Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Factchecker atyourservice (talk | contribs) at 17:49, 30 October 2008 (→POV Tag on "Mayor of Wasilla" section re: the rape kit controversy). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:Prot2008candidates

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

Alaska Independence Party and ties to Iran

How is the Alaska Independence Party not even mentioned once in this article? Todd Palin has been a member for years and Sarah supported the party and participated in their conventions http://www.akip.org/conv08.html

This is an anti-American political party with ties to Iran. At the very least it should be mentioned.

http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2008/10/07/palins_unamerican/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.167.66.209 (talk) 13:42, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Please review the archives for prior discussions on this topic. At some point, I'm sure we will broaden the talk page FAQ to preclude the need for you to look for this, but there's been so much activity here that never seems to be enough time to update the FAQ. Fcreid (talk) 13:46, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Link, please. Why is it not even mentioned? She clearly supports their platform. 71.167.66.209 (talk) 13:49, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

There's a link to the archives at the top of the page. Fcreid (talk) 13:50, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

What is the PC word for a creature under a bridge who keeps reappearing here? Collect (talk) 14:07, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

I think it would not be unreasonable to include her husband's membership in AIP and her keynote speech at their convention earlier this year.GreekParadise (talk) 19:34, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Amazing. Absolutely amazing! You have tried ab initio to clkaim Palin is a secessionist. You did not carry your opinion in any consensus. YEt you try, try again? It is ABSURD to try putting AIP into this article. As it has been found each time you have tried. Collect (talk) 19:56, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Perfectly reasonable and in no way absurd to mention the well documented fact of her husband's membership in and her support of a secessionist party. Edison (talk) 04:20, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Support of a secessionist party? Come now. Sliming Palin Fcreid (talk) 04:29, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Just to clarify, the factcheck article does not mention whether or not she supported the AIP. In fact, if you read the article, it's pretty clear that facts indicate that the may have supported them: "As governor, Palin sent a video message to the 2008 convention, which is available on YouTube, and the AIP says she attended in 2006 when she was campaigning." She did try to appoint Steve Stoll to the city council to fill one of the two seats vacted during her mayoral election.Aprock (talk) 15:02, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Yikes. Again, come now. Would it be reasonable to suggest Obama supported his church's positions because he attended there weekly, or that he supported the Weathermen because he had tea in Bill Ayers' home? Fcreid (talk) 15:16, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

You may be drawing a false equivalence here. I never suggested that we read anything into Palin's actions. In fact, I specifically pointed out that it's difficult to read any indication of support or non-support for the AIP given the information at factchecker. I'm much more interested in facts than trying to determine intent here. Aprock (talk) 22:28, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Todd was a Alaska Independence Party member till 2002 and from thereon registered as an independent (and recently as a Republican). If he would have changed his party affiliation when (or shortly before or after) Sarah became governor of Alaska it would have merit to mention it here but since he left that party long time before it is wp:undue weight and belongs in Todd's bio (where it already is). As for the "ties to Iran", no opinion as I didn't check the source yet (for now).--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 23:28, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

I've removed my own meanderings from earlier this morning, which Aprock rightfully had also done earlier. In a silly way, I hoped to illustrate why this AIP association between Palin and her husband is not something we should take seriously here as editors. Admittedly, I know little about the AIP and don't really care to learn more at the moment. My recollection from my own time in Alaska was they were more of a community cheerleader--go Alaska--and I recall they were routinely on local- and state-level ballots. Anyway, as I hoped to convey earlier, political affiliations aren't contagious. Fcreid (talk) 23:10, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, I figured I could at least read the WP piece on them. :) Coincidentally, it appears they actually won the governor's race in 1990 during the time I lived in Alaska. That's probably why I recall them. Their views on many social or economic issues aren't clear from the article, but it doesn't sound like they're out in tinfoil hat land, either. And according to the article, the party stopped promoting secession in the mid-80s, long before Todd Palin was a member. Despite the tenuous tangential relationship to this subject, what's all the fuss? :-\ Fcreid (talk) 23:37, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Just to clarify my position, unless more corroborating sources emerge, I don't think the AIP stuff should be included either. But given that the articles describe a relationship which spans a decade, it's certainly possible that any number of reliably sourced references could surface which would illuminate the actual relationship. Aprock (talk) 02:31, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

I guess I just don't see the relationship you do. On the contrary, and given Alaska_Independence_Party lists them as the third largest voting bloc in Alaska, I'd actually conclude her decidedly minimal contact was standoffish were I an AIP member. Fcreid (talk) 08:21, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

It's not that I see the relationship, it's that people like Mark Chryson and Dexter Clark see it: But I certainly agree that one or two salon.com articles is enough to paint such a broad brush. Aprock (talk) 17:05, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

I read most of that. I haven't figured out whether Chryson has delusions of grandeur or just delusions, in general. At one point, he makes a comment about Palin's door as Mayor of Wasilla always open for him, yet we know that was Palin's schtick (an open door for her constituents). Other than his own few words, the article doesn't make a case it was any more open for him than other Wasillans. Did I miss evidence of a personal relationship with Palin (or even with her husband, who was actually a member of the AIP?) I thought I'd see more of that, and honestly he doesn't come off as the type of guy Todd and Sarah would hang out with. Anyway, not to judge the guy by just this one piece, but he comes off more a braggart than an influence peddler (and it's not clear exactly what he'd be selling except himself!) At least for me, neither Chryson nor this article has provided anything compelling that substantiates a relationship between Palin and the AIP (or, frankly, between Palin and Chryson). By the way, is Salon WP:RS? I've learned some of the "usual suspects" in the past couple months, but I don't recall that one. It seems to be a legitimately researched article, but there are some places that seem subjective (to be euphemistic), and the overall document structure relies on some literary sleight of hand rather than hard fact to draw conclusions (sprinkling mentions of Palin strategically). Fcreid (talk) 06:19, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

I certainly agree with the thrust of your understanding. In fact, without corroboration, the article is pretty flimsy. On the other hand, if documentary evidence that she tried to appoint "Black Helicopter Steve" to the city council, that goes a long way in establishing a mutual relationship. Aprock (talk) 17:38, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Concur, obviously depending on what Black Helicopter Steve's other redeeming qualifications for the office might have been. (What a monicker, eh... :) Fcreid (talk) 19:23, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Anarchangel (talk • contribs)  

Rouge candidate?

Looks like Sarah Palin is going rouge: . 96.236.180.7 (talk) 21:59, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Myself, I just prefer some simple foundation powder and a tasteful lip-liner ;) Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 22:07, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

As long as she doesn't go commando. And let's not blame the rouge admins. Tvoz/talk 22:28, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

My 6 year old does this :). Should I worry? --Tom 18:09, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Rouge admins are nowhere near as bad as rouges in WOW, which stunlock you and cheat to win.Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 22:30, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Rogues r ez 2 kill, just fear n dot them w/ a lock.

guys, please only use the tak page for discussing the ARTICLE. JJ Cool D 21:38, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

POV clarification

Ok, I've been asked to repeat the issues that do not appear POV to me (for the fourth time). Here goes:

• 1. 1-2 sentences on views of her qualifications from right and left perspective, are needed
• 2. 1-2 sentences on the controversies around her religious perspective on public life are needed
• 3. 1-2 sentences on rape kit are needed

We do not need whole paragraphs on any of these issues in my opinion, since they are detailed in longer articles. However they absolutely NEED to be mentioned briefly in the main article, since they are central to her public image. Currently, all information on her public image has been deleted from the main article. There is indeed a whole article on the public image of Sarah Palin which I fully understand some of you loathe. However the fact that that article is very hard on Palin does not mean that the main article should neglect to mention these central issues in a few sentences.

To be clear, I do believe that if all parties are willing, we can come up with two sentences for each of the above that we can all agree are NPOV. Again, so far what we have seen is a total lack of willingness to include any mention whatsoever in any lasting way. So long as there is total omission of these issues, which have come up repeatedly over the course of several months, the article will fail to be NPOV. (Certainly people will always come here wanting to add little tabloid tidbits about Palin until the election and perhaps beyond - but they will not remain issues for long - they will not have the same weight as information on religion, gender, and qualifications).

