Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 14:48, 10 January 2009

Template:Community article probation

view · edit Frequently asked questions To view an explanation to the answer, click the link to the right of the question. Q1: This article is over 70kb long. Should it be broken up into sub-articles? A1: The restriction mentioned in WP:SIZE is 60kB of readable prose, not the byte count you see when you open the page for editing. As of September, 2008, this article had about 4,100 words (approximately 26 KB) of text, well within the guideline. The rest is mainly citations and invisible comments, which do not count towards the limit. Q2: Should the article have a criticisms/controversies section? A2: A section dedicated to criticisms and controversies is no more appropriate than a section dedicated solely to praises and is an indication of a poorly written article. Criticisms/controversies/praises should be worked into the existing prose of the article. See also the essay on criticism. Q3: Should the article include (one of various controversies/criticisms) if a reliable source can be provided? This article is a hit piece. Should the article include (various forms of generic praise for Palin) if a reliable source can be provided? A3: Please try to assume good faith. Like all articles on Misplaced Pages, this article is a work in progress so it is possible for biases to exist at any point in time. If you see a bias that you wish to address, you are more than welcome to start a new discussion, or join in an existing discussion, but please be ready to provide sources to support your viewpoint and try to keep your comments civil. Starting off your discussion by accusing the editors of this article of having a bias is the quickest way to get your comment ignored. Although it is certainly possible that the article has taken a wrong turn, please consider the possibility that the issue has already been considered and dealt with. The verifiability policy and reliable source guideline are essential requirements for putting any material into the encyclopedia but there are other policies at work too. Material must also meet a neutral point of view and be a summary of previously published secondary source material rather than original research, analysis or opinion. In addition, Misplaced Pages's Biography of living persons policy says that "views of critics should be represented if they are 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 side with the critics give a disproportionate amount of space to critics". Perhaps there is simply no consensus to include the material...yet. Also, the material might be here, but in a different article. The most likely place to find the missing material would be in an article on the 2008 presidential campaign. Including everything about Palin in a single article would exceed Misplaced Pages's article size restrictions. A number of sub-articles have been created and some controversies/criticisms/praises have been summarized here or been left out of this article altogether, but are covered in some detail in the sub-articles. Q4: Should the article include (one of several recent controversies/criticisms/praises/rumors/scandals)? Such items should be covered in detail in the main article, not buried in a sub-article. A4: Misplaced Pages articles should avoid giving undue weight to something just because it is in the news right now. If you feel that the criticism/controversy/praise is not being given enough weight in this article, you can try to start a discussion on the talk page about giving it more. See also the Misplaced Pages "BOLD, revert, discuss cycle". Q5: If Misplaced Pages is supposed to be the encyclopedia anyone can edit, should I just be bold and fix any biases that I see in the article? A5: It is true that Misplaced Pages is the encyclopedia that anyone can edit and no one needs the permission of other editors of this article to make changes to it. But Misplaced Pages policy is that, "While the consensus process does not require posting to the discussion page, it can be useful and is encouraged." This article attracts editors that have very strong opinions about Palin (either positive or negative) and these editors have different opinions about what should and should not be in the article, including differences as to appropriate level of detail. As a result of this it may be helpful, as a way to avoid content disputes, to seek consensus before adding contentious material to or removing it from the article. Q6: Why is this page semi-protected (locked against new and anonymous users)? A6: This page has been subject to a high volume of unconstructive edits, many coming from accounts from newer users who may not be familiar with Misplaced Pages's policies regarding neutrality, reliable sourcing and biographies of living people. In order to better maintain this page, editing of the main article by new accounts and accounts without a username has been temporarily disabled. These users are still able and encouraged to contribute constructively on this talk page.

Sarah Palin was nominated as a good article, but it did not meet the good article criteria at the time (September 25, 2008). There are suggestions on the review page for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated.

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Biography: Politics and Government This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography This article is supported by the politics and government work group (assessed as High-importance). United States: Presidential elections Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. presidential elections. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Alaska High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Alaska, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Alaska on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AlaskaWikipedia:WikiProject AlaskaTemplate:WikiProject AlaskaAlaska High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Politics High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. United States: Idaho This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Idaho.

This article has been mentioned by multiple media organizations: Brian Krebs (2008-08-29). "Misplaced Pages Edits Forecast Vice Presidential Picks". The Washington Post. Yuki Noguchi (2008-08-29). "Palin's Misplaced Pages Entry Gets Overhaul". NPR. Chris O'Brien (2008-08-29). "Tug of war over Wiki entry on Palin". Mercury News. Natalie Weinstein (2008-08-30). "Sarah Palin Misplaced Pages edits--fast and furious". CNET News. Noam Cohen (2008-09-01). "Don't Like Palin's Misplaced Pages Story? Change It". The New York Times. Jemima Kiss (2008-09-01). "Sarah Palin's immensely flattering Misplaced Pages entry". The guardian. Mike Harvey (2008-09-01). "Sarah Palin Misplaced Pages entry gets glowing make-over from mysterious user Young Trigg". The Times. Roberto Reale (2008-09-02). "Misplaced Pages e la biografia "ripulita" di Sarah Palin". RAI. Mark Sabbatini (2008-09-02). "Misplaced Pages war emerges over details about Palin". Juneau Empire. Iain Simons (2008-09-02). "Who scrubbed Palin clean?". New Statesman. Andrew Sullivan (2008-09-15). "The Odd Lies Of Sarah Palin II: The Bridge To Nowhere". The New Statesman. Stephanie Condon (2008-09-17). "Sarah Palin winning the Misplaced Pages popularity contest". The Atlantic. Farhad Manjoo10 (2008-09-22). "Why Google's online encyclopedia will never be as good as Misplaced Pages". Slate.{{cite news}}: CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link) Noam Cohen (2008-11-09). "Updating a Reference Site on the Fly". The New York Times.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Sarah Palin article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65Auto-archiving period: 7 days

Adding your text to an older thread of discussion may be more appropriate than starting a new one

Semi protect the talk page IMO

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

Straw poll on rape kits

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Eliminate mention of rape kit billing from Palin bio

1. Kelly 20:41, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
2. --Evb-wiki (talk) 20:46, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
3. Billing insurance companies can be briefly mentioned in sub-article but not in this main article (cuz Palin may not have known about it), and billing victims should be in neither article (cuz no evidence it happened in Wasilla).Ferrylodge (talk) 20:50, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
4. after reviewing the arguments on the talk page, this seems to be essentially an election meme without real evidence that any victims were billed. Dman727 (talk)
5. This is purely and totally talking head muckracker that reared its ugly head 2 hours after Palin's nomination. It is a totally minor blip on the radar of Palin's mayorship and nothing to date has even really tied this to Palin other than she was the mayor when Fannon objected to a bill when asked by a local newspaper. This crap would last a nano second on the Obama article and rightly so. Cheers and Happy New Years to all!! --Tom 21:31, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
6. The undue weight given to this issue is ridiculous. Political figures are more than the sum of their blog-generated controversies. Coemgenus 22:49, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
7. As an analogy, Stephen Conroy's internet censorship plans (a massively controversial plan which is a major part of his political career) consists of half a sentence in his biography, with the main information rightfully being placed elsewhere. The payment of rape kits in Wasilla is not as major an issue in Palin's career as Conroy's internet censorship plans, therefore should have half a sentence less. If people really cared about rape kits rather than wanting a talking point, maybe the rape kit article would mention that some jurisdictions are still billing victims. Andjam (talk) 02:38, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
8. I think that this is clearly an issue that is not notable in Palin's biography, but only in the campaign article. As I have stated many times, I believe its inclusion is a violation of BLP guidelines and put undue weight on an issue which seems never to have really related to Palin directly. However, I am willing to keep the consensus language to which Factchecker refers below if it will end this discussion once and for all.LedRush (talk) 02:48, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
9. Beyond the attention this never-invoked policy to which no direct Palin connection has been made received during the campaign, I fail to see how this is relevant to Palin's biography. I hate to draw parallels between this and Obama's article, but Obama's connection to Bill Ayers earned far more notoriety in the press, yet his biography appropriately makes no mention of it. I think the same standard should be applied here. »S0CO 03:40, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
10. This "controversy" is much ado about nothing. Nothing happened. It has nothing to do with Palin. It is notable only as an illustration of the absurd reaching that partisan attacks can take during a political campaign. Its inclusion makes the article and Misplaced Pages look absurd. It is ridiculous that it was ever allowed into the article.--Paul (talk) 04:56, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
11. No connection has been established to Palin and the underlying activity, charging the insurance companies of victims, is far less sinister than the original attention-getting claim of charging victims themselves. National political campaigns typically produce a large number of accusations that receive press coverage but are never substantiated. They may belong in an article about the campaign, but not in a bio.--agr (talk) 14:14, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
12. After watching arguments on both sides of this issue over the past couple months, I see no reason to include this information in a bio of Palin. JenWSU (talk) 14:55, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
13. The rape kit stuff is inappropriate in the Palin bio. I am also opposed to the compromise statements which have proven to be a camel's nose under the tent kinda thing where not only does the whole camel come in but the caravan along with it. WTucker (talk) 18:38, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
14. Agree with the large number of editors who have already weighed in on the material which is not only not relevant to a BLP, is filled with conjecture, hits the lines of WP:UNDUE and more, but which consensus seems to be clear on as not belonging in the article. Collect (talk) 18:43, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
15. An utterly silly attack --B (talk) 20:59, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
16. Total non-issue. Sceptre 12:19, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
17. A trumped up non-controversy that only exists to be used as a weak attack upon Palin. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 12:24, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
18. Leotohill (talk) 19:50, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
19. I say eliminate for the reasons I stated below. This was just an attempt at mudslinging, and a poor one at that. Zaereth (talk) 22:50, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Keep mention of rape kit billing in Palin bio

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

4. Jimmuldrow (talk) 14:50, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
5. Significant news coverage, public statements of rebuke from multiple national women's rights groups, and a point of discussion in her candidacy for VP. Relates to her views on family-planning and religion, as well as demonstrates how she conflated her personal and professional goals, in the name of 'cutting costs'. ThuranX (talk) 00:06, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

It probably will not change your view, Thuran, but you just described exactly what this issue is not. There is no evidence Palin was even aware of this practice. Therefore, it says nothing on her views on family planning, religion or cutting cost at any expense. In short, you took the media hype hook, line and sinker, and your statement represents exactly the reason why so many editors are intent on not even including the matter in this article (to preclude other gullible souls from doing likewise). Fcreid (talk) 01:05, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

As discussed below - the fact that Palin wasn't aware doesn't mean it shouldn't be included, as per two out of three of the Grant scandals.--danielfolsom 01:10, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

This rises to the same level as those scandals?? --Tom 21:09, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Edit request

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"During your tenure as mayor in 2000, then police chief Charlie Fannon commented in a May 23, 2000 Frontiersman article about legislation Gov. Tony Knowles signed protecting victims of sexual assault from being billed for rape kits collected by police as part of their investigations. Fannon revealed then that Knowles’ decision would cost Wasilla $5,000 to $14,000 a year, insinuating that the department’s policy was to bill victims for this testing. During your tenure as Mayor, what was the police department and city’s standard operating procedure in recovering costs of rape kits? Were any sexual assault victims ever charged for this testing while you were mayor?"
with

"The entire notion of making a victim of a crime pay for anything is crazy. I do not believe, nor have I ever believed, that rape victims should have to pay for an evidence-gathering test. As governor, I worked in a variety of ways to tackle the problem of sexual assault and rape, including making domestic violence a priority of my administration."

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

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

First sentences & relevant excerpts of new sections all started by Kelly.
Gallup is showing Palin as the world's second-most admired woman...
Just curious about how we should handle this article...we've got some new notable information...Saxby Chambliss credited
her...Human Events named her Conservative of the Year...and she's been invited to speak at the Conservative Political Action Conference...
Should we move discussion of the rape kit thingy to Misplaced Pages:Fringe theories/Noticeboard..?
Could someone explain why the rape kit thing belongs in Sarah Palin...?
Just a dump of some evidence links regarding the rape kit controversy...<includes Confederate Yankee link>
This is not intended to be binding...
Per the above, please remove...
Criticisms of bias are better spoken by the unbiased. In lieu of that, with factual evidence, as I have presented, and Kelly has not. Anarchangel (talk) 21:25, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In reference to prior discussions on this subject

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I have a couple of thoughts on this list:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Replied at your talk. »S0CO 20:45, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

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

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

Removed

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

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

"Fannon was made Police Chief by the City Council of Wasilla. Mayor Palin had no day-to-day control over police actions and practices. Budgets which were approved by the City Council made changes in how funds were allocated, but "rape kits" were not specifically dealt with in any single budget line item." is far closer to fact -- and it makes clear that there was no substantial nexus between Palin and any actions by a City Council appointed Police Chief, or between Palin and any use of budget line items. Collect (talk) 12:46, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Refrain from using quotes when you are not quoting something, or cite it, please. The Municipal Code shows Palin's duties as regards the Police Department, including:

"4. Appoint, suspend or remove city employees and administrative officials, except as provided otherwise in AS Title 29 and the Wasilla Municipal Code;
5. Supervise the enforcement of city law and carry out the directives of the city council;
6. Prepare and submit an annual budget and capital improvement program for consideration by the council, and execute the budget and capital program as adopted;
7. Make monthly financial reports and other reports on city finances and operations as required by the council;".

1. The Muni Code is a "primary source" and unless you are asserting specialist knowledge in the interpretation of it, then it can not be used. Note especially "EXCEPT AS PROVIDED OTHERWISE" and note also that you missed the fact that the City Council is the primary body in Wasilla. And you seem not to notice the "CARRY OUT THE DIRECTIVES OF THE CITY COUNCIL" as well. Fannon was not her "employee" - he was an employee of the City of Wasilla, pursuant to the direction of the City Council of Wasilla. As stated. Thank you most kindly! Collect (talk) 14:31, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

The budget for '94 had a line item called Contractual Services that was entitled: "costs for medical blood tests for intoxicated drivers & medical exam/evidence collection for sexual assaults." Subsequent budgets retained the name Contractual Services, and still showed medical exams, but did not contain the 'evidence collection for sexual assaults', as one would expect, if the Police Department had stopped paying for them. Or, something else happened to that. Which is why my edit to the main article showed that the line item for Contractual Services had been cut by an average of $400 a year since Palin became mayor, instead of claiming that it showed the kits had been cut. So it is both accurate and not misleading to say that the budget for the kits was cut, and that Fannon's department had charged for kits.

Aha!! Palin was Mayor in 1994!!!! A new fact -- I did not know anyone would actually try writing that one! Can you give us a cite for her being Mayor in 1994??? Collect (talk) 14:31, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

It was widely covered.. no evidence showing direct involvement by Palin has been found, and it's worth mentioning that despite addressing the issue in the press multiple times, Palin never actually said she was unaware of the policy or didn't approve of it. This leaves a fairly reasonable suspicion that she did know but is now trying to sweep it under the rug. As SSB just above pointed out, it's appropriate to simply state the facts and let readers form their own conclusions rather than withholding the facts for fear that readers might form the "wrong" conclusion.Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 19:18, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

"fairly reasonable suspicion " is why BLP rules exist. A BLP is not supposed to list stuff to give "fairly reasonable suspicions" (that is -- speculation) any foothold in any BLP article. Thanks for making this quite clear. Collect (talk) 19:27, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi, Collect. I wasn't talking about putting my suspicion into the article. But it would be wildly inappropriate to omit actual factual details which would even give a reader the basis upon which he or she might form such a suspicion. BLP guidelines don't exist to prevent the wrong ideas from gaining a "foothold". They exist to prevent Misplaced Pages from being used to commit libel -- not so that editors can try to influence what readers think about the subject by selectively omitting criticism based on their own original-research analysis that the criticism is false. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 19:39, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Nope. The reason is not "libel" it is "fairness" in a BLP. Absent facts to support your "suspicions" the material you use to support your "suspicions" is, at this point, under legitimate dispute. And, per BLP, such material requires a positive consensus for insertion. No matter what your "suspicions" are. Collect (talk) 20:31, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

"Fairness" would seem to indicate that notable criticism should be reflected, and that is in fact exactly what BLP policy says. BLP policy does not say that editors who think that a criticism or allegation should be included must factually prove the allegation or show that the criticism is absolutely accurate beyond any doubt or difference of opinion. Nor does the policy appear to say that unanimous approval must be gained for any and all additions of material. In fact, in the case of criticism and allegations, it seems fairly obvious that there will always be someone who disputes the allegation or criticism and argues it should not be included. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 20:40, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

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

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

LedRush, it seems to me that the standard you're applying is arbitrarily high. The issue received non-trivial coverage in more than one reliable source and Palin is a public figure. That generally marks an item as being "in bounds". To add the burden that the issue must be "widely covered," that coverage must be in the "mainstream press," and that it must have become a "substantial campaign issue" presents arbitrary obstacles to inclusion. Two editors have provided demonstration of Palin's link to the issue. As for the Obama biography, the Ayers issue certainly bears mention there, for the same reasons that this issue (and others) should be mentioned here. The reader must be allowed to consider the facts and draw their own conclusion, rather than be channeled one way or another. --SSBohio 17:11, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I would say "hear, hear" after each of your comments, but that would take up too much space, so I'll just say it here.

Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 19:18, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

The standard is nether arbitrary nor high. The reason the Ayers issue isn't in the Obama article is for precisely the same reasons that rape kits shouldn't be in here. The purpose of the much more widely covered and discussed Ayers issue was merely to hurt Obama by linking him to a controversy. Ditto Palin and rapekits. Remember, this article is a biography and its contents should be reasonably related to the topic. Both Ayers and rapekits belong in campaign articles, not biographies.LedRush (talk) 17:40, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

The standard stated exceeds what's in WP:BLP and it relies on subjective judgments about "wide coverage, "mainstream press," and a "substantial ... issue", which are more arbitrary criteria than found in WP:BLP. Therefore, I described it as "arbitrarily high." I meant no negative connotation, only that the bar was being raised higher and the criteria made less definite.

The reason the Ayers issue should be in the Obama biography (even if only a passing reference to a more in-depth article) is the same reason that this issue should be in the Palin biography. Obama's relationship with Ayers was the controversy: He was already intrinsically linked to it before any press reports came out. Similarly, Palin's role as mayor of a town that had a policy of billing for "rape kits" is the controversy here. That the controversy has been reported in reliable sources makes it includable here, as it involves the subject of this article. Do we need a multiparagraph exposition on the issue here? Not in my opinion. But, by the same token, not mentioning it at all omits what we know, which reduces the completeness of this article, and hence, its quality. I think there can be a middle ground between "all" and "nothing" where this issue is concerned. We just need to find it. --SSBohio 18:08, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

As it might help people to understand my 'agenda', which actually has been the subject of many a post here, on the basis of the articles currently cited there and on Ayers own page, I note that I support inclusion of sufficient material on the Ayers meetings in the Obama article to introduce it, and enough material -somewhere- to fully explore it. Anarchangel (talk) 21:25, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Ditto for me on that; ditto also on Rev. Wright. Pretending these were non-issues is not appropriate.Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 19:18, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, and I don't see my standards as being particularly arbitrary or high. I have stated my reasons many, many times on this talk page (some of which are still on this page)(I say this as an explanation of why my answers are short: it's nothing about your questions or arguments, just how many times I've addressed them on this page). Basically, this has nothing to do with her biography, there is no provable connection (so far, anyway) between Palin and the policy, and the mere mention of "rape kits" in this article will do damage to her reputation. Without more, insertion of this issue is a BLP violation, IMHO. Others, including Killer, disagree, and I can respect there opinion. I have participated in compromise language in the past to keep this issue from reoccurring, but editors just push for more and more to get included. My opinion is the best way to make sure that this article comports with Misplaced Pages standards and improves the quality of the article itself is to omit any reference to this issue.LedRush (talk) 19:57, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

It's been repeatedly noted that Wiki BLP's are not "biographies" in the traditional sense of "a book about someone's life". The genesis of a BLP on a subject is the subject's notability. We don't just take someone who's notable, reprint their resume and add fluffy details about their distance running exploits or whatnot. If there's been criticism and praise that's relevant to the subject's notability, we reflect it. Mentioning criticism is not only not a BLP violation... it's specifically required by the BLP guidelines.Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 19:18, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm glad you brought up the matter of the fact of her performance in the marathon. It has been repeatedly removed as "fluff" when it seems clear to many of us that it is a biographical fact that communicates real information about the subject of this biography, unlike some of the material pushed into the article.--Paul (talk) 19:35, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, real information which just happens to be totally irrelevant to the subject's notability ... this is in fact exactly why I chose that example. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 19:41, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Interesting claim. Unfortunately inaccurate. And adding material because you have a "suspicion" about a person is clearly in the category of material which does not belong in any BLP at all. Collect (talk) 19:30, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm not even sure what any of what you just said is supposed to mean. Which claim is inaccurate? And would it kill you to say how or why? And I certainly have not added any material to any article at all just "because I have a suspicion about a person"... this almost sounds like a PA. I have repeatedly, and with direct, explicit reference to BLP policy, stated why this criticism is appropriate for inclusion under BLP policy. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 20:26, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Birth of grandchild

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The whole story about the birth of the baby depends on a telephone statement by no less than Sarah Palin's aunt (Bristol's great aunt) to People magazine. Just that. Then Palin would not confirm it, and when she "did" she said merely that she was "over the moon" -- about what? (many of us see clearly that she has been over the moon all along) -- and then sidetracks into the issue of Bristol's and her allegedly-inlaw-to-be's level of scholarity and hardworkingness. No hospital report, no real confirmation except an oblique reference by Sarah. All of this raises the possibility that the baby has not yet really been born, and when it is born, will be passed off as being older than it is. Why would they want to push back the date of the baby's conception? Your guess is as good as mine, but in any case the statement by telephone of Sarah's aunt (Bristol's great-aunt) should not be sourced as a basis in fact for something for which no other evidence exists. For this reason, I would suggest removing all reference to the birth of this baby, including the birth date. AtomAnt (talk) 16:34, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

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

Correction needed

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Net Worth

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

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

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

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

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

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

{{editprotected}}

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

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

{{editprotected}}

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

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

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

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

Should asset value be reported, since we know it?

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

Sorry, I didn't read all three of your entries before responding (I just looked at the last diff). Anyway, I think it's misleading for two reasons: 1. we are used to discussing net wroth of candidates, not assets. People will see the list of assets and assume that's what her worth is...no one will say "I don't know what assets means, I should clink on the wikilink". 2. Candidates report net worth, usually, so why don't we just get a real source for that and put it in?LedRush (talk) 15:39, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

1) We also are used to discussing candidates' assets, as well. How much is their home worth? How many homes do they own? How many cars? A reader who wants to know how much "stuff" the person owns should be able to find that figure in their article, if it's been made public, as it is in many candidates' financial disclosures. That a reader might assume the wrong thing in the face of evidence to the contrary shouldn't cause us to remove a sourced fact from the article.

2) Candidates make detailed financial disclosures which include their total assets as well as their net worth. The figure isn't a secret. As for a "real source," we had a real source for her assets, so why don't we put it in? Saying she has a million dollars in assets is surely no slander to her; It's not even particularly wealthy anymore. It's just another neutral fact about Sarah Palin. --SSBohio 17:49, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Might you indicate that it is usual to put such speculation about net worth in a BLP? Any others you can name which have such (especially for such a low amount)? The cite, by the way, did not come from any financial disclosure forms but from an article which dealt with multiple facts about her -- including, if I recall correctly, the number of snowmobiles she owns. Ought that be in the article on the basis that it is a "fact" and therefore automatically belongs in the article? Collect (talk) 19:28, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

• I have no information that the source was speculating about the Palins' assets, much less their net worth. Do you?
• As to how usual it is, I'm not convinced it's a question of usualness; The information on the Palins' assets meets the Five Pillars, which govern inclusion of information in this encyclopedia. Because of Sarah Palin's candidacy for public office, the information was publically disclosed, as it was for John McCain, Barack Obama, and Joe Biden.
• The cite came from a putatively reliable source; If anyone wants to report on the Palins' ownership of snowmobiles, I suppose they could, though it might well fall into the realm of trivia. That would hardly be unique among Alaskans, as having holdings of $1 million would be. The value of their assets subsumes the value of their snowmobiles, however, and thus should be presented in preference to information about their snowmobiles. --SSBohio 20:02, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

The article specifically mentions snowmobiles with the same weight as the asset amounts -- if one is trivia, so is the other in this case. You make, moreover, a claim that having $1 million in total assets is unusual in Alaska (ignoring the reduction in home values in AK this past year) . If we grant that the Palins likely have $500K in mortgages and liabilities (which is highly likely to be conservative) then you state that only a very small percentage of Alaskans have a net worth of %500K for a family? Cite for any such claim? Note that McClatchey newspapers report the median net worth of members of Congress in about $750K, which, were she a Congresswoman, would make her relatively unwealthy. Senators have a median net worth of about $1.7 million. Far more than Palin has at the most optimistic claims. See also "The charitable giving of Gov. Sarah Palin and her husband totaled $3,325 in 2007, or 2% of their adjusted gross income, compared with Sen. Joe Biden and his wife's charitable giving of $995, or three-tenths of 1% of their adjusted gross income of $320,000." which does not, for some odd reason, make it anywhere near the Biden article. Collect (talk) 13:06, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Because there is something similar about the way they are presented in the article, and one has a certain quality, that the other must share that quality? "The article specifically mentions snowmobiles with the same weight as the asset amounts -- if one is trivia, so is the other in this case." is the most basic of logical errors: Association fallacy. Anarchangel (talk) 02:11, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

• The source may hold snowmobiles in as high an esteem as total assets, but that doesn't change the logical relationship between the two, nor does it change our treatment of them. The source provides facts. We write an article. We needn't have a slavish devotion to the importance the source places on one fact or another; It's the facts themselves that are important.
• To clarify: I only state the things I said, not the things I didn't. If you find a statement from me about Alaskans' net worth, please advise. As it is, an aside about the assets of Alaskans doesn't really bear on whether the Palins' assets are the subject of fair comment. And, were I attempting to place the Palins' net worth as a percentile, I'd look for a cite. I'm not. I won't.
• For the record: In Alaska, the median home value is $144,200 and the median household net worth is $166,180. Even assuming arguendo that every home in Alaska is 100% mortgaged, that would still suppose a median asset value of about $300,000. I'd say that having assets triple the median is at least outside the realm of normal expectation. More specifically, the balance sheet of a candidate for national office in the United States is ordinarily reported on as a matter of public record, regardless of whether it is in any other way remarkable.

Try math. With a house valued at $300K, a 100% mortgage would be $300K and "net worth" is about zero. More fairly, a per capita net worth of about $250K is typical for people in Palin's age group where both are employed. Thus a family net worth of about $500K is quite typical, and not out of normal expectation range. If they own property of $1 million with 50% liabilities (well below the "100% mortgage" you posited) that would bring them very much in line. And far from "outside the realm of normal expectation" to be sure! In fact, well within the realm of normal expectation. Collect (talk) 11:36, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

• The median net worth of Members of Congress is interesting. The median household net worth for Americans is $148,847. So, a Member of the House is worth about 5 ordinary Americans and a Senator is worth about 12. I'm not sure I see the relevance of the information to the question of whether to report on the Palins' assets. Were Palin a Congressperson, she'd be relatively unwealthy; By the same token, were Palin an airplane, she'd be relatively unairworthy. Fortunately, she is neither.  :-) Compared to other human Alaskans, her household is well above the median.

Per above, not true. It may be above the median, but not as much as almost EVERY Congrrssman or Senator, including those from Alaska. As such, it is not noteworthy for being high, but, if anything, for being quite modest. Collect (talk) 11:36, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

• The percentage of AGI that the Palins & Bidens gave to charity is an interesting statistic. Niether of them seems to be tithing, but both are giving something. I'd support including the information here & in the Joe Biden article, perhaps comparing each to the other. Adding it would aid our goal of disseminating knowledge, whereas redacting the Palins' asset value doesn't. --SSBohio 17:48, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Was there a demonstrated consensus to remove the asset value?

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

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

My holding was & is that there is no reason to remove the information. As for why it was included, I'd have to see who included it & whether they stated a reason. Nonetheless, I think it should remain in the article, as it is a sourced fact about the public figure who is the subject of this article. The candidates (for the most part) routinely release their financial information to the media. What is your argument to exclude the information in this particular case, when it's already been reported on in a secondary source? Also, to reiterate my unanswered question, how is the information misleading? What an asset is is surely no mystery, and any confusion could be solved by a well-placed wikilink. --SSBohio 15:25, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

The article puts her assets at an approximate number but the article talks about her net worth. The two measurements are not the same (net worth is assets minus liabilities) and therefore the language is misleading. If a source states her actual net worth, that's fine to include (you are right that this is sometimes included in BLPs and talked about of public officials). But just listing assets is misleading as people will think it's representative of net worth, which it's not.LedRush (talk) 15:31, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

To better answer your actual question, no one saw this issue as contentious (or very important), and the info was removed because it was factually incorrect.LedRush (talk) 15:40, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

The source used the term "assets" and the editor who added the information to the article incorrectly used the term "net worth." Why throw the baby out with the bathwater by removing the statement entirely? We can fix the incorrect terminology & retain the sourced fact. That was one of the solutions proposed when this issue came up. I agree that the issue is small and shouldn't be contentious. Rerading the information above, I see a consensus that the error needed to be rectified, but not that deleting the sentence was the only way to do so. Generally, we shouldn't be in the business of reducing the quantity of sourced facts in our articles. That's why I think we should keep the fact that was removed, while also correcting the description to read "assets" rather than "net worth." --SSBohio 17:49, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps you could show me where you see consensus for changing the term. I see 3 editors who want to remove the language and 1 who brought up the issue but didn't clarify if he wanted a change or removal, but after the fact agreed with removal. That's 4 editors who wanted removal and none who wanted change. Current numbers seem to be 5 to 1 (add you and me). The info for assets is bad for the reasons stated above, and I don't even see a reason for net worth to be mentioned at all, but will not stongly oppose its insertion. In fact, I'm going searching for sources now....LedRush (talk) 17:58, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I've never asserted a consensus for changing the term. I identified a consensus to retify the error, but no consensus that deletion was the only way to go about it. Prior to the removal, the only voice calling explicitly for deletion rather than correction was Kelly, with Collect defining the issue as "irrelevant to a BLP" and, presumably, worthy of deletion, although it wasn't explicitly stated. Arzel and Tom both explicitly allow for correction rather than deletion. After the fact, Arzel joined in the assertion that "assets are misleading," but that's not relevant to the question of whether a consensus to delete existed when SB Johnny carried out the edit requested by Kelly. At that point, there were 2 editors exclusively supporting deletion and 2 editors allowing for correction as an alternative to deletion. As I interpret it, there wasn't a majority or a consensus to use deletion as the only way to fix the problem Arzel identified at the time it was deleted. Adding each of our positions in, I come up with a headcount of 3 who advocate deletion exclusively and 3 who do not. Is there no flexibility to be found? I'd venture to say that some kind of compromise language is possible. --SSBohio 19:21, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I guess we are interpreting the other editor's statements differently. Tom wants the language removed unless another cite for net worth could be found, which means that the sentence should be deleted. Arzel argues about consensus, I would presume, as a defense of the deletion. Even if we don't include him/her in the count, you are still the only one who wants to include a mention of assets. Perhaps you and I should just hold off until the editors above weigh in about what they actually feel, seeing as you and I disagree as to how to categorize their opinions? Also, I think there is middle ground...find a citation and the info goes in...if not, no.LedRush (talk) 19:46, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Tom made no statements favoring removal of the information over correction of the terminology. Arzel explicitly requested either removal or correction, but in the context of their initial complaint about the inaccuracy of the statement. I think it's actually a question of frame of reference. I'm looking at opinion as either requiring deletion or not requiring it (allowing for some other resolution; You (in my view) are looking at opinion in terms of whether one explicitly opposes deletion. I'm pretty sure we hold compatible views of the other editors' positions, but that we're categorizing them differently.

The information about the Palins' assets was already sourced. If net worth were preferable to know, that wouldn't deprecate stating their assets in the absence of net worth. All I'm saying is: Restore the statement of assets, then revisit it when a source for net worth is found. --SSBohio 21:01, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

All I'm saying is, you're the only one arguing for the inclusion of a statement of assets. I've responded to your arguments above, and will leave it at that.LedRush (talk) 21:28, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

In point of fact, my argument is against the removal of the sourced information. Those who wanted it removed had the obligation to make that case. When editors fall back on arguments that don't actually support deletion, but that instead deprecate my objection to the deletion, that doesn't advance the discussion. The content was already there when it was removed without consensus. Shifting the burden of proof to me doesn't change that. It's up to those who want to change the article (by removing sourced content) to demonstrate a consensus to do so. The most liberal (pardon the pun) interpretation I could muster put the discussion at two requiring the sentence to be deleted & two not requiring it. Without a demonstrated consensus to delete prior to deletion, the sentence should be restored; That's an argument against deletion, not an argument for inclusion. I've argued inclusion because I'm willing to, but it's a secondary issue. --SSBohio 04:26, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, you are the only one arguing against the consensus to remove the sourced and misleading info. The others have made their positions clear (to me, and the admin, at least) and you alone object.

Clean-up

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

RFC or ANI?

