel as strongly if it doesn't blame Palin, as you suggest. I don't know how to proceed at this point. I think they call this a quagmire. Fcreid (talk) 01:42, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Misunderstanding. I'm not for excluding it. I think it can be included carefully in NPOV without "spooning feeding" the blame on anyone.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 01:53, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

The mere inclusion of this topic is a POV push and against the guidelines for a BLP because it is not even remotely related to her biography and this has been decided already in the archives. Having said that, the language itself isn't bad. I understand the reason for the compromise, but based on the past discussions and the fact that most people agree that it shouldn't be included at all, I don't see the need to compromise away the quality of the article and create a POV issue because 2-3 editors want to hold the article hostage.LedRush (talk) 01:08, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

You can say over and over again that it's 2-3 editors and not dozens of editors that think this needs to be included, but it won't make it true except perhaps in your own head.Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 15:59, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Name your dozens. -- Zsero (talk) 17:59, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Uhm, I will waste my time digging through the archives to name those dozens after you name your "dozens". Thanks.Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 18:27, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I know. I think we can live with this, though. It acknowledges the controversy (which anyone who doesn't live under a rock has heard), and it actually clears the air a bit. That said, I nominate it with Evb's changes:

"Palin appointed[46] Charles Fannon to replace Stambaugh as police chief. Fannon later become embroiled in controversy regarding the Wasilla police department's policy of billing evidence collection kits to rape victims' health insurance.TBD"

• Concur. Fcreid (talk) 01:17, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
• I'll live with it. There is a source, right? I'm sure I've seen a source through all this. --Evb-wiki (talk) 01:28, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

I like it too, with one tiny change: Palin appointed[46] Charles Fannon to replace Stambaugh as police chief. Fannon later become embroiled in controversy regarding the Wasilla police department's policy of billing the cost of evidence collection "rape kits" to rape victims' health insurance.

I propose the slight change in wording because people have heard of "rape kits" but may not have heard of "evidence collection kits" and may think that has something to do with a broader evidence collection mission than the samples they do for rape victims. I would like to hear from LLLL and Factcheckeratyourservice though to see if it satisfies them. And I also would like to see LLLL's suggestions for the other two things he/she wanted.GreekParadise (talk) 01:28, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

I think "evidence collection kit for rape victims" is factual and linguistically correct, GP. Let's not deal with the other two issues--religion and qualifications--in this area, though. I would also like to hear whether 4Ls and Factchecker can live with the proposed addition above. Fcreid (talk) 01:31, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

GP, that's redundant on two fronts. Either "billing evidence collection kits to rape victims'" or "billing rape kits to victims." I'm back to thinking it doesn't belong. This is not about Palin; it's about Fannon. --Evb-wiki (talk) 01:35, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

You're just doing this to push me off the edge, aren't you? :) Fcreid (talk) 01:37, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Oh, was not proposing a change to the proffered version above. I added the Frontiersman reference in a TBD numbering. Fcreid (talk) 01:38, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

I sensed we were only inches away from getting one of the bones of contention behind us, but it looks like there are many who still feel it should not be included in the article even in its current form, as the statement doesn't actually involve Palin. If someone wants to run with it further, by all means do... I'll check back in the morning to see where things stand. Fcreid (talk) 01:47, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

I certainly don't want to push you off the edge or be redundant. :-) I agree with Palin appointed[46] Charles Fannon to replace Stambaugh as police chief. Fannon later become embroiled in controversy regarding the Wasilla police department's policy of billing the cost of evidence collection "rape kits" to victims' health insurance. But I would like to hear from LLLL and Factcheck to see if they like it too.GreekParadise (talk) 01:50, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Either of those revisions would be fine by me. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 02:34, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Was there a controversy?

I keep coming back to one thing: where is the evidence that Wasilla's practise was ever controversial? All claims that it was the reason for the state law are utterly refuted by the fact that the town's name never came up once at the hearings. If anyone was concerned about Wasilla in particular, they would have mentioned it. Therefore nobody was, and all later claims to the contrary are false, no matter who makes them. QED. -- Zsero (talk) 06:52, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

"QED" means "which was shown"... but you didn't even begin to substantiate your conclusion. QNED means "which was not shown" and would have been appropriate thing to say.Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 18:23, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Valid point, Zsero. The reference was obviously to today's controversy, and I agree the lack of evidence eight years ago is telling. Perhaps the following, omitting the unnecessary "controversy" description:

"Palin appointed Charles Fannon to replace Stambaugh as police chief. In 2000, Fannon defended the Wasilla police department policy of billing evidence collection kits to rape victims' health insurance after Alaska passed legislation making the practice illegal."TBD —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fcreid (talk • contribs) 09:06, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Disregard. I see you've already found the right words for the article, Zsero. Appreciate that. Hope that puts this one to rest, at least until folks come along in ten days or so and ask themselves, "What does that have to do with Palin?" Anyway, hopefully that's good enough for now. Fcreid (talk) 09:37, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

I'd say that any reasonable person would call a practice made illegal by a state law enjoying nearly unanimous support "controversial", but this is Wikipedia.Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 16:09, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

It's not controversial unless there's an actual controversy. And the evidence points strongly against that having ever happened. The practise itself may have been controversial enough to prompt a ban (or perhaps not; perhaps what prompted the ban was an attempt by some other city to bill a victim herself, and without that it would still be legal); but there was no controversy about anything Wasilla did. -- Zsero (talk) 17:01, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Yeah -- there was. The policy of making the victims or their health insurance pay for rape kits was controversial. Thanks.Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 15:15, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

"Factchecker", repeating an assertion doesn't make it true. I have presented what I think is conclusive evidence that it wasn't controversial; if you still think it was, present evidence or be quiet. -- Zsero (talk) 17:56, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

"Zsero", you are suggesting since the minutes don't specifically mention Wasilla, the law had nothing to do with Wasilla. This could not be further from the truth, I'd invite you to investigate the concept of "proof", and in any case it is directly refuted by one of the bill's sponsors saying the bill was aimed in part at Wasilla. Finally, even if the original practice made illegal by the law weren't controversial, the lone opposition of the Wasilla chief against a statewide piece of legislation receiving nearly unanimous support would be, by definition, controversial.Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 18:18, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

If this sponsor is telling the truth, then how is it that Wasilla's name doesn't appear in the minutes? Are we to believe that one can propose a law, hold hearings on its necessity, and never once mention what prompted it? That is beyond credulity. The minutes do indeed prove conclusively that the law had nothing to do with Wasilla, and that anyone who now claims otherwise is not telling the truth. As for your second point, it can never be controversial for someone to oppose a proposed law, no matter how small a minority he may be. To suggest that this can be controversial undermines the foundations of democracy. -- Zsero (talk) 22:49, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

So many ridiculous statements. The moon is made of green cheese, QED.Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 17:45, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

It was controversial: "Wasilla Police Chief Charlie Fannon does not agree with the new legislation."[1]--Appraiser (talk) 16:19, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

So, was the controversy only in Fannon's mind? Fcreid (talk) 20:01, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

That shows, if anything, that the state bill was at least slightly controversial, i.e. at least one person (Fannon) disagreed with it. It says nothing about any Wasilla practise being controversial, and the fact that Wasilla's name didn't come up once at the hearings proves conclusively that it wasn't.

So the law was controversial because one person opposed it, but the practice made illegal by the law wasn't controversial even though the rest of the state felt it was necessary to adopt a law making the practice illegal? Ok. At the same time, if those minutes somehow "conclusively prove" Wasilla's practice-that-had-to-be-illegalized wasn't controversial, then they also conclusively prove that Palin was the original person who came up with the policy, and that the moon is made of green cheese.Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 18:13, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

By definition nothing can be controversial unless someone opposes it. If a person opposes a law, it's the law, not the person, that is made (very very slightly) controversial by that opposition. The minutes prove that the law was not targeted at any practise of Wassila's. Whatever Wasilla was or wasn't doing, it didn't evoke any controversy. There may have been some controversy over the practise (though the fact that a law was passed doesn't go anywhere near proving it), but there was no controversy over Wasilla's having allegedly engaged in it. -- Zsero (talk) 22:42, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

That article goes on to say that Fannon was opposed to the law because he didn't think that taxpayers should have to cover the cost. There's no indication that Palin distanced herself from the comments made by her appointment, published in the local newspaper. So, WP:Synth could be used to surmise that the Vice-Presidential candidate disagreed with the new state law and wanted the town to be able to continue passing on the investigations' costs to the victims and their insurance companies. Either that or she didn't read the local paper (although she did say that she read all of them).--Appraiser (talk) 21:39, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

A bill was proposed, and Fannon opposed it. That opposition itself was surely not controversial! A person is entitled to express his opinion about proposed legislation; that's what democracy is about. Palin may well have known about his opinion, and disagreed with it, but so what? Why should she have raised it with him, let alone in public? The controversy being alleged here is over what Wasilla is alleged to have done, before the law was passed, and I've seen no evidence whatsoever that any such controversy ever existed. -- Zsero (talk) 22:42, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Just because somebody is entitled to their opinions doesn't mean the opinions aren't controversial. Get thee to a dictionary. Regardless, all the sources including the original 2000 Frontiersman article say that Wasilla charged victims for the kits. See "the Wasilla police department does charge the victims of sexual assault for the tests." As long as we're dabbling in OR, I'll ask: Why should a woman's insurance policy have to pay for a police investigation anyway? Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 17:49, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

By the way, on the matter of this being "controversial" solely because Fannon voiced his differing opinion (as evidenced by grumbling in the Frontiersman interview), it's important to note that Wasilla,_Alaska deals with this issue and states, with full citation, that the two rape kits issued in 2000, after the law was passed, were indeed paid for by the state and not billed to the victims' insurance. Thus, Wasilla was always in compliance with the state law, which is also noteworthy. Fcreid (talk) 01:16, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

City of Wasilla document incorrectly used on Wasilla Alaska page to cite 2 payments by the city This document quite clearly is the denial by the city that they had -charged- for rapes in 2000. Anarchangel (talk) 23:13, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

That's not relevant; of course the city complied with the law after it passed. The question is entirely about what the city might have done before the law was passed. When it was perfectly legal to bill victims, their insurances, or anyone else for the kits, what did Wasilla do, and when did they start doing it? And more importantly, did anyone ever object to whatever it was that Wasilla was doing, and if so did these objections ever rise to the level of a notable controversy? -- Zsero (talk) 22:42, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

