Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 22:02, 28 November 2008

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute.

This page is not a forum for general discussion about Sarah Palin. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Sarah Palin at the Reference desk.

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.

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

Rape kit material

Template:RFCpol

• Should material about the cost of rape kits be included in this bio?
• Refuse to dignify this subversion of the poll process with an answer. Consensus was reached, and you have provided no reason to change it. Poll is being used as an excuse to delete material. Anarchangel (talk) 20:05, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Can a wiki lawyer help out with my attempt at this RFC? Any thoughts on other types of mediation here? I am hoping that if enough nuetral eyes take a look, this will work out. Thanks in advance. --Tom 19:55, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Hopefully my 3rd attemp will work, but I doubt it :) --Tom 20:54, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm not a lawyer (and wholly agree with Shakespeare about the entire slimy breed), and frankly I can't be arsed to go through the archive that show whether or not a consensus was reached. Anyway consensus can be changed. I do think that the abbreviated version of the text in question is more appropriate as it bears directly on Saint Sarah. The long version that Tom or whoever it is tends to revert contains material re the police that does not; and also a cite to the effect that there's no conclusive evidence as to whether or not Saint Sarah was in the know. I've come round to favoring the cut. Incidentally I think the previous accusations of vandalism and WP:TAG are a bit strong. The vandalism one in particular is, ahem, outré. And de trop. Merci. — Writegeist (talk) 22:13, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

As I suggested above, I do not think the content at issue is relevant to Palin's biography. In any case, its inclusion focuses undue weight on a minor city policy issue she may or may not have been closely involved in administering. Leave it out. --Evb-wiki (talk) 02:44, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree. --Tom 13:06, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

I have removed this "material". --Tom 14:51, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

...With this http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Sarah_Palin&diff=253828398&oldid=253827027 edit]. The summary of which states, " see talk page RFC. Please comment there, thank you." And the 3<3 edit above is his most recent after that, so I guess it is supposed to be a RFC now. Buahaha. Seriously, if you say, 'I deleted some stuff' as a reason for undoing prior consensus, you're going to have to expect some skepticism as to the propriety of your procedure. If you had one reason that hadn't been considered before, then fine. If you want comments from us about why we object to your reverts of that material, 3<3, just look at the archives of the previous handful of times you've done it. I personally find no reason to add any. If only this was like Chess, where if someone makes the same move over and over, it's a draw. Anarchangel (talk) 18:25, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

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

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

Previous discussions on this subject included dozens of editors. You plus a couple people revisiting the subject are not a substantial enough "consensus" to delete this. I'd like to add my impression that Writegeist "voted" to cut this merely because he was miffed that I deleted these comments in which he openly mocked the names of Palin's children, with no intent whatsoever to improve the article, just using the talk page to ridicule Palin. Sorry Write, but that one was over the line. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 18:39, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

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

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

Repeatedly deleting the material which you are seeking comment on tends to defeat the purpose for seeking a consensus to delete it in the first place. This is just an ongoing POV-pushing edit war for you. You have deleted this same sourced, relevant, notable material dozens of times, without seeking compromise at any point. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 18:56, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Repeating lies still doesn't make them true. --Tom 19:04, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Huh? Which "lies" would those be? Please elaborate. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 19:07, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

"Lies"? Well, there's a cogent argument. Minus a cogent argument, and plus an irrelevant cliche with personal attack overtones. Anarchangel (talk) 19:17, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Tom, due to your dozens of deletions and apparent unwillingness to discuss or compromise, I have sought to have you blocked from editing this article. Sorry it had to come to this. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 20:19, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) Why not seek some type of dispute resolution rather than seeking to block me? --Tom 20:25, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

At no time have you given any indication that you were amenable to discussion or compromise. You have simply deleted it over and over and over again. Even while "seeking comment" in an RFC you have just continued to delete the material. Frankly, I only have limited time to edit Misplaced Pages and cannot afford to waste time in arbitration with someone who is simply trying to toss out roadblocks with no intention of stopping the problematic behavior. Your conduct has warranted blocking multiple times, and I have let it slide -- and the result has just been more work for me, undoing your continued deletions. On top of that, we held discussion on this for weeks and all you really said was "this goes in the Fannon bio" while repeatedly deleting it. It's disingenuous to now claim that you seek discussion. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 20:41, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

I still think that others need to be involved here rather that just going back and forth with each other. --Tom 20:50, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

