Talk:Sarah Palin/Archive 36

This is an archive of past discussions about Sarah Palin. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 30

←

Archive 34

→

Beluga Section With Lots of Capital Letters Removed

Belugas get lots of mention under Political Positions. The attempted insertion of a strangely worded attack is not warranted by consensus. Collect (talk) 23:31, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

User:MisterAlbert has done it again. I have asked him to self-revert the odd section he has repeatedly inserted. Collect (talk) 23:51, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

I have now jumped into the Beluga material :) --Tom 13:40, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Caviar? Jim62sch^dissera! 18:24, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Are you suggesting he has a hard roe to sow? Collect (talk) 18:55, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

That was good! :) Jim62sch^dissera! 20:45, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Biases of various repeat editors of this page

This section is withdrawn as certain editors strongly objected to being described as either "Pro Palin" or "Anti Palin", replaced the entire section with fierce rebuttals, and were not able to adhere to the talk page guidelines of:

 # Be polite
 # Assume good faith
 # No personal attacks
 # Be welcoming

The intent of this section was to help build consensus by showing newer editors previous positions of various editors. I do not believe that it violated any WP rules, but I am nevertheless withdrawing it.

Facts707 (talk) 13:17, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the demonstration of good faith. Fcreid (talk) 13:24, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

The comments after your initial comment are also being deleted by you? It was not just "fierce rebuttals" after all. Collect (talk) 13:39, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Seems odd to me, too. Oh well. Jim62sch^dissera! 18:14, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Especially since he accuses "certain editors" of not being polite, etc. Removing their posts while keeping the gist of his own seems odd. Collect (talk) 18:59, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

zFact

If the rape-charge stuff is to be included, use a better source like [1] Jim62sch^dissera! 18:01, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Politifact is also a good source. One thing that they mention that seems to be lost in this debate is that the city's policy was "aimed more at getting money from insurance companies than from victims". They also conclude that there's no evidence that she was ever aware of the policy. The Squicks (talk) 19:52, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

So long as the source meets WP:RS and WP:V, it's fine. Jim62sch^dissera! 20:35, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

archive please

Please do not do major deletions of Talk without full discussion. If it needs archiving, fine. Deletions and reinsertions of problematic material here is going to help no one. Thanks! Collect (talk) 00:57, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Why is her change of church referred to in this time sense?

This makes no sense whatsoever, almost any other reference to time is by year, yet this one, and only this one is by age:

"Palin was born into a Catholic family.[188] Later her family joined the Wasilla Assembly of God, which belongs to a Pentecostal association of churches.[189] Palin attended the Wasilla Assembly of God until age 38..."

Why does it not say she attended the church until 2002 (if that's the correct year she switched churches)? It almost appears as if someone is trying to hide some relation between this event and some other event by mixing time references between years and age. What does her age matter in terms of changing churches anyways? sherpajohn (talk) 14:52, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Why is her church so important in the first place? I do not find Bill C's "change of church" noted ... or anyone else for that matter. Collect (talk) 15:06, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

This material is kept being deleted,. I will restore it from the history pages. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:31, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Why not ask for opinions first? It seems to be remarkably unimportant stuff. Collect (talk) 15:33, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

What I'm guessing that Jossi meant is that there have been pages and pages of debate over the relevance of religion, all of them quickly archived.LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 17:03, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

As you say: "Why is her church so important in the first place" - some people consider particularly strong religous beliefs to be indicative of a high liklihood that those beliefs will influence behaviour and decision making. If, as many postulate, she has these "strong" beliefs, it is certainly notable, and begs the question - who would try to gloss over this facts and why?sherpajohn (talk) 16:34, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

What is your inference from that, Sherpajohn? Do you have any evidence her religious beliefs have affected her governance? There is myriad RS stating that it hasn't. Fcreid (talk) 17:26, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Neatest one is that she wanted the bars to stay open! Makes it hard to claim she is a religious extremist, to be sure. Collect (talk) 19:56, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't see how a person's religious beliefs are notable, unless their beliefs are the reason for their notability. An article on the Pope, or Henry VIII, or Joan of Arc should definitely include their religious beliefs. These beliefs are very central to their notability. Other than having her own beliefs, how have Palin's beliefs contributed to her notability? I've never seen any attempt to try to convert people during her term as my Governor. Zaereth (talk) 22:08, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Please see the archives to understand that Jossi, jim, sherpa are hardly the only ones to have argued that this is an important issue. LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 17:04, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Philosophically, I agree with you. Politically, I understand why it's there. I like philosophy better. ;) Realistically, though, we'd have thousands of article to clean up because everyone feels a need to shove the person's ethnic background and religious beliefs into articles re living and dead people. Jim62sch^dissera! 18:22, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

YARKS! Yet Another Rape Kits Section!

I'm starting yet another section, because this was a significant bone of contention in the POV/NPOV discussion above, yet it really should have its own section. Basically, I see the two sides as:

1. We should include something, because we have WP:V sources which talk about the issue, which is WP:N, and a short mention cannot possibly be WP:UNDUE.

2. We should not include something, because the evidence that there is really something there, or that if there is it is connected to Palin, is weak and indirect. Also, sorry to call you out fcreid, but I think you are the main proponent of the idea that if there is no visible motive, there is no case.

In my view, view number 1 is based on wikipedia policy, while view number 2 is based on the kind of evidence which would be allowable in a court of law to establish that there is a misdeed, means, motive, and opportunity. To me, wikipedia policy wins in terms of inclusion, but since the evidence is not strong enough to prove anything wrong, that must be the thrust of the section. I personally have no problem believing that Palin might have been indifferent to the possibility of women being forced to fight their insurance companies over these charges, but that's just my opinion - we need a higher standard here.

What I am saying is that I invite one of the pro-Palin people to write a proposed section on the rape-kit stuff - staying away from OR, and avoiding choosing secondary over primary sources as much as possible. It can be as long or as short as you want, but I would recommend shorter, to avoid UNDUE. You can't categorically acquit her, but go ahead and give all the evidence in her favor. But don't just try to keep it out of the article - it is clear that there are enough people (including pro-Palin readers) who just want to see the evidence presented here.

Obviously, any proposal will be edited by both sides until we can reach consensus, but I think that for a serious and circumstantially-supported charge like this, the most anti-Palinites like me can insist on is inclusion and accuracy; it is only fair to let the defense set the framework for the POV. Homunq (talk) 02:56, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it's fair to divide editors into "pro" and "anti". The third alternative, my opinion, is that I don't know if it's true or not that she knows or has a hand in it but even if it's true it does not rise to the level of the details that need to be told in an account of her life. It seems mainly to be an election-year issue, which is of interest mostly for the election. Further, it is an issue that has not gained a whole lot of traction in the election and is of interest mostly to people who follow the mechanics of election controversies. That's not to say it is a small thing to the people affected, or who deal with the issue in the town of 10,000 people in Alaska. But as either a national political issue, or a perosnal issue about Palin, I just don't see the point. Wikidemon (talk) 06:39, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

I think we head down a slippery slope if we start letting campaign smears drive what we must include in a biographical article. If that were the standard, then the Ayers-Obama affilliation would need to be included there. (Rightfully, it is not.) It bears mentioning that this issue was a non-issue to anyone in the town and state until partisan lawyers found it in their mud-searching efforts. Two additional points. First, this practice was an artifact of the prior city administration, enacted under her predecessor Stein's tenure by Stambaugh, Fannon's predecessor as police chief. It was popular nationwide and not just in Wasilla. In addition, for those who assert she "hand-picked" Fannon and should be held accountable for his actions regardless, that is also erroneous. Palin actually supported his opponent, Curt Menard, for her police chief. He was one of three candidates presented to the Wasilla City Council who selected Fannon with a 5-0 vote. Anyway, no, I don't see how this can be included. It's empty campaign rhetoric with no permanence. Had there been "morning-after" pills in the kits, one could see the faint association, but beyond that this is a simple smear. I also deeply appreciate your sensible approach to open discussion on the issue. Fcreid (talk) 11:18, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

By the way, many people do not see this as a campaign smear. I, for instance, am not voting for Obama, have nothing to do with the campaign, but I am still interested in how Palin sees fit to balance a budget (i.e. at whose expense is she willing to balance it?) LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 22:24, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Here;s the situation as I see it, since this never stops coming up - we can write a long paragraph about the issue, and see it deleted eventually, or we can pare it down to a reasonable sentence and agree to keep it in. Can we agree about this? LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 08:12, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

What "reasonable" sentence would that be? Do we have a citation that Palin hired Fannon? I see that is disputed? Thanks, --Tom 12:56, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

I suggest adding a link on the rape kit controversy that links to the relevant part of the Mayoralty of Sarah Palin article.71.225.223.174 (talk) 10:59, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

I note you didn't wait for further discussion or consensus, Jim, but just took your own suggestion to include it. :( Would you then also support that the Obama article should make a statement about William Ayers being involved in the Weathermen underground and link to that article? And so now it is completely wrong and incongruous with the sub-article. Palin didn't "hire" Fannon. He was selected by the City Council above her supported candidate for police chief, Curt Menard. And Fannon wasn't embroiled in this rape kit controversy. Palin was embroiled in it because of partisan lawyers ten years later. I ask that you please stop making edits to the article on this topic until we reach consensus on what should be included. Fcreid (talk) 11:54, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

We seem to have some confusion over the definition of consensus: there does not need to be consensus to put well-sourced new items in. There needs to be a consensus to delete well-sourced information. Once it's agreed that the source is a standard one (e.g. LA Times), then you can haggle over whether the addition is too long, etc. But there does not need to be a consensus to put in every little bit of info. If so, no article would ever get written. Rather than deleting, the solution is to pare down long-winded additions so as to assure that their length gives a sense of DUE WEIGHT, and to tweak the language so it is NPOV -- not to omit relevant details entirely. We seem to have a misconception about consensus operating on this page - we do not need consensus to include info, but rather to shape it, qualify it, or remove it. LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 22:12, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Attack_sites/Workshop

Burden of proof
18) In article space, the onus is on those seeking to include content to achieve consensus for its inclusion. Bold, revert, discuss is the accepted model.
18.1) Within an article, the onus is on those seeking to include content to achieve consensus for its inclusion. Bold, revert, discuss is the accepted model.

In short -- the burden is on those seeking inclusion,not the other way around, per WP docs. Research WP before claims. Collect (talk) 22:27, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for looking this up. If you look at the page, it is clear that there are a range of views on this matter, there was not a total consensus at the time although the arb com decided in favor of the status quo. Furthermore, here's a Bold-Revert-Discuss qualifier:

"DISCUSS... There is no such thing as a consensus version: Your own major edit, by definition, differs significantly from the existing version, meaning the existing version is no longer a consensus version. If you successfully complete this cycle, then you will have a new consensus version. If you fail, you will have a different kind of consensus version.
Do not accept "Policy" , "consensus", or "procedure" as valid reasons for a revert: These sometimes get worn in on consensus-based wikis. You are disagreeing, that is okay. Do not back off immediately, BUT: Listen very carefully: You are trying to get the full and considered views of those who care enough to disagree with your edit. If you do not listen and do not try to find consensus, you are wasting everyone's time. You should not accept, "It's policy, live with it." On the other hand, you should completely understand the implications when someone explains to you, "The flurbeling you suggest caused very bad barbelism, that's why we decided to always floop before we fleep instead." Be ready to compromise: If you browbeat someone into accepting your changes, you are not building consensus, you are making enemies. This cycle is designed to highlight strongly opposing positions, so if you want to get changes to stick both sides will have to bend, possibly even bow. You should be clear about when you are compromising and should expect others to compromise in return, but do not expect it to be exactly even.
"BOLD (again) "Let them apply agreed-upon changes. If they don't want to, that's okay, but be sure to offer." and then you go back and restore the info you added in, while avoiding the 3RR violation.

The point is, the experienced BRD editor does not necessarily have to discuss what s/he will add on the talk page and achieve "consensus" before adding info. What they have to do is to note what they intend to add, at talk (which has been done at great length on this page), a bit before they go in and add info. When someone reverts, the burden is on the one who added the contested infomation to work to reach a compromise. However, if the opponent does not want to compromise on including a well-sourced bit of info, it's entirely within BRD for the bold editor to add it so long as it is within wiki policies of NPOV, WPUNDUE, WPRecentism, etc., again, preferably with efforts towards improved neutrality. LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 22:52, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

The decision about BLP is exceedingly clear. The "Ignore All Rules" rule is fine -- but does not wash when dealing with BLP. The sted rule is official, the IAR users, of course, deny that any rules exist. For me -- I say use the rules. Collect (talk) 23:16, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

On one (hopefully) non-controversial editorial note, there remains a "citation needed" tag in this paragraph for the hiring of Fannon. The correct wording for this is, "Palin appointed Fannon as Chief of Police after his selection by the Wasilla City Council in a 5-0 vote." If the decision is to keep Fannon in Palin's biography, that is how the aforementioned process works and should be easily cited, as desired. Fcreid (talk) 13:05, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Is there a citation for that? If so, that seems pretty NPOV. --Tom 13:35, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, just blogs I've found, but it seems the process must be clearly defined in the Wasilla City Council bylaws or someplace equivalent. Also, my read on the Menard/Fannon association was erroneous. It was only later that Palin supported Menard over Fannon in his bid for mayor of the neighboring borough. I can't find anything listing the other two candidates who were considered for the police chief position alongside Fannon, but it's clear from the ADN article already cited that he was approved by a 5-0 vote by the city council. Fcreid (talk) 14:00, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

A couple more side-notes, not to turn things into a blog but rather to expose the entire issue for consideration. My allusion above to this being nothing more than campaign smear couldn't be more accurate. The issue was entirely crystalized by Obama campaign lawyers operating in Alaska, who actually called a teleconference with Knowles to have him state for the record that Fannon was an opponent of his proposed legislation, stating Fannon felt it placed an unfair burden on taxpayers that could otherwise be recouped from criminals. If that doesn't smack of campaign politics, what does? In addition, regardless how one feels about this most sensitive topic, it is important to note that these "rape kits" are not the possession of John Q. Public who purchased them or even of the hospital that administered them perfunctorily at the mention of rape. In fact, the majority of these kits are never turned in as evidence because the victim recants on the story or simply does not want to have it investigated. Even if one sees these kits as a fair burden on taxpayers, you cannot discount the argument on the other side that they are a more appropriately burdened on health insurers (unless and until they become part of a criminal investigation). Fcreid (talk) 14:33, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Okay, the only thing that can be fully sourced (and not derived) from the Wasilla Municipal Code is that the Police Chief is appointed by the mayor. (The word "hired" is not used nor is it accurate, as no agreements to pay or employment are authorized until the City Council appoves it.) So, citing [2], it would be accurate to say, "Palin appointed Charles Fannon as Police Chief to succeed Stambaugh." Fcreid (talk) 15:00, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Appointed is fine -- it happens to be accurate. ;) Jim62sch^dissera! 18:16, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

It's lovely when fact and accuracy come together. :) Fcreid (talk) 11:41, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Difficult due to strong feelings

I have been watching this article for several weeks without contributing. This is a very difficult article to keep NPOV because of the strong feelings on both sides. What cannot be disputed is that she is a divisive individual. She may deliver the election for John McCain because she attracts people or she may be the cause of an lost election because she scares people with her views out of the mainstream. I had previously viewed the article as highly biased by the Pro-Plain group but as of this date, I see a vast improvement.--Incognitus2008 (talk) 01:15, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

I think most of us agree that it is no longer a pure campaign piece. It has certainly improved, thanks to hundreds of hours of work on the part of dozens and dozens of editors. This does not mean, in my opinion, that the work here is done. However, if you feel the article is NPOV, feel free to post above in the NPOV Take Two section. Best, LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 03:58, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Alternatively, don't post. Your position is pretty clear right here. This talk page is not actually too short right now. Thanks! Collect (talk) 04:20, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

"nowhere" tee-shirt image: use of captions to insert extensive quotes?

