Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 15:28, 16 October 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)

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

Dismissal of Public Safety Commissioner

There are some references in this part that don't seem to belong here in this article:

1 1st para, last sentence. It doesn't seem relevant to this article why Monegan's replacement resigned.

2 3rd para, last sentence. The text doesn't say why Sarah and Todd Palin didn't testify in the end after the subpoenas were found valid. Were the subpoenas withdrawn? An explanation of Sarah Palin's conduct in this context seems important to the article.

3 4th para, last sentence. What the finding was re Colberg seems irrelevant to the article on Sarah Palin. Obviously it needs to be mentioned in the context of the articles on the Monegan dismissal and the Branchflower Report, but I'm not seeing how it belongs in this article.Corlyon (talk) 15:56, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

As to point three: if you really believe that Palin had nothing to do with Colberg not turning over her emails, I have an important transwater infrastructure project for you that only needs one more private investor to qualify for federal matching funds. 216.106.170.195 (talk) 04:04, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it's at all relevant what I 'believe'. I am a reader of articles as well as an editor. I am Canadian and have no direct involvement in the outcome of the US election, so I think I have some degree of objectivity. When I read this part of the article I don't find any explanation of the connection between Mr. Colberg's conduct and Ms. Palin's life story that is sufficient for me to appreciate why the information is in the article on Sarah Palin. The reader should be able to follow the point of a paragraph without being a 'Troopergate' geek.Corlyon (talk) 23:12, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

As to point one: The Governor appointed a cabinet member who resigned two weeks later because of allegations of misconduct in a prior job. That's worth noting in the Governor's bio article. It's in this section because this is where the office of Public Safety Commissioner is being discussed, so readers would logically look for it here. The alternatives are to give it its own section or to remove from the article this significant event in her administration. The current setup is preferable to either alternative. JamesMLane t c 06:05, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Ought we list all appointees of all officials who resign? I think that would be unwieldy for many. Or is this simply a convenient way to indirectly accuse Palin of backing sex offendrers in office? Collect (talk) 12:11, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Breezy accusation of misconduct. It isn't just the misdeed, it is that it is pushed a little further. Anarchangel (talk) 17:51, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

What I actually wrote was, "The Governor appointed a cabinet member who resigned two weeks later because of allegations of misconduct in a prior job." I thought my point was clear. Should we list all appointees who resign? No. Should we list all top-level appointees who resign after an extraordinarily short tenure in office because of allegations of prior misconduct? Yes. JamesMLane t c 18:31, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Thus all "top-level" appointees who resign after less than a month for whatever reason should be listed under anyone who appointed them, no matter the party or office, without exception? Collect (talk) 18:39, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Straw man. And a timewaster Anarchangel (talk) 17:51, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

I say that such people who resign "because of allegations of misconduct" should be included. Does that mean that such people who resign for any reason whatsoever should be included? No, it quite obviously does not. If a cabinet member discovers after a couple weeks that the commute to the office is too tiring, or that s/he doesn't like the restrictions of the public sector and wants to go back to running a hedge fund, that resignation probably wouldn't be all that big a deal. Do you hae a specific case in mind? If it's another Palin appointee who resigned, bring it up here. If it's a Governor X appointee who resigned, bring it up at Talk:Governor X. JamesMLane t c 20:50, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

But by including it in this fashion, then, aren't we asking the reader to draw conclusions about Sarah Palin's ability to pick people for the positions to which she is appointing them? Again, as I said above, I am writing as someone who reads the article and wonders what the connection is to the article. If this appointment had been commented on by a verifiable source as an example of bad decision-making on Ms. Palin's part, then perhaps if it was notable enough, it ought to get its own section; otherwise it just seems to be a fact inserted where it 'fits best' (but doesn't really fit well) to push the reader to making a judgment. I don't think that's appropriate. As to my second point, is there any explanation for the failure to respond to the subpoenas? It seems to me this is either a serious contempt of the process or a non-issue, if the subpeonas were withdrawnCorlyon (talk) 23:12, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

I removed one sentence which incorrectly put the issuance of subpoenas before the start of Palin's Admin reneging on her promised cooperation with the AK legislatures bi-partisan investigation. Subpoenas were issued on Sept 12 and Van Flein (Palin's attorney) attempted to remove the case from the Legislature's jurisdiction on Sept 3 beginning a week of challenges to, not cooperation with, the investigation that culminated in subpoenas - not vice versa. BeBopnJazz (talk) 19:17, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Palin's comments after being found in violation of Alaska's Ethics Act: I am again adding the phrase "Although implicated in the report," since her comments are completely untrue. This is not "cute" or "point of view" as per Collect's comments, it confirms that Palin's comments were not misquoted or mistyped, she really did make the untrue statement.Facts707 (talk) 17:52, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

As Palin was commenting on the action officially being investigated -- the reassigning of Wooten -- it is clear that her words are not contradictory to the report. If I recall correctly, the report said she did not reassign Wooten contrary to any law. Collect (talk) 18:47, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Your memory serves you ill. Its major finding was she was guilty of ethical violations. Anarchangel (talk) 17:51, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Palin said she was "very very pleased to be cleared of any legal wrongdoing, any hint of any kind of unethical activity there.", but the Branchflower report found 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." and "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." (both quotes from Branchflower Report, page 66).Facts707 (talk) 06:42, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

I actually read the entire volume 1. The statement is made that she should not have allowed Todd Palin into her office with access to any state employees, and that she failed to take action to prevent anyone contacting Monegan. That is the total extent of "violation." The report makes no claim whatever that she acted improperly otherwise. The report also suggests that this was due to a natural frustration for people who make a complaint, and then are given no report back on what has been done about the complaint at all. I coomment everyone to read the appropriate sections in their entirety -- it should only take an hour or so for most. And again -- read the report, not just the news articles. Collect (talk) 20:13, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

With your record for reporting, I seriously doubt that is the total extent. And that is an ad hominem, but I feel that the need to cast doubt on your statements, giving as it will someone else reading this the much needed chance to take what you say with a grain of salt, outweighs the negative. Anarchangel (talk) 17:51, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

As well as reading the Branchflower report, people should read the transcript (or listen to the audio) of Palin's response to the report.Facts707 (talk) 06:42, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Support for Alaskan independence

Why no mention of this American Patriot's (sic) previous support for Alaskan secession from the United States? She attacks Obama for being unpatriotic for the most oblique reasons. What can be more unpatriotic than trying to leave the Union? 86.17.211.191 (talk) 00:40, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Maybe when Obama starts a "guilty by association" smear campaign, we can add a comment about her association with her husband and the AIP to Obama's article. --Evb-wiki (talk) 00:49, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

I believe that was debunked a few weeks ago. There was some claim by a member of the Alaskan Independence Party that Palin had been a member, but it turned out to be a false or mistaken statement. You might search the talk page archives for that, or just google. Wikidemon (talk) 00:56, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Also got a rare New York Times retraction, to boot. Collect (talk) 02:52, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