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

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

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

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

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

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

Well, in fairness, he was basing the removal on his impression that there was a consensus for removal. It would seem that familiarity with the history of the debate would be requisite in accurately making such an assessment. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 19:18, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

As he did familiarize himself with the arguments, it would appear then that you back his decision. Thanks! Collect (talk) 19:44, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I've been asking you for months to drop the obvious sarcasm. Please oblige. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 20:20, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I was not being sarcastic there. Johnny made a goof faith effort to become familiar with the article and talk page. I would appreciate it if you would AGF here. Collect (talk) 20:34, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I AGF, Collect, but by saying "it would appear then that you back his decision. Thanks!" you were obviously making a sarcastic comment. You have done this countless times in the past. Please do not do it. It is obvious that I do not back Johnny's decision, and you know it. And please don't compound your sarcasm by accusing me of not AGF'ing when I ask you not to be sarcastic. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 20:44, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Fcreid, please read WP:Fringe... man-on-mars theory, moon-landing hoax, etc. Not even the same ballpark. I'm not even sure if I would categorize this as a minority opinion, but even if so it would be improper not to reflect it. Total omission would seem to violate WP:Weight by giving no weight at all to a significant opinion/controversy/allegation/whatever you want to call it. However, I do agree, and stated myself many months ago, that a well-fashioned NPOV reflection of this material would probably leave both "sides" feeling that the whole story was not being told.Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 19:18, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Iterated too many times. Omission of what should be omitted is what WP:BLP calls for. Collect (talk) 20:40, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Collect, I have made numerous separate and distinct points and you simply sit there and call them "iteration" without replying in substance. And BLP guidelines do not call for this specific criticism to be omitted, no matter how coyly you phrase it. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 20:46, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Notes of opposition to either RFC or ANI

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

No, it wasn't the "same folks", and anyway, attacking the messenger doesn't diminish the message.. plus, it was in a plethora of mainstream news sources, regardless of how biased you apparently think major new outlets are. It wasn't a blip on the political radar until the election because Palin wasn't a blip on the political radar until the election. Media coverage is proportional to notability, and Palin's notability skyrocketed the day she was named as VP candidate. Anyway, it would be a distortion to say it was a huge issue before the election, but Killer did not say this. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 19:18, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually some of the same folks were involved. No need to attack Tom, is there? Collect (talk) 19:44, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Which folks would those be? Croft? Knowles? And how was I attacking Tom, simply by pointing out that it's illogical to dismiss a claim just based on negative opinions about the person making the claim. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 20:20, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I demur. In fact, this article has been often discussed as a BLP, and no one in the WP discussions has ever said BLP does not apply to "a politician." In point of fact, it is political articles where BLP issues have most often arisen, and ruled to be BLP issues. I would most kindly ask that you ask those involved in (for example) , , , and scores more -- all of which assert that this is a BLP article, and that BLP guidelines and rules apply. Thank! Collect (talk) 13:46, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Collect, as I have pointed out to you at least a half dozen times, the only' BLP restriction on "contentious material" is that it must be well-sourced... and this contentious material is well sourced. As Anarchangel has repeatedly pointed out, and as I pointed out long ago, before him, the burden of evidence is met. And again, for the umpteenth time, comments or claims about how many kits were billed, etc, must also be sourced... your own opinions and research don't count for anything in a Misplaced Pages article. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 19:18, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

And again misciting BLP is not working for you. See also WP:3RR which says material which is disputed may be removed and requires consensus for insertion. And if there is a further dispute that we should then post on BLP/N. Did that elide your notice? Collect (talk) 19:44, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

If you're going to claim I am misciting BLP, it would help a lot if you could specifically say how. And 3RR says that poorly sourced controversial material may be removed if it violates BLP policy. This doesn't, nor is this content dispute really appropriate for a BLP noticeboard discussion. Furthermore, "elide" is a bit too fancy a word to be using here, and you are also using it incorrectly. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 20:20, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

You seemed to have inadvertently missed WP:3RR on this. As for "elide" my mom was a Latin teacher ... it means to leave out of consideration, which is preciesly what you appear to have done. It is not marked as "rare" or the like, and is, to my knowledge, a common word. As for using the equivalent of (sic) on someone's word usage, I find that a tad off-putting on a talk page, n'est-ce pas? Collect (talk) 20:57, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Could you please explicitly reference the text you are referring to? It would help you make your point and help me understand your point. And I do know what "elide" means... and you're using it incorrectly. When you say "did that elide your notice?" you are saying "did that omit from consideration your notice", or "did that suppress your notice?", or "did that leave out something of your notice?" Completely incomprehensible. The correct usage would be "have you elided that?" It's a transitive verb and the direct object is supposed to be the item that was elided. Even if you were speaking in Latin, using the original Latin word in that way would be incorrect. Anyway, I find the use of SAT words in casual conversation to be a bit pretentious, even though I absolutely destroyed the SAT back in high school. It's just a lot more polite and inclusive to use simpler words when simpler words are available, rather than using esoteric, uncommon words that most people are unfamiliar with. Ditto with French. This is English wikipedia. Just use clear, simple English words IMO. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 21:06, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"However, it is not in the article because editors of good faith used judgment in determining that it did not belong in a biography of a living person "

According to BLP guidelines, it does belong. It's notable and relevant criticism, properly sourced. The fake-pregnancy flap fails all of those criteria.. it's a totally irrelevant straw man with respect to this issue, and not a fit comparison. Anyway, just proclaiming that your "side" has better faith than the other, or that the numerous editors who have supported inclusion aren't good-faith editors, or whatever it is that you are trying to say, doesn't mean that we can ignore the actual policies on the subject. I can't even begin to address the vacuous rhetoric you present about tempests and teapots and the emperor's clothes. Comments are best kept on-topic and policy arguments should be mediated by actual references to policy instead of wishy-washy metaphors.Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 19:18, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps you like to lecture. Lengthy posts which iterate a position do not strengthen the position. Collect (talk) 19:44, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Vacuous rhetoric also does not strengthen a position. Why must you consistently make comments about me instead of debating on-topic?Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 20:20, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

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

Inclusion is supported by BLP policy, exclusion is not. If you believe exclusion is supported by policy, please state explicitly and in completely unambiguous terms why this is so, and in so doing, please don't offer any novel interpretations of the policies which would appear to contradict their plain language. Anyway, even if the rape kits aren't especially relevant to her life, they are relevant to her notability. As I've repeatedly pointed out, BLPs are not trivial articles about people that just happen to be notable... they are articles about topics relevant to the subject's notability. Anyway, the claims about "damage" to Palin are both false and moot. The stories were published by CNN, USA Today, NY Times, McClatchy, St. Pete Times, etc.... if there was "damage" done, they were responsible, not Misplaced Pages. Misplaced Pages doesn't publish criticisms -- it repeats them.Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 19:18, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Nope. Again iteration does not trump "Reverting the addition of libelous, biased, unsourced, or poorly sourced controversial material which violates the policy on biographies of living persons. What counts as exempt under BLP can be controversial. Consider reporting to Misplaced Pages:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard instead of relying on this exemption. " for example. And the onus is on the person seeking insertion to gain consensus in any event. Absent consensus, WP says disputed material does not belong in any BLP. Collect (talk) 19:44, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Are you calling the original articles (sources) poor sources? I cannot comprehend your meaning, and I presume your fellow editors might have a similar problem. KillerChihuahua 20:03, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Saying that the material is libelous, biased, unsourced, or poorly sourced, doesn't make it so. Saying that the material violates BLP policy doesn't make it so. None of what you just said actually applies to the media coverage which substantiates the rape kit issue. I also didn't see anything anywhere saying that a person attempting to add material needs to get unanimous approval before adding it, nor that "disputed material does not belong in any BLP". Seems to me you are still dramatically distorting policy whenever you attempt to cite it, just as you previously distorted policy when you tried to claim that "conjectural" and "contentious" material are both prohibited by BLP policy. (They are not -- conjectural interpretations of sources are prohibited, as is the insertion of unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 20:20, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Killer, perhaps my interjection won't be helpful, but I think that the disagreement stems from a divergence of opinion on whether the language in the BLP guidelines (suggestions?) that states "The burden of evidence for any edit on Misplaced Pages, but especially for edits about living persons, rests firmly on the shoulders of the person who adds or restores the material." is talking only about citations or whether it is a general rule on the insertion of contentious material. There is language that speaks directly about citations: "Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons—whether the material is negative, positive, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion." That the issue of unsourced material gets a specific and different procedure than other BLP edits makes me believe that the former quote is for all BLP edits and the latter just for poorly sourced ones. In a nutshell, poorly sourced material is to be removed immediately, while the burden of evidence rests on editors adding/restoring material for everything. Killer, what do you think?LedRush (talk) 20:28, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I have also wanted clarification on this for some time. My reading of it is that the "burden of evidence" means that the editor has to show that the material being added is substantiated by reliable sources -- not that the editor has to prove that the criticism or allegation is correct. Otherwise there would be no allegations at all in BLPs, since an allegation is by definition unproven, yet BLP policy does specifically 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." Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 20:33, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Just to be clear, it was never my contention that my reading of the "burden of evidence" would mean that the editor "has to prove that the criticism or allegation is correct. It is as stated above.LedRush (talk) 21:01, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

Tom, in fairness, you ought to be arguing about Obama at the Obama article... in particular, pushing for inclusion of Ayers/Wright in the main article, where it belongs. Also, it is by no means true that there were "few" editors arguing that this issue should be included. Perhaps three dozen editors have argued for inclusion. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 19:18, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

After ec x2:

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

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

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

I'll address my earlier comment to Tom, to you as well: Obama issues are best argued at the Obama article.Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 19:18, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

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

No comment on your previous involvement with this content issue? Kelly 19:08, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

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

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

I'm not resisting, because I'm not even tempted. If you look at the dif you linked, or better yet the dif of the edit you were talking about which is here I cited CON (as I believed it then was) on that reversion also. IOW, I wan't involved then either. And you're damn right we're not into wheel warring; that would happen only if Johnny have reverted me. KillerChihuahua 19:35, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

It was other comments in that thread that concerned me more, such as ...Well, duh, of course its supposed to make Palin look bad....KillerChihuahua?!? 23:24, 7 October 2008 (UTC) My only point here is that you should stand aside on this particular content issue and let a truly uninvolved admin handle this, that's all. Kelly 19:50, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) You're joking. Putting Palin and 'Rape victims must pay for their own evidence kits' together in an article, and often in the same sentence, is not supposed to make her look bad? Are you actually saying it was not intended to make Palin look bad???? Can you explain what other purpose this particular meme might have? Oh and btw, I'm still uninvolved, no matter how many posts you post to the contrary. That I've removed some BLP vios on this article and attempted to prevent you from committing over 7RR and so on doesn't make me involved, no matter how many edits it adds up to. KillerChihuahua 20:01, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Wow, OK. That was nonproductive. Well, let's hope some truly uninvolved admins dare to wander into this swamp. Kelly 20:06, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

KC, I'm a bit unsure of what your position is here. Are you saying that putting "rape kit" material into this article is intended to make Palin look bad? If so, then why would you also take the position that inclusion of the "rape kit" material is not only a non-BLP-vio, but is not even subject to BLP guidelines? Also, I agree with Kelly that this controversy might resolve itself more quickly with the help of a further admin, who has not been involved. I thought that the admin SB Johnny was doing a good and neutral job here.Ferrylodge (talk) 20:17, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I said, some time ago, that the original story was intended to be unflattering to Palin. Justly or unjustly; either way it isn't somethign which is designed to make her look good - and now Kelly is complaining about that rather simple observation. Inclusion or not in this article is a different subject. Clear? KillerChihuahua 20:25, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I have asked on WP:BLP/N pursuant to the instructions in WP:3RR in a neutral manner about the issue in question. I hope we can get some third opinions from the outside world. Thanks! Collect (talk) 17:21, 4 January 2009 (UTC) added to Collect (talk) 19:44, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

New RK section

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

-From above- "In addition to relevance in its own right, it has significance in the Stambaugh firing because of Stambaugh's assertion that he had proposed a line item in the budget to cover the cost of the kits. It is indispensable to an understanding of Palin's choice of subordinates, her handling of their policies, and her treatment of political rivals. I support the inclusion of any of Fannon's quotes, any and all material from the Legislature, the CNN article, and the source material on the budget from the Wasilla City Records department if links to that can be found, otherwise the HuffPo piece that links to that as a last resort, and anything I forgot. I specifically exclude support for inclusion of material from the SPT article as all of its material that doesn't rely for its notability on a negative proof can be found from other sources that reported earlier and with less editorializing. -Anarchangel 22:21, 28 Dec"

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

Your analogy is missing many key elements. Anarchangel (talk) 21:25, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

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

We don't know the extent of her knowledge. It is incorrect to say that. We do know involvement (Municipal Code and budget), and so it is also incorrect to say she had no involvement. Anarchangel (talk) 21:25, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

At least two dozen editors, and perhaps as many as three, have supported inclusion. Misplaced Pages is supposed to be about reaching a consensus, not a simple vote in which one side "defeats" the other, but even in a strict numbers game, it's entirely unclear whether there is actually a majority in favor of exclusion.Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 19:18, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

That's exactly the point - the mention has been already pared down to the minimum, and a majority of current editors are still arguing for complete removal - 15 of them, as opposed to to 4 arguing for inclusion (6, if we include Anarchangel and you). Kelly 19:32, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Kelly, I've already warned you on the BLP noticeboard - your sudden change to trying to paint me as "involved" and claiming I have a side" is total bullshit, and given your past on this subject, I advise you cease with the attacks and harassment. You tried to paint me as some Cabal member on a vendetta before; that failed. I assure you, your attempt to paint me as "involved" - including your sneaky little "if we count you" above - will also fail. Enough already; focus on the article. KillerChihuahua 20:04, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I've only asked for uninvolved admins to look into this. I'm baffled at why this has provoked such an emotional reaction. If you want to block me for asking about your previous involvement as an editor in this topic, please post for review at WP:ANI, thanks. Kelly 20:10, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

(Outdent) Kelly, calling me involved, emotional, whatever will not make it so, any more than your previous false accusations made them truth - and that you made them in response to my warning you about 6RR is a matter of record. Cease. I am done with this line of bullshit now. KillerChihuahua 20:18, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Reasonable people can probably differ about whether the word "bullshit" suggests some emotion, but I don't think there's any question about prior involvement.Ferrylodge (talk) 20:23, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I have attempted to enforce CON before, yes indeed. I also removed the Hustler nonsense as a BLP violation, with no apologies. Does NOT make me "involved" as you (who have been blocked for harassing me) and Kelly (who first went ballistic when I warned, not blocked, him/her about 6RR on this very article) keep trying to portray. Really guys, this is lame. Stop with the Campaign to paint KC as Involved! and get on with working on the actual article. KillerChihuahua 20:28, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

So, are you going to bring up the ancient past every time we disagree? That sounds kind of like harassment, to me, and kind of diverts attention from the present article, doesn't it? Are all of our current disagreements now going to be attributed to your perceptions or misperceptions about what happened years ago? It seems to me like I was consistently editing this article when you showed up here, and not vice versa.Ferrylodge (talk) 20:33, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Nope, just when one of you tries to smear me or impugn my character. KillerChihuahua 20:41, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, I don't think I've ever 6RR'd on this article. I do remember reverting BLP violations on Political positions of Sarah Palin - never was blocked for it, because they were BLP violations. Please don't mischaracterize. Kelly 20:36, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Ah, you're correct - it was Political postions, not this article. My error. KillerChihuahua 20:40, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

No problem. Can you at least accept the fact that some editors on this article, justifiably or not, have the perception that you are an involved editor on the rape kit issue, and it would be better to have an admin that everyone accepts as "uninvolved" make the call? Others seemed satsified with User:SB Johnny, it was your override of his admin call that kicked off yet another crap-storm. Or are you dissatisfied with him making the call on this issue? Kelly 20:45, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I for one am completely unsatisfied with Johnny's action. It does not appear to have any basis except for the impression of one admin that at one particularly short moment in time there were more people actively arguing against inclusion than for it. This was my central objection to this whole "straw poll" idea in the first place -- it appeared to be an attempt to "take a vote while others were out of the room". That's why I included the list of people's positions from earlier debates, which Johnny seems to have ignored. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 19:18, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Just some general comments on the discussion of the last 6 hours or so:

1. While KillerChihuahua has been borderline emotional in some of his responses, the attacks against him seem largely unwarranted. I don't see a problem in not removing the rape kit language from the article this second as we agreed early on that we'd take this slowly and leave the straw poll open for a long time and use it as a basis for consensus (not as a replacement, but as a basis). Let him patrol the article for uncivil behavior and make uncontroversial edits and don't drag him down to our level.

2. While I don't mind KillerChihuahua's decision not to remove the section yet, I disagree strongly with his statements which indicate that: a) consensus hasn't been reached; and b) consensus will only be achieved by keeping some mention of the rape kits in the article. Consensensus doesn't require unanimous agreement: "Every discussion should involve a good faith effort to hear and understand each other. But after people have had a chance to state their viewpoint, it may become necessary to ignore someone or afford them less weight in order to move forward with what the group feels is best." Everyone has more than enough opportunities to state their opinions, and the group clearly feels that inclusion is not for the best. As I've said before, though, I don't mind holding off on our declaration of consensus, but the argument that it doesn't exist is not persuasive to me.