Furthermore, the existing sections on Knic arm bridge and political aspects of firing of sheriff(gun legislation) and librarian(censorship), have been developed over several months through hundreds of hours of work between perhaps as many editors; consensus there needs to be respected and unless more should be added, they should be left mostly as is, without cutting anything. LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 23:25, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Lots of material on her c.v. are already in. Way too much on religion is already in. The "rape kit" nonsense (1 rape per annum) is not in -- by consensus. One can not bully information into being included when consensus was opposed to it. Consensus is not achieved by demands. Collect (talk) 23:35, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Wait! Is that really accurate--one rape annually in Wasilla?! I must have missed that tidbit in all this discussion, as I thought I read something that it had the highest rape rate (again per capita!) in the nation. Boy, if that's true, we are truly making Mount Everest out of this molehill, and I rescind my prior compromise for any inclusion! How can anyone in their right mind think she was implicitly or explicitly involved in something like that? Fcreid (talk) 23:44, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Actually 11 rapes in 5 years is at least 2 per year. In any case, it's hardly a surprise for a tiny town. Two rapes per year in Anchorage would be remarkable; two rapes per year in New York City would be truly astounding. In any case, on Misplaced Pages we document what reliable sources say. Misplaced Pages is not a soapbox for "challenging the mainstream media".Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 17:44, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes. Using official crime reports, there were for 1996-2000 a total of 10 "sexual assaults" in Wasilla, and for 2000 it is specified to have had 1 rape. Unless a majority of "sexual assaults" are rapes (which is not statistically likely at all, there were only 1 rape per annum in Wasilla during that period. It has skyrocketed since with Wasilla increasing 50% in population all the way to 3 rapes in some years. Collect (talk) 03:04, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Excuse me, but what are you talking about? First of all, what do you think the term "sexual assault" means? It is used interchangeably with "rape" - see this for example. Furthermore, according to official Wasilla crime reports, there were 59 sexual assaults in 1996-2000 and 70 from 2001-2007. Even one rape is a very serious crime, not deserving of your disdainful dismissal, but you might try getting your facts straight before spouting off about "rape kit nonsense". And consensus can change. Tvoz/talk 03:56, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

I thought that number was a bit low. I lived in Alaska for two years and was forced to deal routinely with subordinates in administrative cases involving acts of sexual deviancy (no rapes, fortunately, but just about everything else you could imagine!) We all attributed it to long winters and little sunlight. Regardless, it's not under contention that any woman was ever charged for these kits. While I know Palin's position on some issues alienates many women, her response to this matter I think makes it clear she stands alongside with women on this issue--The entire notion of making a victim of a crime pay for anything is crazy. I do not believe, nor have I ever believed, that rape victims should have to pay for an evidence-gathering test. As governor, I worked in a variety of ways to tackle the problem of sexual assault and rape, including making domestic violence a priority of my administration. I don't think anyone was bandying about a number to make light of the scope of even a single sexual assault, but rather just to put this contentious issue in perspective on whether Palin could reasonably have known about the policy of her police department. Fcreid (talk) 04:24, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

You were both openly asserting that if there's only one or two rapes per year in Wasilla, then it's a non issue and we should ignore the news articles. Besides being wrong and original research, it was apparently based on massively false figures. The "perspective" you wish to put the issue in is a biased perspective according to which you wish to eliminate any mention of the material. There are already notable comments on whether Palin could reasonably have known about the policy of the police department under hew newly appointed (by her) police chief in her tiny tiny town. Your insistence on excluding this notable and relevant commentary constitutes blatant POV pushing.Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 17:47, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm trying not to ascribe motives to anyone, Fcr, about why they might have minimized the statistics, but by your own logic it is far more likely, isn't it, that she knew of her police department's policy if there were dozens of assaults rather than "1 rape per annum" as Collect claimed and used as a reason for not including this material? And by the way, your understanding above is correct regarding Alaska's "distinction" in this area- according to this source, Alaska's "rape rate is 2.5 times the national average". I would have to get familiar with the details of this disagreement regarding including anything in this article, as I've focused on other sections, so I'm not saying at the moment if I think something should be included here, but I had to object to the dismissive and incorrect comment above. And I remind everyone that even if there was consensus here - and I do not know if there was - consensus can change. Tvoz/talk 05:15, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Alaska's crime rate is higher than Wasilla's rate. "Sexual assault" includes all reported sexual assaults, which is why that number is higher than the number of rapes. The terms are not interchangeable. Thereofre, absent any real claims to the contrary, it is clear that the Wasilla rape rate was under 2 per annum even if EVERY assault was a rape. Which it wasn't. Collect (talk) 18:22, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

How are you calculating this? If there were 129 assaults in 10 years, and every assault was a rape, there were 12.9 rapes per year. Math.Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 18:29, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

129 total assaults -- "and every assault was a rape" is the same as Lincoln's question about how many legs a horse has if you call a tail a leg. Sorry FC, that sort of statistical claim is absurd and one which I would use in a reduction case. The figre of 10 sexual assaults in 5 years was sourced above. Collect (talk) 18:42, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

This is absolutely dumbfounding. Can you not keep track of something you wrote 5 minutes ago? YOU SAID "it is clear that the Wasilla rape rate was under 2 per annum EVEN IF EVERY assault was a rape". That's a direct quote but it should not be needed because YOU JUST WROTE IT MOMENTS AGO. Anyway, if every assault was a rape, and there were 129 assaults from 1996-2007, THEN THERE WERE 12.9 RAPES A YEAR. Math. Thanks so much.Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 18:48, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