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

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

As I recall, we came to an agreement on a compromise that mentioned the police chief she hired and his opposition to the kits. The compromise was fair and balanced and agreed-on by all sides. Now if some enterprising person can just go to the archives and dig it out, it will be kindly appreciated.  :-) GreekParadise (talk) 02:37, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I'll jump right on it. With only 43 archives, it shouldn't take more than a week or two :). --Tom 14:58, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Check the Archive Index. The rape kit matter is mentioned in only 13 thread titles. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 18:22, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Archive 40 at the bottom has alot about this "issue" it seems. Also see archive 20, 25, 29, 33, and 35. --Tom 18:34, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Greek, the compromise that was consensus, is what Tom deleted. Don't you get it? He just keeps coming along and deleting every once in a while to keep us busy. WP:CCC is for new people coming in, or new arguments. 3<3 is and has neither. Anarchangel (talk) 20:05, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

My handle is 3after3, not 3lessthan3. Anyways, no biggie. --Tom 20:48, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

It makes sense if you see the < sign as signifying the course, or direction, of events. 3 follows (after) < 3 Anarchangel (talk) 21:40, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I could have sworn you were just referring to him as "3" and using the emoticon <3 to indicate that you love him. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 21:52, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

So that's what that means. No, I didn't mean that. Anarchangel (talk) 15:15, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Hereis where we agreed to disagree and started hammering out a compromise version. The actual fashioning of the wording tends to begin under the headings "Fcreid's proffered language" and "was there a controversy?" It was an awful lot of discussion, awful lot of give-and-take, awful lot of work... and awfully annoying when Tom resumed his preferred method of simply deleting the entire thing repeatedly without discussion. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 20:45, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I note that I and others did not sign off on your personal consensus. Sorry to disillusion you. Collect (talk) 20:53, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Is fcreid still around? He was a saint working with folks on this. Anyways, --Tom 20:57, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

He was around a couple days ago. You could try dropping a note on his talk page, I just did exactly that. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 21:09, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Still alive and well, thanks. Been following the conversation daily but haven't seen the need to chime back in. As everyone knows, I've never been a fan of including the rape kit material in the first place. However, a compelling argument was made that Palin's apparent lack of knowledge in Fannon's practice was important (in that some felt she *should* have known what he was doing). The compromise we reached was to include the fact that the controversy existed, as evidenced by the Frontiersman May 2000 article, but to include the fact that there was no evidence Palin was aware of his practice (using the SPT article). Fcreid (talk) 22:26, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Your personal signature is not required, Collect. Nor was it "my personal consensus" – as the compromise was reached amongst several editors including quite a few who were "on your side", such as yourself, Fcreid, Evb-wiki, and Zsero. Everybody gave up something they wanted... that's what made it a compromise. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 21:02, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

Why is this even a discussion. The longer I am on Misplaced Pages, the more that I am surprised by how much truly extraneous, irrelevant, biased detail ends up in articles here. Is Misplaced Pages supposed to be a warehouse of all of the small but ultimately historically insignificant details that pass for news in the era of 500 cable TV channels with nothing on. I don't think the Rape kits should be in the article. That is not what is significant or relevant to Sarah Palin. Misplaced Pages should not be used as a weapon to perpetuate rumors and baseless insinuation about people or groups of people. In case it is relevant to someone reading this, I am not defending Sarah Palin. I did not vote for her and McCain, I just think that enough is enough.Elmmapleoakpine (talk) 01:52, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi Elmmapleoakpine, oh course this doesn't belong in the article. Unfortunately, articles like this is where wikipedia is very weak. Single purpose agenda pushing editors gravitate to articles like this where things aren't black and white unlike an artilce like say Iron ore. The only saving grace is Misplaced Pages's some what transparancy so troll like behavoir becomes evident after awhile and lies can be seen. Hopefully enough eyes that don't want to smear or puff up this article will take a look so some NPOV will rise. Anyways, --Tom 14:09, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