If I recall correctly, WP does not encourage long quotes in captions -- has this practice changed? " Save some information for the image description page, and put other information in the article itself, but make sure the reader does not miss the essentials in the picture" and "Most captions are not real sentences, but extended nominal groups; for example, "The Conservatory during Macquarie Night Lights, a summer festival" (no final period), and "The Conservatory was spotlit during Macquarie Night Lights, a summer festival." (full sentence with final period). " Collect (talk) 15:33, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Hear, hear. The picture of Sarah Palin holding up a t-shirt is much better, captioned, "Sarah Palin holding a t-shirt". Anarchangel (talk) 23:23, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi Collect, yeah, I would agree that image captions don't need to be "overdone", but just stick to the basic description of what the viewer is seeing. Thanks, --Tom 17:10, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

[ec] I don't believe they are encouraged or discouraged. Is there a specific guideline? The caption should be discriptive, IMO. And it should not be just blank. I do recall a previous discussion concerning the "nowhere, alaska" image caption, but I do not believe there was consensus on a paraphrase or other alternative. --Evb-wiki (talk) 17:15, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Is there a guideline? This is Wikipedia! There is a guideline for EVERYTHING :) See WP:CAP --Tom 17:28, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

But does it say WP does not encourage long quotes in captions? Not specifically. There was no consensus in the previous discussion. There were a couple of suggestions. I'm willing to work toward a different caption, but we need to have something. --Evb-wiki (talk) 17:36, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Caption#Providing_context_for_the_picture says: "A picture captures only one moment in time. What happened before and after? What happened outside the frame? For The Last Supper, 'Jesus dines with his disciples' tells something, but add 'on the eve of his crucifixion' and it tells much more about the significance…. The caption should lead the reader into the article. For example, in History of the Peerage, a caption for Image:William I of England.jpg might say 'William of Normandy overthrew the Anglo-Saxon monarchs, bringing a new style of government.' Then the reader gets curious about that new form of government and reads text to learn what it is."Ferrylodge (talk) 03:17, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Would "As a gubernatorial candidate, Palin showed support for the Gravina Bridge" be any better? --Evb-wiki (talk) 17:39, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

I think it's very important to continue to mention in the caption that Palin ultimately cancelled the Gravina bridge, if the caption mentions that she supported it during the 2006 campaign.Ferrylodge (talk) 03:19, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

My suggestion in the previous discussion was "Sarah Palin, when she said, 'Thanks.' She would later say, 'No thanks.'" I still kinda like it. --Evb-wiki (talk) 03:27, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

I hope you're not being serious. Switzpaw (talk) 05:42, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

I am sorry, which image are we talking about? Is it the one where she is holding up the tee shirt? If so, I would remove that image in its entirety. I see that caption is pretty wordy. Thanks, --Tom 17:43, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, that wasn't the issue presented. Do you have a reason for your desire to deloete the image in toto, or do you just not like it? --Evb-wiki (talk) 03:09, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with the image, but I don't see a need to outline the entire history of her stance on the issue in the image's caption. Giving the direct context and timeframe is all I see that is really needed. »S0CO^{(talk|contribs)} 05:03, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Any thoughts about the portion of Wikipedia:Caption#Providing_context_for_the_picture that I quoted above? It seems to me that we ought to mention in the caption that she ultimately cancelled the bridge, because that's what's really interesting about this whole thing. Also, if we just say in the caption that she supported the bridge, then many people will just skip on to the next section with the impression that she never cancelled it.Ferrylodge (talk) 05:27, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

I tend to agree Jc-SOCO. Why do we need to get into a full blown back and forth inside an image? Just give the when and where. Are there reliable sources that describe that photo and its relevance and context? If the image(rather the caption) is that contentious, just leave it out or simplify it to its most basic description. Thanks, --Tom 18:07, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Ferrylodge, what's "really interesting" to you is the Republican spin that credits her with canceling the bridge. What's really interesting to me is the Democratic response that her alleged "cancellation" came well after Congress had stripped the earmark. So, if you want the context that she later took a different position, then I want the context that she doesn't deserve very much credit for the cancellation. Thus we get into what Tom describes above as the full-blown back and forth.

The fact is that this picture is from a time when she supported the bridge, and specifically it's a picture in which she's showing that support. The caption right now is, "As a gubernatorial candidate, Palin showed support for the Gravina Island Bridge". Her gubernatorial campaign was in 2006, a fact that's in the article, but it might be useful to add it to the caption to set the context; also, the bridge doesn't exist, and that should perhaps be clarified. For the reader who wants more information, a wikilink would be appropriate. I'd favor: "As a gubernatorial candidate in 2006, Palin showed support for the proposed Gravina Island Bridge."

To give the full context, we'd have to add something like, "Once in office, she concluded that Congress would not reverse its previous opposition to the bridge, so in the absence of federal funds she refused to commit state funds. Then, as a Vice Presidential candidate, she repeatedly stated that she had told Congress 'thanks but not thanks' on the bridge, an assertion widely criticized as misleading." The point is that the full context for the picture is the article itself, or at least big chunks of it. We have to draw the line somewhere. For the same reason, I agree with Collect that we should omit any direct quotations in this caption. JamesMLane t c 18:54, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

I support the "proposed" clarification and wikificationm suggested by JamesML above. I think adding the date isn't necessary and just adds length, especially since the corresponding paragraph that starts flush with the top of the image begins "In 2006, . . . ." --Evb-wiki (talk) 18:59, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

If you people don't want to include that she ultimately cancelled the bridge in tha caption (which is an undisputed fact), then the caption also should not indicate that she supported it. None of the reliable sources indicate that she argued in 2006 for further federal funding for the bridge, and it's not clear from the image that she was doing anything more than visiting Ketchikan (and perhaps sympathizing with them for being called "nowhere"). So, I agree with Tom (threeafterthree), and will edit accordingly. I'm sorry that you all felt the need to disturb a consensus caption which existed for weeks without objection.Ferrylodge (talk) 20:21, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

I would like to return the caption to the original way it was. I agree with Ferrylodge that the consensus caption was better than the one that exists now.GreekParadise (talk) 13:49, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Asserting consensus when none existed? Nope. The caption is excessive, and not within normal caption standards. Collect (talk) 13:52, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

No comments? Left in her opposition to the use of "Nowhere" which is evident in photo. Unsourced POV claim in caption is not good. Collect (talk) 12:02, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

The Ketchikan bridge T-shirt photo is currently captioned: Candidate for speedy deletion. The info page for it shows that it is scheduled for deletion on October 25. No mention is made of the designation, "Candidate for Speedy Deletion". It is, however, ^[1] Anarchangel (talk) 01:42, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

As the clear and overwhelming consensus is the picture should not be deleted, speedily or otherwise, shouldn't someone remove this improper designation?GreekParadise (talk) 05:21, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

I ask that the person who claims it should be deleted come forward and state his/her reason. If no one will come forward to defend the request to "speedily delete", we should delete the designation.GreekParadise (talk) 05:27, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

I pulled this thread by following links a few days ago when I first read that, and it took me into some foreign and scary place (Wikimedia Commons maybe?) with editors and other parties whom I haven't seen before on SP, at least in the two months I've been here. I believe the gist of it had to do with improper releasability or licensing of the image or something. More legalese than I could understand, but it wasn't driven by its content. Wish I could help more, but I suspect you could probably find your way down those same paths easier than I. Fcreid (talk) 11:24, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

As I understand it, not only is there no consensus here about the picture, contrary to your assertion, but the legal copyright considertions are real and valid. We do not on WP have a right to ignore copyright law. Collect (talk) 11:34, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

dinos again?

I had thought we had dismissed the liberal blogger political foe charging that Palin says dinosaurs were around 6,000 years ago? The fact he got quoted does not make his charge any better than the fact Garrison was quoted on the JKF assassination ... (see Archive 32 and earlier) did someone decide the blogger was a valid source? Collect (talk) 23:01, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Good point, but please keep the citations at the bottom. -- Zsero (talk) 23:07, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

No, but consensus can change. Erik the Red 2 ~~~~ 23:08, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

The article is the LA Times and not a blogger website. I do not understand this deletion anyhow. QuackGuru 23:08, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

The quote is of someone who has a specific interest in making outrageous statements about Palin. Consensus previously had been that it did not belong, yet here it is -- reinserted, contrary to consensus. I trust you will undo the revert? Collect (talk) 23:12, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

The source is the LA Times. I do not see any bias from the LA Times. QuackGuru 23:18, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Ignoring the fact that prior consensus came to the conclusion that the account was unreliable, the proposed wording attributes the belief squarely to Palin without mentioning that this is according to a thirdhand account from the blog of a long-time political opponent. An unacceptable distortion of fact which has absolutely no place in this encyclopedia. »S0CO^{(talk|contribs)} 23:24, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

The issues are twofold. This was discussed in the past ad nauseam, and the consensus was that it did not belong. The second issue is an attempt to reinsert it when the consensus had been reached, if you will kindly read the archives. Consensus shopping is not proper WP behaviour. If you wish to debate the archives, feel free. But I do not wish to see hundred of lines when we have already discused it to death. Collect (talk) 23:23, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

It's not just the dinos. She is against stem cell research, premarital copulation, and according to LA Times, books! How much proof is neccessary to mark her as a young Earth creationist when she has been quoted saying that dinos and humans coexisted and the Earth is 6000 years old, like the bible tells it to YECs? For me LA Times is reliable enough as a source and eventhough this would probably not bring her a good reputation among non-christians, it's the truth as far as the proofs go. Not bringing this up in the article wouuld be denial of proofs without any counterproofs. Do we have a new consensus? Probios (talk) 23:29, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

The bias motivating your statement is blindingly obvious, I'm sad to say. Opposing embryonic stem cell research and frowning on premarital sex are not exactly fringe positions, and it is not our position to extrapolate from that her status as a young earth creationist, especially when the sources for such statements are highly suspect. »S0CO^{(talk|contribs)} 23:36, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

There is no "proof" that these are her beliefs other than the blog posting of a biased political opponent. Prior consensus was to omit and there is no reason to change or revisit.--Paul (talk) 23:37, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

All the religious stuff you assert does not belong. It is easy to misstate beliefs in a POV manner, and your post appears to indicate that you give credence to the most extreme statements of her beliefs. That is not how NPOV works. Collect (talk) 23:33, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

I just conveyed the information from a reliable source. There's no misstatements as far I know (taking the only presented proof as a source). If there's info presented from a reliable source, you would need a counterproof to rebut the claims presented. Probios (talk) 23:38, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Please see this previous discussion. »S0CO^{(talk|contribs)} 23:58, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Nope. If the basis for a story is determined by consensus here not to properly belong in the article , that is all that counts. Else you can imaging the cites for others -- including folks who claim ETs met with candidates -- as long as they get mentioned in a newspaper somewhere. Read the archives before pressing this, too many topics get iterated too often. Collect (talk) 23:43, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

So this means that even though one would find more reliable sources stating the same thing about her delusional beliefs than the others before him, the sourced statements would not be applicaple to the article because to do this, one would have to change the consensus made earlier with poorer refs? What exactly would be needed to change the old consensus? Could someone tell me what these archives are exactly (what would I have to read to became to the same level as you) and/or what were the arguments which formed the present consensus? So far I haven't grasped the point why this info from a reliable source should not be presented. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Probios (talk • contribs) 23:58, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

This is starting to stray into WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT territory... the whole point is that, regardless of the fact that the LA times carried the story, the single source that they used was the blog of a political opponent, which is a decidedly unreliable source. That's it. Wanting the consensus to change is not enough, and nothing new has been posed to suggest the material deserves to be included. »S0CO^{(talk|contribs)} 00:01, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

The newspaper is the source, not the person it quotes. Reading the newspaper article and then deciding for yourself that it is biased or improperly sourced IS ORIGINAL RESEARCH. Wiki editors check the reliability of the source that is doing the writing, not the source that is being written about or quoted. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 14:43, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

But, the newspaper quotes the person as their source. Passing a rumor through an intermediary does not transform rumor into fact -- this is a fairly obvious consideration which some editors seem strangely determined to ignore. »S0CO^{(talk|contribs)} 22:35, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

That observation would hold some water if the editors were trying to insert text into the article saying "Palin knew about this policy and chose to accept it", or something like that. This is NOT the case. The allegation is covered by reliable sources. It should be reflected here, as an allegation, in exactly the way it was before it was removed. ONCE AGAIN, second guessing the newspaper and projecting your own expectations of bias onto it IS ORIGINAL RESEARCH. I am amenable to listening to arguments on other reasons the rape kit material shouldn't go in, but this notion that editors can discount or disqualify something that has been published by a reliable source has got to stop.Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 17:29, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

I think you might have posted in the wrong section - we're not talking about rape kits here. And no, the edit in question did not present this as an allegation by a third party: the editor asserted that these were Palin's confirmed beliefs [3]. The Times article clearly attributes these allegations to Wasilla resident Philip Munger, who (according to the same article) has run a left-wing blog in opposition of the governor for years (I notice the title of the most recent entry is "Saradise Lost: One Sick Puppy of a Sarabot"). The same Times article goes on to interview her spokesman, who says he has never heard her say such things and that she does not discuss her beliefs publicly (an observation curiously omitted by the editor), making Munger the one and only source for these allegations. This is one of the instances where WP:IAR applies: Yes, the Times gives mention to the blog. But does that blog, or its creator, meet our qualifications for a reliable source? I think not. »S0CO^{(talk|contribs)} 19:11, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

I posted in the section because the same ongoing issue of editors improperly overruling and excluding major publications applies. Original research into the person quoted in the source is all that "disqualifies" this article. The fact that the article also quotes the Palin spokeperson is a perfectly example of the way articles by reliable sources avoid bias by reflecting both criticisms and defenses against them. That is what the article is supposed to do, once again, "to reflect what those sources say". And, just to point out, WP:IAR would seem to apply to WP:Consensus just like any other rule, so I will continue to hold fast to the position that consensus to do the wrong thing still results in the wrong thing being done and thereby defeats the purpose of achieving a consensus. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 07:13, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

(undent) Cute, but no. Editors cannot shunt aside consensus simply because consensus is against them - and don't think this same principle hasn't worked against some of us in the past. For the record, I am not opposed to including information from major publications. I am opposed to editors who deliberately distort the information carried by those sources in order to further their own political agendas. The Times article clearly says that Palin was accused of holding those beliefs by Munger (who the Times also mentioned runs an anti-Palin blog), and that this allegation has been disputed by people closer to her. But that is not how editors have tried to present this information here:

"She holds the fundamentalistic^[sic] christian belief system of young Earth creationists who believe, among other things, that humans and dinosaurs once coexisted."^[4]

And before that:

"Palin has also said that she believes that humans and dinosaurs coexisted on Earth 6000 years ago, that dinosaurs and humans walked the earth at the same time, and that she has seen pictures of dinosaur tracks showing human footprints within the tracks."^[5]

The statement "person A believes position X" and "person B claims person A believes position X" are not the same thing. Both of the above edits are deliberate distortions of fact which, especially in the context of a biography, have absolutely no place in this encyclopedia. Munger's allegations by themselves amount to nothing more than a political smear. »S0CO^{(talk|contribs)} 18:08, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree with S0CO and Paul. This seems like adding two and two, which amounts to original research.Zaereth (talk) 23:51, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Could someone please give the link to the site of the "liberal blogger political foe"? Foe or not, does this discredit his claims? What if they are (and seem to be) true and you disregard the information as biased or something, although they would represent the truth? What I mean is that differing political viewpoints don't always lead to biased representation of the truth and you are possibly making a mistake here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Probios (talk • contribs) 00:17, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Great minds think alike, but Probios beat me to asking for citations.

Someone give a citation, already! LA Times article where? blogger where? less sig tweaking and more refs, imo.Anarchangel (talk) 00:30, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Again, see the previous discussion I linked above. It includes a link to the article in question. The key point here is that Wikipedia publishes content based on its verifiability, not its "truth". "Would seem to be" is your own opinion, Probios, and we cannot assert that statements with far-reaching implications are true based solely on our personal feelings about the governor. »S0CO^{(talk|contribs)} 00:38, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

The edit by Collect deleted two references. Before the LA Times bit was something else that got deleted. The Times reference was also deleted. Not sure why that was deleted. Collect, I would appreciate it if you point me to the exact thread in the achives. QuackGuru 00:37, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

The LA Times source was addressed and discarded in the discussion I linked above. The second source makes no reference to dinosaurs, so it had no place there to begin with. »S0CO^{(talk|contribs)} 00:46, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

So where does this edit belong? QuackGuru 00:53, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Feel free to put that one back in. »S0CO^{(talk|contribs)} 00:56, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Right where it is. I merely restored the page to how it was before Probios started adding the second-hand blog claim. -- Zsero (talk) 00:57, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Mystery user has now put dinos in -- and reverted twice, despite requests that he come here to discuss. Right now, dinos are on the page, as I will not enter an edit war with someone who may be clueless. If anyone else takes it out, I would support such an action as that appears to be the consensus here. I hope it is not a sockpuppet or the like doing this. Thanks! Collect (talk) 20:22, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

trying to get NPOV possible

Starting with the premise that in any controversial topic, some people will see POV in almost any statements, I would claim that "rough balance" (NPOV in WP terms) is all that is possible. I further submit that Sarah Palin is near that "rough balance" level. However, it appears some feel it is far from "rough balance."

As the name suggests, the neutral point of view is a point of view, not the absence or elimination of viewpoints. The neutral point of view policy is often misunderstood. The acronym NPOV does not mean "no points of view". The elimination of article content cannot be justified under this policy by simply labeling it "POV". The neutral point of view is neither sympathetic nor in opposition to its subject: it neither endorses nor discourages viewpoints. Debates within topics are clearly described, represented and characterized, but not engaged in. Background is provided on who believes what and why, and which view is more popular. Detailed articles might also contain the mutual evaluations of each viewpoint, but must studiously refrain from asserting which is better.

What would help now is for anyone who can cite a controversial article with no statements in it that are viewed as POV by others. Care to cite some so we can look at how an article can have no POV statements in it at all?