There was never consensus. I go to bed one night Ferrylodge is rewording the rape kit material in a way he feels is more appropriate, next morning the material has been unilaterally deleted accompanied by false claims of "consensus", by an editor who never participated in the discussion in the first place (TaT/Tom). What did this "consensus" mean? For about 12 hours there were clearly about 20% more people in favor of excluding the material (based on whatever reasons, appropriate or not). But that changed. Later, when I agreed to drop my personal objection to the POV tag based on Ferrylodge's reluctant acceptance of briefly mentioning the rape kit material, this was held up to other editors as being a "consensus" achieved on the subject, even though it involved exactly two editors. AND THEN Ferry withdrew his agreement. This might give you an idea of what some folks here think of as a "consensus" -- a completely reality-free buzzword that you use without substantiation or apparent meaning in order to browbeat others into accepting your point of view... and then reneg on any concessions you may have offered.Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 17:49, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Factchecker, please. Consensus does not (and never will) meaning getting it exactly how you want. I've been involved in this discussion since its inception, and you have not been willing to compromise even the least. You want to turn this into a ten-line paragraph on an issue that you can't even say involves Palin except tangentially! When I agreed to compromise, you wanted to embellish it with POV nonsense that would draw a crowd to it. I have yet to see a since, good faith effort on your part with this issue to compromise. Fcreid (talk) 17:54, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Fcreid, please read what I say before responding. I never said anything of the sort. And if you had actually been involved in this discussion since the inception, you would know you have no basis to claim I have not been willing to compromise. I am fully willing to compromise on the wording and length of the material. It is "your side", which is misrepresenting policy horribly, which is unwilling to compromise on the issue and insists on unilaterally forbidding this relevant, sourced material from going in the article. The only reason my original write up was so long was to bend over backwards giving a fair reading to all sides, with particular emphasis on giving Palin's supprorters the last word. That is compromise my friend... not unilaterally insisting this or that. Do you have ANY SUBSTANTIATION WHATSOEVER that you ever tried to compromise? What is the "POV crowd-drawing nonsense" that I insisted on inserting in my supposedly blatant refusal to compromise? And, if you're going to toss allegations of bad faith, I'd like to remind you that you are a single purpose account WP:SPA who came onto the scene with no prior knowledge or understanding of Misplaced Pages's goals, policies, and guidelines, and are attempting to bully other editors and dominate the article despite that you clearly misunderstand most of the policies involved. You are going straight from "I R INEXPERIENCED NOVICE" to "I R OWN THIS ARTICL" in just a few weeks. Step back and ask yourself if your motivations are sincere or if you are simply trying to do a partisan hack job on this entry. And PLEASE, for the love of Mike, read the entire article of each of the 5 pillar policies before you go tossing out the names of rules trying to make arguments those rules don't support.Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 18:15, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Oh, had there been a large number of these kits used, I would think Palin would have noticed the smaller "miscellaneous" budget in 1998 when Fannon shifted that to insurers. Had it been just a handful, no, it's unlikely. Fcreid (talk) 06:47, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) Interestingly, her ability to know could only have occurred through a manner we cannot source, i.e. she would have had to have discussed the issue specifically with her police chief, Charles Fannon. We have no evidence that happened. If you're coming in cold, you should know the only contemporaneous piece we have on this is a May 2000 article in the Frontiersman (the local Mat-Su Valley rag) where Fannon was quoted grumbling that he had to start paying for these kits under his own budget to comply with a new state law. There was no other record at either the local or state level that preceded this article (at least that have been presented here), so everything (literally) is derived from that. Anyway, Fannon apparently started this practice in 1998, a year after Palin hired him, of having hospitals where evidence collection was administered bill the health insurer for the kit. Apparently, other Alaskan police agencies were also doing it, which was the catalyst for the Knowles' bill in 2000. (Other pieces indicate their rationale for doing so was to have the perpetrators reimburse upon conviction, but that's anecdotal and insignificant to discussion.) We don't know how many cases where this actually occurred, but it doesn't sound like a big number in Wasilla, and it must be emphasized that no women in Wasilla were ever billed or had to pay. The billing was not done by the police or the city but rather by the hospitals, and if it occurred, it obviously got paid. The only recorded case of an individual receiving a bill occurred in Juneau, a different story and probably another catalyst for the new state law. Anyway, from where Palin sat, she would have had no visibility into this practice through her police department budget, as these kits were not separately itemized in the "miscellaneous" budget line. Unless Fannon conferred directly with her, it's not only plausible but virtually certain she would not have known. Anyway, that brings us to September 2008, when a Democratic strategist (Aravosis) dredged up the 2000 story, and posted it on his blog. DailyKos latched onto it later that afternoon, and within hours it had embellishments that Palin knew of the practice (unsubstantiated, as discussed above) and that these kits contained "morning-after" contraception (impossible in 1998), which was the reason for her decision. Obviously, if true, it makes for great shark food. You've seen her quote above, and despite her pro-life position, there certainly doesn't seem to be anything in her history that would otherwise make a prudent person believe she disliked women, sexual assault victims or would otherwise be inclined to "add insult to injury" in such cases. The problem we have in a BLP is its simple inclusion is accusatory, beyond the obviously sensitive material. I think most serious editors here have tried to keep "rape kit+palin" from coming to WP in the same manner "sex education+kindergarteners+obama" doesn't place them there. The issue wreaks of campaign smear. Fcreid (talk) 06:36, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the reliable source news stories do mention that there is no direct evidence Palin knew. (Word to the wise, this is one example of why they are reliable sources.) That said, there are a wide variety of ways Palin could have learned about this without speaking directly with Fannon -- that objection of yours is a total red herring -- for example, she could have learned that the Alaska state legislature crafted a law "aimed at part in Wasilla". The suggestion later in the paragraph that it's virtually certain she would not have known if Fannon didn't tell her about it specifically, completely defies reality. It's clear that Fannon wasn't the only person in the world who knew about this controversial debate at the state level, or Wasilla's involvement in it. If you are a town mayor and the state your town is in passes a law specifically to illegalize the controversial conduct of the police chief you appointed, are you suggesting it's reasonable to assume you would be completely oblivious to that? In any case, it's irrelevant. Several major sources think that this is relevant to Palin's political tenure, complete with notable comments on record that she probably knew. It's an allegation, hence it is unproven, yet it still goes in the article because it's relevant, sourced, and notable. You're just trying to second guess these sources in direct violation of WP:Verifiability and WP:BLP. This whole above paragraph that you wrote should be entitled "My personal reasons why I think all the news articles about Palin and the rape kits are totally bogus, and research I have conducted to try to undermine those articles", and none of this is appropriate.

Argh! You call me a OR speculator, yet you've just provided a whole litany of vectors where Palin might've known and not the least bit of RS that she did. She could also have known because some laid tablets at her feet, but there's no evidence of that either! And, for the record, Tvoz asked for the argument in a narrative format. If you don't like it, don't read it. Fcreid (talk) 17:58, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

The material I added to the article was all sourced. You are trying to use your own speculation to refute the reliable sources. THAT IS ORIGINAL RESEARCH. I pointed out that your speculation was ridiculous and gave an obvious counterexample. THAT IS NOT ORIGINAL RESEARCH... READ THE POLICY. For that matter, read ALL the policies. It seems you don't understand ANY of them yet are trying to bully other editors based on this profound misunderstanding. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 18:22, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

The sentence towards the end of the paragraph best sums up your completely contrary-to-BLP-policy position: "The problem we have in a BLP is its simple inclusion is accusatory, beyond the obviously sensitive material." This is directly contradicted by the BLP guidelines which state that allegations should be included if they are sourced and relevant to her notability, which they are.

Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 17:52, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Factchecker, no offense, but I'm going to stop talking to you. I want to remember you from our early dates when you actually had some good ideas for some counter-balanced "other perspective" material to this article. Since then, you've just wasted my time, and it's become clear that your interests have never actually been in bettering this as an NPOV article. Please try not to address me directly on matters, and I'll try to do the same to you. Fcreid (talk) 18:25, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

The feeling is mutual, at least until you familiarize yourself of the meaning and intent of Misplaced Pages policies instead of treating them as buzzwords to be tossed around trying to justify ignoring the actual substance of WP policies. However, insofar as you continue to try to make bogus arguments about policy, I will continue addressing your arguments whether you are addressing me directly or not. I'm sorry that you don't understand WP:NPOV, or that NPOV is what I am trying to achieve here, and I encourage you to read the policy over and over until you do.Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 18:36, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, F., for the clear summary of your position. Now if someone on the other side of this would like to post what he/she would like to include in the article and the rationale for it, I would appreciate it. Tvoz/talk 06:47, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, T., for your intervention. It has polarized editors deeply, which is not an unexpected result of a sensitive issue that can be presented in very maligning and accusatory ways. For what it's worth, here's what Factcheck Palin Rape Kits says about the matter. I have "compromised" on its inclusion in the past, but not without reservation. Given no substantiated Palin involvement, it just seems wrong to bring the matter into a Palin biography in a pseudo trial-by-wikipedians. Moreover, there is absolutely no doubt the non-issue will be dead and buried mere days from now, given its genesis only a few weeks ago. Fcreid (talk) 13:05, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

It's not a trial by Wikipedians. We're not making up the news stories. It's a trial by the media on a directly relevant topic, and as such it goes in the article. This is explicitly stated in the various policies. Fcreid, I appreciate your contributions to this topic, but as a brand-new user who's only been editing Misplaced Pages for a few weeks and has only edited this single article, don't you feel you should bone up on the policy topics a little before attempting to instruct other editors on them? For a bit of context, see WP:SPA and WP:OWN.Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 17:59, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Sexual assault includes much more than rape. If someone was groped, that's a sexual assault, but no rape kit would be used, and nobody would have to pay for one. And yes, one rape is a serious crime, but one rape kit does not make a serious splash in a budget, so there's no reason why she would notice the presence or absence of that money. There was no line item for rape kits, so that she might notice if it disappeared one year; at most she might have noticed that the line for miscellaneous police expenses was a few hundred dollars lower than the previous year, and idly wondered whether they'd cut down on doughnuts or printer toner or something. -- Zsero (talk) 04:31, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