I was trying to preserve the chronological order. I believe Collect did that at one point for the same reason, and also accused me of "interpolating" a comment in order to deceive readers... still not sure what he meant by that since it was obvious where my comments were directed. Anyway as long as you're undoing that, could you at least put my comment back under yours, since it was replying to yours? Anyway, I do plenty to prevent smears from appearing here. Recall my successful effort to shut down the guy who insisted on coming here and making references to the Palin porno, among other things. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 19:31, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Factchecker, I tried to indent my comment beyond yours so folks could see I was replying to Elmmapleoakpine and people could see your reply as well. Nobody should move any comments around unless an ip puts a comment at the top of the page ect. It is good that you fought off the porno inclusion. Just to recap, this whole "rape kit" controversey domahigee first broke in earnest after Palin was announced as VP. Its been through the ringer and wash cycle so manny times and what has really come out? Seriously. She knew or she should have known or what? If there is any reliable source that concretely ties her to this "issue" (thats being kind), then fine, include it, but as it is, it really does not belong in her bio. It already has way to much coverage in the sub artilces, imho, but I have not even gone there.--Tom 19:42, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Tom, you surely know I'm not a fan of including the rape kit material in this article, for many of the reasons you stated above and for others I won't reiterate. I had also hoped it would whither on the vine after the election. All that said, I think it is wrong to "edit war" about its inclusion today as long as sincere editors still feel it belongs. Factchecker, Anarchangel and Jimmuldrow are among those. I recognize consensus can and often does change, but these editors still feel it warrants mention because it occurred "on Palin's watch" in Wasilla, if nothing more, and I have to agree. My caveat remains that we clearly convey there is no evidence Palin knew about the practice, and that aspect of the article was tampered with in recent days (replaced by "never commented about" or something). To maintain a friendly and cooperative atmosphere, and in the spirit of Thanksgiving, I suggest we revert to the version prior to Anarchangel's changes several days ago. Perhaps if no new information arises in a month or two, those other editors may be willing to reconsider its inclusion in the first place. Fcreid (talk) 20:32, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

Now, of course there are all kinds of ways in which all this information might be inappropriately woven together to produce an OR conclusion that Palin DID know, or was behind the policy, or any number of other conclusions that were never reached in any particular source -- all of which would be inappropriate. But none of the versions that's ever been put into the article, from my original attempt to reflect it in an NPOV fashion, to the more recent compromise version which you keep deleting, suffer from such weaknesses. In fact, I believe the central objection to my original version was that it was simply too long. Regardless, since a compromise was reached, and it's brief and conservatively worded, I think we should preserve it. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 20:42, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Um -- nope. You misstate facts multiple times. First -- the police department did not exist in Wasilla until 1993, and the official records show a trivial number of TOTAL sexual assaults. Cite already given. Second, per a cite you gave on the law, minors covered by Alaska Cares currently have that program pay for all rape exams (the new law applies only to those over 16). Thus Wasilla always did have "insurance" pay for rape exams. Third, the Police Department asked for budget monies, and there is no evidence Palin cut one cent from the budget asked for, Fourth, the state law does NOT stop the A;aska Cares insurance from paying for rape exams, Fifth, there is no evidence Fannon said anything about the proposed law until it was enacted, Sixth, there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that Palin knew anything at all about a policy which affected so few people (not a single case of a person being billed has shown up, and you know that the media would have reported if they found even a single case) Seventh an edtorial is only worth citing as an opinion, not as a fact per WP guidelines, Eighth, if a spokesperson does not know a "negative" how is the spokesperson supposed to handle the question other than saying she does not know and so can not answer? Ninth, this has been an editwar, and I would have hoped you had learned a lesson from being quite nearly blocked. Thank you most kindly. Collect (talk) 21:51, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

1a. How exactly does Palin starting the PD with Stein and Stambaugh in '93 prevent her from having done anything Factchecker said? It is only proof that she discards people once they have outlived their usefulness. 1b. The low number of sexual assaults proves that Fannon was either incompetent or lying when he said $4-15K cost to the PD. I will be keeping track of the times I say that and it isn't addressed, from now on.

2a. Currently, the law now is the law now. And the current discussion is the 1990s. First time I have had to say that, thank Frick. Earth to Collect, come in Collect.

2b."Second, per a cite you gave on the law, minors covered by Alaska Cares currently have that program pay for all rape exams (the new law applies only to those over 16). Thus Wasilla always did have "insurance" pay for rape exams." Wow. A new low for obfuscation.

2c.Insurance is an asset of the insurance buyer, and thus the charge and the bill are against the victim's assets. Insurance is irrelevant as an ameliorating distinction. I will be keeping track of the times I say that and it isn't addressed, from now on.

3. Incorrect. Follow the link. I will be keeping track of the times I say that and it isn't addressed, from now on.

4. Alaska Cares may or may not have paid in '96, and not relevant as per 2c. Hopefully I won't have to say that again.

5. Are you going for the record of most wrong things said in one reply? Fannon to the Frontiersman: May 22 2000, three days after the law was passed on the 19th, but before it was enacted. I will be keeping track of the times I say that and it isn't addressed, from now on.