...And, wouldn't you know it, wrong again, as proven by... Anarchangel (talk) 18:15, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't know what "retraction" you're thinking of. The NYT routinely corrects articles when mistakes are found, which is one reason they are considered so reliable. They issued a correction about the AIP article here: . The paper recently issued a correction to a 40-year old theatrical review, which listed the wrong actor in a part. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:07, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

I usually think of corrections as fixing spellings, correcting picture captions. The "correction" on Palin reads:

"Correction: September 5, 2008

An article on Tuesday about concerns over Senator John McCain’s background check of Gov. Sarah Palin of Alaska, his choice of running mate, misstated the history of her political party affiliation. As The Times has since reported, she has been a registered Republican since 1982; she was not for a couple of years in the 1990s a member of the Alaskan Independence Party, which advocates a vote on whether her state should secede. " Collect (talk) 04:33, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

I believe that a "retraction" is when they take back an entire article. Retractions are rare, but corrections are common. IIRC, the NYT corrections section has 5-10 items a day. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:48, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Most people would regard "a disavowal or taking back of a previous assertion " as being a "retraction" and not just a "correction" in normal English usage. Almost all NYT corrections are of trivial importance. Vide "An article on Friday about the stock market’s plunge misstated the number of shares that were traded on the New York Stock Exchange on Thursday. It was nearly 8.3 billion — not million" which, I posit, most people would consider a typo. Collect

(talk) 04:54, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Right. Not. •Jim62sch• 14:42, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Here's some information on how the Alaskan Independence Party helped Sarah Palin come to power: http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2008/10/10/palin_chryson/ I don't know if folks trust salon as a source but perhaps you can find some well-sourced information in the article you can use. Interestingly, this same Mark Chryson was quoted by the Anchorage Daily News after the Palin-Biden debate, praising her performance.GreekParadise (talk) 15:29, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Hell, this lady is palling around with Todd Palin. From 1995 to 2002, he was a registered member of the Alaskan Independence Party. . I wonder how close they really are. --Evb-wiki (talk) 15:48, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Which means what? Sorry -- trying to pile Ossa on Pelion is not logical. Unless you can find a quote of Palin in favor of secession, there is no way that putting such a claim in here is proper. Being praised by a person whome you think has a position on something does not make you have the same position. Really. And last I looked, no one has found Todd Palin speaking for secession either. Collect (talk) 15:50, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Would be hard to verify. The great likelihood is that she just denied membership. However, the same author's claim on Democracy Now that S. Palin nominated 'Black Helicopter' Steve Stoll, of the AIP, for the position she vacated on the city council to take the mayorship, would not be. That it was for services rendered would I think have to be inferred, as there won't be documentation of that either. Anarchangel (talk) 18:15, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Todd Palin was registered member of the Alaskan Independence Party. See http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26524024/ :

"ST. PAUL, Minnesota - Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin's husband, Todd, twice registered as a member of the Alaskan Independence Party, a fierce states' rights group that wants to turn all federal lands in Alaska back to the state. Sarah Palin herself was never a member of the party, according to state officials."

Regards.Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 16:44, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

So...Obama waves to Ayers at a community picnic and is considered a 'terrorist' But Palin's husband is politically aligned to a faction that wants to succeed from the Un ion and its not worth a mention. Interesting polarity.--Buster7 (talk) 22:59, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Obama did not "wave to Ayers at a community picnic". They have been close political allies for well over a decade. And Ayers is a terrorist; neither Todd Palin nor anybody connected with the AIP is a terrorist. The AIP is a mainstream political party, a legitimate part of the Alaskan political scene. It has never sought the violent overthrow of the USA, and there's nothing disreputable about Todd Palin having once been a member. Hey, Ronald Reagan was once a Democrat! -- Zsero (talk) 02:26, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

In any case, what's wrong with supporting a state's peaceful secession? Since when did that become a crime? -- Zsero (talk) 02:28, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

@Zsero...It is not a crime...never said it was. It IS worth mentioning...here if not in the article. The Ayers connection is an over-blown out-of -proportion attempt to create something that never existed...a friendship. They were never "palls"...they were never "buddies" they were never allies. They lived in the same city, involved in local politics, and Ayers had a coffee for Obama. That's it! Your claims of friendship are matters of opinion not matters of record or fact.--Buster7 (talk) 04:18, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, Buster, that is just not true. Kurtz and Diamond have extensively documented the relationship. Their relationship goes back to before Obama even went to law school. Ayers chose Obama as chairman of his baby, the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, and they worked closely on that for Obama's whole time there. And it wasn't just "a coffee", it was the launch of his political career, and it didn't just happen to be in Ayers's and Dohrn's house by accident. Obama gave a rave review to Ayers's book. They've been close allies for years, and there's no point in pretending otherwise. -- Zsero (talk) 06:12, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Zsero, I'm confident that's not true. Former Reagan ambassador Annenberg chose both Obama and Ayers (Now-Professor Ayers was "rehabilitated" as Chicago's 1997 man of the year.) I don't think you can find any reliable source that says what you said.(Rush Limbaugh doesn't count.) As for the AIP, it's founder Joe Vogler, according to his wikipedia entry, said: "The fires of hell are frozen glaciers compared to my hatred for the American government. And I won't be buried under their damn flag." Also from the wikipedia article on him: "Vogler disappeared under suspicious circumstances in May 1993, just weeks before he was scheduled to give a speech to the United Nations on Alaskan independence, sponsored by the government of Iran.." AIP members said he was executed by the US government. That's pretty harsh. And Todd was a member of the AIP. Obama was never a member of the Weather Underground. In fact, Obama has harshly condemned the Weathermen, who bombed property (avoiding people) in protest against the Vietnam War when Obama was 8 years old. Obama, like most Republicans and Democrats in Chicago, had mistakenly believed Ayers had reformed himself in the 1990's. Compare this to Sarah and Todd Palin who have never to my knowledge condemned the AIP or Vogler. Of course, Sarah Palin gave the opening address at the AIP convention. Imagine if Joe Biden or Michelle Obama had given the keynote address at a secessionist convention. I think FOX News would play it every day until election day. GreekParadise (talk) 14:38, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Cite for your claim Walter Annenberg personally chose Ayers? I didn't find a source, but I am sure you have one? Collect (talk) 16:13, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Do you ever say anything without a condescending tone of sarcasm?Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 17:05, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Might you actually answer questions instead of casting aspersions? My aim is to improve the article, not to be accused of being "not nice" to you. Can anyone at all find a direct cite for Annenberg choosing Ayers? Thank you most kindly. Collect (talk) 23:17, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

That would be the question mark at the end of "but I am sure you have one?", for future reference. Doesn't go with the "sure" part, dead giveaway. Anarchangel (talk) 18:15, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