1. I just do not understand what you mean by consensus. 2 or 3 people against dozens who keep adding in this information month by month does not strike me as consensus. 2. By 'qualifications', I do not mean, listing her qualifications. This[REDACTED] entry is not supposed to function as a CV. By qualifications, I mean perceptions of her qualifications in the view of prominent right and left figures. 3. The religion information has to do with her political position on teaching creationism in schools. However, what we need is a sentence or two about the debate about her views on the separation of church and state. What we need is a line or two about public perceptions. It would not be difficult for me to craft several such sentences if you would allow me to. When I have a little more time I will try to do so and then we can try to hammer out the language here together. However until we reach a genuine, rather than supposed consensus, the POV tag should be on the article to indicate to readers that there is an internal process going on. Thank you. LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 23:42, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree with LamaLoLeshLa. Sub-articles are nice, but shouldn't be used to create POV forks. A brief mention of the issues in question should be added.Jimmuldrow (talk) 23:56, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

I also agree with LamaLoLeshLa and support the brief addition of 3-6 sentences of NPOV addition that she cites above. Perhaps LLLL can propose these 3-6 sentences (and I really apologize, LLLL, if you have already done so, but you can just cut and paste again here.) Once we form a consensus on these three topics, we can add it to the article and delete the POV tag.GreekParadise (talk) 00:12, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it is appropriate to mention public perceptions of her qualification...this is a biography, not an election site.

I believe that her religious views could be more palatable, because that relates to her actual life.

The rape kit controversy is just stupid. It's never made sense in a biography, and is a borderline entrant into a sub-article. After this election it will never be mentioned again, and it will never rank as even moderately important in her life. There is no consensus to add this, and the majority of the editors here have spoken loudly and clearly that it doesn't belong. Please try and be more constructive and less disruptive: consensus doesn't mean that you get to dominate conversation until your monority view is accepted.LedRush (talk) 00:04, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

It makes sense in the BLP, given BLP guidelines. It probably will never be mentioned again, but that's only because the currently broad scope of Palin's notability is likely to be temporary. If she became VPOTUS I can personally guarantee this would evolve into a major issue and Palin would be forced to explicitly answer whether she had a hand in this policy and the news coverage would continue until the issue was settled. Here, a majority of editors believe this material should be added. And we are being as constructive as possible given the wildly inappropriate and incorrect interpretations of "policy" that are suggested improperly as reasons to exclude this. Even WP:Weight doesn't BEGIN TO SUGGEST that we shouldn't include this, only that we word it appropriately to accurately say whose opinion is whose and not attempt to depict it as a majority view or a view that should be given as much weight as a majority view. There are a few editors here attempting to "dominate" the conversation and throwing about false claims of consensus, and it is those few editors that continue to insist that we not mention this sourced, notable, relevant controversy.Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 18:01, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

• As far as rape kits, I say no. In the scheme of even the Wasilla budget, such an item would have mattered less financially to the police department than even the budget for their uniforms and those cool little flippy things in which they carry their badges. Any exaggeration that she considered that uniquely in any budget decision is contrived and irrelevant to this biography. That whole issue needs to be buried right back where the Obama campaign operatives dug it up.
• As far as religion, we did have a statement on her only known "transgression" on that which I'm ambivalent about including again, i.e. the commencement speech she made to the Jesus Masters graduates from the pulpit in the Wasilla Assembly of God. If you care to put that back, I'm fine, but I insist on every bit of the details I listed above to provide it with correct context.
• As far as qualifications, I don't know what you mean. Doesn't she meet the qualification requirements to hold the office? Or did you want to include her SAT scores or something?

Fcreid (talk) 00:06, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

In response to LedRush, I would say that I'd have to see what LLLL proposes before opining on it, but people are interested in Palin precisely because she's up for election. That's the reason people come to wikipedia, not to read her biography. So one brief pro- and one anti-Palin view on her qualifications makes sense to me. The pro- could mention executive experience and the anti- could mention how little she actually did or whatever. I don't want to say what they'd say. I want to see what LLLL proposes first. As for the rape kits, again I'd want to see what LLLL proposes. Perhaps it could say this was an issue in Alaska but Palin has denied knowing about it and fixed it. Honestly, I don't know what the facts are. But I'll see what LLLL and you and anybody else writes and check the sources. I believe a NPOV can be found. And if it's the case that nothing about the rape kits really has to do with Palin, I will advocate not including it.GreekParadise (talk) 00:13, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Look at the archives for the history of the rape kit section and why nothing is currently in the article about it. Even the pro-Obama editors from the Obama article believed it was not worthy of inclusion. This issue is dead. As for qualifications, I don't understand why we'd make an edit that we know will require deletion in 10 days. This is not a campaign article, it is a biography. Also, as a BLP, under[REDACTED] standards it must be edited conservatively and with consensus.LedRush (talk) 00:19, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

The issue is certainly not dead, nor is it irrelevant. The fact that a couple Obama article editors were canvassed to come put in their two cents does not really establish anything. In any case, if the rape kit material stays out I will renew my insistence on the POV tag, which I agreed to drop only on the compromise that the issue be addressed (as it should be). Finally, BLP guidelines don't require a consensus for every addition of material, nor does the idea of a "consensus" mean that a few editors with ownership issues get to veto anything they don't like. The presumption is that rules trump consensus unless a case to the contrary can be made.Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 00:35, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Totally agree with LLLL. This article was hijacked long ago by McCain-Palin campaigners working full-time to sanitize it, in blatant violation of WP:NPOV, WP:POVPUSH, WP:OWN, WP:PURPOSE, WP:FIVE etc., etc., ad nauseam. — Writegeist (talk) 00:15, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

I've missed you too, Writegeist! :-* 03:35, 26 October 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fcreid (talk • contribs)

I would say that my original write-up of the rape kits was fine, before it was deleted on bogus claims of "consensus". See it at http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Sarah_Palin&diff=245282445&oldid=245281592Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 00:17, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

I would go along with Factchecker's version.Jimmuldrow (talk) 00:32, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Here's what Factchecker suggests:

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 The Frontiersman, the law opposed by Fannon "makes it illegal for any law enforcement agency to bill victims or victims insurance companies for the costs of examinations that take place to collect evidence of a sexual assault." A news story published by CNN cites the bill's sponsor, Democratic State Rep. Eric Croft, as saying that the only ongoing resistance he met was from Wasilla: "It was one of those things everyone could agree on except Wasilla. We couldn't convince the chief of police to stop charging them," Croft said, also saying it was unlikely Palin didn't know about the issue. During the time Palin was mayor of Wasilla, her city was not the only one in Alaska charging rape victims. However, interviews and a review of records turned up no evidence that Palin knew that rape victims were being charged in her town. Judy Patrick, who was Palin's deputy mayor, says that the issue was merely a budget dispute between Wasilla and the state, saying, "The bigger picture of what was going on at the time was that the state was trying to cut their own budget, and one of the things that they were doing was passing on costs to cities, and that was one of the many things that they were passing on, the cost to the city."

While I would not be opposed to this version, my own view is that while I support the addition of the topic, it should be briefer if possible -- the one or two NPOV sentences that LLLL proposed. I look forward to seeing specifically what LLLL suggests. Perhaps something along the lines of: "While mayor, Palin's police chief opposed (for budgetary reasons) a proposed Alaskan law that would have the state pay for rape kits for sexual assault victims. Although critics have charged that this police chief was the primary resistance to the bill and that Palin must have known about the issue, there is has never been any explicit proof that Palin knew about the problem." There, I did it in two. I'm not at all wedded to my words, just suggesting how it could possibly be done briefly.GreekParadise (talk) 00:35, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Currently three editors approve of this idea, in some form, and two oppose.Jimmuldrow (talk) 02:36, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

And WP does not use "votes" Collect (talk) 03:04, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

No no no. The underwhelming dimension of this issue aside, we cannot include *anyone's* opinion that amounts to a simple "I bet she knew" in here. If it was her job to know, then cite a reference to state that it was, but we can't cherry-pick crap from a Democrat partisan. Fcreid (talk) 03:13, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Man, this is getting old. Read WP:BLP specifically the sentences with the words "allegations". This isn't even original research on your part, it's "my gut feeling says these reliable sources aren't reliable and I move to exclude them on that basis".Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 18:05, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

"Must have" and "could have" are weasel words. If you can find a reference that says either she did or even that she should have, then I'll reconsider. 03:14, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Whoever you are, if you could bring yourself to read the one sentence summary of WP:Weasel (to say nothing of the whole article), you would see that the policy refers to editors using potentially biased words when paraphrasing sources. It does not say that reliable sources using words listed under WP:Weasel are disqualified.