I am not canvassing anyone. Collect (talk) 13:08, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Until after November 4? this article will be under constant pro Palin PoV & anti-Palin PoV charges. GoodDay (talk) 15:34, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Actually, NPOV means that the view of the preponderance reliable sources is reflected, not that the subject be portrayed in a "neutral" way. If 60% of reliable sources negatively criticise the subject and 40% offer positive criticism, the article should, no must, reflect that ratrio per WP:NPOV. Jim62sch^dissera! 18:10, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Are you suggesting we count the all sources, take a poll of them all, and reflect that poll total instead of seeking 50+ and 50- sources? I had not thought that was feasible for sure! Collect (talk) 18:57, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Not exactly (although I've noticed that you're pretty good at statistics), but Palin isn't being portrayed in a positive light in most WP:RS and WP:V sources (meaning, not blogs or campaign media, but the news media). As a veteran of a number of WP:NPOV battles (Intelligent design, Noah's Ark, God, Nostradamus, etc.), I assure that the def I gave you of NPOV is accurate (even if I spelled ratio like Scooby Doo might say it). Jim62sch^dissera! 19:13, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

How on earth is the debate over creationism, where it's well documented that around 99.9% of scientists lean one way, somehow equivelent to the debate over Palin, where it's heavily in dispute and that unclear which side is the majority? The Squicks (talk) 19:55, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Last poll I saw has the Presidential race within "margin of error" (funny how people forget that phrase). Collect (talk) 20:00, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't referring to the Presidential race per se, I was referring to the reliable source media coverage of the race. How can we be so sure that the non-antiPalin side taken by USA Today and others is a minority and that the antiPalin side by MSNBC and others is a vast majority? Undue weight concerns take place where there are clear majority/minority opinions. With opinion subject divided unclearly, like the heated debate around String theory, deliberately stacking the deck for one side is crazy. The Squicks (talk) 20:10, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm ... the LA Times, in endorsing Obama, a democrat (they don't endorse dems, y'know), skewered Palin, the Chicago Tribune (which has never endorsed a dem) did the same, Christopher Buckly and David Brooks have bailed on McCain because of Palin, and you're going to say it's an MSNBC thing? What ever. Jim62sch^dissera! 20:43, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Not to mention Peggy Noonan of the WSJ ("Palin's Failin'") and Kathleen Parker, who I believe was the first to openly call for Palin to step down.Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 17:49, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Jim62sch: I'm curious, what makes you the article for God needs more weight on the pro-existence or anti-existence side rather than even 50%/50% weight? The Squicks (talk) 20:13, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't recall saying that, but I could, if I wanted, give a painful philosophical/scientific answer. Jim62sch^dissera! 20:38, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

So, Collect, under your new "let's include all of the viewpoints" stance, would you mind putting back in the viewpoint of Frank Rich? Or is that "let's put in all of the pro-Palin sources under NPOV, but if any sources dare to criticize her, let's exclude them as non-notable viewpoints"? Erik the Red 2 ~~~~ 20:48, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Note that I consistently oppose all "opinion articles" in any WP article. Per my own aphorism: WP is best served by being cautious in attacks, generous in praise, solid in facts. (Me) Collect (talk) 20:53, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Exclude all editorial opinions? Are you mad?Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 17:32, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Two clarifications: I agree with you, Collect, that an NPOV article is not an article in which the tone, details, everything are neutral - rather, it means that a range of facts reflecting a complex picture of all sides of an issue, are fully represented without prejudice. I don't think that "attacks," or "praise" should enter into any wikipedia article - that's for the Opinion section. Wikipedia is a well-polished mirror in a bright room - before which we turn our subject so that we can see every angle -- it reflects the good and the bad, without judgment, and does not conceal anything. LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 22:21, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

The part "solid in facts" is what applies here. The rest is "don't attack others" and "praise others a lot" if you need it laid out that way. I thank people, for instance, even if they do not agree with my position, even if they do not reciprocate. Thanks! Collect (talk) 01:12, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification - I now understand you were referring to talk pages as well. LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 03:59, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

SNL is looking for a comedy writer for Sarah Palin, after the election. --Buster7 (talk) 04:17, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Huh? Is that in reference to improving the article? Collect (talk) 04:19, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Should it be mentioned? Her appearance? Her future as a Stand-up comedienne? --Buster7 (talk) 04:28, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't mind voting for her...for the position of Stand-up Comedy Host! (veep is another thing, though.) — Rickyrab | Talk 04:48, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Giving an exellent example of why I try to get WP to be strictly fact-based. Thanks! Collect (talk) 12:03, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Honestly, I'm not sure you have given a lot of thought of how this article (or the rest of Wikipedia) would look if it were restricted only to verified facts.Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 17:35, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

What a refreshing thought -- an encyclopedia dealing only with facts! HEck, WP might even become a RS in itself then. Thanks for the suggestion! Collect (talk) 17:38, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Your sarcasm has been thoroughly noted for weeks. You don't have to keep dishing it in every single comment.

I will restate my observation in case you care to actually read it: Honestly, I'm not sure you have given a lot of thought of how this article (or the rest of Wikipedia) would look if it were restricted only to verified facts.Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 17:53, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your attack. The simple fact is that encyclopedias are supposed to be created with facts as their goal. Not as catalogues of opinions. Collect (talk) 13:24, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Per WP:NPOV, the facts in our articles include facts about opinions. NPOV means that we don't adopt opinions. We do, however, report facts about opinions. You'll find further elaboration in the linked policy. Material that's proper under that policy might be referred to by some as "catalogues of opinions", but such material can be included in Wikipedia, regardless of what other unspecified encyclopedias do. JamesMLane t c 07:21, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes. Collect, once again, it is expressly not the goal of Wikipedia that only discussion of confirmed facts would be included. It is ridiculous and disingenuous to keep suggesting this. Thank you for your ongoing dripping sarcasm and studied pretense at being a civil and earnest editor!Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 07:34, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

I've been avoiding these discussions, but I think this article has been tortured into a poorly written article that is way too self-conscious. Yes, it fails NPOV on just about every front. I would invite all editors to read the article as it existed on August 27, 2008 (pre YoungTrigg), just to get some perspective. Things that were considered benign then, have been eliminated, twisted or constricted in the name of BLP, UNDUE, NPOV and alleged consensus. --Evb-wiki (talk) 15:44, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

It's a shame how people feel compelled to tear our public servants to shreds to gain political advantage of the opposition. Something tells me that's not what the founding fathers envisioned. I only hope after the election it can become as informative and balanced as it was then. Fcreid (talk) 17:58, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Leaving aside that this isn't a forum for personal musings on the founding fathers, if this is not an attack on the good faith of other editors, what is it? Who are you saying is tearing our public servants to shreds to gain political advantage of the opposition?Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 19:21, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, because you asked, I find it shameful that *any* public servant (whether that's Obama or Palin) has trash picked through, gynecological records publicized, or whatever else. Here's a person who dedicated herself to public service from a young age. Being affilidated with the federal government for 35 years, I can tell you it's not a high-paying job, and dedicated public servants put in longer hours than Joe the Plumber can ever imagine. Most don't do it for the glory, and they certainly don't do it for the money. They do it because they want to serve their community. And making insinuations about how they cared for their Down syndrome child is how we thank them. Yes, shameful is exactly the word I wanted. These are not "media whores" who make rock-star bucks on the understanding paparazzi will invade every second of their privacy. It's a relatively new phenomenon and one Americans learn to do without. Fcreid (talk) 19:59, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

This is just further defensive editorializing, but I will respond. I am well aware of the life of public servants. Palin is a politician, not a public servant. Public servants are expected to behave in a politically neutral manner. A good example of a public servant would be Monegan, who was fired partially because of Palin's political amibitions and leanings. Part of the territory of staking out confrontation and controversial positions as she has, as well as part of the territory of being a politician, is being subject to criticism. So the designation of Palin as a public servant is highly inaccurate. I would also say Palin is quite hungry for attention and publicity, contrary to your suggestion.Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 20:29, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Per RHD: "public servant" "a person holding a government office or job by election or appointment; person in public service. ]Origin: 1670–80]" Palin is, by definition, a "public servant." Collect (talk) 20:36, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

So were any number of politicians who went into politics for power, glory, and a desire to feel important. I was just drawing the distinction between politicians and mere government employees. The latter don't go into government for money or fame, but the former often do.Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 20:48, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Actually, Monegan's tenure as Public Safety Commissioner was an odd duck in public service, i.e. a political appointee serving at the governor's discretion. That's not to detract from his career in civil service as a police officer, but political appointees can (and often do) come from and return to the corporate world, e.g. successful lawyers, businesspersons, etc. In contrast, Palin's life was government service, and she dedicated herself to that. You're obviously rooting for her opponent, so you hope to diminish the self-sacrifice that entails, but were you apparently have no metric for comparison, I can discount that out-of-hand. And as someone who serves at the whim of the governor, I'd have thought he'd have done a better job cooperating, but the Branchflower report doesn't indicate that to be the case. Fcreid (talk) 21:07, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Are you splitting hair on the difference between "public servant" and "civil servant" while simultaneously criticizing me for splitting hair on the difference between "public servant" and "politician"? Anyway, by your comments, I guess you think it's fair to say that since you are rooting for Palin, you hope to exaggerate any self-sacrifice on Palin's part? You accused me of seeking to diminish her self-sacrifice because it's clear to you that I won't be voting for her. And, similar to your comments on Monegan, for someone who serves at the whim of the electorate, I'd think Palin would have done a better job of "avoiding conflict of interest situations". Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 21:18, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) I'm not an advocate for "yes-men", but I certainly would expect my appointee to support me on budgetary matters and staffing concerns, which apparently was not the case for Monegan. That's a big problem with government service--complacency that one's job is so assured and secure that one doesn't need to be a team player. It plagues me every day. Fcreid (talk) 21:26, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

I just want to clarify one point that was raised at the opening of this thread. NPOV does not mean a "rough balance" of views. It means (1) representing all significant views and (2) identifying when appropriate and possible majority and minority views, (3) as long as all such views come from reliable sources. We should provide some context for any view - for example, it matters whether the view is of a representative of the Democrat or Reb=publican parties, the Sierra Club or the Chamber of Commerce or the NRA. No view should be presented as "the truth," all views should be presented as someone's view. That is it. No need to worry about "balancing" views as long as the above conditions are met. Slrubenstein | Talk 23:14, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

The problem is far too many unqualified people are allowed to have an opinion just prior to an election! :) Good to see you again, SLR. Fcreid (talk) 23:38, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

I suppose you think the British sources listed accurately represent the international reaction to Palin? Ottre 05:35, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

If that was directed at me, Otto, I really don't care much what anyone thinks about anyone. You know the saying about opinions, and the only one that matters to me in the end is my own! Fcreid (talk) 09:04, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Help?

Why can't I edit this article??? I didn't do anything?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.63.31.233 (talk) 19:30, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

You have to be a registered user for this article, it is semi protected. Thanks, --Tom 20:04, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

What are you thanking me for? 24.63.31.233 (talk) 21:15, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

I think it was a generic platitude to welcome you to register and participate. Don't they use the word where you're from? Fcreid (talk) 22:44, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

When politeness is a knee-jerk response, is it still politeness? Anarchangel (talk) 03:57, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Deep question, but yeah, I'd rather have someone be polite to me, even if it's perfunctory. Fcreid (talk) 11:33, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Just for the record, my saying "thanks" wasn't really a "knee-jerk" response. Anyways...thanks :) --Tom 13:30, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Fannon

Regarding the recent addition: Fannon opposed an Alaska state law.^[2]

The source does not even mention Palin. It seems irrelevant to me. Is there a WP:RS which states that Palin is somehow involved in Fannon's opposition to this state law or is this WP:SYNTH to try to tie them together?WTucker (talk) 13:29, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

I have removed this. This has been beaten to death in here, nothing to really see, move along, thanks, --Tom 13:44, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

One of the nice things the Obama team has done is added to the FAQ at the top talk to list the repetitive, circuitous and fruitless discussions that have already beaten a horse to death and continued working into the glue. Some of those topics include the association with Ayers, Obama's citizenship (and derivative smears), expansion of Wright, etc. We share some editors in common here, such as Wikidemon, Grsz and some others. Unless the topic is reintroduced in talk with new material, they approach it in a perfunctory, forthright manner and immediately close pursuant discussion. Perhaps we could enlist their support to create something analogous here. Fcreid (talk) 13:57, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Not a bad idea. --Tom 16:20, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

I like it. What could it hurt?Zaereth (talk) 18:48, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

User:Avala changing the picture

Anyone else thinks It should be reverted ? I liked the other picture betterAlexnia (T) @ 17:48, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

I concur. --Evb-wiki (talk) 17:57, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I think the other photo is a better, more straight forward picture.Zaereth (talk) 18:46, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

To clarify, I believe "the other" pic we 3 are supporting is Image:Palin In Carson City On 13 September 2008.jpg. The one currently there is Image:Gov. Sarah Palin in Dover, NH.jpg. --Evb-wiki (talk) 18:52, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes. The Carson City photo is a little blurry if you're looking at the large picture, but the smaller one in the article looks just fine to me.Zaereth (talk) 19:00, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Can someone just recrop and upload another Dover picture so there isn't as much dead space. Remember (talk) 19:27, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

I re-cropped the Dover pic. I have no preference as between the cropped Dover pic and the former Carson City pic.Ferrylodge (talk) 19:36, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

I cropped one too, just not so much. Image:PalinInDover-cropped2.JPG. I added it. --Evb-wiki (talk) 20:23, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes the crop looks even better. The one one from Carson City was blurry, pixelated and small. This way it is much better as we should always seek for the highest quality material.--Avala (talk) 21:07, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

What's up?

Why is this article getting so much attention? The articles Barack Obama, John McCain & Joe Biden don't go through this much hassle. GoodDay (talk) 19:40, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure whether this is the right place to discuss it, but Obama got similar attention, just a lot less of it. Maybe it is because of the newness of it all, and if we had a few more months for things to settle down they would. But anyway, people are keenly interested in Palin. She has stirred up very strong opinions off Wikipedia, positive, negative, and otherwise. These are reflected in the legitimate news stories, and also the blogs, partisan politics, smears, praises, gossip, tabloid news, and outright lies. Wikipedia's articles reflect what people say in the outside world (one hopes in a neutral, encyclopedic way) so it's only to be expected that all that trickles in here. An important, visible article like this tends to attract new editors, and even when they edit constructively and in good faith that results in a lot of well-meaning bad edits.... and of course there is the crowd of questionable editors who are not here to improve the encyclopedia. So obviously a lot more trouble than, say, Great ditrigonal icosidodecahedron. I don't think Biden or McCain inspire that level of interest on a personal level, and Obama did not burst so suddenly on the scene. Like I said that article has had a lot longer to settle in - people have been aware of him for several years. Anyway, keep up the good work here. The article is getting better and less chaotic than it was a month ago. Wikidemon (talk) 19:49, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Some kinda protection for this & the Obama article is required, until after November 4. GoodDay (talk) 19:53, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

The article is semi'd. There are a few content disputes going on at the moment, but we haven't seen enough vandalism to really warrant further protection.»S0CO^{(talk|contribs)} 19:58, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Okie Dokie. GoodDay (talk) 20:00, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

"cleared of any hint of unethical activity"

palins weard Every article I can find that discusses that phone call of Palin's makes some comment about how it is in direct contradiction with the content of the report:

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/10/palin-makes-tro.html : "That's just not the case"

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/10/12/palin_talks_to_alaska_reporter.html : "...disregarded an ethics investigator's finding that she had abused her executive power as Alaska's governor..."

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/10/12/politics/main4516113.shtml : " Despite the finding of a legislative report that she had broken the state's ethics law in the scandal dubbed Troopergate, Alaska Governor Sarah Palin said Saturday that the report actually cleared her of any "legal wrongdoing or unethical activity." "

http://www.adn.com/sarah-palin/story/553680.html : "'Palin's characterization of the report is wrong'"

How can we include this fact in NPOV language? (NPOV != noncritical) Homunq (talk) 02:34, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure if all those reports are referring to these remarks by Palin. What do you think?Ferrylodge (talk) 02:55, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

No, all of those reports are referring to these remarks. The difference is that in your link she does not claim the report cleared her of "any hint of any unethical activity", only of "any unlawful activity in replacing Commissioner Monegan", which is totally different. Homunq (talk) 03:34, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Ah, thanks for clarifying which remarks. I just took a look. I can see why people would say there's a lot of spin there. The main accusation against her was that she illegally or improperly fired Walt Monegan. And she was cleared of any impropriety there, so obviously she wants to emphasize that aspect of the Branchflower Report. The mission of the investigator (Branchflower) was "to investigate the circumstances and events surrounding the termination of former Public Safety Commissioner Monegan, and potential abuses of power and/or improper actions by members of the executive branch." On the central point of the investigation, Palin was cleared by Branchflower.

On the subsidiary issue, the Branchflower Report does not focus on the contention that Palin herself tried to get Wooten fired, but instead focuses on activities of her husband and on her own "inaction," i.e. her failure to stop Todd. So, personally, I would not say that Palin was lying when she said, "Well, I’m very very pleased to be cleared of any legal wrongdoing … any hint of any kind of unethical activity there." Spinning yes, lying no. She was accused by Branchflower not of illegal activity, but of illegal inactivity. That's not me making this fine distinction, it's the Branchflower Report.