6. This is the one and only point worth answering, really. There are multiple reasons why she should have known, most notably Fannon's conspicuous presence in the local paper, the empirically observable fact that she is his boss, the fact that she cut the budget, and should have known it wasn't sufficient, etc, and our task should be to delineate those, preferably less vaguely than the Alberto Gonzales page currently does. Alberto Gonzales was fired for much the same behaviour; evidence of impropriety he failed to convincingly explain, leaving investigators with no choice but to assume his incompetence. This is the first time I have answered this, so I'll let it sink in.

7. I can only speculate on what this refers to, so I won't. Please elucidate.

8. Interviewees, I should imagine, have exactly the difficulty you describe with questions for which there is no answer, which is why they would avoid asking them. I am going to take a stab at it even though I am only guessing which question you refer to. If you mean, 'During your tenure as mayor in 2000, then police chief Charlie Fannon commented in a May 23, 2000 Frontiersman article about legislation Gov. Tony Knowles signed protecting victims of sexual assault from being billed for rape kits collected by police as part of their investigations. Fannon revealed then that Knowles’ decision would cost Wasilla $5,000 to $14,000 a year, insinuating that the department’s policy was to bill victims for this testing. During your tenure as Mayor, what was the police department and city’s standard operating procedure in recovering costs of rape kits? Were any sexual assault victims ever charged for this testing while you were mayor?"...

...Then hopefully the answer would be, "Fannon didn't charge. The PD paid for them. No victims were ever charged."

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

This is a little like being asked, "Your employee put pressure on Justices and DAs to conform to a partisan agenda" and answering, "Putting pressure on Justices for a partisan agenda is bad". If Gonzales had said that, his hearings and subsequent firing would have been completed considerably sooner. Again, 1st time said.

9. The only lesson to learn from an edit war on this page is that if 3<3 doesn't start one, there won't be one, and that tagteaming works, until the arbitration. I am here for the long haul. Anarchangel (talk) 15:15, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

1a. Palin was not mayor in 1993. She did not appoint the police chief in 1993. 1b. Huh? Wasilla was a small town, and not having a large number of rapes is consistent with that. The big crime issues wers driving violations and petty theft.

2. The 2000 law is clear, and has been cited here as well. Guess some did not read it or the minutes of the legislative discussions. "Alaska Cares" is clearly discussed therein.

3. I have seen no cite that Palin cut the PD budget to remove rape exam monies. Nor has anyone I have seen discuss this claim that. Til you.

4. See supra about the cites given for the legislative discussion.

5. You are claimint that the law as "passed" before it was "enacted"??? Amazing! Most people would realize that one a law is PASSED, that it has been passed.

6. Gonzales?? A bit if a reach! There has been zero evidence to indicate that Palin knew, or should have known, of every single policy of every department in the city. For example, does you mayor know the exact criteria used to determine how to fill potholes in roads? How many fingerint points of identification are needed for a match? How many days off are allowed for teachers? Knowledge of every single possible policy is unreasonable, and not found anywhere I know of.

7. The cliam was made that a NYT opinion column is evidence that Palin should have known etc. See sura. An editorial opinion is, at best, an editorial opinion. The editor of the NYT probably does not know how many line inches are need for a lower ad rate on the NYT, though, by the exact stame standard of "should have known" he should know.

8. See above. Unless you, as a mayor, would know every bit of minutia about eery department???

All answered. Thank you most kindly. Collect (talk) 13:33, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

When in doubt, call the other person's post "nonsense"? And assert you were not a guilty party in an editwar? Wow!

First, I use "secondary" sources, other than the facts about what was said in the official legislative minutes. As I was not the person who cited them here, I figured the person who did cite them would approve of using them in the Talk page. Seconf, I never said "1989"" about anything, so that aside is a "huh". Third, you have not found any support fot the city charging a single victim for any rape exam. Fifth, you still have no basis for asserting Palin cut any "rape exam" monies. Sixth, the police department grew under Palin's tenure as mayor, per crime reports. Sixth, crime had a drop in per 100K stats while she was mayor. Seventh, for minors "Alaska Cares" is an "insurance program." Eighth, there is no evidence Fannon said anything about the proposed law until after it was passed. Ninth, there is no evidence that Fannon led any fight against the law being passed. Tenth, You claimed supra that a NYT opinion piece said she "should have known" about every single policy of every department in a city. And I assert that such omniscience is found in few mayors. Eleventh, absent a transcript, you are relying on a claim that the question was not answered. Which does not mean diddly squat. Unless, of course, you think a spokesperson has omniscience as well. Twelfth, "blaming the other guy" is no excuse. I would have thought that was a kindergarten lesson, in fact. As for your snide attack that this is abuse -- I would point out to others that the editwarring post by me specifically included both editwarriors (listing Tom first, in fact) so your accusation is absurd on its face. Thank you most kindly. Collect (talk) 13:51, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

(outdent)When in doubt, call the other person's post "nonsense"?