Honestly, does anybody actually read and understand these policies before stamping them on some willy nilly objection?? I think not.Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 18:04, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

I am opposed to putting anything in this biography of a living person about the rape-kit matter. 1) It has only the most tangential and ephemeral connection to the subject of this biography. 2) There are few sources and they do not agree on the facts. 3) Nothing new has come out for weeks. 4) The facts that are not in dispute are trivial e.g. Fannon told a reporter he opposed a state law. 5) It is a very controversial material. Consequently, it should not be added to this article because of undue weight issues and the need to be conservative in adding material to WP:BLPs.--Paul (talk) 03:16, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

1) There is an ALLEGED direct connection. 2) What facts do the sources disagree on? And how is the existence of multiple sources undermine rather than reinforce the claims? 3) This isn't even relevant. Is there supposed to be a weekly news magazine devoted to the subject of Wasilla Rape Kits 1996-2002? 4) Again, not relevant. The whole point of an allegation is that substantial facts are in dispute. 5) BLP SPECIFICALLY REQUIRES THE INCLUSION OF CONTROVERSIAL MATERIAL. 6) As I stated above, WP:Weight does not even begin to suggest that this material be excluded from the article. 7) This material satisfies all the "conservativeness" requirements of BLP, which simply state that the material should be properly sourced, relevant to the subject's notability, and that it be presented without endorsing the positions referenced.

You can't just say the names of rules and expect that to constitute an argument. You need to read what the rules mean and make arguments IN ACCORDANCE with those rules.

How about at least mentioning that Fannon opposed a state law, with a reference for those that want more information? As to what this has to do with Palin, again, it was Palin that appointed Fannon after firing his predecessor. The assumption that a person that makes hiring, firing and budget decisions is responsible for results is considered the normal, default point of view on the outside. There's nothing unusual about it.Jimmuldrow (talk) 12:56, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Just add this material to the Fannon article once it is created or include it in the sub article as it is now. This material does not go in the bio. Hasn't this been discussed before? --Tom 13:17, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Read WP:BLP. This material goes in the bio. This has indeed been discussed before. See also WP:Content_forking.Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 18:06, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

And the consensus was and still is to keep it out. Maybe add it to one of the many sub articles or even better still, add it to the Fannon article, whats the problem with that?--Tom 18:27, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

You keep repeating the same stuff that never made sense before, and never explain why. What concensus? And why violate Misplaced Pages policy by using sub-articles to create POV forks? And why keep mentioning an imaginary, non-existent sub-article? And whey repeated 3RR violations? And why do people that talk the most about concensus and discussion want those things the least?Jimmuldrow (talk) 19:56, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

The consensus, based both on Misplaced Pages policies and the number of editors who expect this to be included, is that the rape kit material should be included. And the problem with sequestering it in a Fannon article (does one even exist? is he notable?) is that this constitutes POV forking. See WP:Content_forking. Sub articles are not a way to bypass NPOV.Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 18:32, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Can't we all get along?  :-) Can we agree on the NON-rape kit sentences? LLLL, what do you propose to add?

I'm glad the discussion has continued in my absence. (though I'm sorry to see that some of it reached the boiling-point). Thank you to those who posted rape kit versions from which I can work towards a concise summary. I am in the midst of two simultaneous deadlines today and so won't have time to come up with the nuanced language on the three topics listed above. But I promise to return tomorrow and offer up some kind of an attempt at compromise language. Thanks, LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 21:24, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Factchecker's proposed rape kit inclusion above is laughable from the point of view of WP:NPOV and specifically WP:WEIGHT. I'm left to conclude that I'm either I'm missing the joke or that it's just an intentional smear. How can anyone support a 250 word paragraph about an issue that has no direct link to Palin and has received barely a passing mention in the media? It seems that the paragraph's only service is to mention "Palin" and "rape" as closely together as possible. From the point of view of this article being a biography of an individual in the long term, rather than a combination of partisan screeds from two sides trying to influence an election, this material doesn't belong in the slightest, and certainly not in such detail. oren0 (talk) 07:44, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) Well said, unfortuneately, the agenda pushers are pretty militant around these parts, so be prepared to battle over this. --Tom 17:10, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Team Mom?

The line below closes her post-governor section:

In 2004, Palin told the Anchorage Daily News that she had decided not to run for the U.S. Senate that year, against the Republican incumbent, Lisa Murkowski, because her teenage son opposed it. Palin said, "How could I be the team mom if I was a U.S. Senator?""

Again, it's certainly not one of those things worth losing sleep over, and I'm not even sure when it crept in. Does this statement come off as a jab questioning her ability to juggle family and public service to anyone else? If so, that seems a bit chauvinistic for us to introduce this out-of-place quote and imply something like that. I'm not sure we would be doing it were she not a woman. Fcreid (talk) 12:04, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

It has been there since the first week of September. Of course the reason it is there is to take a jab at her. Just after she was announced as McCain's choice, there was a lot of discussion that a women with a big family and an infant could not possibly take care of both her family and the responsibilities of the Vice Presidency. Finding a quote from Palin that she wouldn't run for Senate because it wouldn't allow time for family matters is pure partisan gold. It subsequently came out that the Palin family always takes votes before embarking on big efforts. The Senate lost, but everyone agreed on running for V.P.--Paul (talk) 13:21, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

I guess it doesn't Take a Family any more. :( For what it's worth, not a single decision we've made in my thirty years of marriage and children has been without collaboration, and that includes ten physical geographic moves, countless new and more demanding positions, school changes, etc. Each time we went with not necessarily unanimous consensus (and seemingly more infrequently with the position I held!) However, in all that time, I don't recall any prospective employer questioning whether I would be able to juggle my family and my job. Go figure. :-\ Fcreid (talk) 15:56, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Uh, that's because you're a man, I'm afraid. It's illegal, but employers ask women that all the time. Nevertheless, if this is a verified quote from Palin, it is obviously relevant to this biography - how she sees, or saw, herself is valid and of interest. And not partisan, Paul. Did she say it or didn't she? Tvoz/talk

Oh, Tvoz, I'm sure you're tired of me being an apologist, and you probably know Paul far better than I do, but I'd bet my entire worthless and limited WP reputation that he intended no "partisanship" with the comment above. The fact is that this quote is non-notable, chauvinistic and possibly even out of context, but it is exactly the right stuff ("partisan gold") that campaigns would sieze upon to win an election. Regardless, she did say it, and all's fair in love and war, so we live with it for posterity. However, on the issues we can control here, I'll go on record saying Paul in among a handful of editors I've met in my short WP tenure who have provided a consistent voice of reason in this sometimes insane asylum. You are on that same short-list. Fcreid (talk) 10:50, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. Actually I don't know Paul at all, and I wasn't accusing him of being partisan in his editing - I was disagreeing with his assessment above: "Finding a quote from Palin that she wouldn't run for Senate because it wouldn't allow time for family matters is pure partisan gold." - I was saying that Palin's self-assessment on this issue at that time, if it is verifiably and reliably sourced, is indeed valid for inclusion in her biography whether or not it makes anti-Palin partisans happy. He also insisted in the same comment that "Of course the reason it is there is to take a jab at her" - which I assume is another way of saying it's there "of course" because of partisanship. Well, my point is that it is a notable comment describing her mind-set at the time of the proposed Senate race - and her state of mind on this issue is relevant to her bio precisely because it was raised by some at the time of her entrance into this race. And yes, obviously she and presumably her family changed their minds on this regarding the VP run. The same standard would apply to any of the four principals. And one other thing: "partisan" goes both ways, so don't you think there are other quotes in this article that are "pure partisan gold" in her favor? Tvoz/talk 19:37, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