Regarding Killer's statements indicating that consensus will include some mention of the rape kits: I feel this is a flawed way to view the process. The mere mention of rape kits in this article taints Palin unfairly. Even if we include a short statement about the issue and definitively state that Palin has had no involvement (which we can't do, but if...) the stink of the controversy would still be unfairly attached to her. This is not qhat wikipedia policy on consensus requires, nor does it conform to the policies on a BLP.LedRush (talk) 21:39, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Led, with all due respect, total omission of this issue is completely improper, and a "show of hands" is not supposed to trump policy.. once again, BLP policy specifically states that sourced and relevant criticism is supposed to go in. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 19:18, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

FYI, Puppy is a "she". Kelly 21:43, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

LedRush, I said precisely the opposite, I'm not sure where the misunderstanding occurred, but I never said, nor meant to imply, that "consensus will include some mention of the rape kits" - would you paste the dif of the statement which led to this misunderstanding for me? Thanks. KillerChihuahua 02:03, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk%3ASarah_Palin&diff=261917521&oldid=261917120 . I am sorry if I read that incorrectly, but your statement that "Consensus is actually everyone agreeing, more or less, that even if the content isn't the best, it at least is acceptable" led me to believe otherwise. Also, your interpretation of consensus made it seem like it couldn't occur on this page without some content on this issue being included. Again, I misunderstood your statements, I am sorry. However, I believe my arguments concerning consensus, BLP concerns, and process are still correct.LedRush (talk) 04:11, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I think KC was simply indicating that consensus is supposed to mean "agreement among parties" rather than "one party defeating another". Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 19:18, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

There's no evidence that the policy was enforced while she was mayor, there's no evidence that she knew about the policy and there's certainly no evidence she supported this. Other than creating an attack piece (which, I suppose, would make this bio consistent with Misplaced Pages's other bios of conservatives), what possible reason could there be for including it? --B (talk) 23:34, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

B- as said above, just because she doesn't know about it doesn't mean it's not notable. And there is some evidence that says it happened - and that evidence would be the reliable source(s).--danielfolsom 01:50, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

You are mistaken. Anarchangel (talk) 21:25, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm coming in late in the game; I was talking to KC last night about some Misplaced Pages issues, and briefly mentioned this article, so I think I should comment. Personally, I don't think that it's that relevant to an article. Mayoralty is an executive position, so Palin didn't make the law; that's the role of city legislature. I'm not sure whether it would be in Palin's remit to veto the rape kit policy; even if given the latitude to veto, it's controversial to veto a budget proposal. Analysing the source, I note that this is mainly a manufactured controversy used to mudsling Palin (much as Ayers was used to mudsling Obama); the policy was not controversial when in effect, and the source notes that not many people, if any, had to pay for the kits in Wasilla. As there is no evidence that she supported the policy, and that politicians must sometimes (seek to) pass laws they oppose or vice-versa, we should err on the side of caution and not include it. It may shock people to hear this, but Republicans aren't the blood-sucking vampires that people believe them to be :) Sceptre 12:40, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Well; (1) it wasn't a law, it was a municipal policy that was entirely under the control of the man (Fannon) whom she appointed, after firing the man who had the city paying for the kits. Without Palin's firing of Stambaugh, it's a decent bet that Wasilla never would have adopted this policy; (2) continuing, there was nothing for her to veto -- if she didn't like the policy, she could just order Fannon to change it, or fire him, as she had done to the predecessor who paid for rape kits using the city budget; (3) plenty of people would dispute your analysis ... and your analysis is also obviously original research which cannot influence a Misplaced Pages article; (4) the policy was at least controversial enough to prompt victim's advocates to press for legislation to make the policy illegal, and to have the state legislature pass such legislation; Wasilla is a tiny town -- if there are only one or two rapes a year, of course there would only be a few rape victims to have their insurance billed -- and it would also take some time before the policy could possibly affect many people -- yet the rape victims themselves would argue that their interests are not of less importance just because there weren't many of them; (5) there is also no evidence that she opposed the policy, and the fact that she appointed the man who introduced the policy to Wasilla establishes a connection, whether she supported it or not; (6) since Palin tended to fire everyone who didn't support her, it really wouldn't make much sense to claim that Fannon introduced a policy that she opposed; she never actually claimed that she opposed, or didn't support, the policy, and even when addressing the issue in the press she appeared to avoid the direct questions asking what the policy had been; (7) "erring on the side of caution" would be including the facts on this issue (including facts about opinions) and letting readers draw their own conclusions, instead of trying to form conclusions on behalf of the reader by omitting any mention of the issue in the first place.Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 19:18, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Would that she had opposed a law, this would be a slam dunk. Your position is based on faulty information Anarchangel (talk) 21:25, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Sort of to echo here, but I keep hearing that this was some large controversey which I believe to be totally untrue. It became a "story" after Palin's nomination along with about 100 other "stories" about the govenor. Who says this was a big deal at the time? The blogs? The talking heads on TV? This talk page? There were a FEW articles written about this at the time by the local papers and not much more before the mud started to fly. This might belong in one of the sub articles but not the main bio of a person who who was "connected" to this story how? She hired Fannon? She was running the ship? --Tom 14:44, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

This was an Alaskan story. It was reported in Alaska. It is in a section about her being mayor of an Alaskan town. Not sure what your point is exactly. As for the last two sentences, although they are intended to be rhetorical, I can equally answer: Correct. She was in a position of responsibility. Think Alberto Gonzalez. Despite denying that he was personally responsible, and in fact -everyone- denying that they were personally responsible, he was pressured to step down. And that's normal. It was the least that was expected. I have to wonder why responsibility of officials for the actions of their subordinates is being challenged here. WP doesn't even require that much for something to be just notable. And Fannon didn't deny it, he declared it to the local newspaper. The mayor wasn't reading the local newspaper? And yet the first we hear from her about it is in 2008, and she evades the question. Anarchangel (talk) 21:25, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I have to agree with Tom and Sceptre on this. This story was of minor importance before the campaign. It never even came up once during her campaign as Governor, (probably because here in Alaska we can see it for what it truely is). Should we devote an entire paragraph to every 'controversial' law that was in place during her term as Mayor? It makes no sense to include it just for inclusion's sake, and it is definitely not biographical material.Zaereth (talk) 19:15, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

No, because there was no such controversial law. Also, where do you get the idea that 'are we to include every -straw man- in every -type of article-?" is a valid argument? In your defense, you probably got that idea from this page. Anarchangel (talk) 21:25, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Let the personal attacks begin!! This is a two for one, getting both the editors of this page in general and Zaereth specifically.LedRush (talk) 22:09, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree with the three above. Until evidence is found that Palin knew about the law policy, had the power to change it, and then did nothing about it, this should not be included in her biography. Even then it would fit better in the Mayorality of Sarah Palin. Keeping this material here until there is a consensus to remove it, is basically saying Guilty until Proven Innocent, when it should be the other way around. JenWSU (talk) 19:34, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Again, what law? Anarchangel (talk) 21:25, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree with the other four above: I don't think the RK issue belongs in this article. Add me to the straw poll, if you like. Leotohill (talk) 19:50, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for all the new voices. My position remains pretty clear. Collect (talk) 20:15, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Please note that the straw poll above is still open, in case anyone would like to weigh in one way or the other.Ferrylodge (talk) 20:24, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

One step at a time... yes, rape kits again

Can we start with something very simple here? KC and I have a minor disagreement (not to be confused with a war among the powers that be) on whether the rape kit thing is a "BLP issue" or not a "BLP issue" (and to paraphrase Shakespeare, that is the question). It's very simple: does her action (or inaction) in the rape kit issue tell us something about her? If so, what does it say? (And if it does say something, can we demonstrate that verifiably using reliable sources?)

I'm just trying to get to the kernel of this as far as our policies go: is this a BLP issue, or is it not a BLP issue?

This is up to you to decide, not to the "powers that be" to decide. Only difference between us and you is a couple of buttons, after all, and we're supposed to use those for your benefit. --SB_Johnny | 00:22, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it is a BLP issue, IMHO. There's no dispute that Palin is a living person, and that this is a biography of her. Per WP:BLP (emphasis added):

A key aspect of NPOV is undue weight; while having this material in the sub-article may not be undue weight per WP:Summary style, having it in this main article is undue weight. WP:BLP specifically references WP:Coatrack, so calling this rape kit material coatracky is certainly relevant here. The material now in the article also insinuates that there is something sinister about Palin's possible involvement in charging insurance companies of rape victims (rape victims' insurance companies are properly charged all the time, e.g. if the rapist inflicts injuries that need to be treated). The present material also employs guilt by association with Fannon and with Fannon's policy. Additionally, by omitting Palin's explicit denials that she would ever bill a rape victim, this material is harmful to Palin's human dignity, and is plain unfair, whereas including those denials would exacerbate the undue weight problem. Incidentally, even if this were not a BLP issue (which it clearly is), the overhwelming consensus is that the material should be removed and is improper in this article, whether it's a BLP or not.Ferrylodge (talk) 00:39, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

"WP:BLP specifically references WP:Coatrack, so calling this rape kit material coatracky is certainly relevant here." : BLP and other rules specifically reference imaginary examples of rule violations etc, does that mean they are also relevant here? Can you persuade me that this roughshod rampage over logic is a mistake rather than obfuscation? Anarchangel (talk) 06:52, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Anarchangel, are you making personal attacks and insults because you are uncivil, because you want to incite worse behavior in return, or because you don't know that it's not civil?LedRush (talk) 14:41, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Cool it with the sarcasm (both of you). --SB_Johnny | 14:58, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

While there was no sarcasm in my post, you are right, Johnny, that my questions was probably not helpful. It is just that Anarchangel repeatedly inserts insulting remarks into his post and makes constructive discussion that much more difficult. I don't want to bring this up on the Wikiquette board because this is , at its heart, a content dispute and because each of his remarks on its own is just boarderline uncivil...it is in the aggregate that they become truly exhausting and erode teh possibility of constructive discourse. Regardless, I will deal with this in a more straightforward and constructive way myself in the future and I am sorry that I did not do so above.LedRush (talk) 15:36, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I have to agree with Ferrylodge. All issues in a BLP are BLP issues; that policy applies to everything in the article. Coemgenus 00:47, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Well its a Biography, she's aLive and she's a Person. Of course the policy applies. Frankly I'm rather shocked this whole this is still going on. There will never be a unanimous view on this, but we do have a consensus and WP:BLP is quite clear. I think it was a mistake to revert the article back to inclusion of the material based on one unsatisfied, but vocal person resulting only in inflamed sensibilities, an article which violates WP:BLP and a controversy without end. At some point I hope that someone says enough is enough and I hope that happens before it goes to arbitration. I'll go back to lurking now Dman727 (talk) 01:23, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Let's try not to dwell on the length of the dispute: I just want to make sure we're all on the same page when it comes to the nature of the dispute. If it's a "BLP issue", it will be handled as such. If it's not, then we'll handle it differently. We're all here because we want it to be a good article, and you are voicing your opinions here because you disagree about how to make this a good article. My priority right now is to get some agreement about the nature of the dispute, so that we can handle it "by the book"... "the book" was written by those who have seen this sort of thing before, and came up with the best solution that they could think of. --SB_Johnny | 01:35, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

BLP issue? Conceded. Done. It's a BLP, KC made the error of saying it's not a BLP issue, ok? Let's not continue miscategorizing the issue. The issue is, and KC should have said, whether or not this is a breach of BLP guidelines. Discuss. Anarchangel (talk) 02:15, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

"It's very simple: does her action (or inaction) in the rape kit issue tell us something about her? If so, what does it say? (And if it does say something, can we demonstrate that verifiably using reliable sources?)" - SB Johnny It's very simple: it is not our job to say.
You have reframed the need to follow BLP as your preferred course of action.
My (subjective) analysis is that we'd be making judgements about the material that are effectively OR or SYNTH, inasmuch as they affect the material going in. If it meets WP:V and WP:NPOV and WP:BLP and WP:NOTE, and the rest, it's in, as far as I know. Furthermore, if you assert that there is a need to assess the material for evidence that "her action (or inaction) in the rape kit issue tell(s) us something about her", why? I can't see it being a BLP rule to do so. Let alone that this is an actionable reason to omit or include material. Anarchangel (talk) 02:15, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

So very sick of these subjective arguments. WEIGHT, RECENTISM, COATRACK, OR, NPOV, ad nauseum. All I have to do to find a list the size of your total contributions is look for your contributions in the archives. The security of arguments that can never be disproven.

Guilt by association is at least based on facts. I will add it to the Disputed section. This has been brought up too many times. Calling this 'guilt by association' ignores the fact that Fannon was her employeesubordinate, and that his actions do reflect on her. Anarchangel (talk) 02:15, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Fannon was an employee of the City of Wasilla, appointed pursuant to the City Council of Wasilla Alaska. He was not an "employee of Sarah Palin." Collect (talk) 02:39, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Conceded. Replaced all instances of 'employee' with 'subordinate'.

"Subordinate" implies direct control ("subject to the authority of another".) He, as Police Chief, operated substantially independently, and was "subordinate" as you phrase it, to the City Council at most. Now we have established that he had essentially no nexus with Palin other than being an employee of the city of which she was Mayor. Thanks! Collect (talk) 11:16, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

• No longer a BLP violation. At its core, this was a campaign misrepresentation of fact to (quite effectively) isolate the BLP subject from a specific voting bloc. Today, it would be more accurate (and fairer to the BLP subject) that we include an acknowledgment that the controversy occurred but that no evidence tied her to it (beyond that this police chief was her appointee). In other words, I recommend retaining the prior consensus language that Fannon stated in The Frontiersman article that the hospital billed insurers (not victims) for sexual assault evidence collection (not rape) kits in some ad hoc manner, but that Palin never commented on the practice contemporaneously, and reliable investigative sources subsequently found no evidence she supported or opposed it. Fcreid (talk) 12:34, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

A suggestion then

Looks like everyone agrees that it's "about Sarah Palin", thus it's clearly a BLP issue and the subject of contention, and so there's 2 separate questions now. First, does it belong in the article at all, and second, if it does belong, can it be rephrased or otherwise couched to make a definitive statement, rather than having the invisible "..." at the end of the sentence. The notability comes from the issue's use by notable bloggers (etc.), so should that be included? E.g., something like:

"Although she received criticism by x, y, and z that implied her support for the practice (ref, ref, ref), an investigation by the St. Petersburg Times found no evidence that Palin had explicitly supported or opposed this policy."

Would that sort of rewording satisfy those who oppose the passage? --SB_Johnny | 12:50, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Johnny, are you really this unfamiliar with the sources? Have you looked through the archives? This was carried my numerous mainstream news outlets. The most direct criticisms came from actual Alaskan politicians, including the sponsor of the bill which made this rape kit policy illegal. Chalking it all up to bloggers is completely inaccurate.Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 19:22, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

No, it still really, really isn't a BLP issue. The Huster nonsense was a BLP issue and I summarily removed it. This is arguably NN (coatrack, undue) but its not BLP - depending upon phrasing (be accurate.) But the actual Rape Kit Controversy is not BLP, any more than any other smear campaign tactic is BLP in an article about a political figure. It is arguably best in the Campaign article (too lazy to look for precise article name right now) but no matter how many malcontents or good-faith nervous nellies claim it is BLP, it is not. I will say one more time: "controversial" or "disputed" per BLP does not mean you can start an edit war, or have 99% of the editors say its wrong or false or negative or whatever, and then remove something "per BLP" - else all we'd have on Misplaced Pages is hagiographies. So sorry, but you are all simply wrong. Remove it if you wish, I honestly don't care - but it is not under any means a BLP violation just because it insults her and may not directly have anything to do with her - because it was tied to her and used as a campaign tactic. Label it Lies and False allegations if you wish, but its still not a BLP violation. It was a freaking campaign attack, people - just like the Bill Ayers presidential election controversy. Is Barack Obama a terrorist? Does he "pal around with terrorists"? Is it a BLP violation to report that this was said during the campaign? Do you see the difference??? Are you all obtuse? KillerChihuahua 18:03, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm not fond of doling out "kisses of death", and KC probably doesn't want me chiming in to agree with something she says, but she is absolutely correct. Facts are facts, and facts about opinions are still facts, and both are appropriate in a BLP, subject to the other qualifications about sourcing, relevance, and notability. What is not appropriate is using editors' opinions about facts and editors' opinions about opinions to influence the article -- that is original research in various forms. As I have said from the very beginning, this doesn't have to be phrased in an NPOV way. We can reflect this in the article yet clearly state that the criticisms were coming from political opponents in the middle of an election season. That is appopriate and NPOV and easily allows the reader to reach the conclusion the same conclusion many of you have reached -- that it was a baseless partisan attack. That is the appropriate course of action -- not completely removing the material based on a fear that readers might reach a conclusion that you disagree with. I have no direct objection to the bulk of this going into a sub-article as long as it is summarized here. What I do not want to see is a whitewash where the issue is either (1) not reflected anywhere, or (2) reflected in a sub article but effectively pigeonholed or "content forked" because it is not mentioned at all in the summary article.Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 19:22, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Calling other people "obtuse" is not helpful in the least. There are several questions: (1) Is this matter subject to BLP guidelines? (2) If so, do the BLP guidelines support removal of this material instead of allowing the material to stay? (3) Even if this matter is not subject to BLP guidelines, then do the normal Misplaced Pages guidelines support removal of this material instead of allowing the material to stay? I would answer as follows: (1) Yes (2) Yes and (3) Yes. Note that the Barack Obama article does not mention one word about Bill Ayers or about Jeremiah Wright, because BLP rules bar undue weight in a BLP. No one is arguing to keep the rape kit info out of the Palin sub-articles, only out of the main article.Ferrylodge (talk) 18:24, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Good thing I didn't call anyone obtuse, then. 1) The article, and therefore all content within it, is subject to BLP. 2) No. This is not a BLP violation. 3) CON applies, as do all other policies and guidelines, such as V, COATRACK, etc. So if the consensus is to remove, either simply as a content decision or due to no sourcing, etc, then of course any content may be removed. As regards the Obama article, I don't edit it at all - but if I did, I would oppose inclusion of that silly smear, but I would also have a Keep position on the article about the controversy, and IMO that article should be linked to from Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2008. However, and this is key: if it were in the Obama article, it would NOT be a BLP violation. Wrong article IMO, but not a BLP violation. KillerChihuahua 18:58, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Agree. Wrong article. Like the Obama-Ayers stuff was when it was in this article, up until election day. And yet we are hearing this comparison fairly regularly. And at length. The name 'Ayers' currently appears on this talk page 34 times. Anarchangel (talk) 03:01, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

(EC) Killer, using all caps to say you're going to tell us the answer "ONE MORE TIME", repeating "No. No. No." and asking us if we're "obtuse" and calling us "simply wrong" makes constructive discussion here very hard. Ferry has outlined the correct (INHO) questions above, and we (or at least I) understand your points but disagree. That the Bill Ayers controversy was excluded from the Obama article as a BLP violation undercuts your entire argument on this issue. The mere inclusion of reporting on the controversy confers undue weight on an issue that you seem to agree doesn't have to do with her personally and is basically a campaign issue. It is designed to taint her by the very inclusion of the words "rape kit". Let it stay a campaign issue in the subarticle, where it belongs.LedRush (talk) 19:04, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

After ec(Ayers controversy) Was it? Heh, then they were wrong too. Although I do agree it shouldn't be in that article. Here in a nutshell is the issue: I support BLP. I helped write the darn thing. But it will not help wp a darn bit if we allow it to be misunderstood and misused. It will result in hagiographies and unbalanced articles, especially of controversial figures. I will abstain from expressing my opinion of Ferrylodge's views.