I disagree with your logic on this, Appraiser, as it's clearly guilt unless proven innocent. Why would there be evidence she distanced herself if she didn't know? Wouldn't we want evidence she embraced Fannon's opinion instead? Why would the Frontiersman not interview her on the matter? Because a) it was obviously not the big deal in 2000 that people are making of it in 2008, and b) they realized it was a perfunctory police billing matter and not one the mayor would have direct involvement. While I agree that prudence seems she probably read the local Mat-Su rag (unless, perhaps, she was on travel in that timeframe), saying she knew about Fannon's comments is pure synthesis and discounts my previous point that this just wasn't the big deal in 2000 that people hope to make it today. Finally, and words do matter, no one in Wasilla ever passed on the investigations' costs to the victims. Of the two (as I recall) cases where rape kits were administered by Wasilla, both were paid by insurance companies (in much the same manner rape kits of the future may be paid by insurers under a common payer healthcare system). Saying the victims were charged is dishonest not consistent with fact. A final point that the Frontiersman may not have enjoyed the universal readership we ascribe is from the Saint Petersburg Times article, "The policy generated little if any controversy during the first four years after Palin became mayor in 1996. Anne Kilkenny, a civic activist in Wasilla who has written a widely circulated e-mail criticizing Palin, told PolitiFact she does not recall that the issue ever came up." Fcreid (talk) 22:34, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

I have no idea if Politifact is RS or whether they stand in the left, right or middle, but this article Politifact Article concludes this smear to be "half truth". I would hope we have a higher standard than half truths on WP. Fcreid (talk) 22:37, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

I sincerely hate beating this dead horse mercilessly, but please note my point above (with citation from Wasilla city records) where city officials state two rape kits were issued in 2000, after the law passed, and they were paid for by the state and not the victims' insurer. It directly contradicts one of Croft's arguments, i.e. "It was one of those things everyone could agree on except Wasilla. We couldn't convince the chief of police to stop charging them," and it provides more reason that we question the accuracy of his other accusation which, with descriptors removed, says nothing more than "I think she could have known." I never advocated including this material in the first place. Despite, and with the help of others on both sides, I proffered the compromise that is in the current article, i.e. "Fannon later opposed a state law preventing police departments from billing rape victims' health insurance for evidence collection kits.[49]" Some feel any mention is too much, while others feel the article should substantiate the allegation that Palin knew despite the lack of evidence. Where does that leave us? Fcreid (talk) 08:23, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Add this material to the Fannon bio once or if it is created. This "material" does not belong in the bio. It is covered in painful detail in the sub article. --Tom 19:26, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Fcreid states that the two rape kits issued in 2000, after the state law passed, were not paid for by the victim or the victim's insurance company. So, the town complied with the state law after it passed. So what? The only relevant points to this are that Fannon, whom she appointed, openly expressed that taxpayers shouldn't have to be burdened with the expense of rape kits, and she was either completely out of touch with her small town or she found out that Fannon said that and was silent on the issue. I don't know about you, but if I were mayor of my town, I think I would be sure that I knew everything my police chief was quoted as saying in our newspaper.--Appraiser (talk) 20:07, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

City of Wasilla document incorrectly used on Wasilla Alaska page to cite 2 payments by the city This document quite clearly is the denial by the city that they had -charged- for rapes in 2000. Anarchangel (talk) 23:13, 29 October 2008 (UTC) On the point of whether the article should show that the victims were protected from being charged, by HB 270, or that the insurance companies were protected from being billed, by it: would you be interested at all in how the framers of the law wrote it? The final version of the amendment to Alaska Statute 18.68 Anarchangel (talk) 23:13, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Let me clarify on your first point. I brought up the post-enactment Wasilla records that showed insurers were not billed to refute Croft's statement that Wasilla wouldn't comply with the new law for six months, and for nothing more than to discredit his recollection of events. (He also made a meandering comment about how he couldn't imagine how Palin could not have known or something equally inconsequential.) Neither the post-law Wasilla record or the exact language of the bill are actually relevant to the issue and discussion below towards consensus, as those deal with Palin's knowledge of Fannon's policy *before* the practice became illegal. I do appreciate you digging up the exact law, though. Fcreid (talk) 23:27, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree completely with your synopsis of the issue, and you went exactly to the crux of it, but how do we deal with it here? Any course we take requires OR. We have nothing reliable that indicates she knew about this issue (and several other incidental things indicating it's feasible she didn't, e.g. the lack of discrete accountability in the budget, the glaring absence of other contemporaneous sources indicating it was a "controversy", etc.) Still, we cannot (I think even moreso in a BLP) make an accusation that she knew and did nothing. Thus, it leads to the other counter-balance in your synopsis--that she was "out-of-touch" with the small town under her stewardship but, again, there's simply no RS that would allow us to postulate that. Finally, and it cannot be overstated, this is a non-issue in the MSM, particuarly of late. The major players, NY Times, Boston Globe, Washington Post et al, have refused to cover this in their main articles because of the local of source. As I posted above, Politifact concludes it's a half-truth. How can we present it here in good conscience? Fcreid (talk) 20:22, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

How about one try that may solve both issues:

"Fannon later opposed a state law preventing police departments from billing rape victims' health insurance for evidence collection kits.[49] There is no evidence Palin was aware of the police department policy [cite St Pete Times article which states exactly that]."

This satisfies the requirement that the issue says something about Palin, making it relevant to her biography, and it allows anyone (like Appraiser) who wants to conclude that her manifest lack of awareness was equally or more damning. Fcreid (talk) 20:38, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

I like your wording - both points are cited. Thanks.--Appraiser (talk) 20:50, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Great! Can someone with more skillz put that in the article? I had to run and hide last time I did something that included a reference. I promise I'll learn in a sandbox somewhere soon! Fcreid (talk) 21:45, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps adding ",nor that any rape victims were personally billed." ? So far no one has cited otherwise. Collect (talk) 21:58, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

No objection to that here, although I would use "or" versus "nor", and we can probably just say "victims" given we've already provided that context, so now:

• "Fannon later opposed a state law preventing police departments from billing rape victims' health insurance for evidence collection kits.[49] There is no evidence Palin was aware of the police department policy or that any victims were ever personally billed. [cite St Pete Times article which states both facts]"

Fcreid (talk) 22:05, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

But why would a reader even think this? We only need to say there's no evidence of something if the article otherwise implies that there might be. All the current text says (because it's all we have real evidence for) is that Fannon expressed his opinion about a state bill. Surely nobody claims it matters whether Palin was aware of this opinion of his! -- Zsero (talk) 22:42, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't think we were saying Palin was or wasn't aware of Fannon's opposition. There's certainly no evidence of that. However, we are saying Palin was unaware of Fannon's policy regarding billing insurers, and I see Appraiser's point on that--her police chief did subscribe to a policy which, in hindsight, is being defined as controversial. That there's no evidence she knew about that, which is significant. Some will conclude from that, as Appraiser, that she didn't have a handle on her city. I don't even want to take this off in a debate of whether the policy itself was controversial. Anyway, I sense the more caveats there are to this sentence, the more WP:UNDUE we make it. So, for what it's worth, I can live with the version above. (Is there a WP record for the most debated 25 words?) Fcreid (talk) 22:55, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm back to liking a terse and factual single sentence. We're not arguing for/against the policy itself, so it's really irrelevant whether anyone was ever billed. We're simply acknowledged that Fannon objected to it, but there's no evidence Palin even knew.

• "Fannon later opposed a state law preventing police departments from billing rape victims' health insurance for evidence collection kits,[49] but there is no evidence Palin was aware of that policy.[cite St Pete Times article]"

Fcreid (talk) 23:57, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Of which policy? No policy is mentioned in the previous paragraph, and I don't think any policy should be mentioned without a clear proof that one existed, so your proposed addition has no referent. My own surmise, based on everything I've read, is that Wasilla never had any policy at all on the matter; it came up so infrequently that each instance was decided ad hoc. I doubt Fannon ever gave the matter more than a minute's thought until he heard that the state was going to dictate one way of doing things, and he saw problems with it. I doubt he even checked to find out what his department had actually been doing, let alone what it had done before he took over. -- Zsero (talk) 23:57, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

You know, once again Zsero, you've made an excellent point. All along, everyone (myself included) has assumed that because Fannon grumbled about the new law that he (and, by proxy, Wasilla) had some conflicting policy in place. Yet I don't recall ever seeing evidence that actually shows that was the case. Does anyone know if he (or, more appropriate, the hospital) every billed insurance companies for these kits? Fcreid (talk) 00:04, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Answered my own question. Fannon says in the Frontiersman interview, "In the past weve charged the cost of exams to the victims insurance company when possible." It doesn't establish as policy. In contrast, it reinforces your ad hoc assertion above with the "when possible". It's a little more tortured, but:

• "In 2000, Fannon opposed a new state law preventing police departments from billing rape victims' health insurance for evidence collection kits,[49] but there is no evidence Palin was aware Fannon supported that practice in Wasilla.[cite St Pete Times article]"

Fcreid (talk) 00:15, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

How about

• ...kits;[49] the Wasilla police had sometimes done so, but there is no evidence Palin was aware of or supported it.[50]

-- Zsero (talk) 00:51, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Works for me. Fcreid (talk) 02:15, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, on a positive note, it seems we finally got 25-words describing the "rape kit" issue that (I hope) captures that in NPOV language before full protection. I apologize for my insistence and annoying volumes of talk on this singular issue, but I believe the issue caused unexpected collateral damage to this person's integrity in a manner that was patently unfair to her record and for a BLP. I appreciate everyone's patience on this for the past month. It's a better article as a result! :) Fcreid (talk) 10:24, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Nah, it's not especially NPOV as every single critical aspect has been excluded from the article. That's life, I suppose. Ferrylodge, Collect, Fcreid, and Zsero have made quite a productive 9-to-5 of enforcing this nonsense. Oh well; Palin should have plenty of time to set the record straight during her next term as governor of Alaska. Maybe she'll work on another extra-legal abortion ban! ;o) Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 17:55, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Factchecker. It was my pleasure researching this with you, too. I talked to Charlie, and he said it's just something he cooked up on a case-by-case basis when medical insurance would pay and to save a few bucks on his miscellaneous budget so he could buy more donuts. Fcreid (talk) 17:57, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Couldn't they bill the donuts eaten while working on a rape case to the insurance company of the victim? I mean, the primary purpose of health insurance is to subsidize police investigations. Why should taxpayers be expected to pay for these police investigations? Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 18:08, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Interesting idea! I'll suggest to Charlie that he check with the boys down at Juneau to see if they've figured out a way to get their donuts billed, too. They're pretty strict about those ICD billable rates, though. Would those qualify as high glucose pills, you think? Fcreid (talk) 18:16, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

I think it's a shame that crime happens in the first place, and I agree with Fannon that every possible renumeration should come out of the perpetrator's pockets and not those of the victim, his insurer or we taxpayers. Out of curiosity, do you know whether it's the taxpayer or home insurance that pays if, say, windows and doors are broken by the police while responding to a reported crimes? I sure know they didn't offer to replace all the electronics I had stolen from my home in June, and it was definitely my insurance company that paid then! Fcreid (talk) 18:23, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Sure, the criminal or the government should pay for the investigation.. but neither the victim nor her insurance company should ever pay. Under Fannon's predecessor, whom Palin fired before appointing Fannon, the city paid for the exams. I still don't understand what rationale there can be for charging an evidence collecting procedure to insurance just because there is a possibility some injuries will receive treatment while being documented. They don't seem to charge insurance for their own investigations of other types of crimes, bill people for domestic disturbance calls, etc. Policework is done at public, not private, expense, and it needs to be that way in order to ensure equal protection under the law. If, as Fannon said, the new law would cost the Wasilla Police Department approximately $5,000 to $14,000 a year to collect evidence for sexual assault cases, I don't see why they thought anybody's insurance company should pay for their city cops and city doctor to do their job. As multiple representatives in the minutes pointed out, it should be paid for by the police. I think they just saw deep pockets and figured they could get some money.Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 19:06, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