I didn't get involved much at the "word level" but rather "issue level" for the article (and only just a few of those), but I imagine you're right. I'd also venture a guess it's much fewer than she'd like! :) Oh, and to the substance of what you said, undoubtedly you're also right. Yet, we still have male politicians say things like, "I consult my wife on all my decisions" and, without doing much research, I suspect something like that could be found for each of the three male participants in this race. It just never amounts to anyone suggesting, "I don't think Senator. So-and-so can balance public service and his family, because he's made decisions based on family needs in the past." Anyway, moot point. Fcreid (talk) 20:59, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

By the way, and in a completely rhetorical manner unrelated to the article, don't you think it's everyone's responsibility to dispel the myths that foster this kind of treatment of women? It seems we're perpetuating them here. Fcreid (talk) 00:14, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, and it's truly a sad statement. I can't tell you how many times I've made an issue of my family's needs. While I described our stay in the Aleutians above in a most positive light, I would be completely misleading to say my family actually wanted to accompany me there, and they were ecstatic to leave and spend the following two years in Spain! I could be quoted too many times to mention that my family needs matter, but that was never considered a handicap for my job! Fcreid (talk) 21:01, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

It seems to me that she was putting those words in Track's mouth, and summarising his objection to her running for Senate. And saying that since he objected she decided not to run. It's not about sexism, it's about how the Palin family makes decisions. -- Zsero (talk) 14:43, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Point taken. It was not my "family needs" as much as it was my own value of each of their concerns that drove my decisions. Coincidentally, about ten years ago, I turned down a significant career change in order to keep my children in the same high school a couple years before their graduations. Granted, it wasn't to run as senator, as you can no likely tell! :) Anyway, we blog... sorry. Fcreid (talk) 15:11, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Powell quote and SNL in VP section

Powell quote

4Ls, I have posted a request at your talk page (where I was redirected by Facts707's page, which confuses me) that you revert your addition of the Colin Powell quote in the article. As a career serviceman, I deeply respect Powell and his opinion, but consensus here was it was no more or less notable than that of any other American (and, coincidentally in his current role, neither a statesman nor politician). Anyway, our discussions outlined the slippery slope over which we march by starting to seed this biography with notable or non-notable opinion, pro or con. Please don't drag us over that precipice. Fcreid (talk) 13:28, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

I have also added the Powell quote. I did not know it was added and then removed, the talk page on this is already gone. In any event, the last word on the talk page was that WK:BLP literally demanded the quote be added. The only other comments was that endorsements could go under campaign subarticles, however the talk page did not discuss negative "endorsements" or the fact that Palin does not have a campaign subarticle. Facts707 (talk) 13:52, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't know what this means? Did you remove the quote or shall I? Fcreid (talk) 13:53, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

I've helped that along. I also agree with some of the new material you introduced today after removing the obvious POV and inaccuracies. Fcreid (talk) 14:02, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Facts, I'm not going to get into an edit war with you. Your misinterpretation of the previous discussion and consensus on this exact issue notwithstanding, I think if you put on your thinking cap, you'll quickly see what a cesspool this page could become if we start throwing in every random endorsement that happens to bolster one political position or the other. Please revert your previous change. Fcreid (talk) 14:13, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I see the confusion. My talk page does not direct to LamaLoLeshLa's page. Her entry there was just a request she sent to many editors regarding POV of this article. Thus I thought your request to her for a revert was that the revert had already happened. In any event, the addition of the quote (I assume the first) is mine. As regards POV, saying "just eight years old" instead of "eight years old" is hardly over the top POV. Also, there were no inaccuracies, as described I took the already referenced and reviewed material from Palin's subarticle on Public Perception. Facts707 (talk) 14:16, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I'm going to WP:AGF on all you've presented here and start fresh. First, please don't use the subarticle as your baseline for summary in this main article. As I proposed just above, I have asked WP editors to review that specific subarticle to remove the POV and myriad unsubstantiated claims, as it appears to have become a collection bin for anything that failed through consensus to merit mention here (which is not how I understand a subarticle works). Next, regarding the Powell quote, yes, it's too slippery a slope to march over that we add endorsements, no matter how important they may be to you, me or the respective campaigns. The campaign articles would be an appropriate place for such endorsements, and this article would become impossible to manage otherwise. So, I ask again that you revert your last edit there. Finally, yeah, I did not assume you had bad faith in the other edits... "just" is a common qualifier to convey a small amount or dismissive degree. However, in NPOV, one needs to be wary of exactly such qualifiers. Fcreid (talk) 14:23, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) This material belongs in the sub article on Obama, where it probably already is. It seems that the 2008 Vice-presidential campaign section here is already larger than needed for the main bio, that is why there are sub articles. --Tom 14:39, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

IP75, it appears we crossed wires on this one at some point yesterday, or I somewhere missed the trigger to put this quote back into the Campaign section. Again, in all seriousness, I'm not discrediting the value of this quote or this person, but please think of the slippery slope we head down by starting this precedent here. There are countless equally or more notable people who can be quoted virtually identically saying the same thing about Obama (well, with the exception of the vice part). I would ask that you reconsider its inclusion. 75.148.1.26 (talk) 11:43, 26 October 2008 (UTC) BTW, it appears we are both IP75, so signed again to avoid confusion! :) Fcreid (talk) 12:50, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Fcr, there were two separate sections on the Powell quote and/or the SNL parody. I merged the sections for continuity to avoid confusion. IP75 (talk) 23:44, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Ah, roger. It must've snuck back in there earlier, as there have been a couple folks wanting to do so. Thanks. Fcreid (talk) 09:12, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Facts707, I reverted the inclusion of the Sarah Palin SNL parody piece and, more importantly, the Powell quote. While this seems important to you, no doubtedly because you agree with his position which is fine, but would you support a similarly sourced and virtually identical quote from a former President that states with equal or stronger verbiage that Obama is unqualified to serve as President? Can you please agree that this is not what a biographical article is intended to accomplish? Fcreid (talk) 17:45, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Powell quote and SNL

This has been covered before, but this "material" keeps getting added back in. The SNL probably could go in sub article and Powell comment doesn't seem that noteable for the main space bio. Thanks, --Tom 20:08, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Maybe add the SNL material to Public image sub article. Where is the other SNL material currently? Thanks, --Tom 20:30, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

I see this as neutral and notable, particularly now that the subject's actually appeared on the show. I don't watch, because it's past my bedtime, but apparently some people do! Together, Facts707 and I cleaned up this factoid a bit yesterday to be entirely neutral, so I'd say it's non-contentious to me at least. Fcreid (talk) 20:39, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Powell is definitely notable but can go in campaign article. Her appearance on SNL certainly can be mentioned here. It's notable and shows her humoresque side.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 21:45, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Agree with the above. If we add Powell to this article, do we add Kissinger's opinion? Bush's? Every political figure who has weighed in (there are certainly dozens as notable or more notable than he)? Where do we draw the line? As for SNL, keep it in. Like it or not, it's a major part of her image. oren0 (talk) 07:50, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Powell showed great judgment of character this week, testifying in court about what a great guy Ted Stevens is. That's the context in which his Obama endorsement and his knocking Palin should be seen, if it's to be included in the article. Or just don't mention it at all. -- Zsero (talk) 08:26, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thus, for example,

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

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

• http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/09/21/palin.rape.exams/
• http://www.mcclatchydc.com/100/story/52266.html
• http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/26/opinion/26fri4.html?em
• http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2008-09-10-rape-exams_N.htm
• http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2008/sep/22/palin-rape-kit-controversy/

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Well, you have conveniently omitted the "victims" part of the policy requiring "victims or their health insurance companies" to be billed for the evidence-collecting kits. That's crux of the POV-pushing synthesis I saw in your paraphrase. And again, for about the 200th time, there IS at least one reliable source providing an allegation she knew about the issue. To wit: "But Croft, the former state representative who sponsored the law changing the practice, says it seems unlikely Palin was not aware of the issue. 'I find it hard to believe that for six months a small town, a police chief, would lead the fight against a statewide piece of legislation receiving unanimous support and the mayor not know about it,' Croft said."Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 21:11, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Fcreid's proffered language

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Was there a controversy?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

How about one try that may solve both issues:

"Fannon later opposed a state law preventing police departments from billing rape victims' health insurance for evidence collection kits. There is no evidence Palin was aware of the police department policy ."