Undue may well apply; I have really tried assiduously not to express any opinion on content at all, as I am remaining neutral except as regards policies; therefore Undue, which article, whether to include, are things I am trying to avoid even giving the impression of having an opinion on. Y'all do what you want. But call it a BLP violation, and I will argue. You can remove it from the article without citing BLP, is what I am saying. And I have already made very clear that my opinion on the other subject is that it should be in the sub articles, but I am, again, refraining from voicing an opinion here on this. Is this any clearer to you, or are you going to keep arguing content with me (by yourself)? KillerChihuahua 19:19, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, it was clear already, as I said up above, and I haven't been arguing content with you, so that last insulting sentence wasn't really necessary, was it?LedRush (talk) 19:25, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Uh, yeah, you're acting more like a party to the dispute than a neutral party here, Puppy. Sorry, but it's true. --SB_Johnny | 20:31, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

No, I'm in a dispute, but not about content of the article - it is about a policy. Please reconsider your thinking, Johnny, it is flawed. I cannot assist with this page if I do not maintain policy, and there is a basic difference of opinion about how to interpret the policy. Your assertion implies that I should not explain policy, or else I am somehow involved. That is very poor logic indeed. KillerChihuahua 10:53, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Last I looked, it is up to every editor to maintain policy, including SB -- and his judgement, last I checked, is deemed equal to yours. Collect (talk) 11:48, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I know, but you were really getting into it :-). They know the policies too, so it's better to just let them do the arguing and just try to keep them on track (which admittedly is like herding cats, but herding cats gets even more difficult if you try to use a sheep dog!). --SB_Johnny | 11:25, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

What can I say? I'm a chihuahua with delusions of sheepdogism. Seriously, the whole thing has been about the tendency of some editors to conflate my statements about how BLP applies to this article with 1) whether this is a BLP article - which frankly I think must be trolling from some of the parties here, of course its a BLP article, duh; 2) making the illogical leap that because my very firm interpretation is that this content, while it has other issues, is not a BLP violation, that somehow (2+2=22) I'm arguing for inclusion of the damn content. I'm not; have not been, and will not. "Its not a BLP violation" does not = "You cannot take it out". It has been extremely weird and bizarre to me how that conclusion keeps getting put on this page. I am seriously distressed that your post reads as though you'd fallen to the same fallacious thinking. *sigh* Howsomever, perhaps we're done with that particular error now. KillerChihuahua 13:51, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm grateful that KC has acknowledged that "The article, and therefore all content within it, is subject to BLP." That's exactly correct. And BLP guidelines say that this content must comply with "all of our content policies." If there's something in this BLP that may not comply with "all of our content policies", then BLP guidelines say that "The burden of evidence for any edit on Misplaced Pages, but especially for edits about living persons, rests firmly on the shoulders of the person who adds or restores the material." If this were some other non-BLP article, then the burden would be different regarding NPOV, COATRACK, and all the rest.Ferrylodge (talk) 19:12, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

As stated for months, the burden of evidence is met... The burden of evidence refers to the burden of the editor to show that the edit is sourced.Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 19:22, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

1. Concur. This would be ideal, as it provides a basis for a reader/researcher to dismiss the controversy (or to do their own WP:OR elsewhere, if it's not the truth they hoped to find). Fcreid (talk) 12:53, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Disagree -- per notes above, the Police Chief was not her "employee." She had no day-to-day control of police actions or practices. She states she had no knowledge of any "rape kit" policies about billing, and that she opposes billing any victims. The budget was under the control of the City Council. There were no "rape kit" line items in any of the budgets (all available). (All of which appear to be accepted now as fact by the contending editors.) Ascribing support of a policy about which one has no knowledge, and would be unlikely to have knowledge, is speculation - no matter how many opinion sources are found. Wording of "Although xxx, yyy and zzz implied Jane Doe committed murder, the Times found no evidence to support or oppose their claims." runs afounl of the spirit of WP:WTA as well as WP:BLP. And per WP:RS, blogs are specifically found to not be RS unless under editorial control of an RS. Collect (talk) 13:17, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

We still haven't heard from KC since I personally conceded the 'isn't a BLP' position. KC may yet have something to say about that.

Most if not all of the sources and facts upon which the below assertions are based can be seen above in the Record section. I would appreciate being able to type this all once only.

• Collect's assertion that Palin "states she had no knowledge" is false. When presented with an opportunity to [answer that very question, she answered in another way.
• Collect's assertion that the budget was under the control of the city council is false. Municipal Code.
• Collect's assertion that "There were no rape kit line items in any of the budgets" is false. The '94 budget shows rape kits, and that line item disappears when Palin becomes mayor, which is consistent with a policy of charging or otherwise avoiding paying for them.
• "(freely available)" Great. We could use those. Right now all I have is the links from the HP article to the budgets. Knowing that the budget PDFs we were looking at were straight from the city of Wasilla would be very comforting. And a better link for the article. Would someone cite the links direct to the budgets, please? They have never been cited.
• Collect says the budgets are accepted as fact. Collect's assertions about the budgets are not.
• Agree with Collect's assertion that ascribing support would be speculation. Disagree with 'unlikely to have knowledge'; her duties and powers included supervision of the Police Department; had she requested that information, Fannon would have been compelled to provide it. There is another link to the Stambaugh case here, in addition to his assertion that he had ensured a kit budget line item when he was Police Chief, where the Seattle Times shows a very hands on approach to dealing with her subordinates.
• WTA is reaching. This whole sentence's reach exceeds its grasp. To call it speculation is quite adequate.
• Collect's assertion, "And per WP:RS, blogs are specifically found to not be RS unless under editorial control of an RS." is false. The word 'blog' is to be found nowhere on the WP:RS page.

I direct your attention to the first section on the page, where it is contended (and so far unrefuted) that the wording is a negative proof and therefore the basis for opposition to the wording of the final phrase is unaffected by the addition of cites. The wording of the final phrase has been opposed for a very long time. The statement "an investigation by the St. Petersburg Times found no evidence that Palin had explicitly supported or opposed this policy." relies for its notability on the assumption by the reader (and the editor inserting it) that this is proof towards Palin not explicitly supporting or opposing the policy. What was the SPT investigation? Did they scour the countryside? Did they ask passers-by? Did they hang out in bars? SPT relies on other publications for its information, such as the Frontiersman. Palin was given the opportunity to state that she had not known of the policy, or had, and if she had, that she supported the policy, when she was asked these questions in the afore-mentioned email interview with Frontiersman (so she had plenty of time to choose an answer); judge her answer for yourself. Anarchangel (talk) 02:11, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Of course Anarchangel's claim that the SPT wording (or the WP cite to it) is a negative proof fallacy is false. I have presented the arguments above and so far no logical challenge to them has been made. I suspect Anarchangel knows this because he doesn't even bother to try and argue the point here, instead attacking the means of the SPT investigation, which of course has no bearing on whether the negative proof fallacy is applicable here. My argument, repeated from above, is simple and provably true.

The negative proof fallacy is when the lack of evidence that something is true is used to definitively state that that thing is true. The SPT has a statement about their investigation: "We can’t find that Palin ever commented on the policy, pro or con." This is not a statement about the underlying truth of whether or not Palin commented on the policy and is not an example of the negative proof fallacy. It is merely a statement about the results of an SPT investigation: they didn't find anything. The WP article says: "An investigation by the St. Petersburg Times found no evidence that Palin had explicitly supported or opposed this policy." This is also a statement of provable fact (that the SPT did an investigation and found no evidence of Palin supporting or opposing the policy) and not about the whether Palin did or didn't do anything. Therefore, neither the WP article nor the SPT report relies on the negative proof fallacy.LedRush (talk) 03:00, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

And per Anarchangel's points above -- her job as Mayor was to "follow the directives of the city council." Seems to rather undermine the whole RK bit, no? And the budget claim now rests on a 1994 budget -- which was, if I am not in error, before Palin became Mayor. Seems to stretch OR, SYN, and a bunch of other precpts to the breaking point. Collect (talk) 14:35, 6 January 2009 (UTC) Not really. Palin being responsible for following the directives of the city council does not discharge her from her other responsibilities, as noted in the same list. Anarchangel (talk) 02:11, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

<sarcasim>I think the best suggestion was that we add that she is NOT pro-rape. Wouldn't that be great. Maybe also include that she doesn't beat her husband.</sacasim> Of course not! We don't introduce garbage and then let the reader "dismiss it". This would be the equivalent of the Obama article mentioning that people think he wasn't born in Hawai, and then disproving it. This garbage has no place in this article as the 20 or so editors have now commented. --Tom 14:42, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I've agreed in the past to compromise language like this, and it seems to lead only to more fighting about what else can be inserted into the language about the issue. I have always believed that the best way to address this is the same way we address similar claims on other BLPs: we omit them entirely.LedRush (talk) 15:39, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Not wanting to wade into what's obviously been a long and complicated debate, but I visited Palin's page today explicitly because I wanted to find out about the rape kit controversy. In my mind one part of what Misplaced Pages's for is to provide information that people want to be able to access - and this is an issue I wanted to find out about. 135.196.2.145 (talk) 16:11, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

See Mayoralty of Sarah Palin JenWSU (talk) 18:24, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I am very much opposed to the suggestion that we come up with some new version, or revert to some old version. We should either get this out of the BLP (as a vast majority of editors has consistently urged) while keeping it in the sub-article, or else we should keep what's in this article now: "Palin appointed Charles Fannon to replace Stambaugh as police chief. Fannon and his department sometimes billed rape victims' health insurance for evidence collection kits. An investigation by the St. Petersburg Times found no evidence that Palin had explicitly supported or opposed this policy."

These are two clear choices, and I do not support muddying the waters by introducing further choices. This is not complicated. This is a BLP. There is controversial material here that a majority of editors have consistently opposed in the BLP, based on a variety of Misplaced Pages policies including undue weight. "The burden of evidence for any edit on Misplaced Pages, but especially for edits about living persons, rests firmly on the shoulders of the person who adds or restores the material." This whole process is becoming a joke, I'm sad to say. If a minority of editors does insist on coming up with a new version, then how about this: "Journalists have investigated whether Palin has been mean to rape victims or not, but could find no definitive statement from her explicitly denying that she has been 'mean to rape victims.'" Is that what the admins at this article are aiming for?Ferrylodge (talk) 18:17, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

One of the ironies here is that paying for these out of city budgets is actually what costs rape victims. According to Fannon, Wasilla (a town of 5,000) spends $15K/year on these kits. That's $3/year from every Wasilla taxpayer, including rape victims, to pay for them. (It's actually higher than that, given the breakdown of adult, employed, etc.) In contrast, when billed to the health insurer under services already purchased (individual health insurance), the cost is borne by the aggregate of the healthcare industry's insured. The irony above all is that universal healthcare will ultimately mandate that as the only model for how they're purchased... it's just a wash whether it's a taxpayer line item on a city budget or a federal one. However, like most everything else with this non-issue, it's not the facts that count, but instead how mean and insensitive someone can be painted. Fcreid (talk) 20:04, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Obviously taxpayers will have lower taxes if police departments require insurance companies to pay for costs of investigations. Taxes could be lowered further if they billed fire insurance for arson investigations, homeowners' insurance for burglary investigations, auto insurance for auto theft investigations. Taxes would go down, and insurance premiums would go up. The net effect would be to place more of the burden of crime on people who purchase insurance, and less of it on people who don't purchase insurance. And all of it would be wildly inappropriate because government services are supposed to be paid for by all taxpayers, not just the responsible ones who purchase insurance for themselves.Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 19:22, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Wasilla can not have spent $15K / year on the kits, according to the report Wasilla gave the FBI. Anarchangel (talk) 06:52, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

It's OK to be snarky with me, Ferrylodge :-). I'm probably not the kind of "admin" you're used to (I serve in that capacity on a few other projects as well, where comparing an admin to a WP admin is fightin' words). I just want to be absolutely clear on the status of this issue before deciding whether or not to remove the passage.

Do not, on the other hand, get snarky with your fellow editors... that's not going to help you reach a peaceful solution. --SB_Johnny | 19:29, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Will do. But I'll keep it striked out.  :-)Ferrylodge (talk) 19:44, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

The grim truth here is that this was never, ever an issue for Palin before the Presidential campaign. It was thrown out there as a smear simply because it contained the words rape victim. Really, who would pay for something when an insurance company will pay for it instead. Is this notable? I guess the question to ask is who was really hurt by this action? Were the rape victims any more tramatized? Were the insurance companies? Did the actions have signifigant consequences to make them noteworthy? If so, wouldn't they belong in Fannon's article more than Palin's. I highly doubt this is even notable enough for her Mayorality article, but definitely not for her BLP.Zaereth (talk) 20:33, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

If you have questions, and time on your hands, you might want to look through the archives. All those have been answered there, I assure you. In answer to your question, "Were the rape victims any more tramatized?", the answer is yes.
"Ms. Hugonin testified on the actual exam process that a person must go through after the assault. She urged the Committee to seriously consider passing the legislation so that the victim does not have to go through the pain of the ordeal again." "TRISHA GENTLE, DIRECTOR, COUNCIL ON DOMESTIC VIOLENCE AND SEXAUL ASSAULT (CDVSA), JUNEAU, voiced support for the legislation. She reiterated that the actual "receiving of the bill" again reminds the victim of the trauma that they experienced." -Finance Committee HB 270Anarchangel (talk) 02:11, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

No direct billing of victims has been reported in Wasilla. You know that.Ferrylodge (talk) 02:25, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

If Fannon talked to the Frontiersman outside the city limits, you mean? Quite apart from the fact that the policy was wrong whether or not people actually fell foul of its deficiencies, the rape victims cited by Fannon would get an itemized insurance bill. If he didn't mean, ...and some we charged..., by his statement. Anarchangel (talk) 03:01, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

The victim and every other taxpayer could also have received an itemized city tax expenditure. In fact, the tax expenditures listing would have reflected "sexual assault evidence collection kit" rather than a nebulous ICD medical billing code used by the insurers. In addition, the victim will still get a hospital bill for the visit on their individual insurance. The taxpayer doesn't pay for everything incident to this or any other criminal incident that requires medical treatment... the issue here (and the subject of the state bill) was solely for evidence collection kits and not incidental medical treatment. Again, you're spouting more half-truths and distortions of reality that were intended to turn this into a red herring for women's activists to be used by one campaign in order to isolate another campaign from a specific voting bloc during the election. There is no substance to it. I wish you could see that. Fcreid (talk) 11:21, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

It would be good for cities to not list rape kit expenditures on their tax lists and then send them out to rape victims. Hopefully they already don't. A direct quote from an expert witness of the Finance Committee hearings on HB 270 is not 'spouting more half-truths and distortions of reality'. It was 'intended' to give evidence. The rest is in your imagination. Anarchangel (talk) 18:37, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I have no idea what you mean in reference to city limits. This was a blog-generated controversy designed to confuse people, according to the St. Petersburg Times: "Bloggers have portrayed it as a heartless rule seeking money from rape victims, but they have neglected to mention that the policy seems to have been aimed more at getting money from insurance companies than from victims." You continue to try to confuse the issue. Fannon told the Frontiersman: "In the past weve charged the cost of exams to the victims insurance company when possible." Not a scintilla of that sentence suggests that he charged victims directly, as happened in Juneau.Ferrylodge (talk) 03:21, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

(undent)FYI, I've made a suggestion for improvement at WP:BLP. See here.Ferrylodge (talk) 17:58, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Well all-righty then

It looks to me that the issue here is whether or not this is notable (in the sense that it tells the reader something about Sarah Palin... the relevant acronym is probably WP:UNDUE). Is it? --SB_Johnny | 21:51, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Undue weight only comes into play if the issue is actually given undue weight in the article. If it's reflected in an NPOV fashion that makes it clear who the sources of the criticisms were, as well as the lack of any currently known evidence that Palin specifically approved the policy, that doesn't impart undue weight. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 19:22, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

That acronym applies, and so does WP:SS: "The parent article should have general summary information and the more detailed summaries of each subtopic should be in daughter articles and in articles on specific subjects."