1. There's no reason to suppose either Palin ever met Vogler. Nor did he ever harm anybody. The AIP is a legitimate participant in Alaskan politics. It is unacceptable to compare it in any way with the Weather Underground, a terrorist group in every sense of the word. They did kill people, and that they didn't kill more wasn't out of any sense of humanitarianism but because they were too incompetent. The Fort Dix attack was foiled before it happened, and the attempt to assassinate Judge Murtagh and his whole family failed, but that doesn't absolve the terrorists of their guilt. Their attacks started when Obama was 8, but they continued until he was 25. Ayers has never given anybody reason to believe that he had changed his views, so why would anybody assume it? -- Zsero (talk) 19:26, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Regardless, it's acceptable to mention any documented associated with AIP, although not acceptable to include any unpublished OR analysis about what this might mean.Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 20:23, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Your problem will be that Palin has no "documented associat(ion) with AIP." Just like she was not a Buchanan supporter. Just like she is not Trig's grandma. Saying someone she knows has been a member is McCartyism pure and simple. Heck, one person even wanted Todd Palin's DUI from 1986 included. Collect (talk) 20:46, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

That she associated with members of the AIP (not including her husband) is well sourced. In the end, I expect that as more and more sourcing on her association is done, it will become a part of her biography. Aprock (talk) 21:55, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

It's not my problem, buddy. What I said stands. I can bicker all night if you want to, though.Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 23:12, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Who is "buddy"? "What I said stands" is hardly an indication of consensus seeking, by the way. Collect (talk) 23:20, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

(removing personal attacks. Discuss the article, not yourselves. Tempodivalse (talk) 18:43, 14 October 2008 (UTC))

CNN source

I don't know if my saying this will count, but CNN did a full report on this, if anyone saw it today. Ah, who am I kidding, it's pointless. --Crackthewhip775 (talk) 00:52, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Do you have a link? --Evb-wiki (talk) 00:55, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Not directly from CNN, (found through cnn.com, though) but here's this one from CBS news and also this from the L.A. times. Plus this clip of her speaking to her peeps on YouTube (don't know if that matters, though). --Crackthewhip775 (talk) 02:25, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Clever. Say that you're referring to a report from today and linking us a story from 9/2. You remember, the time when everyone reported that she was a member of the AIP and then had to print retractions/corrections? Oren0 (talk) 02:35, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

So CNN didn't do "a full report on this"? The links you provide are hardly "in depth" analysis. --Evb-wiki (talk) 02:33, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

CNN did do a full report, I'm not the only one who watched it, in fact go ask some users around here, or your friends, or your family, or basically anyone you could possibly know. John McCain's people even sent CNN an email asking not to make a report on it. For some reason, I can't find this stuff on the web, even when I google it, but you can look for yourself on the web. --Crackthewhip775 (talk) 02:39, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

A-HA! http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/10/14/151519/61/145/630389. --Crackthewhip775 (talk) 02:40, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Lots of pov sources seem to be quick on the draw. We may have to see if CNN has the balls to post it online. Or see if it picks up traction. --Evb-wiki (talk) 02:53, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Google it yourself if you want to find more sources. Or use any search engine you want if Google doesn't turn up enough results for you. --Crackthewhip775 (talk) 02:57, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Yeah. like I said, "Lots of pov sources . . . ." I find zero I believe would qualify as a reliable source, yet. --Evb-wiki (talk) 03:06, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Well then I guess it'll wait until CNN posts on their site. But even on the web site that you deem unreliable, that video certainly isn't made up. --Crackthewhip775 (talk) 03:10, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Transcript. miranda 16:39, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

More rape stuff

I've tried to fix up the rape material again. After my edits, it says:

Palin hired Charles Fannon to replace Stambaugh as police chief. Fannon subsequently opposed an Alaska state sexual assault law that placed new requirements on local police departments. According to Stambaugh, the Wasilla police during his tenure had paid the cost of rape kits out of a miscellaneous fund, and that budget line item (which did not explicitly mention rape exams) was cut by more than half during Palin's tenure. Fannon has said that he charged the cost of exams to the victim's insurance company when possible. Palin's spokeswoman has stated that Palin “does not believe, nor has ever believed, that rape victims should have to pay for an evidence-gathering test.”

I've reinserted the last two sentences, because it does not seem NPOV to just cite the fired police chief who sued Palin. We also ought to cite her, and his successor.

I'm very ambivalent about including this material in this article, but if we're going to include it, then let's try to be NPOV. Even now, the stuff about the budget line item still seems kind of slimy, because we have no idea how much of that line item was devoted to the rape kits (e.g. if the rape kits were only 5% of that line item and she cut the line item by 50% then there would still be plenty of money for that purpose). Anyways, I hope that the paragraph is now more NPOV.Ferrylodge (talk) 18:13, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Is this stuff in the article? Talk about stretching it to achieve POV. What do the police department's rape kit practices have to do with Palin? Not much I would say. Thanks for keeping an eye on this kind of thing Ferry. The campaigning to portray people in a positive or negative light seems to be well underway on these biography pages, but is better kept out.(Wallamoose (talk) 18:42, 13 October 2008 (UTC))

The constant effort to turn this article into promotional campaign literature is equally annoying. Regards.Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 19:00, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

At one rape per annum, how much money is involved? Collect (talk) 19:10, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

The talk page is not for debating the subject of the article.Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 19:54, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

No one is improperly debating the subject of the article. The question is whether it's ridiculous for this artuicle to mention that a line item was cut in half, given that there's no indication whatsoever that cutting it in half would affect whether the town pays for only one or a few rape kits per year out of that line item.Ferrylodge (talk) 20:01, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

We don't decide whether a given controversy, such as the rape kit controversy, is legitimate or not. That's what reliable sources are for. The talk page is not a place to conduct your own original research and analysis. Play with the wording all you like, though.Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 20:33, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Look, I've been at Misplaced Pages long enough to know what a talk page is for, thanks. If people want to discuss how Misplaced Pages should present the rape kit business, then it's necessary to discuss what aspects of it to mention. One of those aspects is the budget line item, and Collect's comment was very relevant to determine notability of that line item as compared to other aspects of the controversy. So please don't suggest that Collect's comment was out of line here. Thanks.Ferrylodge (talk) 04:29, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

To me, it looked like the crafting of original research.. unpublished analysis of published material appearing to advance a position.Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 19:03, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) Maybe add this material to the Fannon bio? Thanks, --Tom 16:39, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Is it true these kits had emergency contraception in them like this comment says: ???- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 01:09, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Is that what all this is really about?- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 01:09, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Monegan's dismissal

The section on this subject is pretty big now, and has recently gotten bigger following the Branchflower Report.

But actually, I think the Branchflower Report establishes that some aspects of this controversy are really not very controversial or notable, and so we can actually cut back this summary a bit. For example, Branchflower indicated that Palin's firing of Monegan was a proper and lawful exercise of her constitutional and statutory authority to hire and fire executive branch department heads. Likewise, Branchflower says that Wooten's workers' compensation claim was handled properly and in the normal course of business like any other claim. So, we can mention these two items earlier on in the summary, and not dwell on them, I think.