I want to make it clear we're now debating the practice itself and not the extent or conditions of Fannon's admitted use, and certainly nothing to do with the subject of this biography. That said, during the course of researching this issue, we actually learned exactly the opposite of what you suggested. In fact, very few of the reported rapes where evidence kits are expended ever become criminal matters. It's perfunctory for the hospital (not the police, as you suggest) to administer the evidence collection as soon as a rape claim is made by the victim. Despite, the majority of victims later recant on their stories or simply do not want to press it as a criminal matter. I have no desire at all to explore the underlying social phenomenon involved in that, and I certainly appreciate the sensitivity of the issue, but I have to ask the corollary question: is it fair that taxpayers pay for these evidence collection kits if the matter never becomes a criminal proceeding? Also, you neglected to answer my question to you about whether damages occurring during an "investigation" of property crimes, say burglary at a home or business, are charged to the police or also to the victim's home insurance. That seems pretty analogous, doesn't it? In fact, on a more direct analogy, should the police pay to replace an article of clothing that was taken/damaged from the rape victim as part of the investigation, e.g. to collect forensic material? Fcreid (talk) 21:49, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

You're the one who began this debate about the practice itself, and the points I touched on were directly relevant to Fannon policy. The representatives at the legislative meeting felt that it was inappropriate to charge the investigations to insurance, Fannon felt otherwise for whatever reason. I'm not sure what you are trying to demonstate by pointing out how routine the evidence collection is. Yeah, I get it... it's routine.

The "corollary question" is from out in left field. Is it fair that "taxpayers pay for these evidence collection kits if the matter never becomes a criminal proceeding"? Who is supposed to pay? The non-criminal who is never charged? Society, for fostering the environment in which the non-crime occurred? Does the city write a letter to the Bank of America saying "we did this investigation, but no charges were filed, the taxpayers shouldn't have to pay, but somebody's gotta pay our salaries and expenses so please foot the bill out of the goodness of your heart"? Sent it "to the victim, with love, thanks for wasting our time" ? When they investigate a robbery and find no leads, do they send a bill to the homeowner because it never resulted in a criminal proceeding? Wait a second.. you may be onto something. Let's go through all the unsolved murder cases and bill the victim's family for all that investigating done on their behalf that never resulted in charges, let alone a trial. Better yet, why not authorize the state to seize the murder victim's life insurance policy to pay for the murder investigation? I mean, it's certainly not the responsibility of taxpayers to pay for their police force, is it?

Uhm, on your insurance question, you asked if homeowner's insurance would cover damage done by police investigating a robbery. I would guess that it does. That's not quite the same as the insurance company paying for the entire investigation, which is the responsibility of the police dept.Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 00:25, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

What if the victim's health insurance were already under a taxpayer-subsidized system, like Medicare? Fcreid (talk) 02:21, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

It still wouldn't explain why the police department of Wasilla was trying to pass costs of its investigations on to people who weren't responsible for them. It's not like insurance companies are some magic source of money capable of propping up the budgets of police departments across the nation. Anyway, the purpose of Medicare is to help ensure elderly citizens receive the medical care they need, not to ensure that police departments investigate rapes in their jurisdiction.Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 04:48, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) Hey, I'm not defending the policy, but rather illustrating that at the time Fannon did that, it was not illegal or necessarily even unethical, depending upon your point of view with respect to preserving taxpayer funds. Fannon was also not alone in the practice, either in Alaska or nationally, and I'd be surprised if it's not still occurring in local police jurisdictions in states without such a law. By Fannon's own admission, it's clear he did not do this consistently, indicating there was no established "Wasilla policy" for doing so. Finally, it's abundantly clear no individuals were ever charged directly, at least in Wasilla, so I think it's unsupported to ascribe any nefarious intent or callousness towards rape victims (which really is what this whole issue boils down to in context). The scenarios I presented were simply to illustrate that the practice itself is not without analogs in other "routine criminal investigative matters". (Well, admittedly, the last scenario was to yank the chain on socialized medicine.) Regardless, I sense we blog here, as we already reached a meaningful consensus edit in the article that presents all the known facts in the matter and allows the reader himself to come to his own judgments. There is no value adding that "so-and-so thinks she could have known" as it doesn't modify the stated premise that "there is no evidence Palin knew about the practice". Fcreid (talk) 07:30, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

You didn't present even a single example of another type of situation where police somehow charge a victim's insurance company for the costs the police incur to pay for their investigation. The closest you came was suggesting that if police damage windows during a robbery investigation, insurance might cover that... and as I pointed out, that is nowhere near the same as expecting the insurance company to foot the entire bill for the investigation. That is just passing the buck, plain and simple.Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 16:00, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

As I mentioned several times before, I am not defending this policy or its frequency of usage in Alaska or nationwide. It is for this reason I stated early on that we must avoid debating the practice itself but rather how the subject of this article was or was not involved. To that end, the language we agreed upon acknowledges it occurred and presents what we know about that, i.e. Fannon's admitted involvement and Palin's apparent obliviousness that it occurred. That's all we know with certainty, and it allows the reader to form his own opinion on how that reflects upon the subject. Fcreid (talk) 12:25, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

You mentioned that once, and in response, I pointed out that you initiated this debate. Furthermore, as I mentioned before the points I've discussed have been fully and directly to Fannon's improper, now-illegal practice of passing his police department's investigative costs onto the insurance companies of crime victims. Finally, the language in the article is POV-pushing because it reflects Palin's defense against a criticism, but not the criticism itself.Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 17:20, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Huge tag

I really prefer the nice little padlock symbol, instead of the huge tag, at the top of the article. The huge tag will cause many readers to not read the article. Any chance we can go back to the little padlock?Ferrylodge (talk) 06:30, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Why would the tag cause anyone not to read the article? I don't understand. Proxy User (talk) 06:42, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Because it's big and ugly and says the page has been VANDALIZED.Ferrylodge (talk) 06:49, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

See the links provided in the thread above this one. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 06:52, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

(undent) I am not disputing the need for locking up the article. I'm simply saying that the huge tag is hideous. The small padlock symbol would work just as well. We have been through this before.Ferrylodge (talk) 06:58, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

I think the tag gets in the way of the article. If someone tries to edit the article they will find out it is locked. There's no need to make the page look ugly for the rest of the folks. --Andrew Kelly (talk) 07:03, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Just a note, Ferrylodge: The diff you are pointing to has utterly no bearing on this. That was from the last shit-storm around the time Palin's VP-candidacy was announced. Why are you bringing it up now? J.delanoy^gabs_adds 07:09, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

No, it is the exact same situation. NYB was saying to keep the article locked up, but use the small padlock symbol instead of using the huge tag. It's exactly what I'm requesting now.Ferrylodge (talk) 07:11, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

And if you look at the talk page discussion at the time, many editors disagreed with NYB who has no special standing with respect to such decisions. Dragons flight (talk) 08:17, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

If we are going to lock this article down till after the election then I prefer the large, obnoxious box. It is a more honest way of announcing to readers and editors that something unusual is happening here. I'm not sure I agree that protection is needed though. Dragons flight (talk) 08:04, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

I think it's pretty much irrelevant for readers, and would just tend to drive them away. It basically says that the article's been vandalized, so why would anyone stay and read it? For editors, the explanation at the top of the talk page seems like plenty.Ferrylodge (talk) 08:07, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

I'd rather they recieve the warning and choose not to read the article then recieve no warning. Dragons flight (talk) 08:17, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I also believe the smaller tag is sufficient and does not convey unnecessary or unintended consequences. From a WP-level perspective, the big tag brings negative PR to the Wikipedia model of community editing to perhaps millions who will view these four pages over the next several days. More importantly, it diminishes the accomplishments of the many active editors who have worked on these articles for months through donated effort, essentially slapping a public and glaring "Red F" on their collective results. Fcreid (talk) 10:53, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Worrying about having good "Wiki-PR" and preventing 24-7 editors from having hurt feelings on the articles they WP:OWN would not form the basis of a legitimate decision. Of course, this probably means it will happen.Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 18:00, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Come now, Factchecker. Certainly there's a need to take pride in your community, isn't there? Fcreid (talk) 18:03, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Do you hate freedom?Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 18:06, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

I've fought my entire life for freedom, but I gotta tell ya I'm digging the relative silence around here! :) Fcreid (talk) 23:15, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Kinda eerie, isn't it? :) Personally, big tag, little tag, doesn't make much difference to me.Zaereth (talk) 00:25, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

I like the big one. 216.215.233.66 (talk) 19:01, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Mayor of Wasilla/First Term/Stambaugh/SB 177

Please cite the proposal in arguments concerning it, and references relied on by the arguments.
References to prior consensus without noting Archive number and section heading are less relevant.

Section: Mayor of Wasilla: Subsection: First Term. 3rd Paragraph begins: Palin fired Emmons... 4th Sentence, "In fact, the bill stated: "A permitee may not carry a concealed handgun into or possess a concealed handgun within [...] or on school grounds.""
Compare this with the text of the bill, and the statute definitions used to define 'school grounds':
Alaska Statute 11.71.900 as it was to be amended by HB 177
AS 11.71.900 Definitions

Firstly, the phrase "A permitee may not carry a concealed handgun into or possess a concealed handgun within" is not in the bill at all. Since the "or on school grounds is part of a list, it is understandable that for easier reading, it was linked with the previous phrase, but it should not have been given quotes as if it were from the text.
Secondly, the quote leaves out material. The full list item text is, "or on school grounds or a school bus; in this paragraph, "school grounds" has the meaning given in AS 11.71.900, which is: ""school grounds" means a building, structure, athletic playing field, playground, parking area, or land contained within the real property boundary line of a public or private preschool, elementary, or secondary school."

This definition does not include colleges.

The version also prohibits carrying of handguns in "a residence where notice that carrying a concealed handgun is prohibited has been given by the posting of a conspicuous notice or by oral statement by the resident to the permittee"
As what is not specifically proscripted is allowed, residences not signposted and other private and public places would have been unaffected.