If there is any doubt about how Misplaced Pages's content policies apply here (and I don't think there is), when in doubt leave it out. In other words, the burden of evidence is on those who want to include.Ferrylodge (talk) 22:59, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

The information in the rape kit budget passage currently in the article is entirely factual. These facts are not held to be true by a 'tiny minority'. It is not even close to the examples given, of belief in the Flat Earth or other such Fringe Theories. For these 3 reasons alone, WP:UNDUE is not relevant to this material. Anarchangel (talk) 02:11, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

"Undue weight applies to more than just viewpoints. Just as giving undue weight to a viewpoint is not neutral, so is giving undue weight to other verifiable and sourced statements." Even if there were no policy about undue weight, WP:Summary style would apply to this matter.Ferrylodge (talk) 02:44, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

At what point does something become so extreme in behavior that it warrants comment within someone's biography? This is not, in the opinion of those to whom it matters, 'undue weight'. It is valid. It is real. It is purposeful. And numerous amounts of evidence have been given to justify its inclusion. 66.156.62.234 (talk) 04:16, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

There is no consensus that Palin did anything extreme here.Ferrylodge (talk) 04:21, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I guess its the lack of consensus that I'm seeing on the Rape Kit. 66.156.62.234 (talk) 04:59, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Claim about McCain in earlier talk section

In an earlier talk section, an accusation was made about McCain opposing a ban on billing victims. The truth-o-meter regards such claims as "pants-on-fire false". Andjam (talk) 12:31, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

You missed the "Sarah Palin called dinosaurs 'Jesus Ponies'"-type stuff which was pushed not all that long ago. And the "Trig is her grandson" and "She wants to kill beluga whales" -- just to hit a few. Some of whose advocates are still here. Collect (talk) 13:20, 6 January 2009 (UTC) (comment restored as it is not violative of WP:EQ or any other acronyms. ) Collect (talk) 14:22, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

A less editorialized report. I should point out that I was responding to Andjam's previous statement, "If people really cared about rape kits rather than wanting a talking point, maybe the rape kit article would mention that some jurisdictions are still billing victims."
This issue really isn't important. I will retract the statement, but not because of the SPT article; because McCain's involvement is worth no more attention than I gave it. It was an aside to the fact that current Federal law does not allow victims to be charged for rape kits. In lieu of any cites on the continued practice, I can only say that any instances of charging for kits would be illegal under Federal law.Anarchangel (talk) 13:40, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Collect: regardless of the acronyms, I really doubt this sort of comment (i.e., the "oh yeah, we can get sillier if you want to) will help resolve the dispute.

Anarchangel: if someone's acting improperly (particularly someone on the opposing debate team), please tell me about it, rather than reverting and rattling off acronyms. I assume you'll understand why that's a good idea. --SB_Johnny | 21:56, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

At least once a week, we have someone trying to peddle such stuff. The archives are full of it (recalling that if the comment gets deleted, it does not show up in the talk page archives). I rather think pointing out that such stuff will not get accepted at the start will deter such folks, at least I hope so. Collect (talk) 22:32, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough, but if the newbie does something like that, it's on you to be gentle (not bite). There were some blurbs on NPR today that might lead people here. --SB_Johnny | 22:38, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

<g> I have now over 26 years of "newbie spotting" under my belt. You will find me citing WP:BITE over at MfD. I was not referring to any edit by a "newbie." Collect (talk) 23:02, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for removing the allegation. For those wanting to know about billing still being ongoing, this piece isn't a bad starting point. Andjam (talk) 09:18, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Edit request 2

{{editprotected}} To get the ball rolling, I'd like to request removal of the following material from the article: "Palin appointed Charles Fannon to replace Stambaugh as police chief. Fannon and his department sometimes billed rape victims' health insurance for evidence collection kits. An investigation by the St. Petersburg Times found no evidence that Palin had explicitly supported or opposed this policy."

There's been lots of discussion about it, and also a poll which indicated substantial support for removal.

The material would remain in the sub-article, with proper context, per WP:Summary style. Sufficient context would take up too much room in this main article, and would be undue weight here. Please note that "The burden of evidence for any edit on Misplaced Pages, but especially for edits about living persons, rests firmly on the shoulders of the person who adds or restores the material."Ferrylodge (talk) 02:37, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the edit.Ferrylodge (talk) 17:18, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

From which WP rule page is your quote? I was unable to find that text in a search for it. Anarchangel (talk)

WP:BLP. KillerChihuahua said above, "You can remove it from the article without citing BLP, is what I am saying." So I didn't cite BLP.Ferrylodge (talk) 03:06, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

NM, I found it. It is talking about citations. We have those. See anywhere you said 'burden of evidence'. Not my fault you're repetitive. Anarchangel (talk) 06:52, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

To see a refutation of the idea that the quote was talking about citations, see below. In a nutshell, poorly sourced material is to be removed immediately, while the burden of evidence rests on editors adding/restoring material for everything.LedRush (talk) 15:52, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Which is quite correct. No policy is needed to decide an edit is desirable. SBJohnny: It appears to me that we're not getting a calm consensus discussion anytime soon. Both sides appear to be arguing to the death to keep/remove. My guage is that the majority view is to the Remove, you concur? KillerChihuahua 11:01, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Concur on both counts... I was actually scribbling something up about that this morning, will add as a section below when I'm done. --SB_Johnny | 11:31, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I assume that "NM" means "never mind". I assume that "you" refers to me. I have no idea what "repetitiveness" you are referring to. I assume that "it" refers to the "burden of evidence." I have no idea why you assume that "it" is talking about citations. "It" refers to the "burden of proof" regarding whether something belongs in a Misplaced Pages article.Ferrylodge (talk) 17:04, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Burden of proof is from Law. Not WP rules. Misleading.Anarchangel (talk) 19:02, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

The wikilink to burden of evidence has been in BLP for many months. The wikilinked article covers the subject generally, not just legally, and has a section on "Science and other uses". There was nothing remotely misleading about my previous comment above.Ferrylodge (talk) 05:28, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

-previously entered in discussion- "In addition to relevance in its own right, it has significance in the Stambaugh firing because of Stambaugh's assertion that he had proposed a line item in the budget to cover the cost of the kits. It is indispensable to an understanding of Palin's choice of subordinates, her handlingoversight of their policies, and her treatment of political rivals. I support the inclusion of any of Fannon's quotes, any and all material from the Legislature, the CNN article, and the source material on the budget from the Wasilla City Records department if links to that can be found, otherwise the HuffPo piece that links to that as a last resort, and anything I forgot. I specifically exclude support for inclusion of material from the SPT article as all of its material that doesn't rely for its notability on a negative proof can be found from other sources that reported earlier and with less editorializing. Anarchangel 22:21, 28 Dec Anarchangel (talk) 03:01, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, I feel I need to yet again address Anarchangel's assertion that the SPT language relies on the negative proof fallacy. Here it is again:

The negative proof fallacy is when the lack of evidence that something is true is used to definitively state that that thing is true. The SPT has a statement about their investigation: "We can’t find that Palin ever commented on the policy, pro or con." This is not a statement about the underlying truth of whether or not Palin commented on the policy and is not an example of the negative proof fallacy. It is merely a statement about the results of an SPT investigation: they didn't find anything. The WP article says: "An investigation by the St. Petersburg Times found no evidence that Palin had explicitly supported or opposed this policy." This is also a statement of provable fact (that the SPT did an investigation and found no evidence of Palin supporting or opposing the policy) and not about the whether Palin did or didn't do anything. Therefore, neither the WP article nor the SPT report relies on the negative proof fallacy.LedRush (talk) 03:18, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

(EC) I feel we've had this discussion many times and so I'll give a very brief summary of why this should be removed. Firstly, the vast majority of editors who have weighed in on this issue in the last 3 weeks feel the language should be removed. WP standards clearly indicate that in a BLP that the burden of evidence relies on people who want to add the language. All of the arguments against inclusion mentioned above (undue weight, coatrack, etc.) are enough to win if the burden of proof were neutral, but the editors arguing for inclusion have offered almost no proof that would overcome the burden of evidence required by a BLP.LedRush (talk) 03:08, 7 January 2009 (UTC) Aw, geez, now Led's doing it.
All the statements that have been presented for inclusion on this issue have been cited. The burden of evidence has been met already. Anarchangel (talk) 06:52, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

The vast majority of the editors in the last three seconds feel that it should be included. As for burden of proof...the language is already there about including it. You're arguing for REMOVAL. 66.156.62.234 (talk) 04:21, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Please. Stop joking around.Ferrylodge (talk) 04:26, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

The vast majority of the editors in the last three seconds feel that it should be included. As for burden of proof...the language is already there about including it. You're arguing for REMOVAL. 66.156.62.234 (talk) 04:21, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

(EC) Three seconds is not enough for consensus to change. A three or four week discussion is. Please try not to be insulting. Also, I think you are misunderstanding the argument...the BLP language says "The burden of evidence for any edit on Misplaced Pages, but especially for edits about living persons, rests firmly on the shoulders of the person who adds or restores the material." "Adds" or "restores" (which means adds it after it has been removed).LedRush (talk) 04:28, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeh, could you like, stop repeating that 'burden of evidence' line, please? I know it wasn't you that started it, but that's 6 times between you and Ferrylodge. -Dramamine- for the Ad Nauseum.

All the statements that have been presented for inclusion on this issue have been cited. The burden of evidence has been met already. Anarchangel (talk) 06:52, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

The "burden of evidence" line is from WP:BLP, and it refers to the burden of proof that something is suitable to be included in a Misplaced Pages article. The fact that something is TRUE is not enough to satisfy the burden of proof. It must meet all of Misplaced Pages’s core content policies, and you have the burden of proving that it meets the content policies in order to include or restore material.Ferrylodge (talk) 17:18, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I will not have readers of this page misled in this manner. You will check your facts before inserting misleading material. The burden of proof you linked to is from Law, not WP rules. You have presented no evidence that the 'burden of evidence', which I knew was from BLP, thanks, is referring to a Law. WTF. Someone do something about this. I think the word you are looking for is Verifiability, WP:V, and I already addressed that. To reiterate: the material is cited. Anarchangel (talk) 18:57, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

The words "burden of evidence" in WP:BLP is linked to the burden of proof article. Regardless, my reading of WP:BLP doesn't seem to indicate that adding a cite is automatically enough to meet this burden. Could you show me from where you got this notion?LedRush (talk) 19:10, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Amazingly, 'burden of evidence' is indeed linked to the Law page 'Burden of proof'. I have asked on its Discussion page for that link to be removed.
And as for my "notion", see the section immediately preceding the "burden of proof" link : "Editors must take particular care adding biographical material about a living person to any Misplaced Pages page. Such material requires a high degree of sensitivity, and must adhere strictly to all applicable laws in the United States and to all of our content policies, especially

• Neutral point of view (NPOV)
• Verifiability
• No original research

We must get the article right. Be very firm about the use of high quality references. Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons—whether the material is negative, positive, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion."
Notice that the final sentence does not say, "Material that isn't proven, on the relevant Discussion page, to the satisfaction of a jury of editors who have stated, on that Discussion page, that they are opposed to the material's inclusion should be removed immediately"? It says 'Unsourced or poorly sourced'. The kit budget material is neither. Anarchangel (talk) 20:55, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

That language, to me, is clearly articulating a different policy for unsourced or poorly sourced info: it must be removed immediately. The burden of evidence in general, however, is just as we've described above. It places the burden of evidence on putting things into the article (either originally or through restoring deletes) on the editor who wants to put the language in. The former is basically analogous to getting your case thrown out of court, while the latter is just a burden of evidence that one side (editors arguing for inclusion) need to overcome. Apples and oranges. I am quite certain that there is no consesnsus that you (or others) have overcome that burden and therefore that the language must not be allowed into the article.LedRush (talk) 21:22, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry. I was not attempting to be insulting. However, I must say I'm slightly insulted that you said I was insulting you. I was making an ironic statement about the ARTICLE, not about you. And I thought the straw poll was non official and non binding? How then can it be used as 'most editors'? And if the number or persistence of editors is not the question, then perhaps it is the fact that there is still a significant number who are in favor of some form of inclusion. This is hardly what I'd call consensus. 66.156.62.234 (talk) 04:57, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

The timing of the straw poll was not arbitrary. It was meant to see how many editors who had opined on the subject had stuck around after the end of the campaign season, and the result (now that the campaign partisans have moved on) was a nearly 4 to 1 ratio in favor of removing the material from the article. That would seem to constitute a strong majority. »S0CO 06:56, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I concur with removal. And I would consider a comment by an IP sock to not count for very much (four edits in 43 minutes on only one talk page as the entire contribution history does seem to warrant "sock" IMHO). Collect (talk) 11:13, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Outrage

Recently, an administrator removed the material in question, but was reverted by another administrator, whose edit summary said: "No consensus for removal of rape kit budget, as is clear by the outrage on the talk page." Does this mean that one outraged editor can demand inclusion of whatever material the editor wishes, regardless of how many editors oppose inclusion? And in a BLP?

If the degree of "outrage" really makes any difference, I'd like to make crystal clear that I am outraged. Go look at the Barack Obama article. You won't find one word about his statement to "Joe the Plumber" that we need to "redistribute the wealth", nor one word about his statement in San Francisco about bitter small-town folk who "cling" to their guns and religion, nor one word about Bill Ayres or about Jeremiah Wright. And that's just fine and appropriate for a BLP. But when a small minority of editors wants to jam something nasty into this Sarah Palin article, then all rules are off. WP:BLP doesn't apply. WP:Consensus doesn't apply. WP:Summary style, WP:Undue weight, and all the rest fall by the wayside.

Maybe we could more thoroughly insinuate that Palin is somehow mean to rape victims, by putting all this rape kit material in the lead.Ferrylodge (talk) 18:06, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Completely agree. By the standards used for the rape kit stuff, the Trig/Tripp Trutherism would also be in the article - it's received the same, if not more, press coverage. Kelly 01:29, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Not to mention the YEC-Dino debacle. I shudder to think of what this article will turn into if outrage is to be our key metric for inclusion. »S0CO 04:20, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Palin talking about the media bias during the election - though since it's just a preview on YouTube at this point, we can't use it as a source in the article until the documentary this previews is actually released. But the bias this discusses has actually found its way into this article via "reliable sources". Kelly 04:30, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

The journalistic standards did drop a bit this election cycle, didn't they? I must admit, since journalists started holding standing ovations at Obama press conferences, I began to question which could be considered reliable sources at all. Then again, I suppose that's part of why we're still here debating this. »S0CO 05:02, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, the LA Times is bankrupt. I guess it's understandable they'd reach for tabloid territory to try to save themselves. The NYT is doing the same thing, but they'll likely be bankrupt anyway this May. Kelly 05:17, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

$400 million in the hole? Ouch. »S0CO 06:18, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Let's stay on topic, please :-). --SB_Johnny | 10:50, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Moving along

I was hoping to prod towards a compromise above (any compromise would do), but it's pretty clear that the debate teams here aren't moving towards a consensus: in fact, the lines have hardened, and this has moved more towards a free-form debate, rather than a consensus discussion. 24 editors have weighed in on the "straw poll" over the past 12 days, with 19 wanting removal. While a true consensus would be a much better result, neither side is currently willing to either compromise or give consent, so for the time being we'll go with the majority argument here and remove the passage in question from the page. --SB_Johnny | 11:44, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Johnny, this is unwarranted. The side that favors inclusion is open to compromise on how it's worded, and there are plenty of ways it could be worded to give a fair hearing to Palin's defenses agains the criticism, and allowing readers ample opportunity to reach the conclusion that it was an unfounded criticism (as many editors here have concluded). It can also be done without violating Weight or other relevant policies. We have even displayed a willingness to reflect the criticism in a somewhat "toothless" way, i.e., without the most direct criticisms (such as that of bill sponsor Croft, Knowles, or the NYT opinion piece). Meanwhile, the "exclusion" side is willing to accept nothing but total exclusion. Stonewalling should not be a way to circumvent other policies.