No doubt whatsoever; your posts are nonsense. You are making no attempt to have an honest discussion.

And assert you were not a guilty party in an editwar? Wow!

Exhibit A of the above-mentioned nonsense. I clearly did not say I wasn't guilty of edit warring. I said I was no more guilty than Three, who initiated the edit warring at every step of the way.

First, I use "secondary" sources, other than the facts about what was said in the official legislative minutes. As I was not the person who cited them here, I figured the person who did cite them would approve of using them in the Talk page.

You repeatedly attempted to use your own original research analysis of primary sources to refute published analysis in an attempt to disqualify it from inclusion. You're not allowed to do that, as I have repeatedly stated and as you have repeatedly ignored On the other hand, I cited primary sources to refute your original research analysis -- an analysis which was also based on primary sources, and which was largely nonsense -- not to refute published analysis, which, again, is not allowed.

Seconf, I never said "1989"" about anything, so that aside is a "huh".

You stated that I misstated facts repeatedly. Then, as if to offer an example, you stated that Wasilla hadn't had a police dept before 1993. This did not refute, and did not even relate to, anything I had said. My question of "Did I say all of this occurred in 1989" was an attempt to get you to state any logical connection whatsoever between my comments, and your supposed "rebuttal". You have still not even suggested such a connection so I can only conclude the remark was a total non-sequitur bearing no relation to the discussion you were claiming to refute.

Third, you have not found any support fot the city charging a single victim for any rape exam.

I cited the CNN article and quotation by Croft, the bill sponsor, saying they could not get Wasilla to stop charging victims for rape exams. The only single mistake I ever made was inserting text directly from the CNN article without directly saying it was the CNN article. It should have included that text, along with a phrase like 'according to an article published by CNN'. But I did properly attribute the quotation directly to Croft.

Fifth, you still have no basis for asserting Palin cut any "rape exam" monies.

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

You appear to have deliberately ignored this citation, which I brought directly to your attention, which directly supports my assertion that Palin "cut the funding for the budget item that had been previously used by the city to pay for th exams", and which I repeat again without further comment. Perhaps it will sink in. Probably not.

Sixth, the police department grew under Palin's tenure as mayor, per crime reports. Sixth, crime had a drop in per 100K stats while she was mayor.

This would be interesting and relevant to our discussion if it refuted or contradicted anything I have ever said on the subject. This is like me saying "You're completely wrong, Collect, leafy green vegetables ARE an excellent source of B vitamins" as if this refuted something you had previously said. This is another good example of the kind of nonsense I am talking about when I say your posts are nonsense.

Seventh, for minors "Alaska Cares" is an "insurance program."

Great. This still does not support your claim that this somehow refutes or contradicts my claim that "a state law was proposed banning the practice of billing victim's insurance;", a claim which is directly supported by every single source on the subject, for example the Frontiersman article saying "The new law makes it illegal for any law enforcement agency to bill victims or victims insurance companies for the costs of examinations that take place to collect evidence of a sexual assault or determine if a sexual assault did occur."

Your total inability to follow a logical discussion is dumbfounding. If someone says X, and you retort by saying "not R", then say "look I just refuted your claim that X!", you have not only failed to refute the claim X, you have revealed to the reader that you have zero grasp of logic or rational discussion.

Eighth, there is no evidence Fannon said anything about the proposed law until after it was passed.

You seem to have conveniently ignored that I conceded that point above -- and observed that it's a minor quibbling, as my central point was simply that Fannon was a central opponent of the new law during a debate which went on for months, which is ALSO supported by the fact that the Frontiersman article CITES HIM, AND ONLY HIM, as an opponent of the bill, and also by the CNN article quoting Croft as saying "I find it hard to believe that for six months a small town, a police chief, would lead the fight against a statewide piece of legislation receiving unanimous support and the mayor not know about it,"

Ninth, there is no evidence that Fannon led any fight against the law being passed.