Since the dismissal is not really the controversial thing anymore, I think we ought to modify the heading of the section to something like "Alleged pressure to fire state trooper" instead of "Public Safety Commissioner dismissal".Ferrylodge (talk) 18:47, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

And I think it should be changed to "Troopergate" or "Abuse of Power". The "Alleged" you are offering doesn't quite jibe with the finding that the pressure was not alleged but was real, and was an abuse of power as well as a violation of the state's Ethics Act. So we can talk about changing the heading, sure, but let's be careful about not introducing POV. Tvoz/talk

Tvoz, if Palin denies that she was pressuring Monegan to fire Wooten, then who are we to call her a liar? Maybe she's lying, maybe not. The word "alleged" does not imply that she is lying, and does not imply that she is not lying. I am very surprised to hear you argue that the word "alleged" is POV. Is that really what you meant to say?Ferrylodge (talk) 19:04, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Maybe you see it differently, but the impression I got was the Palin didn't dispute that pressure was applied by her husband and staff to fire (or otherwise remove from field work) Trooper Wooten. The impression I have had is that she and her lawyers dispute that applying pressure in this way, or allowing her husband to apply pressure, was illegal. She seems to still suggest that Wooten is unfit. If they aren't objecting to the assertion that efforts were made to remove Wooten, then I'm not sure "alleged" is necessary when discussing the "pressure". It would be necessary in discussing the point of whether or not she broke any laws, but that seems subtly different. Dragons flight (talk) 19:19, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

The issue is whether she violated any law or did anything wrong. If it was just her husband, without her connivance, then she's off the hook.Ferrylodge (talk) 19:27, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

And the finding of "abuse of power"? Her husband doesn't have power to abuse - she does. Tvoz/talk 19:35, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

The finding is an allegation. It is not a determination by a court of law.Ferrylodge (talk) 19:37, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Ah, so your lawyerly assessment that she's "off the hook" was .. what? Tvoz/talk 19:45, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

You really tempt me to say soemthing here that I shouldn't say.  :-) Tvoz, my words above were: "If it was just her husband, without her connivance, then she's off the hook." Thus, I was obviously not giving an assessment that she's off the hook. I was describing circumstances under which she would be off the hook. Call that lawyerly if you will. But personally, I don't think people should go to jail for things that they had no knowledge of. I'm a stickler that way.Ferrylodge (talk) 19:57, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

OK, I missed the "if". I don't think people should go to jail for things they had no knowledge of either, nor do I believe that she had no knowledge of her husband's actions, or her own phone calls and email. But you're right, you said "if". I stand moderately corrected, on that one point of your assessment. Tvoz/talk 20:05, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but I'm addressing that "pressure to fire state trooper" is a more appropriate section header than "alleged pressure to fire state trooper", because the existence of pressure is apparently undisputed (as best I can tell). Dragons flight (talk) 19:31, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Look, whether she lied or not is not for us to judge - the commission did that for us. They found she violated the ethics act, period. They found she engaged in an abuse of power. Plain and simple. To change the head to "Abuse of Power" would be consistent with other articles in which people of her stature were found to have abused power as the commission found she did.LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 19:32, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Ferrylodge, you are the one introducing the word "liar", not me. I am talking about what the report says, not how she is portraying it. She said that she was cleared of any ethics violation, yet the report said she was in violation of the state's ethics law. She says she didn't pressure, they said the pressure that came out of her office and her failure to stop it was an abuse of power. I don't want to interpret it, nor do I want to spin it in any direction - hers or anyone else's - I merely am saying that the report's findings don't jibe with your proposed title. We should therefore be careful how we word it. "Alleged" is neither prima facie POV nor NPOV, I agree, but the context matters. So why not use "Troopergate"? This section should not be retitled based on what the latest news reports say - it should be a stable title that reflects how people would be looking for information in the encyclopedia. Tvoz/talk 19:30, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Branchflower concluded that Palin's "claims of fear were not bona fide and were offered to provide cover for the Palins' real motivation: to get Trooper Wooten fired for personal family related reasons." So I suppose one could reductively state that he is calling Palin a liar. I am not a lawyer and I don't know when something goes from "alleged" to "actual". Common sense suggests that when an independent, bipartisan government investigation reaches a conclusion, things have advanced beyond the realm of speculative allegation, but whatever. "Troopergate" seems to be the name adopted by the media to reference the whole affair, so that may be the best and most compact title. MastCell  19:35, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, I never said that the title should say there was a "speculative allegation." Branchflower is making an allegation that has not been adopted by a court of law. Just like stuff that Sam Ervin said, and just like stuff that Joe McCarthy said. It may be correct, and it may be incorrect, but at this stage it is only an allegation.

I'm against "Tasergate" in this section header, and I'm against "Troopergate" in this section header. A heading should be more descriptive. People in the know will understand "Troopergate" but we're targeting people who aren't in the know. Same goes for "Tasergate". The real controversy now is not about the dismissal (which Branchflower admits was comepletely proper), and not about the workman's comp claim (which Branchflower admits was handled well), but rather the issue of whether (or not) the Governor pressured subordinates to fire a state trooper for personal reasons. So, the heading ought to be something like "Alleged pressure by Governor to fire trooper for personal reasons".Ferrylodge (talk) 19:41, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

This is somewhat true insofar as, if someone is saying Palin committed a crime, it is still an alleged crime until she is proven guilty in a court of law. However, statements about non-criminal conduct do not need to be confirmed by a legal conviction in order to be non-"alleged". Remember that the report is the finding of fact on which the Alaskan prosecutors will base their decision of whether to bring charges against Palin. It's hardly preliminary. If the report says she used undue pressure, it's no longer an allegation to say so here. However, a statement that Palin violated the law would still be an allegation, because she hasn't been convicted of anything.Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 19:52, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

This section of this article says that the Branchflower report concluded that she "unlawfully abused her power as governor and violated the state's Ethics Act." That's not an allegation? Of course it is. For this Misplaced Pages article to say or imply that it's an objective fact would be preposterous.Ferrylodge (talk) 20:05, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

I never said anything about what's in the article. I made points about how to word whatever is said. Read it again, more slowly this time, and let the words sink in. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 20:25, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

The comment to which you were responding (i.e. the comment immediately before yours) only discussed what the heading should be. In your reply, you said that some statements "do not need to be confirmed by a legal conviction in order to be non-'alleged'." This seemed to me to be an assertion by you that the heading need not include the word "alleged." If I was misinterpreting what you said, it's not because I did not read slowly enough, but rather because you did not write in a clear manner. And that's about as politely as I can say it.Ferrylodge (talk) 20:51, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Troopergate is the clearest, easiest to find title. ANY other title is an attempt to hide the hurtful results of the Branchflower report. My second choice would be The Branchflower Report...--Buster7 (talk) 21:54, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Uh, so The Branchflower Report is an attempt to hide the hurtful results of the Branchflower report?Ferrylodge (talk) 22:54, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

be so kind, let me clarify for you, ferrylodge. What I mean to say is that YOUR title is an attempt to hide the hurtful results of the report. Hurtful to the candidate that you clearly and continuously support. I support the title "Troopergate". (I believe that is the question before us). I also suggest...if Troopergate doesn't pass the sniff test...the new title, "The Branchflower Report". I hope this clears up what I was trying to say. Actually, I think you knew what I meant...you were just trying to be funny, right? --Buster7 (talk) 00:01, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