Anyway, perhaps you've found some sources that are more severe on Palin's spinning than I am, which is fine. But I dare say that I could find some reliable sources that take a less severe approach.Ferrylodge (talk) 04:53, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

I can see where you would make that distinction, but from my quick skim of the report, that's an interpretation, not something that is explicitly said. Even if justified, an interpretation is OR. (Certainly there are some specific actions of her own that are mentioned in the report - her emails mentioning Wooten, for instance).

I'd love to see some source which discusses the particular comments in question and does not point out their incongruity with the contents of the report in some way. Otherwise, I propose adding a sentence: "Palin's characterization of the report is wrong, said democratic state senator Kim Elton." I really am not the only one who looks at the phrase "cleared of... any hint of any unethical activity" and finds it to be bizarrely beyond spin; to me, it even seems more deluded than dishonest. Homunq (talk) 08:47, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Kim Elton is a Democratic legislator and opponent of Palin. I don't think this article should become a list of all her opponent's accusations, accompanied or not by her responses. Can't we just rely on ostensibly neutral sources? And I do not mean a neutral source that includes an accurate report of her opponent's accusations (which we can then transfer into this article). Meanwhile, I'll see about finding a partisan source to counter your partisan source.Ferrylodge (talk) 15:34, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

I chose the Kim Elton comment precisely because I thought you might be most open to that - you might think that anyone who criticizes Palin here is biased, and so an obviously biased source would most acceptable. If you'd rather a more neutral source, how about http://voices.washingtonpost.com/fact-checker/2008/10/four_pinocchios_for_palin.html ? (Honestly, I sometimes feel that my attempts at meeting people halfway are not helpful. When I say "it looks to me...", when I put anti-Palin sentiment in the mouth of her opponents, it is a very conscious reaching for consensus, not a sign of the weakness of my arguments or convictions.) Homunq (talk) 15:50, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

I can see why you thought quoting Elton might seem more acceptable. However, as a matter of principle, I don't think this article should be turned into a he-said-she-said list. So, yes, the Pinnochios article might well be a better source. And, I would insist that we quote the following from that article: "Palin has reasonable grounds for arguing that the report cleared her of 'legal wrongdoing,' since she did have the authority to fire Monegan." I think it would also be important to mention that the Council made clear that the vote to make the report public was not an endorsement of the report's findings, and that 5 members of the council said they disagree with the report’s findings. Additionally, we should mention that the report primarily relied on Palin's inaction rather than her action.Ferrylodge (talk) 15:59, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

When people are in positions of power, the distinction between illegal activity and illegal inactivity that you created, is generally nil. "Illegal inactivity" here is defined as abuse of power, just as illegal activity is. If you are standing by the gate, and you "forget" to close it before the attack dog runs after the mailman as trained, that's the same thing as siccing your dog on him. LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 05:16, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

I know very well that illegal inactivity can be just as bad as illegal activity. When Palin states that she was cleared of illegal activity, she is correct.Ferrylodge (talk) 05:20, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

The report states that Palin "abused her power by violating Alaska Statute 39.52.110(a)". Under the circumstances, her quote that she was "cleared of any legal wrongdoing" and "any hint of unethical activity" is somewhere between a stretch and a non sequitur. In general I am against Wikipedia articles covering the reaction to a response, but in this case reprinting the quote in without comment conveys the misimpression that she was exonerated.Wikidemon (talk) 16:02, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Since we have a reliable secondary source evaluating the matter (i.e. the Washington Post), we ought not to simply quote the primary source. According to WaPo, "Palin has reasonable grounds for arguing that the report cleared her of 'legal wrongdoing,' since she did have the authority to fire Monegan."Ferrylodge (talk) 16:10, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

(undent) Here's my second proposal, from my efforts at the sub-article:

This statement was criticized as inconsistent with the contents of the report by the media^[3] and by Democratic state senator Kim Elton.^[4]

~~I'm putting that in the article as a starting point.~~ Ferrylodge, feel free to try to add or subtract as you see appropriate, but I don't think we should spend more than two sentences max responding to this quote in this article. Note that your points about "not adopted" and "inactivity" are not strictly reactions to this quote; I personally don't think, though, that "inactivity" rises to the level of notability to be included in this article. Homunq (talk) 16:51, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

On second thought, I think that ", despite being found to be in violation of the Ethics Act.^[5]" does the trick. Homunq (talk) 16:59, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. A finding that she broke the law does not clear her of legal wrongdoing. To say otherwise is unreasonable, and not the sort of thing subject to sourcing. Perhaps a news article can opine that her statement has some basis, but that's an opinion and should be reported as such. We don't really need to opine either - just set the two statements against each other in a way that doesn't leave the impression that she is vindicated.Wikidemon (talk) 17:03, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

(undent)I could probably support something like this:

Media outlets such as the Washington Post reported that Palin’s subsequent claim that she was cleared of unethical “activity” was untrue, while also reporting that there were reasonable grounds to say that the report had cleared her of legal wrongdoing, and that the report was a partisan smear job.See Dobbs, Michael. “The Fact Checker: Four Pinocchios for Palin”, Washington Post (2008-10-13).

Ferrylodge (talk) 18:23, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

How's my new "Washington Post and others noted" language for you? Note that the section also distances the legislature from the report now, too. Homunq (talk) 20:06, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I've edited your suggested language, and I put the full WaPo quote next to the WaPo footnote, so that editors can see the full WaPo quote but no one else can.Ferrylodge (talk) 20:19, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

The problem I have with this language is that it gives undue weight to a nonissue. AFAIK, no one, not the most rabid anti-Palin partisan, ever suggested that she lacked the legal authority to dismiss Monegan. To say she was "cleared" of that charge implies that someone had made that charge. Is there any reliable source for the assertion that such a charge was made? JamesMLane t c 19:09, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Good point, JML. Homunq (talk) 21:25, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Monegan claimed she lacked authority and acted illeglally in reassigning him -- which is why that issue was investigated. See your TalkingPointsMemo and the like. Palin was accused of violating the law by firing Monegan in many places. Only now do we hear "no one .. ever suggested that she lacked the legal authority to fire Monegan." Collect (talk) 12:09, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Collect, I wrote that my statement was true "AFAIK". That means "as far as I know". It's still true as far as I know. Your unsupported assertion to the contrary doesn't add to my knowledge. I used the phrase because I wasn't certain I was correct, and I was (and remain) willing to be corrected -- but "See your TalkingPointsMemo and the like" isn't exactly a citation that I can use.

I would be particularly interested in hearing about your claim that Monegan claimed that she acted illegally. In Monegan's filing with the State Personnel Board, his position as expressed by his lawyers was: "Like all cabinet officers, Mr. Monegan served at the pleasure of the Governor and she could terminate him for any just reason or for no reason at all." If Monegan claimed that she acted illegally, it was presumably in the sense that she violated the legal standards applicable to the exercise of her authority, not because she lacked the authority. JamesMLane t c 15:06, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

"Like all cabinet officers, Mr. Monegan served at the pleasure of the Governor and she could terminate him for any just reason or for no reason at all." This has been presented as tho it validates ANY firing by a State Govenor of subordinates. But, isn't it true that the full thought behind the phrase should include, ".....but Not for a bad reason". For instance, a state employee cannot be fired because of political party affiliation. --Buster7 (talk) 06:16, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure even that's true, Buster. Monegan was not a "state employee" in the sense you suggest, but rather a political appointee of the governor. While I doubt anyone worth their salt would terminate an appointment for that reason (at least advertising it as such! :), I suspect it's no different from any political appointee who may be terminated at any time for any reason. Fcreid (talk) 09:51, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

The source itself of "smear job", to which the Washington Post quote itself refers, has already been quoted. It is unnecessary to quote it again. Further, without the previous paragraph of the Post article, in which Flein's quotes are referred to and discussed, the use of "smear job" has insufficient context. Bipartisan should also be referred to in a more prominent and relevant sentence. Anarchangel (talk) 01:06, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

I disagree, and I haven't even read the paragraph to which you refer! We *must* tell the truth here. The facts are that Palin and her staff initially cooperated in a bipartisan fact-finding investigation; that once she was nominated for VP the investigation took on an acrimonious and measurably partisan flavor, with one involved party actually quoted using the phrase "October Surprise" to describe it; and, finally, that the unbinding and unadopted findings have no legal basis and could readily be categorized as partisan campaign smear. However you wish to assemble those facts and their associated sources is fine with me. Fcreid (talk) 11:30, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Wow! Gee! Read the paragraph. Anarchangel (talk) 04:45, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

I was referring specifically to your statement that "smear job" had insufficient context, when it's actually a prominent part of the chronology in this event. Fcreid (talk) 12:00, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

I will close my comments by stating I like what James and others have done to the Legislative Investigation section as it now stands. It represents a fair and accurate chronology of the issue and ends with presentation of differing opinions on the report. I think it's now fine until new information is released pertaining to "troopergate", should that ever occur. I still maintain, as I discussed with Factchecker below, that much of the other background on the dismissal is now anti-climactic and should be relegated to an appropriate subarticle to avoid undue weight on this singular topic in the main article. Fcreid (talk) 12:40, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of rape kits section

I'm nearly positive that there was no consensus for the wholesale deletion of any mention of the rape kit controversy. Threeafterthree deleted the section all by his lonesome after not participating in (and ignoring) the ongoing discussion. I restored the deleted material and added additional material reflecting both criticism and defense of Palin with respect to the issue.Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 19:23, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

FYI, this subject is discussed above. No consensus to insert the material was reached. Please see the top of this article which says, "Please read this page and discuss substantial changes here before making them."Ferrylodge (talk) 19:29, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

This has been discussed before and also a few sections above. With the size of this board, it is hard to follow. The rape kits material could possible go under a Fannon bio, but even that is a stretch. Maybe keep this is a sub article? This "material" came out pretty earlier on. Not sure where it stands as relevant to a bio.Thanks, --Tom 19:34, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

I still didn't see any consensus not to include. I'll say that adopting without compromise the position held by a ~60% majority isn't very consensus-like. I think it ought to be mentioned at the very least.Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 20:11, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Generally speaking, Wikipedia not only asks for consensus to remove, but also asks for consensus to include in the first place. See WP:Consensus.Ferrylodge (talk) 20:17, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

How should we word it? "Palin supports charging rape victims for test kits"? This has been discussed quite abit. It seems that most folks didn't feel that this materila belongs in this bio. Maybe under a sub article, but this "material" is still pretty sketchy. Why is it so important that it be included in this bio? The ownnous is on folks who want to include material or remove material that has been included by concensus.--Tom 20:25, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

I would suggest the wording that was used or something else neutral to that effect. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 20:29, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

The Material should be included. Perhaps, "During her term as Mayor, the Wasilla Police Department charged victims of rape for their own rape kits. Governor Palin denies any knowledge of this policy. Critics have cited that there is no reasonable way the mayor could not know about this given her reputation for going over each budget line by line. Conversely her defendants have stated that there is no way an executive can possibly know everything that is going on in their administration."

We could also just go with the first two sentences. Manticore55 (talk) 20:46, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

That's not very neutral. We've already got a couple different fairly neutral passages either of which would probably be fine though not perfect.Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 20:50, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

I would prefer the current version now in the article. For example, I think there's quite a difference between charging victims versus charging their insurance companies. Additionally, no one has suggested that the "Miscellaneous" budget line item (which paid for this kind of stuff) said anything about rape.Ferrylodge (talk) 20:53, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

I find this wording a bit to 'dry'. While neutral and factually correct, I think it can be cleaned up a bit still.

Fannon later opposed an Alaska state law that placed requirements on police departments,[52] because he felt that the legislation would keep him from asking for payment from the victim's insurance company or from the criminal.[53] The in question banned towns from billing victims or their insurance companies for examinations that collect evidence of a rape.[54] In 2008, when asked about this issue, Palin said she has never believed "that rape victims should have to pay for an evidence-gathering test."[55]Manticore55 (talk) 21:00, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

My only objection is that I think some mention should be made of the Democrat bill supporter's claim that Palin must have known about it, the records having no indication of her knowing, and the defense that it was part of a larger budgetary dispute to begin with. This acknowledges the criticism, which I find to be significant, while amply stating points defending against or dismissing the criticism.Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 21:04, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

The sub-article ought to cover stuff like Croft's accusations, but not the main article, IMHO. Especially since Croft said all this in 2008 rather than at the time. If we're going to add anything, I'd add that the bill also required the towns to pay for STD testing and contraceptives (sse last paragraph of Frontiersman article).Ferrylodge (talk) 21:10, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Tempest. Teapot. No indication anyone was charged in Wasilla, nor that the total amount billed to insurance companies was over $500 in an entire term. The controversy is gemacht, and should actually be fully deleted. Collect (talk) 21:23, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but WWI was started by a less than an ounce of lead traveling at rapid speeds entering the right person at the right time. Obviously, this does not come anywhere NEAR that level of historic significance, but the fact remains that it remains relative. After all, Snopes.com completely blows apart the swift boat accusations against Kerry yet they remain because they gained national prominence. So too does the Rape Kit accusation have notability because of the focus placed upon it by the media. However, if the source can be provided for the $500 amount, I think that is a noteworthy counterpoint to the accusations involved. Manticore55 (talk) 22:00, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

This is honestly a silly allegation. The St Petersburg times says that the town sought to bill INSURANCE COMPANIES not the victims themselves [6][7]. Making it seem like victims were billed the full cost is disingenuous when at most they might have been billed a copayment. I realize that nobody here will believe the National Review, but they found records of four rape kits during Palin's time as mayor that the city paid for [8].

Both St petersburg & NRO give only the same old quote from Fannon. The National Review Online purports to give evidence for sexual assault evidence gathering that the city paid for, but the records are from 2000, after the bill was signed, but before it went into law. That doesn't sound like a very discrete timeframe to be charging for kits, whether they had previously or not. Odd that you bundle Fannon's statement together with this, it tends to disprove the records by showing his opposition to the PD paying. Anarchangel (talk) 05:01, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

This is total OR, but looking at the city budgets in question it looks as if a normal year spent a few thousand, then one year they spent a few hundred. I think $500 is on the low side. Homunq (talk) 13:08, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Average one rape per year (crime stats already cited). Cost per kit $500 on average (cited long ago). 1 times $500 = $500. Some years, zero. In no year prior to 2002 did they apparently see 2 rapes. Unless, of course, you can demonstrate that Wasilla has exceptionally expensive rape testing? Collect (talk) 14:37, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Uniform Crime Reports and Index of Crime in Wasilla in the State of Alaska enforced by Wasilla Police from 1985 to 2005

Enforced by. That's prosecution. Bottom of the page: "National Criminal Victimization Survey, 1996 estimate that only 37% of rapes are reported to police". The remaining 2/3 would not have been charged for rape kits, but they might explain the discrepancy with the city reports.
It fails to list '96, '97, '98, and '99.
The city stats show no less than 10 sexual assaults (not rapes specifically, rapes included) for the years '96-2000. ^[6] Anarchangel (talk) 04:47, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

So we have a maximum of 2 rapes per annum if all sexual assaults were rapes? Um -- rape kits are used for rapes, not general sexual assaults, so it looks like you concede a maximum of about 1 rape per year then? Collect (talk) 13:00, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) I have removed this material as there is no consensus to include it. Again, maybe flesh this out in a sub article, as it is now, if at all. --Tom 13:31, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Again, you are barely in the majority, and I think it's quite un-consensus-like to simply impose your preferred outcome instead of compromising with the slightly smaller number of people who think some of this material ought to go in the article.

On the subject itself, how does the state ensure that the victim doesn't end up being penalized by the insurance company in some way, such as being charged a higher premium or a higher deductible? Does the government fill out the forms for her, or is she left with the delightful task of sorting out insurance matters in the aftermath of a sexual assault? What happens if the victim doesn't have health insurance? Does the victim pay then? Lastly, why should a victim's health insurance have to pay for a crime investigation? When a home is burglarized, do the police bill the victim's homeowner's insurance? Any way you swing it, it just seems like an unfair way to punish women. This is no small controversy.

Moving one by one through all the "criticisms" offered in favor of keeping mention of this issue out of the article, let's talk about "average one rape per annum". How is this significant at all? So ONLY ONE rape victim per year is forced to pay for her own rape exam or forced to charge it to her insurance (which she pays for)? Well if there's only one rape per year, why bother even prosecuting it! It's not even a problem ! Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 15:18, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Consensus does not require everything to be put into an article. With the facts being as trivial as they appear to be, it is reasonable for consensus to be that this whole teapot does not belong. And health insurance specifically can not get raised because of claims, I suggest your straw man is aflame. And for some funny reason, even one rape does and should get prosecuted. The question is how much any rape vicrims ever had to pay, and it appears that was likely to be zero or close thereto. Collect (talk) 15:23, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

It's not a "teapot". That's your view. It is in stark opposition of the view of many others. There is no "consensus" that this doesn't belong, just a couple extra people saying "absolutely it doesn't belong" than people saying "absolutely it does".