I'll repeat for convenience my basic position that (1) the criticism is relevant to Palin's notability; (2) the primary sources making the criticism are, themselves, notable, and in the case of Croft, the bill sponsor, and Knowles, the governor who signed the bill, can be reasonably be said to be experts on the subject; (3) the criticism by the primary sources is widely published in reliable secondary sources; (4) the criticism itself is also notable and was presented by both the primary and secondary sources in connection with Palin's notability

Additionally, while you claim to be siding with the "majority" opinion, you seem to only be paying attention to the straw poll itself, which is a flawed approach because it only includes people who have expressed an opinion on this subject in the last couple of weeks. If you pay attention to prior discussions, and actually treat those opinions as if they were valid (which many editors here steadfastly refuse to do) you will see that if there is a "majority" here who oppose inclusion, it is fairly slim.

I will also add that you, sir, are no less "involved" than KillerChihuahua was, and you have essentially become a partisan in this content dispute -- even worse, you're an admin partisan, and the article is locked so your word is final.Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 19:22, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Basketball Edit Request

The wording is out of order in the paragraph below:

"Palin attended Wasilla High School in Wasilla, located 44 miles (71 km) north of Anchorage. She was the head of the Fellowship of Christian Athletes chapter at the school and the point guard, a member of the girls' cross country team, and the point guard and captain of the school's girls' basketball team that won the Alaska state championship in 1982."

Thanks. JenWSU (talk) 15:23, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Lol... funny no-one noticed that :-). I'll make the change, and thanks for catching that JenWSU :-). --SB_Johnny | 15:42, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you! JenWSU (talk) 16:11, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

'First term' section: Sexual assault evidence gathering kits / budget passage

Propose replacing the applicable part of the current First term section, and preferably make separate subheadings within that section per Mayoralty of Sarah Palin

Here is how it would look on the page.

Palin appointed Charles Fannon to replace Irl Stambaugh as police chief. Fannon's department charged the cost of sexual assault evidence collection kits to the victims; he opposed a 2001 state law requiring police departments to pay for the kits. Palin, who was responsible for creating and overseeing the budget, cut funds to the "Contractual Services" line item for the kits; Stambaugh said he had included the line item to cover the kits when he was police chief under Stein.

Frontiersman: During your tenure as Mayor, what was the police department and city’s standard operating procedure in recovering costs of rape kits? Were any sexual assault victims ever charged for this testing while you were mayor?"
Sarah Palin: "The entire notion of making a victim of a crime pay for anything is crazy. I do not believe, nor have I ever believed, that rape victims should have to pay for an evidence-gathering test. As governor, I worked in a variety of ways to tackle the problem of sexual assault and rape, including making domestic violence a priority of my administration."
- Mat-Su Valley Frontiersman, September 30, 2008

Here is how the proposed replacement looks with 'nowiki' turned on:

Palin appointed<ref name="WasMuniCode">{{cite web|title=Wasilla municipal code|url=http://www.codepublishing.com/AK/Wasilla/Wasilla02/Wasilla0216.html|accessdate=22 Dec 08}}sections 2.16.020 & 2.16.040</ref> ] to replace Irl Stambaugh as police chief. Fannon's department charged the cost of sexual assault evidence collection kits to the victims;<ref name="Fquote">{{cite web|url=http://www.frontiersman.com/articles/2000/05/23/news.txt |title=Knowles signs sexual assault bill |publisher=Frontiersman |first=Jo C. |last=Goode |date=May 23, 2000 |accessdate=2008-11-09}}""In the past we've charged the cost of exams to the victims insurance company when possible. I just don't want to see any more burden put on the taxpayer", Fannon said. According to Fannon, the new law will cost the Wasilla Police Department approximately $5,000 to $14,000 a year to collect evidence for sexual assault cases." -Mat-Su Valley Frontiersman</ref><ref name="CNNCharge">{{cite news|title=Palin's town charged women for rape exams|url=http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/09/21/palin.rape.exams/index.html|publisher=]|date=22 Sep 08|accessdate=22 Dec 08}}includes link to video: "Multiple sources tell CNN...her police department charged some rape victims the cost of the forensic exam..."</ref> he opposed a 2001 state law requiring police departments to pay for the kits.<ref name="Fquote"/> Palin, who was responsible for creating and overseeing the budget,<ref name="WasMuniCode"/> cut funds to the "Contractual Services" line item for the kits;<ref name="Budget"/> Stambaugh said he had included the line item to cover the kits when he was police chief under Stein.<ref name="CNNCharge"/><ref name="Budget">{{cite news|title=New Evidence: Palin Had Direct Role In Charging Rape Victims For Exams|url=http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jacob-alperinsheriff/sarah-palin-instituted-ra_b_125833.html|author=Jacob Alperin-Sheriff|publisher=Huffington Post|date=September 11, 2008 08:30 PM (EST)|accessdate=Dec 22 08}} The exam kits, and other "Contractual Services", including removing snow from the nearby airport runway, were allocated an average of $2,600 for the years 1998-2001, compared with $3000 for the previous four years. Includes link to budget PDF; line item-page 42.</ref><blockquote>Frontiersman: During your tenure as Mayor, what was the police department and city’s standard operating procedure in recovering costs of rape kits? Were any sexual assault victims ever charged for this testing while you were mayor?"<br>Sarah Palin: "The entire notion of making a victim of a crime pay for anything is crazy. I do not believe, nor have I ever believed, that rape victims should have to pay for an evidence-gathering test. As governor, I worked in a variety of ways to tackle the problem of sexual assault and rape, including making domestic violence a priority of my administration."<br> - Mat-Su Valley Frontiersman, September 30, 2008<ref>{{cite web|url=http://frontiersman.com/articles/2008/09/30/breaking_news/doc48e1e1294d418713321438.txt|title=FRONTIERSMAN EXCLUSIVE: Palin responds to questions|publisher|Mat-Su Valley Frontiersman|date=Tuesday, September 30, 2008 12:39 AM AKDT|access=3rd Dec, 08}}</ref></blockquote>

Back up a second. She's actually commented on this? That's not the impression I got from reading the article. --SB_Johnny | 21:33, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

She's only commented in the context of dismissing it as a silly campaign smear...she's also commented on the ridiculous allegation that she faked the pregnancy of her youngest son. I don't think the comment should have any impact on whether that campaign strategy is included in this BLP. For the record, I'm still for eliminating the mention entirely as undue weight, as opposed to expanding it as mentioned above. Kelly 22:31, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

That's not exactly what I meant... the current wording doesn't imply that she was asked about it and denied it, leaving the impression that she's made no comment on the issue. That should probably be made clear if the passage is kept. --SB_Johnny | 22:36, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

(ec)Ah, good point. I still feel the issue has no place here, but I see your logic. Kelly 22:43, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

That's one reason I prefer the interview to the 'no evidence' sentence. Palin's own words, and Palin's own version of a rebuttal. Anarchangel (talk) 22:41, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

(EC) Johnny, Anarchangel's argument is that she didn't answer the question exactly how the it was phrased, and therefore her answer is an avoidance. Myself and many others here, like you, have read her response to be a denial. That a question was asked and she answered it in the strongest terms possible denouncing the practice, and thus the safest way so that political enemies couldn't use the quote against her.LedRush (talk) 22:43, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

To be precise, I was not making that argument at this time. I don't see why we can't discuss it though. If one is not looking for it, it can be easy to miss that Palin didn't answer the question directly. Let's look at it another way. We have debated whether Palin knew. Now if we knew the answers to two questions:
1.During Palin's tenure as Mayor, what was the police department and city’s standard operating procedure in recovering costs of rape kits?
and
2.Were any sexual assault victims ever charged for this testing while Palin was mayor?
...would we still be debating?

Now you could say, I should just trust her. And maybe I would. But there's the hospital thing too. She and a group of others joined the board of the local hospital, for $5 each. They elected the next board up, which elected the highest board, and stopped abortions at the hospital. They also spent $58,000 of the hospital's money on grants to "Valley Crisis Pregnancy Center for the establishment of an abortion hotline, the Mat-Su Alternative School for its Peer Outreach program and to Teen Challenge for an abstinence course.” Anchorage Daily News (Alaska), 12/28/99

This isn't in the article yet, because I haven't had time. I didn't even have time to keep the Obama-Ayers story out of this page about Sarah Palin. It was there until election day. It had even been gone from the Obama article for at least a week. Anarchangel (talk) 03:23, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Argh! What in the world does her position on abortion have to do with her police chief billing insurers for rape kits, Anarchangel?! You're introducing topics now that take tangents to absurdity and clearly show an intent to grind an axe against the subject of this BLP across a spectrum of issues (that are apparently important to you but have nothing to do with her biography). That's what blogs are for. Fcreid (talk) 10:53, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm, any evidence that Palin had a position or voted a particular way on the hospital's decision regarding abortion? The only thing I see in that article is a statement by a Right to Life director that they liked her because she was pro-life. I hope you don't have any particular feelings toward military hospitals - military doctors will not perform abortions either. We also publicly pray all the time in organized prayers. (shock!) Kelly 03:41, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Did you miss the part where the article said she joined the hospital board for the purpose of making sure the abortion ban held while the courts considered whether it was legal or not?Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 19:22, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

And somehow the fact that Palin was in favor of longer bar hours, which was clearly not the position favored by the WAG, does not get mentioned <g>. Near as I can figure, no evidence that she let religion dictate her positions has been forthcoming at all. Just campaign hype. Collect (talk) 14:06, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Branchflower section

The quote in the article currently references earlier statements by Palin's lawyers, not its own conclusions, when it mentions partisan smear job. It never considered that argument worthy of anything other than a mention, until this passage, which is in my opinion, an attempt to seem unbiased simply by including a mention. This is hamhanded, but neither should we misrepresent the material by giving this peripheral nod to an argument not addressed in the article the weight of inclusion in ours.

Suggest changing the wording to:

"...the report clearly states that she violated the State Ethics Act. Palin has reasonable grounds for arguing that the report cleared her of 'legal wrongdoing,' since she did have the authority to fire Monegan. But it is the reverse of the truth to claim that she was cleared of "any hint of any kind of unethical activity."
The ref for the material is Washington Post

Maybe I will have time someday to find a better ref. 'Four Pinocchios' is at least self-deprecating, at least I hope it is, but it rates similarly to the Truth-o-meter on my Cheese Detector. Anarchangel (talk) 21:05, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I object to all of these proposed changes, and urge the editor in question to take one change at a time, and be clear and concise. Using strikethrough (to suggest proposed deletions) and bold (to indicate insertions) would help clarify.Ferrylodge (talk) 21:42, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I'd object to this as well. The cited WaPo reference is an op-ed piece, by the way. Before making any expansion to the Tasergate stuff, it's probably best to wait to see how the Alaska legislature deals with it. Even the committee that commissioned the report didn't vote to approve its findings, they only voted to release the investigator's findings. I kind of doubt it will go anywhere (Palin recently made a joint radio appearance with Hollis French, her chief political opponent on this controversy, where both pledged to put this issue in the past and work together for Alaska moving forward) but it's impossible to know until the legislature reconvenes and decides whether or not to address this. Kelly 22:37, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Yet another clear objection to material which has not met my BLP concerns,nor, apparently, the concerns of others here. We will get his done by the deadline I suspect -- which means we likely should wait to see what the Alaska leislature does. Collect (talk) 22:57, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I have to agree with Collect and Kelly on this. The opinion piece cited does not give any new information which is not already found in less biased articles. I see no need why we shouldn't wait and see what happens.Zaereth (talk) 23:49, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

...And then you find out that all the material, and the cite, are in the article already, and it is obvious you are objecting to the editor, not the proposal. Ka-ching! Anarchangel (talk) 00:54, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

It may be obvious to you, but I don't see it that way. Perhaps his attention was not on that cite. Perhaps he has objected to it before and it got in anyway. However, you seem to be assuming bad faith in your accusation, and then you use a taunt to punctuate your accusation. Please try and be civil. This board will function much more smoothly if people refrain from personal attacks, remain civil, and try to remain constructive.LedRush (talk) 01:28, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

If an op-ed is cited in the article, that cite should be removed if it expresses a matter of opinion rather than fact. Kelly 00:56, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

No, it shouldn't. It would be a flagrant violation of policy to remove an opinion just because it is an opinion.Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 19:22, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Branchflower Edit Request Discussion

I believe that the part of the article that deals with Public Safety Commissioner dismissal is too long and takes up too much of Palin's article in relation to the importance in her biographer. Clearly, this is a complicated and important issue, and it has it's own article. I believe that the goal of this section should be to accurately and concisely describe and summarize the issue for readers, who can then go to the sub article for more information. To this end, I made some edits making the language and descriptions in the "Public Commissioner dismissal" section shorter, though my edits to the "Branchflower Report" section were reverted. The discussion soon got lost in yet another Rape Kit controversy, but I thought with our current oversight and spirit of cooperation, we could take another look at this.

My proposal was simple (bold for insertions, strike for deletions):

On October 10, 2008, the Alaska Legislative Council unanimously voted to release, without endorsing, the Branchflower Report, in which Stephen Branchflower found that firing Monegan "was a proper and lawful exercise of her constitutional and statutory authority," but that Palin abused her power as governor and violated the state's Executive Branch Ethics Act when her office pressured Monegan to fire Wooten . The report stated that "Governor Palin knowingly permitted a situation to continue where impermissible pressure was placed on several subordinates in order to advance a personal agenda, to wit: to get Trooper Michael Wooten fired." The report also said that Palin "permitted Todd Palin to use the Governor's office to continue to contact subordinate state employees in an effort to find some way to get Trooper Wooten fired."

On October 11, Palin's attorneys responded, condemning the Branchflower Report as "misleading and wrong on the law"; one, Thomas Van Flein, said that it was an attempt to "smear the governor by innuendo." Van Flein further argues that Branchflower's findings are flawed because Palin received "no monetary benefit" from her actions.

Palin said that she was "very very pleased to be cleared of any legal wrongdoing, any hint of any kind of unethical activity there". Among the commentators disputing her interpretation was a columnist for The Washington Post:

Another view was expressed in McClatchy's Kansascity.com, The Kansas City Star: "It’s just Steve Branchflower’s opinion that he thinks Governor Palin had, at worst, mixed motives for an action that even Branchflower admits she unquestionably had both the complete right to perform and other very good reasons to perform."

Other than the reason for this cut described above (length, undue weight) I think this edit also helps the article by removing repeated concepts. Also, I don't believe this edit either alters the weight given to either side of the controversy significantly (the pro-Palin side has a greater number of deletions, but the controversy is more appropriately presented) because the article clearly articulates the Branchflower Report's position on Palin's activity, and the section on her attorney's response clearly shows Palin's objection to it. Palin's quote is unnecessary, but it's inclusion makes commentary pieces from both pro and con voices needed, and I think those types of voices are better left out in favor of s "spinless" presentation of the facts.

I am not married to this edit, and of course will be happy to discuss all possible variations. I just thought this was a simple, accurate, and elegant change. (sorry for the "wall of text")LedRush (talk) 16:56, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Again, Palin's own quote is relevant, and I would prefer retention of both the Star and the Post's contributions, although note my previous suggestion regarding the Post quote, and I find the phrase "Another view was expressed in McClatchy's Kansascity.com, The Kansas City Star:" to be unwieldy. Anarchangel (talk) 22:59, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Balance requires editorial comments by one source to be balanced by other sources where such exist. Collect (talk) 00:16, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I would agree. Opinions, if included, need to address all relevant viewpoints in a balanced fashion, and need to be clearly attributed. Kelly 03:01, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Kelly, Collect...how what do you think about removing the quote and both editorials?LedRush (talk) 03:24, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Under WP:DEADLINE and considering nothing has been done by the legislature at this point, I would delete everything other than the fact the legislature "released" the report, and not make any further comments unless and until the legislature acts. "Release" of the report does not mean the legislature adopted anything, and if we list the accusations, we must also then list the defenses to be fair in a BLP. If the legislature acts, then whatever it does likely belongs here. Collect (talk) 03:30, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

LedRush, I do not agree with your suggestion. Contrary to Collect's argument, in this particular instance the mere release of the report attracted significant attention, so it should be covered in the article regardless of whether the legislature takes further action. When we include an investigative report about a bio subject, the bio subject's own reaction (the Palin quotation) would generally be significant and worth including, and is especially so here because there was a sharp divergence of opinion as to whether her assessment, expressed in the quotation you would delete, was accurate. JamesMLane t c 09:28, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

You may have misread what I wrote. If we include the "divergence of opinion" then we should include all such opinions, not just the ones which say she was wrong. If we try including only the one which says she was wrong in her response, then we have failed to give balance. If we do not include her response, then we also have failed to give balance. Thus either we report the main Branchflower finding and her response; the finding, her response and all further opinions; or we stick to saying it was released (allowing anyone to read it via cite) and wait for any legislative action per WP:DEADLINE. Balance is key, and with the deadline involved, it is better to be balanced than to give a false impression that no-one agreed with her position. Correct? Collect (talk) 11:21, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

By that logic, if we quote a Washington Post columnist as disagreeing with her, we're giving the impression that no one other than that columnist disagreed with her. That impression would be false; her statement was widely criticized. We have to strike a balance between fairly acquainting the reader with both sides of a controversy and not trying to catalog everything that's been said about it. In any event, my main point wasn't about how we strike that balance in this particular instance, but was rather that the Palin quotation should remain. There is another side to the dispute, which should also be presented. Noting one prominent opinion on each side is the minimum. You're arguing that, in this case, we must go beyond that and add more on the pro-Palin side, a point I didn't address before. I'm inclined to think that one comment on each side is adequate here. Perhaps we could drop the Kansas City Star quotation and substitute some general statement that there was controversy, with some commentators agreeing with Palin and others, such as the Washington Post, stating: (then introduce the quotation).