The heading I suggested was "Alleged pressure by Governor to fire trooper for personal reasons". I don't see that that would hide anything, really. It tells an uninformed person a lot more than the bare word "Troopergate". Anyway, I guess we'll leave the heading like it is for the time being, until a consensus emerges.Ferrylodge (talk) 00:28, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

But, the bare word "Troopergate" would, more than likely, be a/the buzzword that would assist the reader in finding the topic they are searching for. I know that when I search the contents here, It is easy to find "beluga suit" or "book banning" or "the wink". The other, wordier, content items are slightly harder to locate. I also know that Gov Palin prefers Tasergate since that title throws the attention to the trooper rather than the Gov. But, considering the prevailing and troubling level of shielding the candidate from any critique of her propriety, it really has become unimportant.--Buster7 (talk) 13:22, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

I have no problem at all with using the term "Troopergate" as well as the term "Tasergate" in the section, so people can easily do a word search.Ferrylodge (talk) 15:41, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

What I said applies perfectly well to the heading as to any other text. If the statement says Palin "committed a crime", it's an allegation until she's convicted of that crime. If the statement doesn't say she committed a crime, a criminal conviction hardly seems necessary to drop the terminology. If the report says that it is a fact she pressured people to fire Wooten, that's no longer an allegation. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 22:12, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

If you're suggesting that the Branchflower Report is a reliable source under Misplaced Pages policies, and that we should treat everything it says (except criminal accusations) as verifiable fact, then I would disagree with you.Ferrylodge (talk) 23:29, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

I'll ask again. Is it too much trouble, to wait until after the US prez election, to add/remove these controversys at this article (and the Biden, McCain, Obama articles)? Are people gonna jump off a building, if we do wait? GoodDay (talk) 23:07, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

The political moment should not dictate what goes into wikipedia, when. Can you please explain your rationale? LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 23:10, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

'Cause, it won't hurt anybody to wait & they'll be less intensity after the election. I promise you, waiting won't do any harm. GoodDay (talk) 23:13, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Actually, it would do a lot of harm. If there's a moratorium on including material about controversies until after the election, anybody reading this article before the election (which will probably be the majority of people that ever look at this article) will be wrongly getting the impression that there are no controversies. Meanwhile, all manner of positive and supportive material would be fair game, and the article would take on a promotional tone. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 23:18, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Very well, continue with the never-ending this should be added/no it shouldn't disputes. Guarenteed, you all won't be any farther ahead, come November 4. GoodDay (talk) 23:23, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Is it really necessary?

Do we need the "Citations" section at the bottom? Why can't people just give a link to the source instead? Erik the Red 2 ~~~~ 00:24, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

The change was made by someone who, I hope, was wise in that action. It is not really something I worry about too much, to be sure, Collect (talk) 02:08, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

It really is annoying, though, to have to scroll down all the way to the bottom to add a new section, or having to move a section after clicking the "new section" tab. Erik the Red 2 ~~~~ 02:11, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Can we move the citations section to the top of this talk page? Homunq (talk) 03:36, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Not really. Do you see any citations in this diff? I have moved them to the bottom where they have to be, to function. Crummy design? Probably. Perhaps you could go complain to the Wiki heads about it. Oh, I forgot, you don't like having to scroll to the bottom of the page. Get over it? Or add outside links in protest of the Wiki regulation: "WP is not a collection of links." Senseless, and easy too. What fun. Anarchangel (talk) 17:04, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

"cleared of any hint of unethical activity"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(undent)I could probably support something like this:

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

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

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

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

Rogue

Dictionary: rogue: a dishonest or unprincipled person, a mischievous person, an inferior or defective specimen among many acceptable ones.

Palin: Rogue isn’t a negative term

A notable view, if ever there was one. Writegeist (talk) 07:55, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Good point, writegeist, but that question has not been the focus of any news reports I've seen. Homunq (talk) 08:47, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

What has been the focus of news reports is that Palin and her supporters have argued that "rogue" is not a negative term. I can find no dictionary format that defines "rogue" as remotely positive. But, in PalinLand it is a term of endearment. Does this mean we will need to all have a copy of The Alaskan English Dictionary to be sure of what she and her cronies mean?--Buster7 (talk) 13:42, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Rogue Ales? Rogue river? Rogue wave? Perhaps it is like "pirate" or "rebel" a term of endearment when used metaphorically and affectionately. It also has a connotation of going against the grain, being beholden to none, standing up to the powers that be. She obviously meant it in that latter sense, and not in a good way in connection with Monegan because in this particular case she was the powers that be. Wikidemon (talk) 14:17, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

As I said, I've seen no reports which focus on this aspect, rather than the "cleared of any hint of unethical activity". If you want to discuss such reports, it would help if you provided links. Homunq (talk) 14:28, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

The term "rogue" does not always imply dishonesty. Writegeist accidentally forgot to supply a link to the definition, which includes this: "playfully mischievous person; scamp: The youngest boys are little rogues." In any event, Homunq is correct.Ferrylodge (talk) 15:30, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

So she was calling him a playfully mischievous scamp. FL you sometimes exhibit more of a sense of humor than you're given credit for. Writegeist (talk) 19:06, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I'm quite a rascal, just like Monegan.  :-)Ferrylodge (talk) 19:10, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

So wait a sec...is Gov Palin now saying that she is somekind of modern-day Pirate? ...That she "palls around" with Jonny Depp? And, is she the rogue or is Monnegan the rogue. I'm confused. He's a rogue in her cabinet..and that's bad. But she's a rogue politician...and that's good. Do I have it right???? some links, as requested...] and ] more if needed--Buster7 (talk) 20:12, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Rape kits: Palin said she's like a community organizer, only with real responsibilities

If Palin has real responsibilities, why isn't she responsible for hiring and firing decisions? Or for knowing the results of hiring and firing decisions? Or for knowing what budget items were cut (including a miscellaneous fund as Mayor of Wasilla)? Unless someone comes up with some good answers, previous edits will be restored not on a Fannon biography but here.Jimmuldrow (talk) 04:39, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Jim, you're evidently referring to her 50% reduction of a "Miscellaneous" budget line item, which her fired Police Chief now says was used to fund rape kits. Let's assume, for the sake of argument, that this article ought to mention something about the rape kits. The question then leaps to mind: why focus on this particular aspect of the rape kit controversy? There are several reasons why this question leaps to mind. For example, how do we know that the 50% reduction affected the ability of Wasilla to pay for rape kits? For all we know, the cost of the rape kits would only amount to .01% of the Miscellaneous Fund that she cut by 50%. Another reason why the aforementioned question leaps to mind is because the information is exclusively sourced (without corroboration) to a person whom Palin fired and who responded by suing her. If this article is going to cover the rape kit issue, then I think a better summary of the sub-article would not include this stuff about the budget line item, but rather would include other stuff from the sub-article.Ferrylodge (talk) 05:03, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. But if others feel that Palin isn't responsible for her hiring and firing decisions, they can explain here if they think I'm the one that's missing something on that issue.Jimmuldrow (talk) 11:15, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Jim, I see that you've reinserted material about the rape kits. I think that giving Fannon's position ought to be balanced by giving Palin's position too. After all, this article is about her, not him. And if we're going to give his position, we ought to explain it clearly. So, I've added a couple sentences. Doubtless, some editor will delete what you inserted and what I inserted, seeing as how you did not build consensus for it.Ferrylodge (talk) 16:36, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