I propose that the text of the article be edited to read, "SB 177 prohibited guns in primary and secondary schools, but allowed them in colleges, bars, and public places." Anarchangel (talk) 09:31, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

• Do not concur with this edit, as it would place WP:UNDUE on this singular aspect of the Palin firing of Stambaugh. The primary reason Stambaugh provided in his lawsuit was sexual discrimination. If anything, that should be the main point of our encyclopedic coverage of that event. However, it wouldn't hurt to capture the quote from his trial where a witness testified Stambaugh said to Palin, in public, "Little lady, if you think you have our respect, you're wrong." That seems to speak volumes more in assessing Palin's rationale for canning him! Fcreid (talk) 10:11, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Assuming that Todd, let alone others in Wasilla, did not speak to her that way, then perhaps. Insufficient evidence for her reaction to that, though. Her stand on gun control is well known. Odd that you should find the singular nature of a single issue among many such singular issues to be grounds for it to be removed. Anarchangel (talk) 03:11, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

What would your reaction have been were you mayor of a small town and your police chief called you out in public with that insubordinate statement? :-\ Regarding the WP:UNDUE on the gun issue, we should stick as closely as possible to what Stambaugh claimed in his lawsuit, i.e. that he was fired for gender discrimination. Fcreid (talk) 03:23, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

• I would not concur with editing the material. WP:OR bars original research; for example, I do not see where any of the cited sources say anything about "colleges".Ferrylodge (talk) 10:19, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

And where in a law banning shouting 'Fire!' in a crowded theater would it state that it was legal to shout it in the desert where no one else can hear? I stated as much in my original edit. Is that your only argument?

• Do not concur. Unless you find a specific cite making the atatement you wish to use, it is OR. I strongly suspect, moreover, that "colleges, bars and public places" is an inaccurate claim absent such a cite. Collect (talk) 13:06, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

The citation is above. Would you care to read it? Anarchangel (talk) 03:11, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

• I also have to agree with Fcreid, Ferrylodge and Collect. This seems like reading between the lines. From my own POV, colleges are private schools and should be subject to making their own bans, as well as bars, (which is probably why you find metal detectors at the entrances of many Alaskan bars). But, then again, I'm no lawyer.Zaereth (talk) 16:53, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

The issue I am currently bringing up to be included is not whether colleges might have restricted guns. The issue is whether or not this law, SB 177, restricted guns in schools. Colleges could have been classed as schools, but weren't, allowing guns into what could be termed as a school. As I noted when I first brought up this subject weeks ago, I don't believe that this sort of sleight of hand is honorable conduct for either supporters or opponents of a bill, but we have an opportunity to set the record straight now. Having noted that it did in fact restrict guns in schools, we must now note that SB 177 did not restrict guns in colleges. Reading between the lines of a law, whose purpose is to denote what is illegal, for evidence of what is legal, is not only not restricted by Wiki in any way, it is the -only- way to find out what the law is concerning this matter. Furthermore, it is the responsibility of citizens in a democratic society; your throwing up of your hands and stating that you are not a lawyer does not speak well of your conception of civic responsibility. Lastly, it is simple logic; your failure to grasp it bodes ill also. Anarchangel (talk) 03:11, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

As you stated above, Palin's position on gun control is well-established in the article already. If you wish to make a case that her position on the Second Amendment is outside of the mainstream, then you should focus on examples of that in her record of governance and put those in the appropriate context. In the context of this Stambaugh firing, there is no evidence that gun control issues were significantly notable to the event or, more importantly, contentious in general in this area on the Alaskan frontier where people still routinely shoot their own food. There are clearly more notable aspects to this firing at the surface of the RS we have that obviate any need for WP:OR, e.g. Stambaugh's documented insubordination and his own stated reason for filing the wrongful termination lawsuit, i.e. sexual discrimination. Trumping up liberal v. conservative gun policy debate in circa 1996 Wasilla is thin on the substance. Fcreid (talk) 08:04, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

The issues I have brought up already stand; you have not addressed them.

On your contention that gun control issues were not relevant to the case, read this, where you can plainly see that gun control issues were -in- the case. Anarchangel (talk) 13:09, 31 October 2008 (UTC) Anarchangel (talk) 13:09, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

I didn't say it wasn't in the case. I said we need to be careful not to place WP:UNDUE on that aspect anymore than the other issues, as we already do in the article. If you read the statement as it now stands, it makes only a casual mention of "gender discrimination"--the primary filing of the lawsuit--then goes on a lengthy discussion about concealed guns. Singling out that aspect places undue weight on one point of contention (which, as Newsweek article states, "Palin denied in a deposition that the NRA contacted her about the weapons bill.") Given the gun issue is already mentioned with significant weight, yet his insubordination is entirely omitted, I'm not sure what point you're arguing for change. Fcreid (talk) 13:23, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

One final amplification, Anarchangel. We need to review all the background that got us to this language in the article right now before we march down and repeat all of that. In a nutshell, we spent a lot of time ensuring that Stambaugh's firing was not presented as largely related to differences on gun policy. In fact, that was not specifically mentioned in the actual wrongful termination lawsuit nor was it any more significant than other issues presented in the trial, including Palin's statement that she simply felt she didn't have his full support. Frankly, what's in there already places undue weight on the gun law dimension of that inconsistent with the many RS on the topic. Now, if you and Ferrylodge want to debate whether the subject law did or did not include colleges, that's a different matter. Ferrylodge has made his points above regarding that. However, again, we're not debating SB 177 here, but rather Stambaugh's firing. Fcreid (talk) 14:25, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Might I suggest a compromise? There is obvious disagreement on whether SB 177 allowed/prohibited certain aspects of concealed weapons. I maintain that while the disagreement over the law is notable, the actual details of the law are not significant to either the trial or to Palin's biography. Even in its current form, it places WP:UNDUE weight on that singular dimension of the incident (and at the expense of equally important aspects). Would there be consensus to relegate this "he said this but the law said that" level-of-detail to the sub-article, and just make a summary statement of it? Right now it reads:

"Stambaugh, who along with Emmons had supported Palin's opponent in the election, filed a wrongful termination lawsuit alleging that his termination violated his contract, reflected gender discrimination, and was for political reasons;[45] he said, for example, that he had opposed a bill in the state legislature, supported by Palin, that would "permit concealed weapons in schools and bars."[46] In fact, the bill stated: "A permitee may not carry a concealed handgun into or possess a concealed handgun within [...] or on school grounds."[47] The federal judge who heard the case dismissed Stambaugh's lawsuit, ordering Stambaugh to pay Palin's legal fees,[46] ruling that the mayor had the right to fire city employees for any reason, including a political one, or for no reason at all.[48]"

I suggest:

"Stambaugh, who along with Emmons had supported Palin's opponent in the mayoral election, filed a wrongful termination lawsuit alleging that his termination violated his contract, reflected gender discrimination, and was for political reasons,[45] including his disagreement on a proposed state law regarding concealed weapons."[46] The federal judge who heard the case dismissed Stambaugh's lawsuit, ordering Stambaugh to pay Palin's legal fees,[46] and ruled the mayor had the right to fire city employees for any reason, including a political one, or for no reason at all.[48]"

This cuts unnecessary detail from the summary article and obviates the need to cite conflicting sources here that, in and of themselves, are not significant to this person's biography. Fcreid (talk) 23:40, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your offer of compromise. However, I cannot accept. The article has had in it a false refutation of Stambaugh's stand, giving fraudulent quotations supposedly from SB 177 that never existed in that law, and ignoring the fact that Stambaugh was right about bars and public places. I can never consider details about a state law frivolous. Let me put this into perspective somewhat. This article features a cute glamour shot about her phoning citizens to ask how the city is doing. While that is the standard in this article that it would seem you find relevant, I will be requesting facts that you consider trivial. Anarchangel (talk) 00:58, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

That's my exact point, Anarchangel... let's get rid of the allegedly "false refutation" with which you take umbrage, as it's just not relevant in that detail to the Stambaugh firing. Doesn't my wording accomplish that? It doesn't make sense why would we fight about the scope of SB 177 in Sarah Palin's biographical article? The compromise wording I provided informs the reader that gun control issues were one of the political areas where they disagreed, fully supporting the RS that state that, and we later provide Palin's full views on gun ownership under her political positions. Simply put, what SB 177 said or didn't say and what Stambaugh or we think it said is notable neither to Stambaugh's firing nor to Palin's biography. Fcreid (talk) 01:11, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Again, what's on the table is:

"Stambaugh, who along with Emmons had supported Palin's opponent in the mayoral election, filed a wrongful termination lawsuit alleging that his termination violated his contract, reflected gender discrimination, and was for political reasons,[45] including his disagreement on a proposed state law regarding concealed weapons.[46] The federal judge who heard the case dismissed Stambaugh's lawsuit, ordering Stambaugh to pay Palin's legal fees,[46] and ruled the mayor had the right to fire city employees for any reason, including a political one, or for no reason at all.[48]"

Fcreid (talk) 02:06, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Anarchangel, I have reverted your last edit for further discussion. It was presumptuous to change the entire wording of this paragraph right in the middle of our conversation here, and given that your requested change was for the moment in the minority. In addition, there were several other areas you changed that appeared also to need further discussion/consensus. It does not seem that now would be the time to start disruptive edits while you know the involved editors are right here to assist. Fcreid (talk) 03:29, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Discussion is over; it's been over for weeks, since my first edit on this page, but I have persevered. Should you continue to revert, arbitration begins. I have had it up to here with your obfuscations, your sidestepping of issues, misuse of WP terminology, and condescending manner. I was prepared to see it through to where I could make you see reason, but on this very page you have ignored my argument that there are quotation marks around material that isn't in the cited source! Or should I say, weren't. It's over, your credibility is completely gone. The reasons for your behaviour are perplexing, but the behaviour itself is intolerable. Anarchangel (talk) 03:40, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

I noticed there are several other areas where you've "tweaked" things a bit to your liking in the article beyond the Stambaugh firing, thus the major revision, eh? Also, regarding quotations, the recommendation I offered was:

Negative. The major revision is a consequence of seeing anew things that have been bothering me for weeks, which I have already discussed, and new things which I just noticed while editing, which I won't bother discussing because there is no point. The only people who 'contribute' to the discussion whose judgement/motives (difficult to discern between those) I trust at all are too wishy washy to even come down on one side or the other.