I don't see the dividing line as "Branchflower says this and Palin says that". Disputes as to whether Branchflower got his facts right are a different category, one that's covered in the previous paragraph, with the summary of Van Flein's response to the report. LedRush didn't propose any cuts there. The issue we're addressing now is how to interpret the Branchflower report, assuming arguendo that its factual assertions are correct. Palin interpreted it as a complete exoneration. The columnist interpreted it as demonstrating that she acted unethically. JamesMLane t c 11:51, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

It appears that you still did not read what I wrote. Any editorial opinion is balanceable by another editorial opinion, not a weasel statement that "others do not agree" or the like. There is no "counting up of editorials" involved -- it is a matter of stating a balancing opinion in a fully cited manner. I am not proposing ADDING to this section at all -- that is a substantial misreading of all my posts. It appears you wish to remove the fully-cited editorial opinion which was inserted as balance to the WaPo opinion. As for interpreting a primary source (which the report clearly is), that is dealt with under WP guidelines which say we can not interpret it here. In such a case, since we do not report all of its findings, we should just leave the report as a link to the primary source. Clear now? I will gladly show you archived discussions about "balance" where editorials are concerned. Collect (talk) 12:26, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand why you keep asserting that I didn't read what you wrote. You wrote, "I would delete everything other than the fact the legislature 'released' the report...." I took that as meaning that you agreed with LedRush's suggestion to delete Palin's own comment. I disagreed with that proposed deletion. As for a balanced presentation of the interpretation of the report, my suggestion is that we present one quotation interpreting it favorably to Palin, and then balance that by one quotation critical of her. The two quotations would be those from Palin and the Washington Post, respectively. Including one piece of "spin" from each side is at least roughly balanced. If we then add the favorable quotation from the Kansas City Star, supposedly to balance the one from the Washington Post, must we not then add another critical quotation, to balance the favorable one from the Star?

Of course, Misplaced Pages policy isn't to count the number of quotations or the number of lines devoted to each side. The policy is "o fairly represent all the leading views in a dispute" (per WP:NPOV). I believe that quoting Palin and the Post does that. You expressed a concern that doing so would give the reader the impression that no one agreed with Palin. I read that part of your comment, too, and tried to accommodate you by suggesting a general observation that would dispel any such misimpression -- a misimpression that I can't see a sensible reader forming, but I was trying to accommodate your expressed concern. JamesMLane t c 16:54, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I tried to accommodate both views with my edit suggestion below.LedRush (talk) 17:07, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

OK, as expected, we got a wide range of strong opinions. Here are some general thoughts:

I don't think the Palin response is necessary, though it is clearly relevant. I know that some think it should be included as an example of poor reasoning/reading, other just because it's from her. For me, I don't think it adds anything to the article...it is her spin/opinion on something which we've added based on fact.

Regarding trimming our description of the report, I don't find that argument compelling. If we don't quote the findings of the report I feel like we will be ignoring (not placing due weight on) something which was a big enough issue to merit a large section of her biography.

I agree that if we include one commentary, generally, we should include opposing ones. Though up until now, I don't know that anyone has proposed deleting just one. I kind of make that proposal below, but I think the request still strikes a good balance.

Anyway, in the spirit of moving forward, I offer this next edit:

On October 10, 2008, the Alaska Legislative Council unanimously voted to release, without endorsing, the Branchflower Report, in which Stephen Branchflower found that firing Monegan "was a proper and lawful exercise of her constitutional and statutory authority," but that Palin abused her power as governor and violated the state's Executive Branch Ethics Act when her office pressured Monegan to fire Wooten . The report stated that "Governor Palin knowingly permitted a situation to continue where impermissible pressure was placed on several subordinates in order to advance a personal agenda, to wit: to get Trooper Michael Wooten fired." The report also said that Palin "permitted Todd Palin to use the Governor's office to continue to contact subordinate state employees in an effort to find some way to get Trooper Wooten fired."

On October 11, Palin's attorneys responded, condemning the Branchflower Report as "misleading and wrong on the law"; one, Thomas Van Flein, said that it was an attempt to "smear the governor by innuendo." Van Flein further argues that Branchflower's findings are flawed because Palin received "no monetary benefit" from her actions.

Palin said that she was "very very pleased to be cleared of any legal wrongdoing, any hint of any kind of unethical activity there". Commentators disagreed on whether Palin's interpretation of the report was accurate. While some, like the Kansas City Star, generally agreed with Palin's characterization of the report, others, like a columnist for the Washington Post, stated "it is the reverse of the truth to claim that she was cleared of 'any hint of any kind of unethical activity.'" Among the commentators disputing her interpretation was a columnist for The Washington Post:

Another view was expressed in McClatchy's Kansascity.com, The Kansas City Star: "It’s just Steve Branchflower’s opinion that he thinks Governor Palin had, at worst, mixed motives for an action that even Branchflower admits she unquestionably had both the complete right to perform and other very good reasons to perform."

My reasoning on shortening this and making it more concise is the same as above. All this edit really does is condense the commentary reactions and delete one claim by the lawyer which is not particularly useful. As always, I'm open to suggestions, and prefer specific ones to general ones.LedRush (talk) 16:36, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

If one editorial gets a full quote, so ought the other. Or, conversely, if one is deleted, so ought the other. Collect (talk) 19:46, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree in principal - I did delete both originally - but I think in this case the end result is still a fair portrayal of both sides which addresses some of my concerns about length and weight.LedRush (talk) 19:57, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Couple methods of achieving balance - include only the primary sources (Branchflower's opinion and Palin's opinion) or also include outside sources like the Star and Post. If including editorial opinions from periodicals, there should be one from each side. Kelly 22:45, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, I have to say, I'm not really in favor of leaving an opinion, (even a partial one), from the Washington Post, and simply a 'they said' from the Star. How about changing the third paragraph above to read:

Palin said that she was "very very pleased to be cleared of any legal wrongdoing, any hint of any kind of unethical activity there". Commentators disagreed on whether Palin's interpretation of the report was accurate. While some, like the Kansas City Star, generally agreed with Palin's characterization of the report, stating, "It’s just Steve Branchflower’s opinion ...", others, like a columnist for the Washington Post, stated "it is the reverse of the truth to claim that she was cleared of 'any hint of any kind of unethical activity.'

Does that seem to shorten it up enough and still keep all the vital information? Zaereth (talk) 00:09, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Zaereth, I think that is an excellent suggestion.LedRush (talk) 00:21, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Nice to be able to agree with something for a change. No objection to that. Anarchangel (talk) 05:42, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm - I would change "Commentators disagreed on whether Palin's interpretation of the report was accurate." to "Commentators disagreed on whether the report was accurate." Kelly 04:49, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

The dispute of the accuracy of the report is already in the passage, hence the quote by Palin's lawyers. The current structure is report, dispute of report, Palin's comment, commentator's mixed reaction to Palin's interpretation. I know you were making a funny, but I hope we can get to a real solution here.LedRush (talk) 05:03, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

It looks like Zaereth, Anarchangel, and LedRush are onboard for the following edit proposal:

On October 10, 2008, the Alaska Legislative Council unanimously voted to release, without endorsing, the Branchflower Report, in which Stephen Branchflower found that firing Monegan "was a proper and lawful exercise of her constitutional and statutory authority," but that Palin abused her power as governor and violated the state's Executive Branch Ethics Act when her office pressured Monegan to fire Wooten . The report stated that "Governor Palin knowingly permitted a situation to continue where impermissible pressure was placed on several subordinates in order to advance a personal agenda, to wit: to get Trooper Michael Wooten fired." The report also said that Palin "permitted Todd Palin to use the Governor's office to continue to contact subordinate state employees in an effort to find some way to get Trooper Wooten fired."

On October 11, Palin's attorneys responded, condemning the Branchflower Report as "misleading and wrong on the law"; one, Thomas Van Flein, said that it was an attempt to "smear the governor by innuendo." Van Flein further argues that Branchflower's findings are flawed because Palin received "no monetary benefit" from her actions.

Palin said that she was "very very pleased to be cleared of any legal wrongdoing, any hint of any kind of unethical activity there". Commentators disagreed on whether Palin's interpretation of the report was accurate. While some, like the Kansas City Star, generally agreed with Palin's characterization of the report stating, "It’s just Steve Branchflower’s opinion ...", others, like a columnist for the Washington Post, stated "it is the reverse of the truth to claim that she was cleared of 'any hint of any kind of unethical activity.'"

Among the commentators disputing her interpretation was a columnist for The Washington Post:

Another view was expressed in McClatchy's Kansascity.com, The Kansas City Star: "It’s just Steve Branchflower’s opinion that he thinks Governor Palin had, at worst, mixed motives for an action that even Branchflower admits she unquestionably had both the complete right to perform and other very good reasons to perform."

Hopefully, by retaining smaller quotes from each commentator both Kelly's and Collect's issues are addressed. What are your (specific) thoughts (anyone)?LedRush (talk) 07:23, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Simple Branchflower Edit Request

The quotes in this section are a bit off. (additions bold, subtractions struck...basically delete firt quotation mark and add one at the end.

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

That is all.LedRush (talk) 16:59, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Done; good catch. KillerChihuahua 18:39, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Edit Request 3

Wouldn't it be a good idea to say in the first paragraph (bio) that palin failed (specifically) to achieve VP status? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.198.187.57 (talk) 05:41, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

No. We don't say that on John Edwards' bio article either, or any other person who was nominated as a presidential running mate who was not elected. »S0CO 05:54, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

It's true. For some reason, the tradition on WP is that while Presidential candidates lose (Carter, HW Bush, Kerry (conceded), McCain), VPs are only nominated (Mondale, Dole, Edwards, Palin) This bizarre disjunction is why one should never take seriously the idea that what is in one article is the way it should be in another, or the converse, what isn't in one article shouldn't be in another. Anarchangel (talk) 15:46, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

This article has been locked for way too long

I understand the need to keep out trolls and vandals. But to totally lock any article for this long a time period violates the spirit of what wikipedia is supposed to be about. Grundle2600 (talk) 16:19, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

If you spent more time here, I think you'd understand. As a long time editor of the article, I actually prefer having two admins needing to agree to make an edit. It sucks for them, but it has made discourse on the page generally more civil, ended edit wars, and allowed us to at least talk about how to improve the article.LedRush (talk) 16:39, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Please note that the article is now under probation, which may allow for us to reduce the time that the article is locked. It may not; I merely mention the possibility. Also Grundle, you may be interested to know about Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Sarah Palin protection wheel war - another reason Johnny and I ensure we agree on everything before we move forward. When the wars extend to admins, an article is a very hot place. The sanctions in place are not draconian nor were they put in place with insufficient rationale. KillerChihuahua 17:21, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

OK. Thanks for explaining it - both of you. Grundle2600 (talk) 17:34, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Has the article probation proposal been approved? Kelly 22:40, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, and I finally added the darn thing today, and added the template here. We're all offical now. Well, as official as such things generally get on Misplaced Pages. KillerChihuahua 02:53, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Cool, thanks. Kelly 04:47, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

You're more than welcome. It may be of interest to all editors of this page to take a look at Talk:Barack Obama/Article probation, as that was the probation this was based on. Please note Not much leeway in pages under probation, so basically be a model Wikipedian and the extensive list of remedies applied to individuals at Talk:Barack Obama/Article probation#Log of sanctions. Our log is currently blank; lets see if we can keep it that way, ok?

Please note also that this probation applies to all Palin articles - so if there is anything objectionable going on on any of the related articles, please let SB Johnny or myself know about it. Its hard to keep up with all of them. KillerChihuahua 12:01, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Are we waiting for something else to happen before unprotecting? --SB_Johnny | 13:59, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Well yes, we're waiting for you and I to agree its a good idea. I take it you want to take the plunge, give it a try? KillerChihuahua 14:06, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

"restoring"

Restoring precisely one side of a colloquy is not restoring anything. When noted, moving the comment as far away as possible makes one doubt further the purpose of the "restore." I would humbly suggest that moving comments hither and yon with the aim of making them appear meaningless is not a proper way to edit the Talk page of an article. Thanks! Collect (talk) 21:03, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Seriously, Collect. You changed all the 'Refuted' stuff around, the definition of BLP up there is even now still subverted by the selective quoting that someone, I haven't looked, but it might have well been you, changed it to, and you're complaining about me trying to fix all that? Anarchangel (talk) 05:56, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Huh? I assure you that I do NOT edit Talk pages by moving stuff around. If you wish to charge me with anything, post the diff here. If you do not, then be a mensch. Thanks! Collect (talk) 14:48, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Agf, please. You don't know his aim. KillerChihuahua 22:28, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

History is a problem as he has done this before, KC. Collect (talk) 02:02, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

and again I strongly suggest you cease the snarky comments which imply you know his intent. Making such comments does not reduce the hostile and combative behavior at all but rather prolongs and exacerbates the issues. KillerChihuahua 02:52, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Winter cleaning

It's very hard to connect any dots on this page at the moment, as various debates have bled into one another and are mixed with an awful lot of head-butting that's not related to any progress on improving the article. I suggest putting all of the above into an archive box, followed by starting new headers for topics that the contributors want to discuss (one header per topic). It's really hard to follow right now, particularly for those of us who aren't "Palinologists" (well, that might only be me, but yesterday's refactorings make me think that I'm not the only one a bit at sea). Sound good? --SB_Johnny | 11:22, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Archive box? Do you mean archiving, or collapsing, or something else? Thanks! KillerChihuahua 11:25, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

"Close tags" for now, then archive once the contributors get the new threads going. The threads above are just darn confusing. --SB_Johnny | 11:42, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't see a problem with archiving everything above Branchflower, myself. Clean slate the rest of it and start new discussions. Any objections? KillerChihuahua 11:51, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

1. ^ "Wasilla municipal code". Retrieved 22 Dec 08. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= (help)sections 2.16.020 & 2.16.040
2. ^ Goode, Jo C. (May 23, 2000). "Knowles signs sexual assault bill". Frontiersman. Retrieved 2008-11-09.""In the past we've charged the cost of exams to the victims insurance company when possible. I just don't want to see any more burden put on the taxpayer", Fannon said. According to Fannon, the new law will cost the Wasilla Police Department approximately $5,000 to $14,000 a year to collect evidence for sexual assault cases." -Mat-Su Valley Frontiersman
3. ^ "Palin's town charged women for rape exams". CNN. 22 Sep 08. Retrieved 22 Dec 08. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= and |date= (help)includes link to video: "Multiple sources tell CNN...her police department charged some rape victims the cost of the forensic exam..."
4. ^ Jacob Alperin-Sheriff (September 11, 2008 08:30 PM (EST)). "New Evidence: Palin Had Direct Role In Charging Rape Victims For Exams". Huffington Post. Retrieved Dec 22 08. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= and |date= (help) The exam kits, and other "Contractual Services", including removing snow from the nearby airport runway, were allocated an average of $2,600 for the years 1998-2001, compared with $3000 for the previous four years. Includes link to budget PDF; line item-page 42.
5. "FRONTIERSMAN EXCLUSIVE: Palin responds to questions". Tuesday, September 30, 2008 12:39 AM AKDT. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help); Text "Mat-Su Valley Frontiersman" ignored (help); Text "publisher" ignored (help); Unknown parameter |access= ignored (|access-date= suggested) (help)

• Former good article nominees
• Biography articles of living people
• All unassessed articles
• Pages using WikiProject banner shell with duplicate banner templates
• B-Class biography articles
• B-Class biography (politics and government) articles
• High-importance biography (politics and government) articles
• Politics and government work group articles
• WikiProject Biography articles
• Unassessed United States articles
• Low-importance United States articles
• Unassessed United States articles of Low-importance
• Unassessed United States presidential elections articles
• Unknown-importance United States presidential elections articles
• WikiProject United States presidential elections articles
• WikiProject United States articles
• B-Class Alaska articles
• High-importance Alaska articles
• WikiProject Alaska articles
• B-Class politics articles
• High-importance politics articles
• WikiProject Politics articles
• Unknown-importance United States articles
• Unassessed United States articles of Unknown-importance
• Unassessed Idaho articles
• Unknown-importance Idaho articles
• WikiProject Idaho articles
• Misplaced Pages pages referenced by the press