And so it came to pass.Ferrylodge (talk) 16:39, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Jim, I don't understand what your issue is about. The executive of an executive branch of government, be it mayor, governor, or President, has the right to hire and fire any member of their staff without given cause. There is no affirmative action in these cases for a very good reason. The leaders we elect need to have total trust in their subordinates, and any perceived lack of trust is grounds enough.Zaereth (talk) 17:53, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) Can't the "rape kit" material be left in a sub article because its pretty sketchy at this point as far as the details go? Who knew what when, where and how, ect.? Maybe add it to a Fannon bio if relevant at all. This bio is already beyond cluttered. Thanks, --Tom 19:21, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

The details might be sketchy, but it is among the top 4 or 5 issues that affect her campaign for those that oppose her. I have, and still see, this piece of data widely in circulation. Her side of the story should be included though. Manticore55 (talk) 20:51, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Huh? If top 4 or 5 issues that affect her campaign for those that oppose her is true, what does that say about those that oppose her? Anyways, if this becomes some huge story, maybe include it in the proper sub article but not here. --Tom 13:36, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

NPOV - lede

I have added a POV tag for obvious reasons - but particularly due to the unwillingness of a few editors to see the lede include any mention of any relevant controversy whatsoever. Until the dispute is resolved, do not remove.LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 04:59, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

You often say "Do not" do this and "Do not" do that. You might get better traction with a "please" now and then. Also, what is the most important particular thing that you think is lacking in the lede? And is there a consensus supporting your view that the lead has NPOV problems?Ferrylodge (talk) 05:12, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry that my tone is not so obliging. In the past I have made major efforts to say 'please' and 'thank you', but I should mention that I'm from Israel and over there we consider a 'please' when one is actually quite fed up, very rude:) Where I come from, politeness can be instead considered quite patronizing. But I'm dealing with a US article here, so I will try to be smoother, out of respect. As far as there being 'consensus' to place an NPOV tag - well, clearly if there was consensus of any kind there would be no need for such a tag. Please - it is clear that there is no consensus that the article, in many areas, is NPOV. Much of Ferry's work has indeed helped to shape the article nicely, that I will grant, as have the edits of many other editors. However, Ferry has also singlehandedly removed info about the NRA, rape kits, and religion, and then posted here afterwards, without consensus to remove, and then claimed there was a need for consensus to include the information. Many of us have had a big problem with that -- it has made us feel that the article is skewed away from including compromising info about Palin, save that which has five hundred articles associated with it. I am putting the tag back in, and please, let it sit for a week and let's see if anyone other than the three pro-Palin editors on this page, removes it. LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 17:00, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

The following is moved from below. I took the liberty of striking out what no longer applied. Homunq (talk) 16:12, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

The lede here is far more neutral than the lede at the Obama article. I have actually brought this up over there and there seems to be tacit agreement as they are now changing the lede, even if ever so slightly.LedRush (talk) 15:17, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Is that supposed to be a response to my comment?Ferrylodge (talk) 15:19, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Nope...just an observation. It looks like this article has chosen to be NPOV by being brief...inserting just the facts. I think that is preferable than cramming too much into the lede, as it will be more influential than the rest of the article and therefore the target of more attacks from both sides of the issue.LedRush (talk) 15:33, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Okay. But your comment's placement is incorrect. When someone makes a comment, and it's immediately followed by another comment that is further indented, that means the latter comment is in response to the former.Ferrylodge (talk) 15:37, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

concealed handguns

LLLL, in addition to putting a POV tag atop the article, you have reinserted into the article that Palin supported a bill to allow concealed weapons "in schools and bars." You know there is no consensus for this. We had a long discussion about it here.

Governor Knowles vetoed a concealed handgun bill on October 16, 1996. His veto message specifically mentioned the police chief of Wasilla. Further info about the bill is here. The May 3, 1996 version of the bill said: "A permitee may not carry a concealed handgun into or possess a concealed handgun within...or on school grounds." It therefore appears that Palin supported a bill that explicitly forbade concealed weapons on school grounds. So why should this article say the opposite? Is there some reason why Misplaced Pages should deliberately present false information to readers?Ferrylodge (talk) 05:26, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Bravo LamaLoLeshLa; totally justified and long overdue. And highly amusing to see one of the Palin campaign ops whine about being pushed around. Thank you. Writegeist (talk) 06:30, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

True to form a Palin acolyte has deleted the tag, without discussion and for totally bogus reasons, evidently to maintain the Palin-pushers' stranglehold on the article. Oh my ribs! Writegeist (talk) 08:10, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Writegeist, are you here to help or just to be sarcastic? That tag was added for the vague notion that the article lead lacked critical content - without specifying exactly what critical content should have been added or why. The critical addition that the editor in question had already made was demonstrably false, which does not add credibility to his/her argument that the lead is biased. Your ribs notwithstanding, no justification has been given for passing a blanket judgment over the quality of the entire article. I would suggest that you try to demonstrate the least amount of good faith in editing this article, rather than continuing on your present course of sniping at anyone you perceive as disagreeing with you. If the lead is biased, explain exactly what is wrong with it and propose an appropriately amended version for consideration. »S0CO 08:30, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Wait until after the US prez election, before adding controversial stuff to this article & the Barack Obama, John McCain & Joe Biden articles. Guarenteed, it won't hurt. GoodDay (talk) 12:01, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

GoodDay - that depends on your ends, doesn't it? People who are just here to help or hurt Palin are perfectly justified in being here, as long as they agree that the only acceptable means to that end are improvements to the article according to Misplaced Pages principles including NPOV. I personally am one of those people: I think that Palin is dangerous, but I'm not here to libel her because I believe "the truth shall set you free". Homunq (talk) 14:55, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

I ask this in all sincerity: do you people even care if this article includes blatantly false information?

Waiting 3-weeks is not the end of the world. Editors & readers will not commit suicide over it. GoodDay (talk) 19:15, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

This article presently says that Palin supported a bill to allow concealed weapons in schools and bars. That is FALSE. I quoted from the bill above in this section, and the bill explicitly says the opposite. Does anyone care? Apparently not.

Per the cited source: "One big issue, Stambaugh said, was that he and other police chiefs had opposed a state-legislature bill to permit concealed weapons in schools and bars, which Stambaugh called 'craziness.'" Stambaugh was fired by Palin and he sued her. Why are we providing this Misplaced Pages article as a platform for him to lie?

I am going to include the actual language of the bill in the article, because I have already been reverting enough. But I am very disappointed that no one seems to have any qualms about this article becoming a propaganda piece. This stuff about guns and schools is a blatant lie, people, as I explained above. Is no one going to even respond?Ferrylodge (talk) 15:10, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

It seems pretty obvious that the sentence in question has been twisted around.Zaereth (talk) 17:39, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree with FL - the real text of the bill should be what is presented. »S0CO 18:14, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

I am not convinced that the bill did not say that she supported a bill to allow concealed weapons in schools and bar. Sorry, you did not convince me. LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 16:53, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Do you have any reliable sources which reported in these terms? Or is this just your own opinion?--John (talk) 18:31, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

The wink

The Los Angeles Times is giving us a front page story tomorrow on the wink.