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

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

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

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

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

• "Fannon later opposed a state law preventing police departments from billing rape victims' health insurance for evidence collection kits. There is no evidence Palin was aware of the police department policy or that any victims were ever personally billed. "

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

How about

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

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

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

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

Palin had an occupation of fisherwoman?

Which biographical detail, sourceable e/g to Vogue and the biography by Johnson, was added to the article under WP:BRD. Yet, in what would appear to this contributor to be a retrograde edit, it was removed from the article with only an explanation of "Per talk." Please explain, without relying solely on any modeling argument, as discouraged by Misplaced Pages:OSE.  ${\displaystyle \sim }$ Justmeherenow (  ) 10:31, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

"Fisherwoman" in the infobox? Jmhn, you promised you would not drink and edit :). I believe that you participated in the "Palin's Profession" discussion on October 12. I have no objection to the material in the body of the article. IP75 (talk) 21:54, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

If I'm not mistaken, Palin never was a professional fisherwoman and thus it shouldn't be added to her info box, although there should be a brief mention in the article body about it since it is part of her working live experience.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 22:45, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

As fer drinking and operating machinery (um, or else just a personal computer? lol), maybe what you're referring to would be the second scene in this youtube clip, IP75? But (getting more seriously now, folks!) -- surely Palin is much more a very recent fisherman (up until the very summer of 2008, even!) than a generic businessperson. And just as Truman's infobox plainly 'n' simply indentifies him as a former haberdasher (for the two years he co-owned a menswear shop), Palin's really ought to identify her as commercial fishing:

1. Feature article in February 2008 Vogue: "During the summer, she and her husband spend time commercial-fishing thanks to a permit that has been passed down on the native side of his family from generation to generation. It's the kind of brutal work that most Americans stopped doing generations ago, but Palin relishes the challenge. 'I look forward to it every year,' she says."
2. Johnson's biography of Palin, pp 37-38: ''During the summers after graduation and throughout college, Sarah helped Todd fish commercially in Bristol Bay. They fished from a twenty-six-foot skiff with no cabin, a boat that could carry 10,000 pounds of salmon in eight holding bins below deck. It was the most physical and dangerous work Sarah ever had undertaken...."
3. October 2, 2008, Washington Post feature article: "A few years ago, he watched her pilot husband Todd Palin's commercial fishing boat in a storm. Todd was working at his oil-field job on the North Slope, and Palin and her father had been fishing on Bristol Bay. "It was the toughest work I've ever done, and it wasn't only hard, it was dangerous," Chuck says...."

 ${\displaystyle \sim }$ Justmeherenow (  ) 01:45, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Well. That puts things in another perspective and it would be certainly worth more than just a brief mention (than I stated earlier) in the articles body and maybe even in her info box. I would be fine with either or both.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 02:03, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

I meant either in the article or in the article and info box.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 02:19, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

RfC: Should Palin bio's infobox term her parttime occupation as that of businessperson or of commercial fishing?

Template:RFCpol

Should Palin bio's infobox term her parttime occupation as that of businessperson or commercial fishing?  ${\displaystyle \sim }$ Justmeherenow (  ) 02:06, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely not. And this is probably a waste of RfC. Grsz 02:13, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid that when you've a choice between option A and option B, Grsz11, for you to state, "Absolutely not" -- is to proffer nothing communicative.  ${\displaystyle \sim }$ Justmeherenow (  ) 02:20, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Then you should probably clarify that you mean should it say either businessperson or fisherwoman.

• Quote my comment above. "Well. That puts things in another perspective and it would be certainly worth more than just a brief mention (than I stated earlier) in the articles body and maybe even in her info box. I would be fine with either or both.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 02:03, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

I meant either in the article or in the article and info box.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 02:19, 27 October 2008 (UTC)")

--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 02:34, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

This has been discussed previously. Really thoroughly discussed. Businessperson, Politician was the consensus result. If you come up with something not in that prior discussion, ok. Else, leave it alone. Collect (talk) 02:31, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Grsz and Collect. This is a waste of time. IP75 (talk) 03:08, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

@Collect:

If it was discussed before: Fine.

Now we can discuss it again (since consensus can change) and if the result is to keep it as is: Fine.

But there is no need to throw it out just like this .--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 02:47, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Archive 25: "Is she really a journalist", Archive 35 "Palin's Profession" (lengthy). I consider the latter as being recent and fairly dispositive of this issue. "Business person" is considered inclusive of "Commercial Fisherman" and of other business ventures she has been in. She has also been a journalist, and listed herself as homemaker. The question was what would be the clearest way to handle it (I favored the quadruple listing) and we settled on the currrent two. Can consensus change? I dount it in this short span of time -- less than two weeks. Were we to look again after at least a month? Maybe. Every two weeks? Nope. Collect (talk) 03:04, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

She wasn't really a journalist and she certainly wasn't a "car-wash-girl" even she owned part of a carwash business. The last part makes her a business woman (on the side) just as other people are without it being a major part of her life. Being out there doing commercial fishing is another chapter and seems to me a major one even if not "the" one and only. Certainly, ones she was the major of Wasilla and later governor of Alaska her main occupation was not commercial fishing but as pointed out on the talk page, it seems to be still a thrilling and serious job she did despite her higher public appointments. Some seem to see this as a "bad" thing and I don't know why. I see it as a real and honorable part of her live that she still lived up to at least till recently till she became McCain's choice for VP. And by the way: Homemaker is a job too even in her own home and without pay, and no, this one definitely doesn't belong in her info box at all.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 03:45, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

And again, just to make sure there is NO misunderstanding, see my first quoted comment above ;)--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 03:50, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

I believe what happened two weeks ago was that the discussion petered out and whatever happened to be left in the infobox was simply left there. I don't recall any actual weighing of contributors' arguments/!votes or formally coming to a consensus. However, if I'm wrong, I'll agree to withdraw this RfC.  ${\displaystyle \sim }$ Justmeherenow (  ) 03:42, 27 October 2008 (UTC) Anyway, let's list the sources for designations comparable to businessperson so than we can base our ultimate determination upon reliable secondary sources rather than personal preference. :^)  ${\displaystyle \sim }$ Justmeherenow (  ) 06:04, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

• Support If she personally did this work on a regular basis for at least some period, then it should be in her list of occupations, just as Truman's haberdashery makes it into his. -- Zsero (talk) 06:49, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
• Do not support.....at best she was a deck hand at sea. Granted, she was and is a business partner with her husband. But, that is mentioned in the article and unnecessary in the info-box.--Buster7 (talk) 12:19, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Per discussion all of two weeks ago -- She was a "journalist" and has a degree in journalism. She is a "business person" as she owns or has owned several businesses. She is a "homemaker" although some confuse that with "full time housewife." She is a politician. She is not a "fisherwoman" which has a dictionary meaning which does not connote occupation specifically. "Commercial fisherman" also connotes that she does the actual fishing, which is not referenced. Is this precis clear? Collect (talk) 12:35, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

I support the above. "Commercial fisherman" implies that she is out in the ocean trolling for fish, which obviously isn't the case. She was a businessperson, and the infobox should reflect that. Celarnor 14:01, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Oi oi oi! Where is the source indicating that commercial fishing isn't an occupation? Furthermore, the section immediately above, in which citations are provided for Palin's doing the actual commercial fishing <sighs> -- not just merely co-owning the fishing boat -- is intended for perusal in connection with the present RfC.