The bill sponsor, as repeatedly noted, stated that he did. And again, I'll remind you that facts about opinions are still facts, so if I had tried to insert material saying Croft claimed Fannon led the fight, and provided the cite, it would be a substantiated fact that Croft stated his opinion that Fannon led the fight. I'll also remind you, again, that he was the only person cited by the Frontiersman article as opposing the law.

Tenth, You claimed supra that a NYT opinion piece said she "should have known" about every single policy of every department in a city. And I assert that such omniscience is found in few mayors.

Great, get your opinion published by a reliable source and we'll use it here. Until then, your personal analysis does not go in the article and cannot be used to refute actual published analysis. See WP:Verifiability.

PS, in a town of Wasilla's size it would hardly be superhuman to know about a new policy implemented by her newly appointed police chief which was made illegal by a new statewide law, with that new police chief being quoted in the papers as opposing the new law. Hence the NYT opinion piece saying she should have known, especially if she expected to be elected Vice President.

Eleventh, absent a transcript, you are relying on a claim that the question was not answered.

I'm relying on the USA Today article which stated "Comella would not answer other questions, including when Palin learned of Wasilla's policy or whether she tried to change it. "

It doesn't say she couldn't answer the question, or didn't have enough information to answer the question, or didn't know the answer. It says she would not answer the question. When citing sources on Misplaced Pages, you don't reinterpret them to say something other than what they say -- you cite them at face value. On top of that, it was an email exchange, so if the Palin spokesperson wanted to answer the question, presumably the Palin spokesperson would have had access to Palin to ask it straight from the horse's mouth. On top of that, I never even attempted to say anything in the article about the spokesperson not answering that question... was just offering it to refute your OR assertion that this whole thing was unrelated to Palin.

Twelfth, "blaming the other guy" is no excuse. I would have thought that was a kindergarten lesson, in fact.

Ok, so, you have zero substantiation and zero logical basis for anything you've said, so you point out I was edit warring. Bravo. Tom was edit warring too, and he's the one that started the war. If I hadn't edit warred that would have meant letting him reap the benefits of edit warring completely unchallenged, and let his removal of our compromise text stand. Sue me for going tit for tat with Three in an edit war, since you couldn't get me blocked for it (despite trying).

As for your snide attack that this is abuse -- I would point out to others that the editwarring post by me specifically included both editwarriors (listing Tom first, in fact) so your accusation is absurd on its face. Thank you most kindly.

And I notice that you sit there and pretend that your own statements, such as this one quote above, are not snide attacks. The "thank you most kindly" is an especially nice touch.

Again, you make me waste my time refuting nonsense. When your nonsense is refuted, you ignore the refutation and pile on more nonsense. This pollutes the talk page and masquerades for honest discussion. It is abuse -- you are simply hoping I will get sick of wasting my time arguing, and go away. That's abuse. Thank you most kindly. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 21:18, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Palin Turkey Interview

This is interesting Sarah was interviewed in front of a turkey slaughter and declined to move on. How should we include this in her biography?Mattnad (talk) 23:14, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Nope. Collect (talk) 23:40, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

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

I guess you are new to this talk page? Turkey farm and Palin? Definately include. Not! --Tom 00:24, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

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

I did not delete your forelegs, but I will not back you in any editwar. I consider such a threat to be inimical to seeking consensus. The bounty, by the way, was not created by Palin. Collect (talk) 16:01, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

The bounty was Palin's. The cite still remains in a different section of Palin page. The agency you are referring to never offered a bounty as such, they allowed hunters to sell the pelts, information that was deleted by 3<3. Anarchangel (talk) 20:05, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Amongst both hardcore meat advocates and hardcore vegetarians some variation may be found the opinion that it is hypocritical to eat meat if you don't like the sight of blood. Perhaps that's why she declined. However, I agree with Will, Mattnad, that it would be hard to include. I wouldn't waste my time on it, but if you want, work something, and we'll see. Anarchangel (talk) 15:17, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Not sure it's worth the effort. If Tina Fey is considered too far afield by an editor, Palin's turkey concentration camp interview will probably cause great consternation. In retrospect, it's amusing, and probably one for a list of Palin gaffs somewhere else.Mattnad (talk) 17:44, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Under 'Unclear on the Concept'. Anarchangel (talk) 18:09, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

Palin image

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

Concur. I never really liked the green GORE-TEX(?) jacket one either. Fcreid (talk) 23:46, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

We have permission to use the original photo, and it does look better on her, despite the nitpicky complaints. Besides, as someone pointed out, the consensus was to switch back to the original. If we can obtain a professional-quality image that makes her look more "stateswoman-like," by all means, get permission and upload it. Otherwise, stop being, in your words, "silly" and let's just keep the professional-quality photo we got. SchutteGod (talk) 00:18, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Besides, as someone pointed out, the consensus was to switch back to the original.