I would like to hear some substantiation for your claim that "health insurance cannot get raised because of claims". That sounds blatantly false to me. As for my "straw man", you can redacted my redacted. You've floated more bogus arguments than I can count. Do you own a hayfield?

I'll ask again. If only one victim had to pay for her own rape kit or go through the trouble of getting her insurance company to pay for it, how is that any different than if it was 10? And if the policy says this is what rape victims have to do, how would it be relevant that it hasn't actually happened yet? That would clearly be a fortunate accident, because as long as the policy stayed in effect, it would be a risk.. And again... why should a rape victim's insurance have to pay for the criminal investigation? When a home is burglarized, do the police doing the investigation bill the victim's homeowner's insurance? Do insurance companies have some obligation to pay for criminal investigations? If so, why does their revenue depend on premiums paid by customers, and not some kind of tax revenue given to them by the state? Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 15:45, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind personal attack. Car insurance can get raised because you are an "unsafe driver". House insurance can get raised because you make too many claims - placing your home statistically into a worse risk. Health insurance does not get raised because you were attacked. The "rape kit" is considered a medical expense. No insurance company pays for a 'criminal investigation", so that is a straw issue. As for raising health insurance rates -- I suggest you read up on this. Health insurance rates are determined by actuarial group, and groups have nothing to do with any attacks. Collect (talk) 16:01, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

But the question is why we would include this section when it was the police chief's, not Palin's, decision to charge for the kits? Will we blame elected officials for every thing that they DIDN'T fix? Will we start blaming Obama for not wiping out anti-semitism in the state legislature? Merely by bringing this info up we lend it more weight than it deserves. Some of the proposed language above makes me suspect that people want this information not to improve the article, but to associate Palin with an unpopular policy that she never supported.LedRush (talk) 15:57, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Collect, every time you treat me to a rude and deliberately insulting comment, I will respond in kind. If it were an isolated incident instead of an ongoing fact of your behavior, I would ignore it; but as things stand I will just dish back.

A "rape kit" has no medical purpose. It collects evidence to be used in an investigation. Thus forcing a victim to bill her insurance for it constitutes forcing the insurance company to pay for the criminal investigation. It's clearly not a "straw issue" given what that term means. Again.. does homeowner's insurance pay for robbery investigations?

One reason it's relevant is that Palin's claim to fame is her "executive experience". Much has been made of how she has micromanaged Wasilla. Furthermore, it's difficult to imagine how almost any issue could fly under her radar in a town that small, especially considering Wasilla was apparently the only ongoing agitator against that bill in the statewide debate over that bill. There is a reputable opinion on record saying it's highly unlikely she didn't know about it. Given Palin's stance on other issues relating primarily to women, there is notable and relevant speculation as to whether this was another example of her controversial stand on women's rights. The fact that you think this speculation is hogwash is not justification to exclude it, nor is the bogus argument that a BLP is only supposed to contain statements of incontrovertible fact. The article is quite appropriately full of published analysis and synthesis, not mere factual data, all of which is relevant to Palin and Palin's notability.

Obama gets a bit more leeway and is not expected to know everything going on in Illinois because his position was much broader (US Senator) and because the purview of his office (the state of Illinois) is massively larger than the town of Wasilla ... with about 2500 times more people in it. There's no way Obama could micromanage the whole state (it's not like he had hiring/firing power over all his subordinates) but it's eminently possible for Palin to micromanage Wasilla and in fact she has bragged of her ability to do so.Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 16:26, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

The Illinois legislature is 2500 times the size of Wasilla? Wow...that's big. There are obvious BLP concerns here, and in the absense of proof that Palin actively did something, I don't see why we have to note what she didn't do, especially during an election year and on a topic so obviously controversial. I hear the following a lot on the Obama site...if this is really important, something can be added in after November 4th. Now is not the time to turn wikipedia into warring campaign views.LedRush (talk) 16:55, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, the Illinois legislature is 2500 times the size of Wasilla. I totally said that! Seriously though, I am really beginning to delight in people refuting arguments I clearly never made. As for BLP concerns, the primary one here is relevant, notable criticism. It is relevant and notable for the same reasons, namely, that a controversial position was taken by one of her subordinates, whom she had directly hired, on her watch, and there is a plausible and notable and published opinion that Palin may have been partially responsible or at least known about it.Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 17:52, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

You attacked a strawman, and then you don't like it when people point that out? Ok. Anyway, "there is a plausible and notable and published opinion that Palin may have been partially responsible or at least known about it" doesn't even come close to meeting WP:BLP standards.LedRush (talk) 18:41, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) I have removed this material as there is no concensus for inclusion, still. --Tom 17:03, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Maybe there is some confusion here. A "straw man" is not just a false argument, but one specifically chosen by a malicious opponent for its weakness or invalidity due to the ease with which it can be attacked, in order to claim a false victory after "knocking it down". Maybe Collect didn't know that, and was just using a cute way of saying I was wrong, but the actual meaning of that term is to accuse someone of trying to practice deceit. The insulting tone is inherent in saying that, and it's completely unnecessary to make an accusation like that in the midst of a perfectly civil discussion. To then point the finger for a "personal attack" when I grouse at his personal attack is disingenuous and also a pattern that has repeated itself many times now. And anyway, he also said "No insurance company pays for a 'criminal investigation', so that is a straw issue." But the department was requiring insurance companies to pay for the rape kit. The rape kit is not a medical procedure; it is an evidence-collection procedure performed by a doctor to collect evidence that can be used to identify the attacker. The victim can refuse the rape kit and still receive medical attention for injuries and trauma if she wants to. If the doctor finds injuries that need immediate attention he or she will treat them while documenting them with photographs, etc. If the department wanted to bill the insurance co for the medical attention to treat injuries and psychological trauma, that is not the rape kit. The analogy of billing the homeowner for the dusting of fingerprints after a robbery, made by someone in the article, is fairly apt. The crime scene crew doesn't fix the broken windows, but they also don't charge for the crime scene tape or parking squad cars out front to protect the place.Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 19:38, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Pointing out that someone is attacking a position which you don't hold but which is easy to defeat is not a personal attack...it is a clarification of someone else's debate tactic. Maybe you feel it is rude to imply that someone is not addressing the crux of your argument, but you say things like "Yeah, the Illinois legislature is 2500 times the size of Wasilla. I totally said that!", which, of course, is drenched in sarcasm. This sarcasm continues to ignore the point of the message, and that is that the distinction you made between holding a legislator responsible for inaction on an issue that deals with that legislature and holding an executive responsible for inaction on a police matter just doesn't hold water. You don't attack people for something as controversial as this issue only on "a plausible and notable and published opinion that Palin may have been partially responsible or at least known about it". This doesn't conform to BLP standards.LedRush (talk) 20:38, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I readily acknowledge the sarcasm. It was in response to sarcasm! I was comparing the size of Illinois to the size of Wasilla. Bigger by a factor of roughly 2500. Anyway, though, are you saying because Obama couldn't micromanage the state legislature of Illinois, Palin couldn't micromanage the city government of Wasilla? In any case, it's immaterial. It's not my opinion that Palin "should have known", "probably knew", or that "she owes voters a direct answer," etc.Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 00:28, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Let's talk about the BLP guidelines. They state:

"Criticism and praise of the subject should be represented if it is relevant to the subject's notability and can be sourced to reliable secondary sources, and so long as the material is written in a manner that does not overwhelm the article or appear to take sides; it needs to be presented responsibly, conservatively, and in a neutral, encyclopedic tone."

As I have said, the rape kit issue is relevant, notable criticism on record by reliable sources. The end.

"Remove unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material. Editors should remove any contentious material about living persons that is unsourced, relies upon sources that do not meet standards specified in Wikipedia:Verifiability, or is a conjectural interpretation of a source (see Wikipedia:No original research)."

Please note that it does not say "Remove contentious material". Contentious material from reliable sources may be used. Any controversial material whatsoever will be contentious.

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

This pretty much speaks for itself completely in favor of including the rape kit material. And I'd like to note the particular text which drives home the point I've been trying to make repeatedly: "...Wikipedia biographies should simply document what these sources say." [emphasis added]Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 19:53, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

You've quoted a bunch of rules for BLP and then claimed they support your view without much detail as to WHY they support your view. Is it notable that an executive didn't take action on an issue that may or may not have been on her radar? Plausible opinions that someone might have done something do not meet the criteria that "Biographies of living persons (BLPs) must be written conservatively" and that "the burden of evidence for any edit on Wikipedia, but especially for edits about living persons, rests firmly on the shoulders of the person who adds or restores the material." Rehashing people speculation about what someone might have done or may have believed during a contentious election is the very definition of disruptive. There is no consensus (or even close to a consensus) for the inclusion of this material, and by the wikipedia guidelines quoted above you have not met the burden of evidence to needed to overcome the conservative approach to editing BLPs.LedRush (talk) 20:38, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Each of the guidelines I quotes directly supports the inclusion of the material for the explicit reasons I stated directly adjacent to the guidelines I reprinted. First and foremost, It's a relevant, notable criticism. You ask, is it relevant even though it may not have been on her radar? The critics quoted in the article say that it probably WAS on her radar. The publishers apparently thought both the critics and the statements were relevant and notable. Being "written conservatively", as presented in BLP, means that we take special care that all the existing standards are tightly enforced. It does not introduce any unstated additional restrictions that are not in WP:BLP.

The next sentence in that paragraph in the BLP, after "written conservatively", says "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid paper; it is not our job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives." That is why Wikipedia usually refrains from citing any entity that is less credible than itself -- such as a blog, website, or other medium that is otherwise outside the mainstream of reputable publications -- because to do so would be to make Wikipedia a vehicle for legitimizing material that has not already been legitimized. "Written conservatively" does not mean we avoid saying uncharitable things about Palin, or that we vigorously second guess reputable publications looking for signs of their inherent bias or other reasons to discount or exclude their commentary, or exclude commentary of Palin's notable critics just because it's likely to be biased against her.

The phrase of "the editor having the evidentiary burden" means that the editor has to substantiate material with sources.. it does not mean the editor is supposed to prove the truth of the claim of the allegation. The whole point of an allegation is that it is unproven. All this criticism is based on your objection that it's not a plausible criticism because there is no proof Palin knew about or directly authorized the policy. That is original research, plain and simple -- improper second guessing of sources. Again, please note: "If an allegation or incident is notable, relevant, and well-documented by reliable published sources, it belongs in the article — even if it's negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it. If it is not documented by reliable third-party sources, leave it out." [emphasis added]

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/09/21/palin.rape.exams/ CNN has published a direct allegation that Palin probably knew about the policy.

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/100/story/52266.html McClatchy has separately published a confirmation by Knowles that the policy occurred under Palin's watch.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/26/opinion/26fri4.html?em NY Times has published an opinion piece saying that it is a serious criticism EVEN IF she didn't know about it. The piece ends with: "On the rape kits, as on other issues, she owes voters a direct answer."

http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2008-09-10-rape-exams_N.htm A USA today piece said the law crafted to make this practice illegal was "aimed at Wasilla" and that Fannon complained the cost might be up to $14,000 per year. The Palin spokeswoman refused to answer questions about when Palin learned of Wasilla's policy or whether she tried to change it.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2008/sep/22/palin-rape-kit-controversy/ St. Petersburg Times' "PolitFact" acknowledges there's no evidence Palin supported the policy but also that the McCain-Palin campaign has not offered any evidence she ever opposed it. The article also quotes another critic, Halcro, saying "If she was against charging for the rape kit, as mayor she could have made the decision not to charge for the rape kit."

So, before you go all nuts about voicing all these critics here and so forth, keep in mind that all you are arguing against is a simple presentation of the existence of a notable controversy, with balance on both sides. I'm not listing all these articles because I want to quote them all. But can you honestly argue there is not a notable and relevant criticism when there has been this much discussion of it in the mainstream media, and certainly more which I haven't bothered to track down? Keep in mind we are expected not to second-guess these sources, but rather to contextualize them neutrally.

I am refraining from editing on this, but only to maintain civility. The allegation has relevance and its existence (not its truth) is substantiated -- that's the bar -- and as stated, the requirement that a BLP be written conservatively expressly does not provide that properly sourced controversial criticism be omitted, nor properly sourced unproven allegations. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 22:40, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Your citations have added nothing to this discussion. CNN says she "probably" knew? Great! When we know, let's include it. There is no consensus to add this controversial, non-notable (remember, this is about the biography, not the campaign) information. Where does this possible non-action rank in Palin's life? It is not worth a mention even if it weren't a blatant BLP violation. Take this to the campaign page or another related article, and don't continue this disruptive conversation. I believe that if this topic came up on the Obama talk page they would close the topic to discussion. If you continued, I'd imagine administrative action would be in order.LedRush (talk) 23:48, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm willing to submit this to arbitration. My citations directly substantiated the relevance and notability of this controversy. You're completely ignoring the BLP guidelines which explicitly provide for the inclusion of criticism and controversial allegations. Your objections are unsupported by the BLP guidelines you cite and the insistence on excluding any mention (including balanced, conservative mention) of the incident constitutes POV-pushing. And even if it belongs in the campaign article, in more detail, it ought to be in the summary article here.Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 00:14, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

My general opinion after reviewing the arguments and the article, and a few of the sources - but only in a fairly quick way rather than in detail is: (1) the controversy is "notable" in the sense of being citable and suitable for inclusion here in some article or as its own article, (2) this happened on Palin's watch so whether she knew or not affects the seriousness but it is not the sole issue, (3) as a WP:WEIGHT matter, it is a relatively minor campaign issue and scandal, so it merits little or no coverage in the broader articles about her (the main campaign article and her bio), (4) in substance it does not say much about her positions - it is not a position she espouses and it provides no deep insight other than perhaps that she was inattentive or insensitive on this issue; she did not make it a priority; (5) balance and neutrality are important but no amount of balancing overcomes a weight issue; (6) this is susceptible to WP:COATRACK on isues related to abortion, rape, women's rights, etc., so I suspect much of the reason for this being a controversy on and off Wikipedia has to do with the current election - best to take the long view and keep politics out of everything, even articles on politics. Finally, we generally don't need consensus to exclude or delete disputed content - it needs consensus to be there in the first place. Only if an article has been long-term stable would a deletion need consensus. While there's a dispute, it should stay out until and unless there is consensus to include. Arbitration isn't going to work here, and mediation only if all parties agree to it. All in all, I think things weigh on keeping it out of this article and putting it, in a well-cited neutral form, in whichever article best covers her stint as Mayor. Wikidemon (talk) 00:17, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Comments from uninvolved editor

I've spent some time reading the comments in this section, so I think I have some grasp of where everyone's coming from.

It has wide media coverage -- not from editorials and commentaries, but from high quality news articles. Many newspapers have had news stories about it, a significant enough number to match all the points in the general notability guidelines. Therefore, I find that it has acheived notability.
It is not a fringe issue due to its mainstream coverage, but this one's borderline. There are many fringe liberal blogs and editorials pushing this, and pushing it hard. It passes muster primarily because it has been taken up by the mainstream media, reporting not on the accusations of the liberal blogs and editorials, but on the rape kit issue itself. Therefore, I find that it isn't fringe.
It is an issue prone to taking over large sections of the article, thus turning it into a coatrack article. Therefore, I find that it is a topic that must be treated with extreme care.
There are serious weight issues here. This is one law that, while notable in its own right (and if I may say from a personal viewpoint, it was a despicable one), is not necessarily appropriate for inclusion in a biography article. And while we know Sarah Palin's impact on the law, we do not yet know its impact on her; the election will perhaps be partially a referendum on that, as well as the other campaign issues. There is no deadline for inclusion in Wikipedia, and we're not trying to scoop anyone. Therefore, I propose that this material be either placed on hold until after the election, or placed in a campaign article where it is indubitably more weighty, less likely to be a BLP issue, and is indisputably applicable.