"Stambaugh, who along with Emmons had supported Palin's opponent in the mayoral election, filed a wrongful termination lawsuit alleging that his termination violated his contract, reflected gender discrimination, and was for political reasons,[45] including his disagreement on a proposed state law regarding concealed weapons.[46] The federal judge who heard the case dismissed Stambaugh's lawsuit, ordering Stambaugh to pay Palin's legal fees,[46] and ruled the mayor had the right to fire city employees for any reason, including a political one, or for no reason at all.[48]"

I don't see any quotations in there. :-\ Fcreid (talk) 03:52, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

The quotations are in the article. Anarchangel (talk) 06:00, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm not here to please you, Anarchangel, and I'm sorry you got that impression. I don't know what arbitration is... is that someplace you routinely must visit? Personally, I've tried in good faith to participate and contribute cooperatively in the editing process through talk for two months and to help achieve consensus on contentious issues with deep partisan roots. My cursor rarely touches the article itself and, unlike you, it's not in my nature to barge in demanding, "This is how things are going to be because I said so!" I'm not going to fight with you, and I would venture a guess that your changes won't survive long, but I could be wrong. Fcreid (talk) 03:49, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't expect them to last long. Another reason for arbitration. Anarchangel (talk) 06:00, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Also, just to clarify in response to your comments above, and to reiterate what I posted on your talk page Anarchangel, this is my first involvement in the language of the Stambaugh firing incident for the article. I had nothing to do what's in there now, so I suspect you have me confused with another editor. Whether you see it or not, I was simply trying to come to a consensus edit that all could agree upon, but I appear to have failed miserably. Fcreid (talk) 04:37, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

I almost feel sorry for you. You sure are a different person when you aren't savaging other editors in the Rat Pack with Ferrylodge and Collect and Grsz. Anarchangel (talk) 06:00, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I really am one of those people who will grow on you in real life. Fcreid (talk) 10:39, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Photo was removed

Just wanted to say that I am disappointed my photo ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Palin_Cape3.jpg )was removed for the Palin article. I worked hard for the shot, which I felt turned out fairly well, and then spent quite a while editing it specifically for this article. One of the reasons I liked it was because I have never seen a photo of Palin with a compassionate expression, and I think it shows her feelings for disabled children much better than a worded description does. Lonerockalex (talk) 01:45, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

That would be original research and has no place in a Wikipedia article. Cenarium ^Talk 02:01, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Everyone absolutely appreciates your contributions here, Alex. I don't know the ropes around here well enough to know either the details on photo usage policies, and I'm just barely learning those regarding WP:OR as Cenarium indicated above. Above all, I'm sure you understand we have limited space in such a small article for everything, so whatever decision is made is certainly no statement on your picture's content or quality. Fcreid (talk) 02:05, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your contribution to WP Alex and your comment on my talk page. As mentioned above, the main reason the photo had to be removed was because of original research (the child is not visible in the image). We also have very limited space for additional photos. When a photo is added or changed, it is discussed at length here to achieve consensus. Take care, IP75 (talk) 03:09, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind comments on the photo Fcreid and IP75.

>the main reason the photo had to be removed was because of original research (the child is not visible in the image).

Ok, sorry. I understand the original research clause. While having verifiable claims is extremely important on Wikipedia, I didn’t realize a simple byline would be enough to illicit controversy. However, I have provided a reference¹ if you need one.

>When a photo is added or changed, it is discussed at length here to achieve consensus.

Great. Let’s start discussing if and where we’re going to put it.

References

(1) Television cameras of KFVS-TV 12 Cape Girardeau / Viacom recorded the moment which was replayed on the evening news, along with other interactions between her and the crowd [10/30/08 episode of KFVS 5PM News on Channel 12 (KFVS)].

Lonerockalex (talk) 22:51, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Since I provided a reference (which was the main objection) and invited discussion about whether the photo was appropriate for the article (and no one has replied after two days) I'll assume that it is acceptable to replace my photo in the article. Lonerockalex (talk) 16:40, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Looks like you'll have to discuss it with the admins at Commons, as it was deleted earlier today as a copyright violation. Tony Fox (arf!) 16:56, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Problem fixed (some liberal from Holland deleted the photo with no justification other than "copyright violation" even though I took the photo and licensed it under GNU). Can we move forward with the discussion now?Lonerockalex (talk) 19:09, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, okay then. Please don't strike other editors' comments in future, 'kay? As for the picture, I personally think the viewpoints above are quite correct: it's not a bad shot, but it's less representative than the other images in the article, and it doesn't show the context, which would have to be described in the cutline - that's not really ideal. Plus, the article's well stocked with photos already - it might require discussion as to whether this would be better than one of those to fit in. Tony Fox (arf!) 21:37, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Major Anarchangel Edit

I just reverted a major edit by Archangel which substantively changed a large portion of this biography in many areas and, in many cases, clearly in a way that did not reflect the consensus built in the past months. Archangel has since reverted it back. I think they call that an edit war, and I have no desire to be involved in that. However, I think it is patently offensive to have him substantively change this article today. If others agree, maybe we can discuss the individual edits he desires on a case-by-case basis. Fcreid (talk) 03:37, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

THE EDIT

I had originally planned on only printing this extremely detailed explanation of my edit in Arbitration. However, some seem curious as to why I edited the way I did. I sincerely hope that your eyes are not bigger than your stomach, or your reach exceed your grasp, or whatever.

Factoid: the difference in bytes between my edit and the prior version was minus 395. The original was 107,997 bytes, mine was

107,602. It was a comprehensive, nay, a far reaching edit, I will grant you. But massive, no.

The reduction was the Johnson citations, all given page numbers that interfered with their status as <= Ref name => clones of an original, leading to broken links; all had those numbers and the redundant cite format removed, and now will all work. If my version is ever restored.

The Diff

The diff

"Throughout her political career, Palin has been a registered Republican. "
This seemed like a good place for saying this. It existed previously in the article, as a hanging, limp thing at the end of a section, and due to the connection to the Alaskan Independence Party issue in the quite biased source in the citation, looked very much like an editing artifact, possibly a rebuttal to someone claiming that Palin was a member of the AIP, or some such. It is a general statement, that seems unimpeachable, but since I hadn't a source, and unusually for me, couldn't be bothered to go find one, I fact checked my own edit.
I could have just removed the whole thing from where it was, but I always prefer to leave things be. I prefer information to silence. As I get more experience, I hope to be able to more clearly define that line between something that ought to be reworked and something that ought to be just deleted. This may well end up being on the deleted side of the line. Dunno where else in the article it could go, but it may just be so much of a commonsense statement that it needn't appear.

• Concur with this edit. I believe you're exactly correct, that this is an artifact of the early bickering on whether an AIP association was to be included. Fcreid (talk) 14:42, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
  • The lede does not include footnotes, just like the ledes of other articles, such as John McCain and Barack Obama. Let's please keep it that way. The lede should merely summarize what's in the article. Also, can we please try to stay away from one-sentence paragraphs? I know that the first paragraph of the article is only one sentence. Still, if we add a sentence to the lede reagrding her party membership, could we please put it at the end of the last paragraph?Ferrylodge (talk) 18:05, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Johnson links
I first mentioned the Johnson dead links a good week ago, in Discussion. Cleanup time.

• Concur on general housekeeping chores. Fcreid (talk) 14:42, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Wasilla
Clarification. Is he just some random mayor who happened to wander by?, wonders the reader.

• Concur on clarification for readability. Fcreid (talk) 14:42, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Really no reason to mention the outcome of the election yet. It is only a paragraph away.

• Don't see where this refers in the diff. Fcreid (talk) 14:42, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

"Chase later became Palin's campaign manager for mayor in 1996, when Palin defeated John Stein," > "Chase later became Palin's campaign manager for mayor in 1996," as noted, one of three mentions of Stein's defeat. Believe there are three mentions of Stein in the article, making a pair of each. Stein only has bad things to say about Palin. It is not PoV to note that. However, it is PoV to hound the poor man with insinuations about his integrity. Anarchangel (talk) 20:47, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

• • Whenever we cite Stein blasting Palin, we have to mention that he was defeated by her. Frankly, I'm very uncomfortable with citing Stein so much in this article. We do not usually turn articles about politicians into platforms for their defeated opponents. But if we do mention Stein, we must mention that he is an opponent.Ferrylodge (talk) 17:56, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

..Blasting? ...We have to? ...We must? Perhaps they could find that out in the subarticle, assuming they have momentarily lost their ability to check statements for bias, assuming there is any. Oh, no, wait, they could find it out in -this- article, where I made sure it would be, as a record of the results of the election that Palin was in. Oh, and by the way, seeing as you're back, I am still waiting for a reason why Huffington Post isn't acceptable for citation in Wikipedia. Cite your source this time. Anarchangel (talk) 20:47, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

I might have stuck with just removing vocal, but the fact that she is a critic stands on the very evidence that is already presented in the article, therefore, anyone reading her comments can see that she is a critic. Vocal, well, she had to be tracked down in Wasilla by the writer of the article. The fact that every paper in the country reported his interview really isn't due to her efforts.

• Do not concur. In a perfect world, one's political affiliations should not matter. In this case, I think if Ms. Chase being a "vocal critic" has citation, it provides a proper context. Fcreid (talk) 14:42, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't have a citation, though. Anarchangel (talk) 20:47, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

• • I agree with Fcreid here.Ferrylodge (talk) 17:57, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Moved three term incumbent to the first mention of Stein. I like this because it gives as much info as possible about someone whose name one is encountering in the article for the first time, when curiousity is highest.

• Concur on style change Fcreid (talk) 14:42, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
  • I disagree with Fcreid on this. Anarchamgel didn't just move three term incumbent to the first mention of Stein, but additionally inserted that mention of Stein. I think it's very important to say, at the beginning of the mayor section, that she defeated a three-term incumbent.Ferrylodge (talk) 18:02, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

No objection. Did not see it from that perspective, but now do. Fcreid (talk) 18:07, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

I liked the way it added to summing up the previous section with a lead-in to the next, and I don't have an opinion either way about where 3-term should go, so a mere whim was enough for me to move it. I can see that it is a measure of her success, and that does sound an important meaning to convey. I felt that it conveyed that meaning in its prior place, as well, but it can only be a benefit to go with what someone in the discussion thinks is important. Anarchangel (talk) 20:47, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

(Lott, Maxim)Anarchangel (talk) 20:47, 2 November 2008 (UTC) Citation
Just look at this. It is a flaming mess. And as close to nothing to do with the subject cited as it can be while still having something to do with it.

• If I'm correlating this correctly, this is the Stambaugh diff? If so, it's way over-the-top in detail, but please let's follow-up in our separate discussion on that. Fcreid (talk) 14:42, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

First term
I have clarified this, above.

Another reason for moving this: it shortens a long sentence.

", the former mayor of Wasilla and Palin's 1996 political opponent,"
This is vintage Ferrylodge. Attempt to discredit opponents by implying bias due to having lost or competing for something. I know he believes that it implies bias because he has said so, somewhere around the 7th of October, on this page's Talk. I can not know he is consciously doing it, but the preponderance of evidence has convinced me that it is so. And of course, the fact that Stein lost to Palin is mentioned in the very same paragraph. The fact that he was lost/was a political opponent was repeated three times.

• Concur on this. If Stein's credentials (both as the former mayor and a political opponent) are established earlier, there is no need for repetition. Again, it seems unfortunately necessary to identify political opponents in an election race. :( Fcreid (talk) 14:42, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
  • As I mentioned above, whenever we cite Stein blasting Palin, we have to mention that he was defeated by her. Frankly, I'm very uncomfortable with citing Stein so much in this article. We do not usually turn articles about politicians into platforms for their defeated opponents. But if we do mention Stein, we must mention that he is an opponent. If we mention Stein twice in one paragraph, then obviously this criticism of mine does not apply both times.Ferrylodge (talk) 18:19, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

You know what gets me about you saying he was her opponent, all the time? They used to go to aerobics class together. Palin and Stambaugh and Stein. They helped her build Wasilla's city infrastructure from the ground up, and she turned around and stabbed them as soon as she had an opportunity. You keep repeating this same old lie over and over, that because someone -might- have PoV, we can't quote them. Heck, if they -do- have PoV we can quote them. It is a fact that they said it. Dang, give it up, will you? I gave up listening to that ages ago, and this is the last time I will even respond to it. Anarchangel (talk) 20:47, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

"The next day, following expressions of public support for Emmons and a personal meeting, Palin rescinded the firing of Emmons,"
Palin may well have rescinded Emmon's firing the next day after expressions of public support, as it seemed to be saying, poorly, but I doubt it.
In retrospect, this one I am not entirely happy with, other than changing it from what it was, it had to be changed. I didn't check the cite to attempt to nail down the timeline. Not even sure that I noticed at the time that it could have meant the chain of events I detail here.