Actually I was kinda wrong or not so right at least as I just pointed out here . So unless there will be a real good image available we have to find consensus about what to stick with for now. I prefer the 2nd image but the quality is very unpleasant compared to the original one. So here you have my preference but I'm basically fine with either of them. No real "vote" from my side.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 00:29, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Actually, the last time the infobox image was discussed, the "original" (winter-coat) picture was no longer even being considered as an option. The Carson City picture had won consensus prior to that. --Evb-wiki (talk) 00:54, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Section: Public image

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

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

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

Fully half or more of the entire BLP is irrelevant in point of fact. Duye primarily to those who viewed a BLP as a political campaign tool. Were it up to me, it would become, of all things, a biography of a living person sans inanities. Collect (talk) 14:26, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Unless we climb in a time machine Collect and go back 12 months, little chance of that happening here. I love to use the history tool and compare versions of articles from a year or two back to their current state. Many articles are much improved and many have become quite contentious. I sort of compare Misplaced Pages to the Grateful Dead. They aren't the best at what they do, but they are the only ones who do what they do :) --Tom 14:44, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

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

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

Ok, I just sensed a bit of one-sidedness in your indignance. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 19:34, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) Maybe that is because the number of smear merchant muckracker editors to neutral editors has been running about 5-1 in here lately. Again, if you point out any puffery or unsourced material that you believe is questionable or unduely favorable to this bio, I would be happy to review and remove it if neccessary. --Tom 14:33, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

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

Campaign pamphleteering is not relevant for a BLP. Collect (talk) 23:27, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Palin disambiguation redux

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rammer (talk) 19:52, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

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

Concealed weapons

As I said in edit summary, the cited sources say zilch about permitting weapons in banks, bars, colleges. This is also synthesis, picking through primary sources. And, the cited "AS 11.71.900 Definitions" does not even mention SB177. We should just stick to the cited secondary sources regarding Stambaugh's lawsuit against Palin.Ferrylodge (talk) 23:26, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I looked through the sources and found the same thing. Kelly 23:30, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Synthesis indeed. Also SB177 seems to actually specifically forbid carrying in financial institutions, i.e. banks. --skew-t (talk) 03:23, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

WP:SYNTH is more complicated 'picking through primary sources', Ferrylodge. What you describe is cherry picking, which is completely separate from synth, has nothing whatsoever to do with my process, and would require of a conscientious editor who claimed it, a good deal of evidence, whereas you provide none at all. AS 11.71.900 is the law that SB177 modified, as the cite itself notes, and therefore, as a preexisting law, could not possibly mention SB177. Kelly was even more mistaken, claiming that the definitions did not mention schools. SB177 used the definition from the existing law, so the absence of said definition would have been a serious oversight by the lawmakers.

"The bill, SB 177, would have permitted concealed weapons in banks, bars, colleges, and other public places.-Alaska Statute 11.71.900 as it was to be amended by SB 177- -AS 11.71.900 Definitions Includes definition of 'school grounds' used by SB 177- Governor Tony Knowles' Senate Journal entry announcing his veto of SB 177 mentioned the opposition of, among other parties, the City of Wasilla.-Alaska Senate Journal Notes veto of SB 177-

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

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

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

"I object to you turning the article into / letting the article become a <use of Straw Man argument>." Heard it all before. I have refuted every single one of your arguments, and Collect's, and Ferrylodge's; half of my arguments you won't answer. No prob. Not all admins won't listen. And I have 10 archives' worth of your bad editing practice and lack of consensus performance. Told you, I am here for the long haul.

SB 177 was a terrible law and he was quite right to oppose it. For no other reason than not opposing it, Palin is deficient. You're wrong about the lawsuit. It covered breach of contract, and if Stambaugh believed that she fired him for partisan revenge reasons, his opinion is notable and verifiable, no matter what the case was about. Not aware of any insubordination that has hard evidence to back it. The Stambaugh firing was in 1996. It will forever be part of Palin's past; the day she cut ties to the last of the two men that had helped her build Wasilla, once she had the political power to do without him.Anarchangel (talk) 21:40, 27 November 2008 (UTC) You've probably heard me refer to the aerobics class she took with Stein and Stambaugh while they planned to build up the city infrastructure, when she still needed them. It's from Time