I'm not normally interested in this article, but felt a certain amount of perspective from someone who has made largely the same arguments on the Barack Obama page might be of help. Take or leave these comments as you see fit. --Good Damon 03:49, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Wait until after the US prez election. It's interesting, as to how much attention these 'controversial' things have gotten, since August 29, 2008 (date look familiar?). 14:47, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, it's also interesting, during that same period, how much of a shameless, POV-pushing, original-research-laden, blatantly promotional article it was thanks to a flurry of effort by at least one McCain staffer in the hours leading up to the announcement of her selection as McCain's running mate. Some of our esteemed editors have been right here from the very beginning, uhm, "massaging" that message. Some choice gems: "Due to her gender, youth, background in government reform, pro-life stance, fiscal and social conservatism, and an approval rating in Alaska generally in the range of 80 to 90 percent, Palin could become the second female vice-presidential nominee of a major party." and "Palin successfully killed the Bridge to Nowhere project that had become a nationwide symbol of wasteful earmark spending." Controversial, indeed. I'll say it again: to insist on a moratorium on "controversial" material until after the election simply allows this article to be used for electioneering purposes, as it was before the arrival of editors seeking to reflect "controversial" published material. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 15:27, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

With less then 3-weeks to go, people? indulge yourselves. GoodDay (talk) 19:22, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

After reading the comments section, and the histories, I too call for arbitration on this issue. Manticore55 (talk) 20:40, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

The ArbCom won't accept a content dispute for arbitration. As for GoodDay's repeated suggestion that we wait until after the election, I just don't understand it. Between now and November 4, many people will be coming to this article to learn about Palin. We should give them the best article we can. Yes, a year from now, there may be a decision to report from a Troopergate-related lawsuit, or there may be more information available about the rape kit episode after further digging by investigative reporters, but we can't put the article on hold just because it's not now as good as it will be then. JamesMLane t c 04:57, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Your opinion on NPOV Sarah Palin? TAKE TWO

Please post below whether you think the article is Neutral or Biased, and explain why in a sentence. Thanks. LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 03:31, 17 October 2008 (UTC) Please mark your votes with a bold NPOV or POV. LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 05:14, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

POV, biased: Mention of the rape kit controversy has been deleted completely. Mention of the controversy over her religious view of public life has been deleted completely. Mention of the possibility of the NRA influencing her decisions with Wasilla's police chief has been deleted completely. Perhaps the details should go in subarticles, but the basics should be mentionable in a few words here. Whatever compromising details have been included, are here as a result of constant efforts to restore deleted material. In the process, some such information has been left out permanently, including the largest issue - about qualifications. LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 03:58, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you, plus the fact that the AIP controversy hasn't got a single mention in the article either. There's also some weasel wording in there and it fails to mention all of the criticism on her from the major media and even some of her peers regarding her self-contradictory statements and interviews, apart from the part that says "Some Republicans felt that Palin was being subjected to unreasonable media coverage". This article isn't bad, but it skids over some important and hard-to-ignore facts. --Crackthewhip775 (talk) 04:20, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

It's mostly OK. Most of the issues raised by LLLL are not real controversies. She's been the subject of dozens of smears, but since they aren't true there's no reason to cover them. And the fact that someone disagrees with her and criticises her isn't a controversy. When you list the possibility that the NRA has influenced her decisions as a controversy worth mentioning then you lose all credibility. The NRA is not some fringe group, it's one of the most important and mainstream interest group in America, and there would be nothing unusual or noteworthy if it's influenced her, any more than if the ACLU or NARAL has influenced a candidate. -- Zsero (talk) 04:25, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm confused. Are you saying, for example, that Palin did not know about the rape kit policy and would have opposed it if she had had the chance? Is there any source for this or is it just your gut feeling?Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 14:25, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

It would really depend on the level of influence, don't you think? I'm not just refering to Palin, but to any candidate. Jim62sch^dissera! 12:56, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

There's also no mention of the "experience controversy" which nobody can deny was huge. Grsz ^X 04:28, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

No huger than the "grandson controversy" or the "sambo controversy", the "jesus pony controversy", the "'kill him' controversy", the "buchanan controvery" or any other of the dozens of made-up issues. -- Zsero (talk) 05:30, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

...and this comment is just patently ridiculous.Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 14:26, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Like almost all articles, it has bits and pieces of all POVs. If anything, there is material which is of little real significance which is blown out of proportion. And almost everyone can be said to be "self-contradictory" -- that is what people are. As for including material which is negative, if the cite isn't solid, leave it out. Collect (talk) 04:27, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

NPOV, Neutral. Since nobody seems to be adhering to LLLL's one sentence restriction, here goes: As this is first and foremost a biography, special consideration must be given to undue weight, and considering this, I think her religious views and her views on gun rights are already outlined adequately in this article: simply say what they are, and let readers make their own judgments. More information is provided for those who are interested in the subarticle. As detailed in Wikipedia:Summary style, if controversy is to be incorporated in this page, then it must first have sufficient mention in the subarticle to warrant mention here, and at the moment, it does not. From my perspective, some editors here seem dedicated to making Palin look as bad as possible leading up to the election, and the current attempt to promote "controversy" surrounding her views is an extension of that. »S0CO^{(talk|contribs)} 04:31, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

To clarify, what I, and others, have been looking for, is not detailed info about each of the abovementioned issues - rather, what is needed are a few words here and there, maybe an additional 4 sentences total which simply mention them. As long as mere mention of these issues is deleted, the article is not NPOV.LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 05:18, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

POV or omission/deletion of notable, sourced material in some sections of the article. IP75 (talk) 05:56, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Neutral enough. People are always going to claim a POV whitewash and/or that the article is a hit piece. Often people claim both simultaneously. This article is about as balanced as such a touchy subject could be. NPOV does not mean that we include every sourced piece of information about someone. We must give items due weight: in an article such as this a "controversy" such as the rape kit thing that is only mentioned in a handful of blogs and back page stories doesn't meet the bar. Oren0 (talk) 07:22, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

NYT, USA Today, CNN, St. Petersburg Times, and McClatchy Newspapers are a handful of blogs?Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 14:28, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

FYI LLLL is canvassing for input on this. See her contribution history. [9] Bad form. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 06:33, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Canvassing is only bad if you're only picking people who are likely to agree with you. The fact that LLLL canvassed me satisfies me that she's not only picking people who share her point of view. There's nothing wrong with informing all likely interested parties of something. [Note that my use of the female pronoun is because the user above me did the same, if this wrong I apologize]. Oren0 (talk) 07:22, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

I contacted everyone on this page for input on this, as well as those who had recently engaged in edit warring that day. LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 17:21, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

POV bias. Having tracked the article over the past few weeks I'm persuaded that a bunch of McCain-Palin gofers, volunteers and/or hired hands, work almost 24/7 to block, delay, filter, discredit and delete any material that fails to advance the pro-Palin agenda. Anyone who seeks truly objective balance is steamrollered by the McCanaanites (sorry for the plagiarism, whoever coined that) and the Palinites whose task, evidently, is to flatten any bumps that stand in the way of a smooth Republican bias overall. (And no wonder. Given the number of hits, the article has propaganda value. A juicy prize, almost entirely free from effective control or accountability, it possesses at least a measure of the authority that's associated with encyclopedias.) The Palinites haven't won every battle, but they've kept the article well skewed to the right. To anyone who thinks Wikipedia is really quite a good idea, the SP article's omissions, whitewashes and absurd POV-pushing are an embarrassment. — Writegeist (talk) 07:36, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

In A sentence--- POV Bias, to the Right...From the very beginning, this article has been over-protected by various Palin supporters as tho it were the crown jewels and it is only through the continued efforts of Palin detractors that it maintains anything even resembling neutrality.--Buster7 (talk) 11:45, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

WP:CANVASS the issue depends on to whom LLLL sent the invitation, and how many were sent. Appears to be at least 30 on User Talk pages alone, and while most were active here recently, many are not familiar as being active, and many who have been active were not canvassed. It is not the canvassing of those who have been active which is a problem, it is the perception that some who were not active were canvassed. We also have no indication of how many may have been contacted by email.

" Remember to always keep the message neutral, and leave a note at the discussion itself that you sent out such friendly notices"

The rule is there to prevent even the slightest perception of canvassing. It does not require than an intent to pack the room be present. As a result, no vote is valid here. On its face, a violation of WP:CANVASS. Collect (talk) 12:01, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Again, I contacted everyone on this page (i.e., didn't even consider looking at archive pages from weeks previous) without even glancing at the perspective of those I contacted. I also contacted the five people or so who had made recent edits within the hours before I posted this. I don't have anyone's emails, and I would never distribute mine here. I posted totally neutral announcements on people's pages, as you know (since you received one). This vote is totally valid - however, it should be noted that the purpose of votes in general is not to decide issues by majority-rule (since lots of interested parties from weeks past have not been notified, and wikipedia editors are not always a representative body) but to get a sense of perceptions of more than 4 super-active editors. LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 17:25, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

As of 12:00 17 October 2008......--Buster7 (talk) 12:07, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

1...POV biased
2...I agree..(POV biased)
3...Its mostly OK
4...GRSZ....??????
5...NPOV
6...POV
7...Neutral enough
8...POV biased
9...POV biased

POV -- the negative criticism, at least that which is left, is buried in the middle of paragraphs, while certain more positive criticism has an almost hagiographical tone. As some noted, why are the rape-kit and religion issues gone? And who in the world cares whether her family ran in 5 and 10k races? Admittedly, this could be worse (and at times has been worse), but I'm sensing that Buster7 is right re a concerted effort.

There are also problems with the writing: weasel-wording, clichés, overuse of adverbs, a few odd constructions, etc.

Collect: While LLLL did contact me, there was nothing in the message she left that indicated a preference one way or the other. Hence, I'm afraid I disagree with you re canvassing.

Bottom line, though, is that this article is unlikely to ever be NPOV until Palin is no longer in the public eye. Jim62sch^dissera! 12:52, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Wait until after November 4, 2008 before adding controversial material to this (and Barack Obama, John McCain, Joe Biden) article. Where's the fire folks? GoodDay (talk) 12:55, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

WP:CANVASS makes no allowance for not asking friends not to back a position, for example. "Neutral wording" is insufficient when people who had not been active in any recent period are solicited. The canvasser may expect support without being overt. And posing the question does indicate the position of the person posing it. Hence, contrary to Buster7's list, many are actually declining to "vote" on this. Collect (talk) 13:08, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

LLLL made a simple, easy to follow request. In order to facilitate keeping track of responders, I created a list. It is not a vote tally. it is a list of clear responses to LLLL....nothing more--Buster7 (talk) 02:16, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Collect: maybe it's just me, but I read your post four times and I have no clue what you're saying in the first sentence; the second sentence requires a definition of recent (last ten minutes, last hour, last day, last week); the third requires a cystal ball (how can anyone know what someone else expects); and what does Buster's list have to do with what I said?

BTW, I was not voting here, I was expressing an opinion -- hence the final sentence of my previous post.Jim62sch^dissera! 13:30, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Your prior post was immediately below Buster's post. And WP:CANVASS is clear. It ought to have been clearly stated inat the start that she had solicited dozens of people to come here. Collect (talk) 13:43, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

I was refering to From the very beginning, this article has been over-protected by various Palin supporters as tho it were the crown jewels and it is only through the continued efforts of Palin detractors that it maintains anything even resembling neutrality. Thanks. Jim62sch^dissera! 14:09, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

If it's dozens, I agree, but I've not researched it that far. On point though, what is the definition of "limited" in posting a limited number of friendly notices to individual editors? Do we even define it? We really should be careful with words like limited and recent. Jim62sch^dissera! 14:16, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

POV - The amount of controversial, non notable material included in this article is over the top for a bio. A good deal could be moved into the sub articles which seem to be holding tanks(ceespool) for alot of this material. I agree that this article should improve over time as the person's pushing their agendas in here will slow as interest moves away from this bio and NPOV can be reached. --Tom 14:16, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

!voting is evil If there are any issues with this article, these can be worked on in a collaborative effort, and without useless polls. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:21, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree that this vote is evil. We ought to address specific issues one at a time. The thing that's being voted on is too unwieldy.Ferrylodge (talk) 15:24, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Evil, hmmmm. I wish I was evil - it would make my life so much easier. Oh, no, but that wasn't a personal attack Ferry, was it? Or is it evil to say that Palin's wiki page, which you have worked on 24:7 for a month, has not been edited in a neutral and unbiased way.

I am not usually a big fan of polls. What has happened here however, is that about half or more of the editors have generally perceived this piece as POV, and half or less as NPOV, consistently. It is very clear that given the interests involved, this article is not truly going to be NPOV until after the elections, if then. The reader who does not check discussion pages should be aware of the level of disagreement going on between editors behind the scenes, and should be aware that certain issues are being omitted. What I mean is that, as compared with other articles I have worked on -- in the absolute most contentious of arenas, Israel-Palestine articles -- when good faith collaboration goes on, what comes of it is a sincere effort to allow for inclusion/mere mention of issues of importance, with collaborative tweaks in language and tightening and concise editing of their context. Here what I have experienced is that certain taboo controversies -- which have been heavily reported, not manufactured by bloggers -- are simply banished outright. So long as basic mention of any factually supportable controversy is deleted from this article, the reader is not reading an NPOV article. I applaud Ferry for some of his/her efforts to work with those who included local Alaskan scandals with which he seems to be personally familiar, although in effect he did do his best to downplay them. However, he has been less receptive to issues related to how she would work at the national level, and that's what many of the rest of us are really feeling needs to be properly represented, and is not.LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 17:42, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, I'll chime in, although my participation was conspicuously not solicited by 4Ls. The article still contains myriad POV nonsense that simply will not stand the test of time after the November election (and regardless of that outcome). The rape kit issue is pure partisan nonsense that attempts to associate the subject with "evil words" to mislead the reader to an invalid conclusion (which, beyond being non-notable, the subject of the article had no actual involvement in the incident!) As far as religion, in general, when we boiled down the known extent of the subject's "religious influence" on governance, it precipitated into a single speech given to a group of "Jesus Masters" missionary students from a pulpit and at a Pentacostal church (which she had already left) and during their commencement address. In that context, her comments were sane and appropriate platitudes. So, when we added those caveats to the dialog, it highlighted how nonsensical we were to include it. (If someone can find her proselytizing the National Guard troops with "Crusade from God" speeches, that would be notable.) Finally, the notion of including a known detractor's singular commentary about her belief that dinosaurs were "Jesus Ponies" is beyond ludicrous, particularly when myriad other uninvolved second-parties have stated she simply doesn't discuss religion openly in that manner. What detractors really want is a statement that anyone with deep religious beliefs is inherently incapable and unsuitable to hold public office, and that's just not going to happen in a free society. (There are other countries where discriminating against religion is allowable... just not ours.) You make your feelings about that known by your vote and not in an encyclopedia. Fcreid (talk) 14:34, 17 October 2008 (UTC) Oh, one addendum. The attempts to paint the Stambaugh firing as something related to gun ownership policy are another sham. We have countless RS showing that Stambaugh was an insubordinate, chauvinistic jerk who had been repeatedly warned to shape up. He was lucky to survive in the subject's employ as long as he did. Note the contemporaneous reason he actually provided in his lawsuit for that firing was "sex discrimination" and had nothing to do with statewide gun laws or other nonsense. Just admit the guy was an asshole and needed to be fired. People like that do exist of all political persuasions. Fcreid (talk) 14:45, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

I did not contact you because you had not written anywhere on this page prior to the preceding comment. I would have contacted you otherwise. There are far too many editors involved to contact everyone who's been involved over the past month. LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 17:49, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Acknowledged. And indeed I did promise myself to detach from this, but others here can appreciate the addiction. Fcreid (talk) 18:10, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Your comments about "what editors want" about a statement saying anyone with religious belief is unfit to hold office is, besides being completely ridiculous, is yet another instance of the "pro-Palin" editors questioning the motivations of anyone who discusses the addition of material that is not a bright and sunny positive endorsement of Palin. Once again, it's your original research opinion that the rape kit controversy is "partisan nonsense". Again you and several other editors are reinterpreting sources completely in violation of WP:NOR. And SERIOUSLY, did anybody try to insert any text about "Jesus ponies"? The only time I have seen that brought up is when you, collect, Ferry, etc, wish to disparage other editors by implying they're all a bunch of fruits trying to insert ridiculous material.Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 15:09, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Incorrect on all fronts, Factchecker. Whippersnapper stated quite succinctly and without qualification that his reason for including that material was his belief that anyone who takes the Bible literally should not hold public office. The archives bear that out. On the rape kits, there is ZERO evidence she even knew of the controversy contemporaneously (either by its genesis within budgetary contexts or by Fannon's opposition to the state law that would hamstring local jurisdictions from billing insurance companies). In other words, it has nothing to do with her, and has nothing to do with original research. The fact that she was mayor is no more relevant than holding Obama accountable for everything that happened in Illinois while he was senator. And, face it... you are trying to sway the article to be negative. You may not be willing to admit that, but it's transparent to me and many others. Shall I canvas other parties to illustrate that? Fcreid (talk) 15:18, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