I was surprised there was nothing about it already in her entry.

During the debate against Joe Biden, Palin winked at least six times at the television audience of 70 million.

Since "the wink" is very much part of her popular appeal, why no mention of it? — Esotropic Flautist (talk) 05:39, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

We're having a hard time with English 101 here. Don't ask too much of us.Ferrylodge (talk) 05:41, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

I've added a line which I believe is accurate and reflects NPOV: "During the debate, Palin winked at least six times at a television audience numbering 70 million." It is sourced to the LA Times article. — Esotropic Flautist (talk) 05:53, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

One sentence isn't making enough of the issue. You should explain that "the American woman no longer whistles, even to wink is seen as unbusinessperson-like." Ottre 06:37, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree that a full sentence on the wink is way overkill. However, a sentence on her folksy image could include a detail like this, as well as "joe six-pack" or "you betcha" or similar verbiage. And such a sentence (no more than one) would not be out-of-place in the VP campaign section. Homunq (talk) 12:45, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I think its trivia at bestZaereth (talk) 17:23, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Obviously. Move along people. Ottre 19:55, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

She smiled a lot too. And what about those g's at the end of those words she was sayin'?Ferrylodge (talk) 19:57, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

It (all her mannerisms and folksy ways) was newsworthy because it was kwirky and different and unexpected from a VP candidate. Her homespun quality and sayings were interesting then and they still are. They set her apart from the typical National candidate. I think they are worthy of mention but, (thinking about GoodDay's concept of "what's the hurry")it can go in after November 4....--Buster7 (talk) 20:02, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) All politicians smile, and some have even been known to employ folksy vernacular even when it starkly contrasts with their patrician, some might even say elitist, upbringing. Not many wink during a debate, though Nixon did tend to blink rapidly and dart his eyes about. Nonetheless, I would be saddened to see our encyclopedic biography descend to the level of covering "The Winks Heard Round The World" - just because it's in the L.A. Times one day doesn't mean it's automatically BLP material. MastCell  20:03, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

I think it should be in a sub article (since her mannerisms are indeed widely mirrored by SNL) but not the main article. Manticore55 (talk) 20:48, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Weird redirections?

Why does Sarah Plain redirect here THROUGH levi johnston? I was searching because I remembered some book like, sarah plain and tall or something to that effect but yeah, I wound up here, and it said I had been redirected and if I was looking for the football player levi johnson blah blah... weird. 75.163.17.206 (talk) 06:01, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

This has been fixed. By the way, it's Sarah, Plain and Tall for the book. Tvoz/talk 06:30, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

And its themes will surely resonate with Sarah, Plain and Short after the election. :~) Writegeist (talk) 06:34, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Levi Johnston: New Information

As a wikipedian for several years, I was shocked and a little disappointed to see that all the information available on my favorite encyclopedia for "Levi Johnston" was one sentence. As the editors of this article know, when I searched for his name, I was redirected to "Sarah Palin's personal life."

This seems very illogical, and believe me, I'm not trying to make it political.

Here's a news story from today . Perhaps this could be used to beef up this young man's information?

(Gary Seven (talk) 15:49, 14 October 2008 (UTC))

Why? Material about this man belongs in the national enquirer, not here unless something dramatic changes. He is non notable and material about him isn't really necessary here. Maybe in a sub article about Palin's children's partner's or future spouses could work? Cheers, --Tom 15:54, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, entirely non-notable, to mention here or his own page. WP:1E. Grsz 15:57, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps that's what I mean in a nutshell. When does someone become famous enough to have their own page? Gary Seven (talk) 16:09, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

See WP:N. Thanks, --Tom 16:12, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Experience

Where did the mentions of the debate over Palin's experience go? Grsz 18:35, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

IMHO: Probably deleted, because under the US Constitution? Palin is qualified for the Vice Presidency & Presidency. GoodDay (talk) 19:18, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Probably deleted because somebody felt it made Palin look bad.Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 19:24, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Nay! I think it's the Constitional reason. GoodDay (talk) 19:26, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

You have a good, kind heart, GoodDay. It balances out the cynical ways of the rest of us. Thanks.--Buster7 (talk) 19:33, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I'd have to go with Factchecker on this one. How bout reinstating it? The debate over her experience is front and center to who she is and why we all are working so feverishly on her biography. Tvoz/talk 23:25, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Why not start with Palin's proximity to Russia equating to foreign policy experience claim. IP75 (talk) 00:00, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

(undent) How about if you put a draft here first so we can understand what's being suggested? Thanks.Ferrylodge (talk) 00:48, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

The following recent Rasmussen poll should be included:
"Poll: Majority Think Palin Is Not Qualified To Be President
A New Rasmussen poll shows that 56% of the voters do not think Sarah Palin is qualified to be President. Women's views of her are especially noteworthy: 36% have a very unfavorable view of her, vs. 16% for Biden. One of the reasons she was selected was her supposed appeal to disgruntled Hillary supporters. It doesn't seem to have happened." IP75 (talk) 16:24, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm concerned with the rush to add each new poll as they come out. It's too recentist. Polls change daily or weekly. If the issue is Palin's readiness to be President, surely we can find more stable sources discussing the issue rather than relying on today's poll numbers. MastCell  17:53, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

I share your concern about polls. In this case, it is the most recent of many polls that show a decline in Palin's popularity. The campaign section currently contains only the initial favorable polls when little was known about her. I would support the removal of all polling in the campaign section. I also find it unusual that in a campaign section there is no mention that McCain-Palin are trailing. This has been reported by almost all MSM sources and mentioned yesterday by McCain at a rally. IP75 (talk) 19:45, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Poll schmoll. The US Constitution has the final say & it says Palin is qualified. GoodDay (talk) 21:53, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

No, the Constitution only states that Palin meets the minimal requirements to run for office but does address her experience or qualifications. The voters have the final say. IP75 (talk) 05:11, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of rape kits section

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"In the case of significant public figures, there will be a multitude of reliable, third-party published sources to take material from, and 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."