No, you're wrong again, Anarchangel. Stambaugh thought he had such a deal with Stein, whom Palin ousted, where he could not be fired without cause. The judge disagreed without qualification and concluded Palin had every right to fire him for whatever damn reason she wanted. You seem to have missed the witness testimony who overheard Stambaugh say to Palin, in public, "Little lady, if you think you have our respect, you're mistaken." Fcreid (talk) 23:21, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

editprotected

Protection

"This protection is not an endorsement of the current version." Well, I guess the Emperor isn't not wearing any clothes, because their arse is covered. That would be the Royal 'their'. Anarchangel (talk) 02:07, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
3 minutes, it took Helpful, to make (edit)and revert(edit) two typos and decide that Sarah Palin was a disaster area of excessive edit-warring.
Requests for page protection
last edit and protection.Anarchangel (talk) 02:14, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
How ironic that an indirect analogy between the preservation of the deletion of material and denying the nakedness of the Emperor should be then covered up by deleting it. You don't see criticism of decisions made regarding the article as contributing to it, Halfshadow, but that isn't really news to me. I have seen many people say that criticism is not constructive, and I doubt that I shall be stopping any time soon. Anarchangel (talk) 03:57, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Please restore material that existed in the article for 12 days, and was reverted at the last minute. Is this not the intended outcome in extremis of WP:3RR? That the original remain? Should we ask less of a full page protection? I think not. Anarchangel (talk) 03:57, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like they protected the wrong version. See WP:WRONG. Dman727 (talk) 05:14, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Request denied. Protection is *not* to get your favourite version there. It is to make the edit warriors wake up and realise they need to talk sense William M. Connolley (talk) 09:18, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Edit protection got the edit warriors their favorite version up there. It got the contributors whose version had stood for weeks, their version deleted. My favorite version is entirely irrelevant to the subject of the good of the article, and I would ask you to assume good faith. Please restore. Anarchangel (talk) 15:27, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

More of the pot calling the kettle black? --Tom 15:35, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't think I will count the unfounded accusations. Busy busy. Anarchangel (talk) 21:40, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Yeah. Good luck with that. Seriously. --Evb-wiki (talk) 14:34, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Please see WP:SUMMARY. Where Charles Fannon is mentioned in this article, it links to Mayoralty of Sarah Palin#Police matters. The "rape kit" stuff is covered there in more than enough detail. It doesn't need to be repeated here. Not only is it really not relevant to Palin's biography, it carries undue weight here. --Evb-wiki (talk) 14:48, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. --Tom 15:22, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Subjective judgement of weight without evidence. The story was covered extensively, we have been through all this before. I will be counting the number of times I have to repeat that from now on. Anarchangel (talk) 15:32, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, and it's covered extensively at Mayoralty of Sarah Palin#Police matters. Again, please see WP:SUMMARY. --Evb-wiki (talk) 15:34, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Per WP:BLP "Content should be sourced to reliable sources and should be about the subject of the article specifically. Beware of claims that rely on guilt by association." The disputed paragraph can be abstracted as "Palin appointed Fannon and Fannon did X." There is no assertion that Palin did X, approved X or even knew about X at the time. I don't think that tenuous a connection meets the quoted standard no matter how widely reported. Note that under BLP the material must stay out of the article until there is an acceptable justification for its inclusion.--agr (talk) 16:06, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

I refer you to rebuttals 1-9 above. Anarchangel (talk) 21:40, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

You overstate your case. This is one story. And look in the History, so you have something relevant to speak of. The current inclusion is what I would delete, and what was deleted is what I would include. The deleted form was in the article since Nov 4th. Anarchangel (talk) 21:40, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

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

The "prominence" was campaign pamphleteering at its worst. Collect (talk) 23:26, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Could you explain what you mean in a bit more detail? I'm going to assume it's something along the lines of "it's untrue, it's all lies, she never knew and would have stopped it if she had". 72.91.198.209 (talk) 04:19, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Creationist?

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

She almost certainly is, but I have been too busy to get even a stable Fannon inclusion. And unfortunately the evidence comes from only one person, who writes one of those blog things that we cannot cite, quote, or paraphrase.Munger in LA Times Shame, because they can't all be wrong. Anarchangel (talk) 21:40, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Ascribing positions to people without a single reliable source is rumor-mongering and has no place in WP. And is contentious conjecture at its worst. Collect (talk) 23:24, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Semi protect the talk page IMO

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

• Misplaced Pages controversial topics
• 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