One additional note. I have the "Marathon Yardstick" embedded in my mind. The subject here ran 26 miles in under four hours (averaging a ten-minute mile during four grueling hours). As with most geeks, I'm not a very athletic, but I can deeply appreciate how many months (years?) she must have trained for such an accomplishment and the internal physical and emotional strengths required to achieve it. Yet, every time it's been added, one of our self-professed "NPOV advocates" invariably removes it without consensus or consult as being "fluffy". Again, check the archives. I'm waiting to find an editor willing to describe that achievement in this biography, and I'll likely provide much deference and latitude to itemizing these incidental, low-level noise events. My gut tells me the same person would not want to include both. Fcreid (talk) 15:41, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Completely false. First: because you can name one editor that thinks no religious person should hold office does not support your broad generalizing statement about "what detractors want". Most of us just want a balanced article. On the rape kits, there is a notable published opinion that Palin probably knew and that it was within the scope of her responsibilities as mayor to review such policies. Yes, it was by a critic. No, that does not mean it gets excluded. In other words, disqualifying that SOURCE constitutes original research. Arguments about weight are one thing. Trying to make bogus assertions about "unreliable articles by reliable sources" is plain original research. If a major paper writes an article saying Obama impermissably failed to control the legislature, THAT IS NOTABLE AND OUGHT TO GO IN EVEN IF IT'S AN OPPONENT MAKING THE CRITICISM. "Face it, you are trying to sway the article to be negative." . . . there truly is no AGF here. And I would say the exact same things (trying to sway the article) about you, Collect, and Ferrylodge.Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 16:51, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Come now. You really didn't expect "a notable published opinion" "probably knew" about the issue to pass muster, did you? Fcreid (talk) 17:02, 17 October 2008 (UTC) BTW, someone threw out a tasty morsel the other day that these "rape kits" included a "morning after" pill. From what I understand by my original research, the U.S. only approved "Plan B" in 2006, but if the claim could be properly sourced beyond a left-wing blog, it could be perceived as "interesting" in view of Palin's pro-life views. However, beyond that, the implication that a woman (coincidentally, who won beauty pageants) would deny treatment to rape victims seems misguided on its face. Whether Fannon held that view or not is beyond what I care (and the scope of this article). Fcreid (talk) 17:24, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Regarding attempts to portray the subject as outside the religious mainstream, note the unsolicited new dialog below with Sherpajohn. I stand by my initial statement that detractors (note I didn't say ALL detractors) believe that anyone with strong religious beliefs cannot govern. History has shown just the opposite, however... and you're talking to a dyed-in-the-wool agnostic! Fcreid (talk) 17:47, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

I did not see any disparagement by fcreid above. As for some of the stuff folks have tried to insert -- read all the archives. I did. I would also suggest that disparaging editors does not give them warm and fuzzy feelings about you. Collect (talk) 15:14, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

I'd direct the same advice to you. You insult other editors and question their good faith multiple times daily. In any case, Fcreid said "What detractors really want is a statement that anyone with deep religious beliefs is inherently incapable and unsuitable to hold public office, and that's just not going to happen in a free society." That is an accusation against other editors. Period. No matter what you say.Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 15:17, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

It's not an accusation, it is an observation, an accurate one in my opinion. It certainly isn't a personal attack or disparaging. Are you saying that no editors have tried to insert dodgy material implying that Palin is some kind of ignorant religious nut?--Paul (talk) 16:13, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

As long as you don't object to my assertion that "Palin supporters are attempting to whitewash the article and exclude any and all critical material for inappropriate reasons" I won't object to Fcreid's assertion that "detractors want a statement that anyone with deep religious beliefs is inherently incapable and unsuitable to hold public office".Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 16:47, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Seems there is plenty of "critical" material in the article already. Are there other issues aside from those above which I just dismissed summarily that you feel are being omitted? Fcreid (talk) 16:51, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't complaining that there is no critical material. I was merely pointing out the repeated attempts to exclude such material, often for no good reason, and also suggesting that without "detractors" such as myself, there would be no critical material whatsoever and the article would read like a campaign press release.Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 16:55, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

And please don't misinterpret my animated response for more than it is. I've welcomed your participation from the start, as I realize it takes both the "sweet" and the "sour" to make a good article. Just remember that doesn't prevent someone from distinguishing one from the other! :) Fcreid (talk) 16:57, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Re: "Limited" -- checking lots of admin pages -- 2 to 10 is generally accepted as "limited" (the canvassers were not punished). 30 or more appears to generally be punished. I guess "limited" would mean, at most, under 20 judging by the few dozen pages I referred to? Long delay -- I found a survey of admins with 99 for no canvassing or own user page only, 68 for "limited" canvassing, and 21 for "current standards." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:RfA_Review/Reflect Collect (talk) 15:04, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I ask because the dicdef (OED) is "2. a. Circumscribed within definite limits, bounded, restricted.". Even using "generally" leaves a lot of waffle room, too. And the opinions of the admins are inconsistent (and the "current standards" "vote" boggles the mind). Hence, it seems to be more of a feel thing than any quantitative restriction. Appears is a bit wiggly, too. I guess this might best be brought up on WP:CANVASS. Thanks again, Collect. Jim62sch^dissera! 17:59, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Given that everyone agrees this is not a vote, but rather an attempt to get an overview of possible bias in the article as a whole, the issue of alleged canvassing seems completely irrelevant. If it were an issue, it wouldn't turn on the gross number of editors contacted. Canvassing is a problem when an editor contacts only or disproportionately the people likely to agree with the canvasser's stance. Here, LLLL has set forth the completely neutral (eminently reasonable) criteria by which "canvasees" were selected. LLLL even took the trouble to respond to Fcreid's complaint about not having been solicited. Let's put this "canvassing" thing to bed, already. JamesMLane t c 17:56, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good to me, James. I just looked at 4L's contribs, and noticed that the group of editors contacted were all over the spectrum. I was, however, trying to point out the flimsy nature of WP:CANVASS which relies on such undefinied terms as limited and friendly, and at the accusation which also relied on recent. Jim62sch^dissera! 18:15, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

POV, with a pro-Palin bias. Some editors act as if (1) anything negative about Palin, if mentioned by a political opponent, is thereby a "partisan" attack and unworthy of inclusion; (2) uncomplimentary opinions about Palin are merely opinions, and are therefore different from favorable opinions about her (whereas in fact, WP:NPOV tells us to report facts about opinions without regard to whether they are pro or con); and/or (3) anything negative about Palin, no matter how well sourced, is eligible for inclusion only if there is a consensus to include it, so that one editor (or some unspecified small number of editors) may remove negative material and their removal must stand unless they can be persuaded to change their minds. I disagree with all these propositions. Not all of them have been expressly articulated by anyone, but this is not a straw man; it's my analysis of the underlying thought processes that seem to be at work. JamesMLane t c 18:02, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Why can't people wait until after the US prez election? GoodDay (talk) 19:48, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

The article should mention things that Palin is directly responsible for, which includes the results of hiring and firing decisions, budget decisions and so forth. A good argument can be made that if she didn't know these details, she should have known.Jimmuldrow (talk) 20:15, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

How exactly do the relevant sources become more relevant after the election? Unless part of the NPOV controversy was 'She is or is not vice president of the united states', the election does not change the validity of the question. Yes, it is a hot topic that must be rigorously examined, but that does not mean shying away from discussing a difficult topic. After examining the content, I feel the article is closer to NPOV than it was, but it is currently POV. Then again, consensus seems lacking in certain key areas. I am also not a big fan of the POV tag. If the rape kit information is to be left out pending arbitration, then it should have a POV tag. If it is included, then it is closer. Generally speaking, I am not satisfied that the tone of the article accurately reflects the tone set by Sarah Palin on the national state. She is, by definition, polarizing. To her supporters, she can do little wrong and is an ardent patriot. To her opponents, she is a demonic clown who cannot be allowed to be within one heartbeat of the presidency. There are, from my observation, few 'neutral' observers about her at all; and with respect to the content, I don't feel that the article goes anywhere near measuring that controversy in a way that accurately reflects the subject. The trick is doing that in a way that is still NPOV. Thus, if, by lack of insight into her controversial nature, the core article does not reflect this, then I must definitely vote for the POV tag. Lack of information can sometimes, by itself, convey a view point. Manticore55 (talk) 20:37, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you, Manticore, that the article is much better than it was, and that this does not mean that it is yet NPOV. LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 20:46, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

The word you're searching is "persecution", Manticore. Gender and race are off the table, but religion is still fair game apparently. Regardless, no one has yet provided any rational reason why Palin would have objected to paying a few hundred bucks for these rape kits. You're not suggesting that Palin held the view that rape victims bring it upon themselves, are you? Fcreid (talk) 21:00, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

The article should be thoroughly fair. If other candidates have mention about their race or gender, then so should this one. Of course, realistic prominence should be maintained. Not talking about Race in Barack Obama's article is just dumb. Gender matters in Palin's ticket, because she's so rare a female candidate on a final ticket. Religion also matters when it is prominently displayed in the national spotlight, however all aspects of it (ie both sides) must be shown. If it shows up on the network news, then it is worth putting in AN article. If ENOUGH items regarding religion show up in the network news, it should be part of the main article (or 'the' article if there is only one.) Regarding the rape kits, I got the impression that the reason it was an issue is because the rape kits contained contraceptives. Thus, Palin was not 'pro rape' but would NOT even remotely be seen supporting contraceptives which could be used for (from her perspective) enabling abortion. Hence, why I am fairly sure the budget line item actually SAID 'miscellaneous' (ie they didn't want to talk about it.) That's just the impression I've gotten from what I've read. I have no source for that. What I am also interested in seeing is the statistic that says that the budget item in question was only $500, which I think would help balance things out, but was never sourced or added (that I could see.) Manticore55 (talk) 21:46, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

If you can source the inclusion of "morning after" pills in the rape kits, I'll agree it is interesting. Again, however, the "Plan B" pill that is authorized for use in such situations wasn't approved for U.S. adoption until 2006. This would have occurred several years before during her time as mayor. Fcreid (talk) 21:56, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

way off-topic, but I understand that: 1. plan B was not approved, but doctors were prescribing birth control pills off-label for morning after use; 2. it does not matter, since there were and are no prescription drugs of any kind in rape kits, which are meant to be administered by non-doctors. Homunq (talk) 22:03, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, there ya go. It was purely an evidence collection kit, and the police chief thought charging a health insurance policy was a better approach than charging the taxpayer. Palin would have had no motive to agree with him, particularly given that she was (and remains, in most estimations) an attractive woman who surely would have rejected any notion that women bring rape upon themselves. No motive=no issue=no relevance, in my opinion. Fcreid (talk) 22:26, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

My own thoughts: 1. voting is silly. 2. There are problems with this article, though it is definitely improving steadily. 3. Whether or not it has an NPOV tag is the least of the issues. 4. I would not encourage anyone to tag it NPOV, but if somebody has so tagged it, I would strenuously object to somebody from the "other side" (you know who you are) removing that tag. 5. My views on the specific issues (include discussion of rape kits- yes; etc) are better posted in specific discussion threads. Homunq (talk) 21:12, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

PS to goodday: we care, you're not going to argue us out of that. Let's all get along, sure, but burying the hatchet doesn't mean burying the issues. PS to fcreid: AFAIK, I'm actually the person who put the marathon factoid in the article first, though I admit got it from a drive-by anon on the talk page. I also put the "cancelled no-bid BP pipeline contract to get the state a better deal" and other pro-Palin factoids in there. And I'm sure you know that I'm generally on the "other side" from you. So I'm not just blowing smoke out my ass when I tell you that I think that the best way to get what you want is to make some concessions. If you want to see the marathon in there, then try to help us find a brief, fair way to mention the rape kits without distorting her (indirect) relationship to that issue. Homunq (talk) 21:23, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

You can bury the issues until after the election. Then, you can dig them up again. In other words, My friends, yes we can or Yes we can, my friends. GoodDay (talk) 22:20, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely recognize and appreciate your sensibilities, Homunq. I never meant to insinuate we have unreasonable or unintelligent editors here, except the occasional vandal. I suspect most of you are just like me, and neither politics nor religion are a steady part of your normal diet outside of this realm. As I've stated before, there are very few issues on which I've keyed during the six weeks I've participated here, and three of those happened to be in the list presented here which is why I came out of hiding. I believe in compromise, but I also believe in telling the truth. What's missing from the rape kit controversy is motive--if someone can source those included a "morning after" prescription, I can see the interest in inclusion (although I still contend there is nothing that ties it to Palin either directly or indirectly... claims that she "probably did know" are preposterous and unsubstantiated). However, without that potential motive, everything I've learned about her would tell me she'd have unquestionably supported that as a taxpayer burden had she known it was one of the multitude of items impacted by budget. Fcreid (talk) 22:13, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

A solid argument could be made that if they believed the kits had the pills, whether or not they had them would be largely irrelevant. I have seen no sources recently stating whether they had them or did not have them, but I do know I have read articles that implied that they did. I will see what I can find and if it is from a reputable source. Manticore55 (talk) 22:34, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Again, I agree, but I'm not sure how a municipal entity could include a drug that was not FDA-approved (regardless of its availability by outside prescription). Also, the town government would not have had to "guess" whether they were included, as someone had physical possession of the kits and knew exactly what their inventory contained. Fcreid (talk) 22:38, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Simple. It would include the pill, which is approved for use in other circumstances, and leave it up to the doctor's discretion. Furthermore, it had been medically proved in many other areas and the FDA was deliberately stalling on it for years. If the people making the rape kits were partisian, they could probably include it without FDA approval.

Furthermore; here-

http://washingtonindependent.com/12795/palins-abortion-record

Implies that the morning after pill is the reason but does not say it is.

http://thejournal.epluribusmedia.net/index.php/op-ed/47-political-issues/185-of-lipstick-law-and-order

This one pretty equivicollay states that most rape kits contain the morning after pill.

Here Palin says she's against the morning after pill.

http://www.usnews.com/blogs/on-women/2008/10/03/where-is-palin-on-womens-health-issues.html

Thus, the perception that this is why she was opposed to it is clearly there; thus making it relevant.

At this point, to me, the burden of proof is that they probably WERE included. Not enough to say 'birth control pills were in the rape kits' but the perception is that this is why she opposed them, whether or not it is true. Given the prominence of this issue in the campaign, it makes it worth including in the article. Manticore55 (talk) 22:44, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Not so fast. It is a fact that non-prescription "Plan B" was not FDA-approved until summer of 2006. Prescription iterations of "morning-after" pills were not even available until 1999, and this apparently occurred that same year. Finally, Homunq stated above that rape kits do not include prescription medications, which makes perfect sense given that it's not doctor-administered. So, no, your assumptions don't hold water. If you want to include it, please cite a reliable source that unequivocably states they were part of the rape kits Fannon allegedly charged to the insurance companies. (Moreover, no one has ever proposed the city *refused* to administer anything... the entire context was spurred by budgetary considerations into the local police jurisdictions.) My gut now tells me even more that this is a red herring from the blogosphere. (Sorry, Collect, for discussing this in the wrong topic area!) Fcreid (talk) 23:02, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Actually "On August 24, 2006, the FDA approved nonprescription behind-the-counter access to Plan B from pharmacies staffed by a licensed pharmacist for women 18 or older; a prescription-only form of Plan B will remain available for young women aged 17 and younger.[81] " (WP) -- Rape kits made after August 2006 could have the pill. Ones before could not. Collect (talk) 23:08, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Huh? Not only does it not relate to the topic of this section, it is, at best, WP:OR and at worst just plain irrelevant as no one has made that claim in any articles in a RS that I have found. Collect (talk) 22:54, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

POV I share the views of Manticore, Jim62sch and Writegeist. Also agree with Factchecker atyourservice (14:43) @ section dinos again?, but -as some could add- you should probably presume that I'm biased in this view as I was the one citing the LA Times article concerning Palin's absurd YEC-views, to which I believed in (without checking its original sources).. and still do. Probios (talk) 21:57, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

As of 00:01 18 October 20,2008;

1....POV biased

2....I agree (POV biased)

3....Its Mostly OK

4....GRSV....?

5....NPOV

6....POV

7....Neutral enough

8....POV biased

9....POV biased

10..POV

11..POV

12..POV

13..POV

This is merely intended as a tally. It only shows editors that have CLEARLY expressed an opinion. If necessary I can display the editors that were included in this count. It is not meant to support a vote, as it were. But, to provide a tally of where we are as to LLLL's initial request. We all know how a wiki conversation can weave in and out of topic...and rightfully so. --Buster7 (talk) 00:42, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Where we are is well over 300 lines in a stream of consciousness leading to no conclusions at all. As for the "vote" -- there isn't one. No political article will ever be free of all POV -- but note that people here have stated either that it is balanced, ot that it is pro or anti Palin POV -- which is basically tautological. Lots of lines, no result. Collect (talk) 01:02, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

"Tautological"--great word, Collect! :) Fcreid (talk) 01:11, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Why comment Collect? If your not interested why not just sit on the sidelines and watch. What is the purpose of your critique? --Buster7 (talk) 01:25, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

First, I was canvassed. Second, I have a right to comment. I did not think every person has to have some sort of "purpose" do they? Collect (talk) 01:27, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Comment, yes...critique..not so sure. Sometimes it is socially "nice" to just shut your trap...so to speak! Unless your purpose is hidden, of course.--Buster7 (talk) 02:02, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Since the middle of August this article has experienced an impressive display of protectionism and political censorship. Some editors have been engaged in a conscious campaign to --confront--frustrate--and-- discourage their fellow editors. Mere attempts to bring alternative points of view to the attention of editors were "shot down" via intentional tactics of misdirection. They became lost in the shuffle of long winded and much too wide ranging discussions (much like this thread). Minor details were constantly attacked ~~by members of the administration~~ by those that support Gov Palin. Changes were allowed but only on pro-Palin terms and with a pro-Palin lexicon.

Surprisingly, the article is a worthy piece of work. But, IMO, if any neutrality exists it is primarily thru the efforts of so called anti-Palinists. In no way do I mean to discredit the commendable efforts of pro-Palinists. Most were fair-minded and good faith editors.