"Stambaugh, who along with Emmons had supported Palin's opponent in the election,<ref
Another thing I missed. Really had wanted to do something about yet another repeat of the election results. "turb" deals in great depth with the Stambaugh issue, and with great insight and yet discretion, better than any of the other cites used about him. I rescued it from propping up the absurdly irrelevant "How's the City doing?" anecdote.

"filed a lawsuit lawsuit alleging wrongful termination contract violation, and gender discrimination."
Used the phrasing from the cited article to minimize meaning being lost, obscured, or warped in translation.

"In the trial, the defense further alleged political reasons;<ref"
For one thing, this phrase ended up looking tacked onto the end of the previous cited phrase. Mainly, though, giving it a sentence of its own separated the obviously disparate charges and evidence given at trial.

"Stambaugh said that he had opposed a bill in the state legislature that Palin supported.<ref"
Still breaking things up into smaller sentences here, to give them the weight they deserve, to let the connections between them be connections of the thoughts of the reader rather than of the writer, and pursuant to these things, I feel this sentence is now a bridge between the case and the bill, rather than a hole opening up on the floor of the courtroom down which the reader falls, into the Senate....And there I must end, for the night. Anarchangel (talk) 06:07, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

• Stambaugh stuff in the other topic. Fcreid (talk) 14:42, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Also, for clarity and tracking, would it be possible to make these edits individually rather than a cut/paste from somewhere? I suspect that's a bit more work, bit it's also what triggered the surprise last night, as the diff was not very easy to distinguish the minor editorial from the fairly major substantive changes. Thanks! Fcreid (talk) 14:47, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree 100% that it would be better to discuss and make edits individually or in much smaller groups. It is almost impossible to have a discussion about them as a large group like this, and I do not understand if Anarchangel has continued that discussion in the next talk page section or not.Ferrylodge (talk) 18:16, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Quotation Marks

Double quotation marks (X said "Welcome to my humble abode") denote material that came directly out of someone's mouth, or directly off a page they wrote on, they can be transcribed in whatever manner from there, but it must be an -exact- replication. Single quotation marks (X said 'Welcome') can be more of a paraphrase of the material, but there isn't much playing around with that either. Pure paraphrases (X welcomed us.), without quotes, are used to shorten the matterial, and are often verb phrases such as the example. If material has double quotes around it, it damn well better have a cite. If it has a cite, it damn well better be in that source, not in a link from that source, and sure as heck not be just made up and stuck in the article because, why, no one will notice? It would be awkward to paraphrase? No. It just isn't done.
Ok, now, this, from the -very beginning- of my proposal. The -very first- point I made.

"Firstly, the phrase "A permitee may not carry a concealed handgun into or possess a concealed handgun within" is not in the bill at all. Since the "or on school grounds is part of a list, it is understandable that for easier reading, it was linked with the previous phrase, but it should not have been given quotes as if it were from the text.
" There was no comment at all about this, but lots of other criticisms made the cut.

And this, from later on, repeating what had been, previously, ignored completely. "I was prepared to see it through to where I could make you see reason, but on this very page you have ignored my argument that there are quotation marks around material that isn't in the cited source! Or should I say, weren't."

And which now are, again, thanks to the revert and the other revert.

After which came this exchange:

-Fcreid's Proposal reprinted.-

I don't see any quotations in there. :-\ Fcreid (talk) 03:52, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

The quotations are in the article. Anarchangel (talk) 06:00, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Bleh. Got me saying quotations, when I meant quotation marks. O well. So there it is. If you can make anything of this, good. About time, I would say. Anarchangel (talk) 06:42, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Let's get rid of those quotes entirely and not turn the 1997 Stambaugh firing into a thinly veiled 2008 Campaign referendum on partisan gun control stances, as the issue had nothing substantive to do with his case. Moreover, even if his termination did result from differing political ideology on gun control, Palin was still fully within her decision-making authority to do so, and the judge ruled so. Palin contends her "lack of confidence in Stambaugh's loyalty to her and her policies for Wasilla" was the reason for his firing. We have nothing to contradict that. In fact, if you read the two contemporaneous articles from 1997 and 2000, you note the word "gun" appears exactly zero times. So, if you want to debate ad nauseam with others (not me) on whether an obscure senate bill required arming kindergarten-aged Alaskan children with assault weapons or not, feel free. It won't result in forward progress to the current wording. Instead, my recommendation below provides full mention of the gun control policy difference but obviates the need for tangential and irrelevant debate. So, instead of lashing out at me, could you please tell me where what I offer below fails on either fact or substance?

"Stambaugh, who along with Emmons had supported Palin's opponent in the mayoral election, filed a wrongful termination lawsuit alleging that his termination violated his contract, reflected gender discrimination, and was for political reasons,[45] including his disagreement on a proposed state law regarding concealed weapons.[46] The federal judge who heard the case dismissed Stambaugh's lawsuit, ordering Stambaugh to pay Palin's legal fees,[46] and ruled the mayor had the right to fire city employees for any reason, including a political one, or for no reason at all.[48]"

Fcreid (talk) 11:08, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

I find that I must endorse Anarchangel's simple, concrete, policy-based objection over Fcreid's sprawling, emotional rant. If material isn't in a source, it shouldn't be attributed to that source. The end.Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 17:03, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Understand. I'm not quite sure how my proffered version is "sprawling" and "emotional". In fact, it's significantly more terse and concise than either the existing article or Anarchangel's proposed version. You also neglected my point that the word "gun" doesn't appear in either of the two contemporaneous articles on the topic from the Anchorage Daily News. However, I guess that's why we collaborate on such things. Fcreid (talk) 17:15, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

My comment was more directed at your somewhat heated response to an apparently simple complaint about keeping the sourcing precise.Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 17:18, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Ah, gotcha. I think the current version sucks too, but for those reasons I stated above, which is why I proffer the alternative. Thanks. Fcreid (talk) 17:30, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

(undent) I find this talk page section extremely difficult to follow. Assuming that it's not because I'm a moron  :-) would it be possible to more clearly identify what the proposed edits are? Thanks.Ferrylodge (talk) 18:24, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

I propose this more minimalist revision that recognizes their policy differences on the concealed weapon law but obviates the need for a full Second Amendment debate or to dissect the wording of SB 177 in the context of Stambaugh's firing. It places equal and appropriate weight on all known aspects of the incident and in summary of the RS. Fcreid (talk) 21:48, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

• "Stambaugh, who along with Emmons had supported Palin's opponent in the mayoral election, filed a wrongful termination lawsuit alleging that his termination violated his contract, reflected gender discrimination, and was for political reasons,[45] including his disagreement on a proposed state law regarding concealed weapons.[46] The federal judge who heard the case dismissed Stambaugh's lawsuit, ordering Stambaugh to pay Palin's legal fees,[46] and ruled the mayor had the right to fire city employees for any reason, including a political one, or for no reason at all.[48]"

That seems okay to me.Ferrylodge (talk) 21:53, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

"The police chief serves at the discretion of the mayor, and can be terminated for nearly any reason, even a political one, U.S. District Court Judge James K. Singleton ruled in dismissing most of Stambaugh's claims"

From the citation. Just as zero differs from any finite number, "no reason at all" is differs from "nearly any reason". Anarchangel (talk) 23:07, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

That's fine. I just cut/paste that from the existing item. So, are you good with the below?

• "Stambaugh, who along with Emmons had supported Palin's opponent in the mayoral election, filed a wrongful termination lawsuit alleging that his termination violated his contract, reflected gender discrimination, and was for political reasons,[45] including his disagreement on a proposed state law regarding concealed weapons.[46] The federal judge who heard the case dismissed Stambaugh's lawsuit, ordering Stambaugh to pay Palin's legal fees,[46] and ruled the mayor had the right to fire city employees for nearly any reason, including a political one.[48]"

Fcreid (talk) 23:21, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Section on Parodies missing

I'm missing a section on parodies about her, especially this link is missing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.178.195.67 (talk) 14:37, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Somehow, I don't see this article being summarized in her biography right now! Fcreid (talk) 14:45, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

That is a good point. Given the "star" status of Palin, it comes with the territory. A short sentence on the Tina Fey impersonations would be a nice addition. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:42, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

I think the Fey impersonation is covered in there along with her appearance on SNL. I suspect "soon" we'll be able to include notable impersonations and lampooning in popular culture in the manner some others are covered, although I don't know if that is the norm for other political figures. I recall a fair amount of Simpsons parodies mentioned on other notable figures, but I don't know what WP policy is for such inclusions. Fcreid (talk) 13:19, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Rape Kits Redux...

Factchecker, it now reads as:

Palin appointed[49] Charles Fannon to replace Stambaugh as police chief. Fannon later opposed a state law preventing police departments from billing rape victims' health insurance for evidence collection kits.[50] Fannon said that the Wasilla police had sometimes done so in the past, but according to Stambaugh, the investigations were paid for by the city before Palin became mayor. [51] An investigation by the St. Petersburg Times uncovered no evidence Palin that was aware of or supported this.[52]

I think I see improvement here for the most part. Can you refer me to the citation for "according to Stambaugh, the investigations were paid for by the city before Palin became mayor"? I don't see any mention of Stambaugh in reference [51]. It may be in another reference that I didn't see, and given that Stambaugh remained on as Wasilla police chief for some period of time *after* Palin became mayor, perhaps it's meant to say "investigations were paid for by the city while Stambaugh was police chief" or something? Fcreid (talk) 17:00, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

From the CNN article (which is now source 51, in case the change in numbering threw you): "Before Palin came to City Hall, the Wasilla Police Department paid for rape kits out of a fund for miscellaneous costs, according to the police chief who preceded Fannon and was fired by Palin."Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 17:15, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

The precise name for the miscellaneous fund is "Contractual Services", as shown here, the name is taken from the PDF on the city database. Anarchangel (talk) 22:43, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

How did you attribute that statement to Stambaugh? He doesn't seem even to be mentioned in that CNN article. Fcreid (talk) 17:17, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Isn't Stambaugh "the police chief who preceded Fannon and was fired by Palin" ? Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 17:29, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Dunno. If I'd have done that, someone would have shouted WP:OR on me! However, it brings back to my original point. If the mystery chief is Stambaugh, and given that Stambaugh remained on under Palin for some number of months after she arrived at City Hall, are we to assume that it was Stambaugh who started doing this? Fcreid (talk) 17:33, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