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Comments from uninvolved editor

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

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

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

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

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

Palin hired Charles Fannon to replace Stambaugh as police chief

I can't edit no access but this line is repeated in the main article and should be removedTarzanlordofthejungle (talk) 20:53, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

ThreeAfterThree removed almost all of this section, saying "see talk", but there is no talk here. Restoring section.Facts707 (talk) 16:50, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Please see the section right above this one. Thank you. --Tom 17:02, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Talk page etiquette

There was some discussion about whether the article ought to mention a proposed "adult" movie parodying Palin. While I fully support the overwhelming consensus that it does not merit mention in the article, I don't see any need to expunge the discussion, let alone to expunge the discussion of whether to expunge the discussion. Since this Talk page is already overlong, a simple Archive would have sufficed. And if there is to be a further discussion of whether to expunge this section I a have just added, let me pre-emptively vote to Keep. jnestorius 22:59, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Ok, but in future insofar is this is done I think it would be nice if the archiving could also include the section header so that doesn't remain listed on the page, readily identifying the titillating content and sort of eliminating the purpose of hiding it in the first place. I won't delete comments anymore but I think we should keep this page clear of the reference.Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 23:55, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Note the section currently following this one to see why this does not belong on any talk page about anyone at all. Collect (talk) 12:41, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

There is no reason for trash like that to remain in the archives. There is zero chance that such things are going to be included in the article. The only recent contributions of ths user who created the section - WhipperSnapper (talk · contribs) - have been to post attacks about Palin on this talk page. This user also has hilariously biased contributions like . Trolling suggestions can and should be removed from the talk page. --B (talk) 12:56, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

FYI: The user in question un-archived the content at least once to my knowledge, perhaps more. If they had been willing to accept having it archived, we would not have been forced to expunge it. Homunq (talk) 13:05, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

This page is not a forum where anything can be discussed. Also, I am not a fan of youtube and blog external links, but that goes without saying :) --Tom 13:24, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

I see no need what so ever to keep it.Zaereth (talk) 16:20, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Already way too much noise and too little signal on this talk page. This stuff should be removed, as B suggests, per the talk page guidelines. This isn't a forum to expound on anything vaguely related to Sarah Palin, but rather a forum for material which has a legitimate chance of being deemed encyclopedic and incorporated into the article. MastCell  17:52, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree completely with jnestorius. The expunged material was proper for the talk page because it represented a good-faith suggestion concerning how to improve the article. I don't agree with the suggestion but disagreeing with an editor is no basis for expunging his or her comments. The better course is to leave the discussion in, let it be archived in the normal course, and refer to it if someone raises the subject again in the future (as may well happen). As for a user un-archiving an old thread, that's improper regardless of whether the thread is about an adult film or Troopergate. The user should be instructed in how to link to an archived thread. A consensus reflected in an archived thread can be re-opened for reconsideration but the old thread shouldn't be dug up. If a user persists in disruptive conduct, he or she can be blocked, and again that applies whether the substantive issue is one that virtually everyone agrees on (omit the film) or one where there are significant issues to be discussed (how to present Troopergate). JamesMLane t c 22:45, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

I am against expunging. Questionable or not, all editors have a rightful claim to be able to see what is happening here especially considering this pages prominance overall. Except for obvious vandalism, I say leave stuff in (on Talk pages). We don't need to save paper.--Buster7 (talk) 00:08, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Edit warring

I've just blocked someone for edit warring on this article, even though they did not violate 3RR. A few notes:

1. 3RR is not an entitlement. If you know something is controversial, don't revert and say "see talk", discuss first, particularly if it's been reverted before.
2. Removal of material that doesn't have consensus is not protected by 3RR, so those of you constantly removing stuff as "no consensus see talk page" are not protected from accusations of edit warring. Share the load; if there is truly no consensus for it, other editors will remove it.
3. Slightly altering the material each time so you can say that you aren't reverting to the same version will protect you from WP:3RR, but not from edit warring. If you repeatedly add material with a comma changed here and a period changed there, this is edit warring in my book.

--barneca (talk) 18:40, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Citations

1. [http://www.democracynow.org/2008/10/13/max_blumenthal_on_sarah_palins_radical Black Helicopter Steve and the AIP
2. Why the Citations section has to be at the bottom In this diff, it is at the top, and quite clearly does not function
3. ""Four Pinocchios for Palin"". Washington Post. Jake Tapper (October 12, 2008). "Palin Makes Troopergate Assertions that Are Flatly False". ABC News. "Palin: Probe Exonerated Me". CBS News. October 12, 2008.
4. "Palin says report vindicates her, Governor offers no apologies for her role in "Tasergate."". Anchorage Daily News.
5. ""Four Pinocchios for Palin"". Washington Post.

NPOV in General

Where is it?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.92.193.250 (talk • contribs)

Uhm, could you be more specific? »S0CO 01:21, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Deletions of any mention whatsoever of: 1. Rape kits 2. Role of NRA in her decisions 3. Religious view on public life. These repeated deletions by just a few editors (sometimes just one editor) constitute POV-pushing. LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 04:00, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

While I don't see mention of the first item, the other two are represented in this article with appropriate weight, and further information carried in the subarticle detailing her political positions. I'm not really seeing what out of this warrants a blanket judgement that the article is lopsided. »S0CO 04:09, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

It is interesting that some folks conception of a neutral point of view means including any scurrilous charge that anyone makes regardless if it has merit. This is what allows people to satirize Misplaced Pages.--Paul (talk) 04:14, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Bridge to nowhere image and link

I removed the Bridge to nowhere image and a link that links only to another section in the article. Firstly, there doesn't need to be a link in the article that links to this same article. Secondly, the image is obviously a negative POV image. The Obama article has no such image and I find it hard to believe someone could justify the image as WP:NPOV. Would you say my edits make the article more NPOV or not? If so then the edits were justified. Usergreatpower (talk) 04:06, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Firstly, internal links are done all the time. Secondly, the image conveys Palin's support for the bridge. Grsz 04:11, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

The image shows what it shows. It cannot be pov. --Evb-wiki (talk) 04:13, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Removing the image strongly tilts the article to POV because it takes out a clear image of Palin's prior support for a bridge that Palin loudly pretends she never supported. Hiding the facts is POV. Presenting both sides is NPOV. So removing the picture would be POV.GreekParadise (talk) 07:15, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

The internal links are also necessary because there is more discussion of the use of the bridge in the campaign in the campaign section. Many (dare I say most?) wikipedia readers do not read an entire article. Instead they go to the part most relevant to them. In this case, if someone wants to know about the relationship of Sarah Palin to the Bridge(s) to Nowhere, they might go to this section and never know that that there is more information about Palin and the bridge in the campaign section rather than in the bridge section. Now one solution is simply to move the information in the campaign paragraph about the paragraph to the bridge section and I highly support this but the consensus at one time was to put this stuff in the campaign section. (There is a long discussion of this in the archives.) But once the decision is made to put information about Palin and the bridge outside the bridge section of the Palin article, it's vital to have the internal reference. If you don't like the internal reference, Usergreatpower, I would support repeating everything in the campaign section on the bridge here in the bridge section. Indeed, I think that's the only reasonable alternative.GreekParadise (talk) 07:15, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Proposed compromise - Remove internal reference AND place following paragraph, currently in campaign section, back in bridge section where it originally was:

While campaigning for vice-president, Palin touted her stance on "the bridge to nowhere" as an example of her opposition to pork barrel spending. In her nomination acceptance speech and on the campaign trail, Palin has often said, "I told the Congress 'thanks, but no thanks,' on that Bridge to Nowhere." Although Palin was originally a main proponent of the Gravina Island Bridge, McCain-Palin television advertisements assert that Palin "stopped the Bridge to Nowhere." These statements have been widely questioned or described as misleading or exaggerations by many media groups in the U.S. Newsweek remarked, "Now she talks as if she always opposed the funding."GreekParadise (talk) 07:23, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

• 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