As it stands, we all came with agendas but most of us did our best to juggle our political desires with our commitment to the Wikipedia project. I think we have created a commendable article.--Buster7 (talk) 01:56, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

To wrap it up to you Collect semi-tautologically, opinion of the contributors @ the present moment is that the article is POV/biased ~~because the gang of Sarah Palin (Palinists?) is doin' a lot of coffee while trying to keep the article pro-Palin.~~ I propose that a POV -label is included to the article. Probios (talk) 03:19, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

While the inter-tribal antagonism of opposing viewpoints re:Palin raged on, there was a third group of editors that deserve mention--Quality Control Editors. QCE's...Slrubenstein, JamesMLane and MastCell come to mind. We should all be glad that they occasionally grabbed the wheel and kept us on course.--Buster7 (talk) 07:42, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

I want to clarify again that the value of the POV tag, which I agree should generally be avoided, is to clarify to readers who do not visit discussion pages that there is a lack of agreement about certain key matters, and that this disagreement has not been resolved despite attempts at consensus. The rape kit issue, religion issue, qualifications issue, etc. have been around now for about a month if not more, and no resolution has been reached despite dozens of archive talk pages. (I'll just note that this is the only time I have ever posted a POV tag at the top of an article, in all my time editing. I once did so for a small section on an Israel article.). LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 08:08, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Since some of the POV people are pro-Palin and some anti-Palin, it seems that you will always find a reason for a POV tag. What you needed to have asked was whether ON BALANCE the article has too much pro , too much anti, or about as close as we can get. We can not be Goldilocks only accepting "just right" for one side or the other -- the issue is "Is it reasonably close?" Collect (talk) 12:14, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

NPOV - Pretty Close The article is much less a Pro-Palin panegyric than it was before, with the 'Pro-Palin' editors being contested by the 'add every controversy' crowd. The Palins' ties to the AIP seem relevant to the article. See the article on the Canadian Governor-General Michaëlle Jean which mentions sovereignist sympathies on the part of her and her husband [[10]]. Don't freeze the article til after the election. Overall I think it's pretty balanced. Corlyon (talk) 13:55, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Let's face it, politicians are always controversial while they're politicians. — Rickyrab | Talk 04:51, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

WhipperSnapper, you are the only person who shares this view. You are also advertising. WP:Spam. If somebody hangs an effigy in town square, it is only notable if the New York Times reports on it. Capiche? If you insist on discussing this further, pick an editor and take it to that editor's talk page, else seek an admin. Comments deleted. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 07:07, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

@WhipperSnapper...Your "sleight of hand" attempt to mention the movie does not go un-noticed, even by editors that are not in the Palin camp. Wikipedia is not a site to provide FREE ADVERTISING. IMO, that is the only reason you keep bringing it up. It has absolutely no place on or near this article. The fact that her campaign may control content is irrelevant in regards to this matter.--Buster7 (talk) 06:47, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

In case I didn't post it explicitly somewhere else in this thread, my opinion is that this article, but more especially its most dedicated editors, are resolutely pro-Palin POV-pushing to the tune of promotional campaign literature. Both puffery and wrongful suppression of established commentary are rampant.Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 07:03, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Then where's the marathon, Factchecker? :) Fcreid (talk) 14:12, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean. I am simply trying to ensure that a blitz of interested editors don't lock this article down as a promotional piece during the brief period where it will really be of wide significance.Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 17:56, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

It was an allusion to my "Marathon Yardstick" I've mentioned a few times, Factchecker. I personally find certain things to be remarkable measurements of character based on my experience. Palin ran a four-hour marathon in 2005. As a (then) mother of four, one must appreciate the degree of physical preparation that must have taken, coupled with the emotional discipline actually to achieve it. Yes, maintaining a mere ten-minute mile for four consecutive hours is far from world-record setting, but it speaks to me and I'm sure many others. Anyway, it was in the article around the time I first arrived here, and was removed as "fluff" and re-added myriad times since. I use that as my personal yardstick for whether I even seriously consider inclusion of these incidental and tangential smears that keep appearing. If someone proposes something that entailed as much direct involvement on her part as this marathon, it meets my yardstick. Most everything else does not. Fcreid (talk) 18:24, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

My answer is, yes, Pov, on both sides, with the following qualifications:

Too broad a category. Individual sections may be biased, others are not. The question is flawed.
PoV bias is largely informed by PoV bias.
There is no conclusion stated for this polling. In itself, it does not further the article. Conclusions must be drawn and action taken that is pursuant to those conclusions. Anarchangel (talk) 02:42, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

On the subject of the "marathon yardstick". This would be a good rule of thumb for a sympathetic biography of Palin published for commercial purposes. However, on Wikipedia, the standard to be met is that material be RELEVANT TO THE SUBJECT'S NOTABILITY. If Palin were notable for being an athlete or a double amputee, her running in a marathon would be clearly relevant to her BLP. Since she's a politician, it's not clearly relevant, no matter how much moxy, gumption, or stick-to-it-iveness it took. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 19:44, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Oh, but the gynecological record of her childbirth is relevant to her notability? Give me a break, Factchecker. I'll credit you with introducing some balance into the article early on, but at this point you're simply being disruptive for no apparent reason. Fcreid (talk) 20:02, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

"on the subject of the marathon yardstick", not "on the subject of Palin gynecology". I've said nothing on that subject whatsoever so don't try to imply I'm guilty of trying to insert inappropriate material. And I give you a bit of credit too, but on the whole I think you are simply doing your best to minimze criticism in the article rather than reflecting the actual body of published opinion, which is precisely what Wikipedia and Wiki BLPs do. What's more, you misinterpret the rules in order to make misleading arguments, and you're not alone. Case in point are the claims about major news articles not being "reliable sources" based on considerations that are wholly outside Wikipedia guidelines and goal, and in direct violation of the actual Wikipedia policies on reliable sources. This kind of behavior, this unwillingness to accept what the rules and guidelines say, is what is disruptive -- not my good faith attempts to see that notable criticism is included here (as appropriate) and phrased in neutral, factual terms.Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 20:09, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

With respect, both sides are guilty of misinterpreting or ignoring rules to further their own agendas (case in point). Some of the edits we have seen here to include controversy and spurious criticism could just as easily be interpreted as attempts to smear the governor in the lead-up to the election. There have been legitimate problems with some of the content people have tried to add, be it undue weight or outright distortion, and people have defended it here nonetheless. What we need to do is clearly define what issues have yet to be resolved, then focus on proposed material to add to the article in each case. »S0CO^{(talk|contribs)} 20:29, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

"Sarah and the Dinosaurs" fails on two fronts. First, "red flag" tells us to watch for outrageous claims not supported by secondary sources and contrary to other documented behavior of the subject. It also fails as "significant" (notable), as the opinion is from a music teacher with no more voir dire to speak on Palin than the Starkist Tuna. The "rape kit" fails on notability, as the incident involves the Wasilla Police Chief, Fannon, and no RS ties Palin to the event other than through proximity. One RS was willing to print "she would've/could've/should've" known about the incident (what a shock!), but introduces nothing to substantiate that position. Thus, the incident does not involve her and falls far short for inclusion in Palin's biography. Fcreid (talk) 20:47, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Since my opinions apparently don't count unless I use bold, I'll say POV-pushing, pro-Palin and add that pro-Palin editors are repeatedly and (in my opinion) deliberately citing policy falsely or inappropriately in order to disqualify material or sources. Specifically,
1) people are saying that WP:BLP says only verified facts should go in a BLP.
2) people are saying that WP:BLP says that facts about opinions DON'T go into a BLP
3) people are saying that WP:BLP prohibits reflecting the views of critics in an article
4) people are saying that WP:Verifiability says that editors are expected to conduct OR by combing reliable sources looking for hidden biases which are then used to (falsely) claim that the source is "not reliable"
5) people are saying that WP:Synth says that articles which include synthesis should not be included
6) people are saying that WP:NPOV means that criticism should be excluded, rather than properly sourced and stated in neutral, factual terms
7) people are saying that WP:Verifiability includes some caveat that editors can disqualify published material because they don't think it was published in a "timely" fashion with respect to the subject.
8) people are suggesting, at least, that WP:Consensus overrides all other policies and guidelines!! and that we must please people even when they are demonstably wrong on a specific policy issue

I'm sure I could go on, but I only have so much time. All of these arguments are false and contradicted directly by the policies cited by the people making the false arguments. THIS is the ongoing problem of this article... not rape kits, the AIP, or Jesus ponies.... just plain ignorance or disregard of the rules.Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 20:53, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Your list is counterproductive. Misrepresenting the legitimate conserns of other editors is uncivil. Collect (talk) 21:01, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

My list is a cut and dry laundry list of the numerous bogus arguments that have been floated here in an effort to preclude notable and properly sourced criticism. Concerns are not "legitimate" if they are based on a fully false intepretation of a clear and unambiguous rule. And you make very little attempt to be civil, yourself. Thanks Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 21:07, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Please, direct our attention to specific instances where some of these tactics have been employed. The list is pretty vague. If I'm reading this correctly, point four applies directly to the dinosaur argument, where editors were trying to turn the claim of a political opponent (which was reported as such in the source) into a statement of fact. »S0CO^{(talk|contribs)} 21:15, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

All 8 bogus arguments I listed were used to exclude the rape kit material, even though the material was presented in a very neutral fashion in the article. Before I spend hours digging through Talk archives, could you please tell me what would be the purpose of me dredging up the discussion to prove my points? It's not like any action would be taken against the people responsible. And the same bogus arguments would continue to be made despite having been shown wrong again and again. I will consider digging up these comments if you will make a committment to helping me warn the involved editors against such conduct, explain to them the actual meaning of the rules they misinterpret, and make a committment to helping me police the article and talk page for such bogus arguments.

I am less concerned about the dinosaur/new Earth creationist comments, mainly because it is not as well sourced as the rape kit material and I am trying to pick my battles (only so much time in the day). I somehow doubt anyone was trying to present the dino guy's comments as fact. If so, it wasn't me. Are you sure that's how it went down? Would you mind pointing out that edit? I would never have inserted material in that fashion, but merely attributed the claim to the person who said it and the article that cited it.Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 21:25, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

I know it wasn't you, but you defended the more recent of the two edits in the discussion I linked (↑). Here are the article edits in question: [11] [12]. »S0CO^{(talk|contribs)} 21:31, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

But I wasn't defending any particular edit. I was defending use of the source (the LA Times article).Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 21:50, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

That wasn't really clear to me from the argument you had made, but I can accept that. »S0CO^{(talk|contribs)} 21:56, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

I admit that's my fault. I haven't made my intentions clear. After some initial editing, when I realized just how much controversial debate there was on this article, I decided that I should for the most part "keep my hands off". From that point on, my main focus has been discussing the issues on the talk page since all the changes are mediated through that. And in many of my recent arguments, I have not been arguing for any specific edit, but rather arguing against the sometimes improper ways that edits were challenged. To me, that is very important because if improper challenges are allowed to stand, they may become the norm. I have, in my opinion, seen this phenomenon in action in other articles, and the results are ugly.

Anyway, I only spent a few minutes on it, but for whatever it may be worth to you, here was my original edit to address the rape kit issue in a neutral way. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sarah_Palin&diff=245282445&oldid=245281592

I think the wording was quite proper and NPOV. Notice that I give the last word to the Palin spokeswoman. Like I said at the time, I think it is probably not perfect, but definitely acceptable.Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 22:13, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

And reading that, I have to say it's very fair and neutral to all parties involved. If it could be compressed a bit to conform with WP:Undue, then by all means I say it should go in. »S0CO^{(talk|contribs)} 23:05, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

I placed my admittedly novice understanding of the relevant WP policy in my statements just above yours regarding dinosaurs and rape kits. If I am mistaken, I would appreciate it if you would educate me specifically where I am wrong, so that I may learn. More importantly, if I am truly mistaken, I insist that these identical standards be employed at every candidate's article for parity, and I would expect your support for such an effort. Frankly, I think the Obama team is doing exactly the right thing filtering out blatantly partisan nonsense, but if you wish to lower the standards, you must do so universally and not unilaterally. Fcreid (talk) 21:01, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Uhm, I think Wikipedia doesn't have any tit-for-tat policies saying one article gets special treatment in light of another article. In any case I don't have time to edit the Obama article in addition to this one.

For explanation of where you are wrong, read the above list and the policies mentioned in it. I've already explained some of them to you specifically. For example WP:Synth means EDITORS should refrain from introducing synthesis, not sourced articles; synthesis within reliable sources is completely appropriate and comprises a consierable bulk of the material on Wikipedia. WP:BLP states that BLPs contain both verified facts and factual statements about notable opinions. WP:BLP also explicitly states that notable and relevant criticism must be included. WP:Verifiability says that editors are not to inject their own opinions or research into properly cited material, or second-guess such articles (which constitutes original research). WP:NPOV says that criticism should NOT be excluded, but rather attributed properly and couched in neutral factual terms ("NYT article quotes critic X as saying Y..."). Etc.Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 21:16, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

I sense you're being obtuse. Maybe you should alternate time between both articles if you think you could help improve that one? I cited specifically this [13] to indicate the "Sarah and the Dinosaurs" assertions from Munger, a music teacher and blogger (as indicated in the LA Times), fall in the category of "exceptional claims require exceptional sources" in that they are not substantiated by other sources, are out-of-character for the subject and would actually be a violation of WP:BLP. On the rape kits, I cited [14] in that WP:NOTABILITY requires that the claim be specifically correlated to pertain to the subject and, further, goes on to state that "Presumed" means that substantive coverage in reliable sources establishes a presumption, not a guarantee, of notability. Editors may reach a consensus that although a topic meets this criterion, it is not suitable for inclusion. Thus, it is my belief that although the rape kit claim has been covered in some RS, that it only establishes presumption (not objective fact) that Palin was even involved and, more importantly, that the fact it was cited in RS does not necessary mean consensus will be to include such non-notable facts. Where am I wrong? Fcreid (talk) 21:33, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

“Exceptional claims require exceptional sources” says that you exclude a claim if you don’t have a good source for it. The LA Times is a good source. Guidelines simply say that the view should not be presented as if it were true, or as if it were a majority view, but should be properly sourced and attributed to the person who holds the view. The article specifically points out that Munger is a critic who runs an anti-Palin blog. This is a perfect example of why the LA Times is a reliable source. The appropriate thing to do is mention the claim and attribute it to the LA Times article’s interview of Munger, and include the contextual information about who Munger is. To INSTEAD analyze that information that Munger is a critic, and thereby decide the article isn’t a reliable source because it quotes that critic, is, as I have REPEATEDLY stated, original research and completely in violation of Wiki goals and policy. Anyway, on to the rape kit claims, they have been published in numerous reliable sources. You may feel that they are not notable because there is no proof Palin authorized or knew about the policy; I would counter that the on-the-record presumption that she probably DID know, as well as the circumstantial evidence cited in the articles suggesting that she would have known, and the Palin spokesperson’s REFUSAL TO ANSWER whether Palin knew about it, completely obliterate that objection. Additionally, there is the NYT piece stating the opinion that she SHOULD have known even if she did not. Anyway, again, it is not expected that an article factually substantiate a claim before it can be cited as referencing that claim. So the fact that the articles don’t establish as a fact that Palin knew is especially irrelevant... they don’t SAY for a fact that Palin knew, nor would a Wikipedia article reflecting those sources say that this was a fact.Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 22:40, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Is the LA Times an "exceptional" source, Factchecker? Doesn't the fact that other mainstream RS have not provided a similar megaphone for this blogger/musician give you even the slightest pause in accepting the story at face value? Don't you think countless other newspapers would have jumped on the story if they could have sourced it with any degree of credibility? Regardless, we cannot arbitrarily eliminate the other legs of a WP:REDFLAG triad, i.e. that these are outrageous claims not substantiated by multiple RS, and that the claims are contrary to other documented behavior of the BLP subject. I know you've already stated you have no desire (beyond principle), to include this, but I assure you we've not heard the last of it. I contend this should be the first topic in our "FAQ to Exclude" page. Fcreid (talk) 12:50, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

^ The page for the Ketchikan bridge T-shirt photoWP
^ Knowles signs sexual assault bill
^ ""Four Pinocchios for Palin"". Washington Post. Jake Tapper (October 12, 2008). "Palin Makes Troopergate Assertions that Are Flatly False". ABC News. "Palin: Probe Exonerated Me". CBS News. October 12, 2008.
^ "Palin says report vindicates her, Governor offers no apologies for her role in "Tasergate."". Anchorage Daily News.
^ ""Four Pinocchios for Palin"". Washington Post.
^ Wasilla city crime stats

[TshirtInfo-1] The page for the Ketchikan bridge T-shirt photoWP

[2] Knowles signs sexual assault bill

[3] ""Four Pinocchios for Palin"". Washington Post. Jake Tapper (October 12, 2008). "Palin Makes Troopergate Assertions that Are Flatly False". ABC News. "Palin: Probe Exonerated Me". CBS News. October 12, 2008.

[4] "Palin says report vindicates her, Governor offers no apologies for her role in "Tasergate."". Anchorage Daily News.

[5] ""Four Pinocchios for Palin"". Washington Post.

[WasCrime-6] Wasilla city crime stats

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]