I sort of sensed that you were going to try to get in a dig related to OR  :) But unfortunately, you're mistaken. Synthesis by an editor of multiple sources is only prohibited under WP:Synth when it attempts to advance a position or reach a novel conclusion. Synthesizing "X is the police chief immediately preceding Y" and "the police chief immediately preceding Y said Z" into "X said Z" is not synthesis which advances a position. It's just synthesis paraphrasing a fact -- namely, that Stambaugh equals the police chief who preceded Fannon and was fired by Palin. It's like using a pronoun "he" or "she" instead of saying the guy's name repeatedly. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 17:58, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Just keeping you on your toes, my friend. It was you who insisted I continue to learn the pillars! :) Fcreid (talk) 18:01, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

(undent) I've tried to address all of these concerns. See what you think.Ferrylodge (talk) 17:53, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

That edit is fine with me.Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 17:58, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. :) Fcreid (talk) 18:02, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

(undent)This material is getting completely out of hand. Its length has almost doubled during the last 24 hours. We've already established that Plain had nothing to do with it, so it should not be in the article in the first place. The compromise we agreed up[on is being abused, IMHO.Ferrylodge (talk) 19:15, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

If you were to stop "paraphrasing" the sources so that your "paraphrase" seems to say the opposite of what the actual sources say, it wouldn't be necessary to constantly remove the POV you push into the article, and consequently it wouldn't keep getting longer. Additionally, at no time should concerns about article length force anyone to compromise a core principle such as NPOV or Verifiability.Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 19:20, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

A majority of people have agreed this it's inclusion in the article is a POV push as Palin had no active part in it, this is a BLP, and this has negligible, if any, effect on her life (which this article is supposed to be about). Also, after tomorrow, I can't imagine that any of this campaign junk/smears will stay in. Let's just delete this and be done. Certain editors here have proven that they can't play nice.LedRush (talk) 19:28, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

A majority of people could agree that we can ignore WP:Verifiability, but that still wouldn't make it acceptable. And again, this article is not about Palin's life, it's about her notability. BLPs are articles about the subject's notability. I agree that certain editors have shown they can't play nice: Ferrylodge, Collect, LedRush, Fcreid, ThreeAfterThree. Regards.Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 19:38, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

This "controversy" has nothing to do either with her life (the article is a biography) or her notability. Your repeated unwillingness to compromise or recognize Wikipedia standards, as well as your ad hominem attacks, are telling examples of the kind of editor you are.LedRush (talk) 21:36, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

This controversy has to do with her notability, and if you had ever read or understood WP:BLP you would realize that BLPs are articles about the subject's notability, not articles full of trivial details about notable people. I recognize Wikipedia standards, but you appear to not even understand them. As for the comment about "my" ad hominem attacks, I only make them in direct response to such attacks -- yours, in this case. Don't dish if you can't take.Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 21:48, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

It appears that you not only don't understand Wikipedia standards regarding BLPs, but you're also mistaken on Wikiquette. Perhaps less name calling, hostage holding, and disruptive posting would serve your positions better. That and a refresher on editing.LedRush (talk) 22:41, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree. It appears that some editors will not be satisfied until this article includes thousands of words about this non-issue. There is no sane reason not to write that Fannon said "that the new law would be too expensive" instead of the extremely verbose assertion that Fannon said "that the new law would cost the Wasilla Police Department approximately $5,000 to $14,000 a year to collect evidence for sexual assault cases." And there is no reason to preface the Palin quote with the extremely verbose statement that "A 2008 questionnaire posed to Palin by the Mat-Su Valley Frontiersman noted that Fannon's comments complaining about the costs of the tests implied that the policy of Wasilla police had been to bill victims for these tests, and asked Palin what the standard procedure for investigating rape cases had been while she was mayor." This seems like an attempt to give this whole matter even more undue weight, and alter the previous compromise. Better to just delete the whole paragraph since some do not understand the meaning of compromise and consensus. See WP:Summary style. This is adequately covered in the sub-article, and is not significant enough to be summarized here.Ferrylodge (talk) 19:34, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Do you mean the ones that want to remove it? If so, I agree. 216.215.233.66 (talk) 19:31, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Ferry, if you can come up with a short, concise paraphrase that doesn't substantively contradict the sources it claims to cite, by all means, do it. But if all your paraphrases are POV-pushing contradictions of the sources that supposedly back them up, then there will be a problem. And I'd like to note that you complain about consensus a lot but you introduce an awful lot of POV-pushing nonsense without trying to gain a consensus for it first. FWIW, "consensus" doesn't mean "Ferrylodge has the green light to constantly introduce POV pushing to this section of the article without consensus and then complain about consensus when someone corrects his egregious violations of core policy."Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 19:54, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

How is it POV-pushing to write "that the new law would be too expensive" instead of "that the new law would cost the Wasilla Police Department approximately $5,000 to $14,000 a year to collect evidence for sexual assault cases"? We're aiming to write an encyclopedia article here, not a treatise.Ferrylodge (talk) 19:56, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

It's a vague, generalizing value judgment entirely without reference to the costs themselves, what they were, how much they would be, who would bear them, or any other meaningful context in which to interpret that broad value judgment. It's a teaser which hints at some issue but is entirely lacking in substance. It also indirectly implies that the law would somehow have made investigating rapes more expensive, which it wouldn't. It also misrepresents what Fannon actually said. Really, that ought to be enough.Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 20:04, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I've now added an additional 4 words to the article in order to accurately reflect Fannon's objection. I am going to go out on a limb and assume you can live with 4 extra words.Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 20:09, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Ferry, I see that you've made several successive edits which were in blatant violation of various core policies, and then simply deleted some content outright. I'll be restoring the last legitimate edit you made.. the one with the summary that reads "Restore full sentence of Palin quote."Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 21:36, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Apparently, you're referring to these edits of mine. Perfectly good edits, if you ask me. It looked awful to mention so many sources in the text; that's what footnotes are for.Ferrylodge (talk) 22:08, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) That would be fine if you hadn't introduced wrongness and factual misstatements to the article... but you did.

You changed the first sentence to "Fannon later opposed a state law requiring local governments to pay for evidence collection kits and other costs in cases of rape", which is blatantly wrong and distorts what the article actually says. The law Fannon opposed made it illegal for police to bill victims or their insurance for investigative costs and required police to pay for STD tests and emergency contraception. If the law ALSO required the police dept to pay for the investigation, instead of billing the criminal, or whatever else they may have had in mind OTHER than billing victim/insurance, then the article doesn't say that and neither has any of the other articles I've read. The law as stated in the article just says what they CANNOT do.. ie bill victims/insurance.

You also changed the text of the USA Today article, which reads "In cases when insurance companies are billed, the victims pay a deductible" to "In cases when insurance companies are billed, the insured person generally pays a deductible" ... needlessly implying uncertainty (WP:Weasel) where none is implied or stated in the article.

You also changed the article text to read "There is no evidence that Palin explicitly endorsed or opposed Fannon's policy.", blatantly making a grand generalization out of the actual true and accurate statement, which is that the St. Pete Times conducted an investigation and found nothing. You bogusly made some assertion about the format (source should be in the footnotes) even though WP:Weasel plainly instructs direct attribution of the source within the text of the article when dealing with a controversial topic for reasons exactly like the following: If you take a statement in the St. Pete Times "Our investigation found no evidence..." and change that into a factual assertion "There is no evidence..." (with "source: The NYT" listed down in the footnotes), you have committed a blatant distortion of the facts.. using Wikipedia to say something that the source absolutely does not say. Sadly, a considerable bulk of your edits achieve exactly this distortion and obfuscation of what is on record, with alarming regularity and uncommon vigor.Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 22:38, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

This is nitpicking. If a reliable newspaper says they can find no evidence of something, then we can say that there is no evidence, and cite the newspaper. Give me a break.Ferrylodge (talk) 22:51, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

WP:Weasel is not nitpicking, it's an important part of core policy which prevents Wikipedia from being used to spread false claims.. which is what you would be doing, wittingly or not, if you insist on inserting that factually incorrect statement.Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 23:13, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Baloney. If a reliable newspaper says they can find no evidence of something, then we can say that there is no evidence, and cite the newspaper. If you want to nitpick then we can say there is no "available" evidence. We do not need to put the sources listed in all of our footnotes into the text of the article, as you seem prone to do.Ferrylodge (talk) 23:18, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Even here in the comments, you're distorting the facts. The newspaper said it conducted an investigation which found no evidence... that is all. They're not saying there's no evidence to be found or that they've found anything conclusive whatever. They certainly are not foreclosing the possibility that evidence could arise... it says right in the article that the McCain campaign offered no evidence that she ever opposed the policy. Foreclosing that possibility, which is what the source did NOT do, is what you'd be doing if you wrongfully misstated the St. Pete Times article in the way you propose. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 23:27, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

No, I'm not distorting the slightest little thing. I'm trying to keep source information in the footnotes instead of the main text, as much as possible. It's not the vast Right-Wing-Conspiracy. It's the vast Keep-Articles-Concise conspiracy.Ferrylodge (talk) 23:31, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

The sentence you inserted reading "There is no evidence..." is a blatant distortion of the facts on record. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 23:42, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

And I think its really bizarre for you to suppose that the law would make the police department pay for STD testing and emergency contraception, but not evidence collection.Ferrylodge (talk) 22:58, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

The article you mangled with your misrepresentation, the committee discussions in proposing the bill, and the text of the bill all substantiate the fact that it does not require police departments to pay for diddly squat.Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 23:13, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

The bill stated: "Sec. 18.68.040. Costs of examination and certain medical care to be borne by law enforcement agency. 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 of testing for sexually transmitted diseases, emergency contraception, and examination of the victim necessary for (1) collecting evidence using the sexual assault examination kit under AS 18.68.010 or otherwise; or (2) determining whether a sexual assault has occurred."Ferrylodge (talk) 22:58, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

That, homeslice, is an early version of the bill that never made it into law and which had already been replaced long before the May 22 2000 Frontiersman article in which Fannon's complaints were voiced. To wit, that's not the law Fannon objected to.Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 23:39, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Oh goodie, then I assume you'll back up that statement with a link of some sort? Perhaps to a version of the bill that requires police departments to pay for STD testing and contraceptives but not for rape kits?Ferrylodge (talk) 23:41, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Popular culture, CKOI interview:

http://news.google.ca/news?q=sarah+palin+CKOI&ie=UTF-8&oe=utf-8&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a&um=1&hl=en&sa=X&oi=news_result&resnum=1&ct=title

Not notable. The doofus did the same thing to Microsoft's Bill Gates, and to Sarkozy himself (by impersonating Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper).Ferrylodge (talk) 02:03, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Should we include this? It's the AP...thus, it's a reliable source. miranda 02:38, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Not notable. The doofus did the same thing to Microsoft's Bill Gates, and to Sarkozy himself (by impersonating Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper).Ferrylodge (talk) 02:51, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Concur, but very funny! Here is the audio and transcript:[[2]] IP75 (talk) 02:58, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. I think it is notable. I heard the recording and read the AP report on it. The conversation included some telling moments, regardless of Democrats v. Republicans. You should consider including it.69.86.56.126 (talk) 04:28, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

See WP:Recentism. If people remember this after a week, then we can reconsider.Ferrylodge (talk) 04:37, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

I can be moved to the campaign page, where it belongs. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:40, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Meh. Palin is one of many pranked by the duo. We don't mention it in their articles, we don't need to mention it in hers or the campaign article. AniMate 04:42, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

This isn't notable (even though it is picked up by the Associated Press) yet somehow we seem to find room for "in popular culture" sections spanning across thousands of articles, almost all of which contain at least one reference to The Simpsons TV show. So sad. JBsupreme (talk) 06:42, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

The Simpsons is a notable show. This prank isn't. (Oh, and WP:TRIVIA) -- Zsero (talk) 07:16, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

That's your opinion. Thanks for playing. JBsupreme (talk) 08:22, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

I added a brief description of the prank. [3] The notability seems undeniable, since I've cited references from the Times of Malta, the Times of India, and China Daily as some of the many news outlets beyond the U.S. and Canada that have run the story. Merely her statement that she hopes to assume the presidency in eight years would be sufficient to make the story relevant. The story documents not only the ability of the team to trick her, but an apparent willingness to agree to statements and actions that she does not understand during a conversation with a presumed head of state. Mike Serfas (talk) 07:51, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

We're kidding, right? Fcreid (talk) 11:50, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Apparently not. Mike Serfas seems determined to add this. I say no way. I don't care how many newspapers thought it an amusing story to report — it is exactly that, but that doesn't make it in any way a significant incident in the campaign, let alone in Palin's life. It's an "odd spot" kind of story, good for a chuckle in the daily paper, and forgotten tomorrow. Contra Mike Serfas, it doesn't "document" anything; if Sarkozy were to call you you'd also be reluctant to ask him what the hell he was talking about, even if you didn't quite recognise some of the things he was saying. You'd take notes and look them up later, if you were really interested. -- Zsero (talk) 14:28, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Zsero, your claim is that this story is "not notable".[4] I have provided media references demonstrating that it is now a top news story on six continents.[5] If all the news media in the world aren't enough to make a story notable, what do you believe would be? Wikipedia is here to describe events, not to cover them up. Mike Serfas (talk) 15:52, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Notability is not established merely by being reported. The incident must be significant, which this isn't. The newspaper count interests me not at all, so you may as well save your time and stop counting them. If it turns out to have a documented impact on the campaign, then it will be significant enough to include. So far it's just an "odd spot" story. -- Zsero (talk) 15:56, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

The clowns are out again. Not notable. Not news. Not BLP. About as meaningful as finding where Madonna buys ribbons from. Collect (talk) 16:01, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Yet I added this sentence immediately after descriptions of her impersonation by Tina Fey and her appearance on Saturday Night Live. Can anyone point to the Wikipedia policy that explains why those two facts are "significant", while this third fact is not? I think its significance is hard to dispute: for example, Palin could just as easily have accepted a call from Chen Shui-bian and gone along cheerfully with statements about the importance of Taiwan's independence. As with the e-mail hacking incident, this story shows that Palin's gates are unguarded. But arguing significance in this way reduces Wikipedia to a political censorship contest. It has nothing to do with the proper reporting of events in the campaign as a neutral reflection of the news of the day. Mike Serfas (talk) 16:16, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

You seem to be under a fundamental misconception. Wikipedia is not a newspaper. And you can't compare SNL to some obscure radio show in Montreal or wherever. -- Zsero (talk) 16:22, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

It is not the number of listeners at the original meeting that determines notability, but the breadth of subsequent coverage. Otherwise, Obama's brief meeting over coffee with Ayers, which was not the subject of a radio broadcast at all, would not be mentioned in the preceding paragraph. Mike Serfas (talk) 16:33, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Excuse me? Not that it's relevant to this thread, but "brief meeting over coffee"? You're talking about a close political alliance over the course of more than a decade, not some brief meeting. But back to the current thread: you keep missing the point that this is an "odd spot" piece. Not everything that newspapers report is significant. If it keeps dogging Palin's career from here on, then it will be worth reporting on WP. Otherwise not. -- Zsero (talk) 16:59, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Thankfully, just 2-days to go. GoodDay (talk) 17:05, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Mr Serfas, fyi: your efforts to add information that qualifies for inclusion, though admirable, are futile, given the longstanding tactics of the McCain campaign supporters. (These were addressed in my previous edit here, deleted as a "personal attack" by Zsero.) There is nothing in WP rules or guidelines that requires events in the life of a BLP subject to have "kept dogging their career" before they qualify for inclusion. The argument is bogus. Contrary to Zsero's personal attack on you for "missing the point" you actually appear to grasp it rather better than he/she does. Now then. Did someone say "clowns"? Oh yes--it was Collect. — Writegeist (talk) 02:18, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

The CKOI stuff is clowns. Literally and figuratively. And not of any relevance to much of anything at all. Probably of less significance that the pie throwing at Mr. Gates. The purpose of an encyclopedia is to present factual information on a topic, not every anecdote which falls into it. Collect (talk) 02:36, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Seems that Republicans have come out in full force hereto discourage anything that may make her look bad. NorthernThunder (talk) 04:02, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Please assume good faith. This is just a prank call. It's really not important enough to include in a short biography. Nobody got hurt or arrested, and in a couple of months no one will even remember it. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:13, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Which is the point. Wikipedia should not try to be a news paper but a record of pertinent information. This information may stay in the article for a few weeks but ultimately it will get removed based on the fact that such trivial information about public appearances do not appear in the personal articles of other guest on the show. 74.183.38.88 (talk) 08:05, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Whatever is decided, what's in there now has serious WP:UNDUE weight problems (an entire paragraph?), serious WP:NPOV issues (how do we know they convinced her of anything?) and introduces potential WP:BLP concerns (wiki-linking to a pornographic video satire?) People need to be a bit more responsible, I think. Fcreid (talk) 12:43, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

It was a pretty funny interview - especially the things they said in French - one of the translations, "We could also kill some baby seals" was over the top. Can't expect her to understand that since it was spoken in a language that's not spoken by "real Americans" like her. I do think it's bit fluffy for Wikipedia, for now, while people have their hackles up. It will be fine in a popular culture section after the election - just like the SNL parodies are OK now. Mattnad (talk) 15:07, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I have removed this "material" per the discussion above. --Tom 15:57, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Thankfully, just 1-day to go. GoodDay (talk) 18:09, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

(undent) I think it's pretty clear that there is no consensus to insert this material into this article. Anyone disagree that there is no consensus? The proper place for it would be in the sub-article about the 2008 campaign, if indeed it's significant enough for that article.Ferrylodge (talk) 18:43, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I see no consensus to delete these two sentences. There are at least six other users supporting my view here or by edits that this material should be added. I have used some of their new text to modify my previous version,[6] but did not add the link that Fcreid mentioned. I believe that Tom is mistaken when he suggests on his user page that Wikipedia edits should not have an "agenda". I believe that all verifiable, relevant additions have and should have an agenda of some kind, because no one edits Wikipedia without some underlying reason. I believe that an agenda is a problem only when it leads to the deletion of verifiable, relevant material. This is because our goal should be to build up a highly detailed, accurate account of the subject matter, but not to conceal, distort, or destroy information. Mike Serfas (talk) 18:47, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi Mike_serfas, my point on my user page, is that editors with an agenda to push usually will not help to improve an article but rather they will try to advance whatever agenda it is that they have. I didn't count six editors that wanted this "material" added, but Wikipedia does not work by votes thankfully anyways. If this "material" is truely relevant and noteworthy enough for inclusion, it will stand the test of time. Wikipedia is not the news nor a collection of every bit of material about a bio subject. Anyways, it seems that others have argued this point better than myself. --Tom 19:01, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

By the way, how do we know it was Palin on the other end of the phone? It might've been Tina Fey playing a prank on the radio guys. GoodDay (talk) 20:44, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Like all the facts properly included in Wikipedia, we know it because that is what the reliable sources like this one] say. --Evb-wiki (talk) 20:55, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Evb-wiki, do you see consensus to include this crap in the article? And does anyone care how many times Canadiandebauchee edit-wars it back into this article?Ferrylodge (talk) 21:00, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Unless it becomes something more than it is now, it carries unde weight for this article, IMO. --Evb-wiki (talk) 21:04, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) So I'll remove it again per concensus. --Tom 21:16, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Idaho Republican

Should she be considered an Idaho Republican since she was actually born in Idaho or not? -- — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.230.44.99 (talk • contribs)

Of course not. Why on earth would her birthplace make a difference? Has she ever been a member of the Idaho Republican Party? Not unless it was at college. -- Zsero (talk) 22:50, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Section On Unpopularity Among Major Republicans?

Many influential Republicans dislike Palin's nomination to the point at which they've endorsed Obama. I think we can come up with a list of at least five to ten or more, starting with prominent Republican leaders like Colin Powell and Ken Duberstein (Reagan's White House Chief of Staff). I think the section (or subsection) deserves a short paragraph, due to the unusual historic nature of this weird trend. Hasn't happened ever before in US history, has it? Anyone willing to help with this? Suggestions? VictorC (talk) 17:29, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Thankfully, just 1-day to go. GoodDay (talk) 18:09, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

That is a fantastic idea. Oh wait, you are pushing your agenda again, never mind. --Tom 18:11, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Politicians stabbing each other in the back? No, that never happened before.Ferrylodge (talk) 18:41, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Usual non-agenda-pushing responses from the Palin campaigners. ;-) VictorC: if, as you say, the endorsement of a Democratic candidate by prominent republican leaders is historically unprecedented, then clearly (to all but the Palinites) it warrants inclusion, given qualified sources. — Writegeist (talk) 19:04, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

It's going to be less relevant after tomorrow, eitherway. So why not wait until after tomorrow? GoodDay (talk) 19:18, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I have a suspicion it might result in less of a s-storm of silly emotional remarks on the discussion page by then. You have a good point. The relevancy is an issue, but it's regrettably perhaps impractical as you have astutely no doubt ascertained. VictorC (talk) 19:29, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Whereas Palin has stated that she isn't going anywhere, people trying to ensure that both the positive and the negative are included in the article probably aren't going anywhere either. I've worked in some pretty disputed articles before, but the rampant...what's the word....Legal Chicanery? that I've seen here makes anything else pale in comparison. "Agenda Pushers" are not limited to one side or the other. 216.215.233.66 (talk) 19:34, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Politicians endorsing the other side? Yeah, it happens in every election. Ed Koch is the first that comes to my mind from the last election, but I'm sure there are more. Zell Miller, Joe Lieberman, Lincoln Chafee, etc. Coemgenus 22:23, 3 November 2008 (UTC)