I've now made this RfC section into a subsection in order to point to the citations there!!!  ${\displaystyle \sim }$ Justmeherenow (  ) 14:09, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

On second thought, I now believe that Collect's belief that "'Commercial fisherman'... connotes that she does the actual fishing, which is not referenced" -- is intended to mean only that Sarah Palin's doing the actual fishing hadn't previously been given footnotes in the infobox -- but this omission shall hereinafter be rectified by appropriate footnotes to Johnson, Feb2008 Vogue, The Washington Post &cetera. The sources indicate that if Palin hadn't been campaigning this summer, she likely would have been found doing some drawing in of nets of fish. (Cf.: Before Obama became involved in his political career in Washington, he could be found teaching Consitutional law parttime at the University of Chicago.)  ${\displaystyle \sim }$ Justmeherenow (  ) 14:28, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Correct on my sourcing concerns. I would also like to point out that "part-time occupation" is an inapt turn of phrase. There is no reason to believe that when she was engaged in business that it was "part-time." The info box lists (depending on who edited it) either "profession" or "occupation" with no "part-time" qualifiers. Thanks! Collect (talk) 15:19, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. To me part-time occupation is plain English for what occupies somebody part of the time in pursuit of hi/r livelihood.  ${\displaystyle \sim }$ Justmeherenow (  ) 15:29, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

I think the word you want is not "part-time" but "seasonal". -- Zsero (talk) 15:34, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

OK. "Todd Palin: Seasonal commercial fisherman and oil field worker." I can dig that. Thanks :^)  ${\displaystyle \sim }$ Justmeherenow (  ) 16:01, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Celarnor said, "'Commercial fisherman' implies that she is out in the ocean trolling for fish, which obviously isn't the case."

Per my response to Collect above, please note that it's referenced that Palin fished, summers, 1988–2007, so your statement isn't "obvious" (unless what is meant is that Palin does not fish while campaigning during the summer of 2008?)  ${\displaystyle \sim }$ Justmeherenow (  ) 15:21, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

• I suggest the infobox read, "Commercial fishing, summers 1988–2007." (Truman's could read: "Partner, Truman & Jacobson haberdashery, Kansas City, Missouri, 1919-1922.")  ${\displaystyle \sim }$ Justmeherenow (  ) 15:42, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Putting dates in is not how it is handled in other BLPs at all. The norm is to list the occupations which the person has stated as his or her occupations. Collect (talk) 19:29, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

• I have to go with Collect on this now when it comes to the info box and it should only be in the articles main body and maybe not too briefly.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 23:54, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Refering to the practice within other articles can certainly inform stylistic decisions somewhat, within reasonable bounds. But care must be taken that the subjects backgrounds that are being compared are comparable and also that entirely similar editorial criteria are to be applied. Otherwise, to impose similar treatments is to engage in original research rather than to follow the facts as laid out in the reliabe sources.

For example, reliable sources reveal a certain Ms. Paris Hilton to be, yes, all of the following: a " celebutante, television personality, actress, singer, model, and businesswoman" (according to her WP bio's lede sentence) or else a "socialite, model, actress, author, recording artist, fashion designer" (according to the article's infobox).

But say that somebody simply went over to Meryl Streep's WP bio, where they would discover that Ms. Streep's lede merely reveals Streep as -- an "actress" -- and...that's it! We can't have this!!

Or can we? You see, Streep is notable as an actress. Hilton is notable as a socialite/model/acress/business person &cetera. Similarly, Ms. Palin has simply worked in a few areas somewhat far afield from the more usual political-stepping-stone occupation of law -- or even other wing-tipped shoe professions. And that's just the way it is. Sorry, folks.

So should this reality mean that Misplaced Pages contributors must therefore simply leave out these less-typical (for a politician) occupations, in order to achieve maximum alignment with the biographies of other politicians? No, rather than to engage in such "original research" (in a sense of denying what the reliabel sources say), we simply repeat what these sources affirm -- that Palin is a fisherman, a former sports journalist and former public official, and also has been and is currently a politician.

Likewise, with regard to Palin's self-description:

1. How Palin described herself to Ms. Couric was as a "...city mayor, and manager, as a governor, as a commissioner/a regulator of oil and gas...."
2. How Palin described herself to to Time Magazine was: "I studied journalism in college and always had an interest in the newsroom, which was of course so often focused on politics and government. I studied sports reporting, and that's how I started off in journalism. ... I ran for mayor and was elected mayor for two terms. Then from there I was appointed an oil and gas commissioner in the state of Alaska, on the Alaska oil and gas conservation commission, had decided that there were changes, positive changes, that had to be ushered into our state government, decided to run for governor and did so, was successful, and here we are...."

 ${\displaystyle \sim }$ Justmeherenow (  ) 01:26, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Comparing Meryl Streep and Hilton is as far fetched as comparing Heaven and Hell thus the only response you get from me is: "other stuff exist". Sorry, but your example doesn't go anywhere close to the "problem" in my opinion. I still stick with my last opinion stated before in response to Collect.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 01:45, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Response to your first statement below: Yes, I agree as far as statements by the named person are backed up and confirmed by reliable sources, (just to not leave the door open to every self-proclaimed occupation (spoken in general).--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 02:56, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Therefore, Magnificent, both you and I AGREE with Collect's opinion that, "The norm is to list the occupations which the person has stated as his or her occupations."  ${\displaystyle \sim }$ Justmeherenow (  ) 04:25, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

P/s Misplaced Pages grants both actresses Hilton and Streep encyclopedic coverage; hence, it is not ME who is comparing the two and assigning both the classification of actress. Rather, it is Misplaced Pages that does so.
Another analogy: Was Obama a former Constitutional law lecturer? Why, of course, yes he was. Yet, was Obama particularly NOTABLE as one? Why, he certainly was NOT. Nonetheless, since Obama IS notable as a politician, this in turn renders Obama's other career of Constiturional law some notability, too. As background.
Returning to Streep and Hilton, the fact these two actresses' notability as actresses is not truly comparable was my precise point. Yet, once the lowest threshold of encyclopedic notability is passed, it no longer serves a purpose to get hung up on respective gradiations of such notability. Just as although Obama's Costitutional law scholarship is light, it's still notable as background to his notable career as a politician. And just as Palin's journalism career, while not being notable in its own right, is notable as background to her notable career in politics.  ${\displaystyle \sim }$ Justmeherenow (  ) 02:42, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks so, so much to all contributors who have now, or, within the next couple of days, will have come to participate in this Request for Comment! :^) Unless citations for "business person" are discovered by then, I'll go ahead and fill in Sarah's specifically self-described occupations, along with the supporting citations, per applicable guidelines.  ${\displaystyle \sim }$ Justmeherenow (  ) 15:19, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

In the couple's 2007 tax return, Palin described her occupation as "public service". This is consistant with the current "Politician" entry. It is quite common for a husband or wife to help out with each others's business. This should not be confused with someones occupation for the purpose of the infobox. IP75 (talk) 08:54, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

The tax return lists only the couple's primary occupations. It doesn't list Todd as a fisherman either, or as a snowmachine racer. But both businesses are reported. I keep coming back to the fact that she's at least as much a fisherman as Truman was a haberdasher, and everyone knows him as that. -- Zsero (talk) 09:11, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

"Public image and perception of Sarah Palin"

This new section was added to this article today. The edit summary said: "added public image section, to be consistent with same section in Obama and McCain articles." Apparently, there was no discussion at this talk page about it. I'm against inclusion of this new section for several reasons.

First of all, if the objective is consistency, this section is hugely, massively, immensely longer than the corresponding section in the Barack Obama article. Also, the Joe Biden article seems to be doing fine without such a section. In any event, consistency is not always a good reason for inclusion, even if this huge section were comparable to what's in the McCain and Obama articles.

Furthermore, much of the stuff in the present new section is about the 2008 campaign, unlike what's in the corresponding sections of the Obama and McCain articles.

Additionally, the creation of the article about Palin's image was very strongly opposed by many editors. Therefore, it does not seem likely that there would be consensus to include much of that material right here in this article.

Moreover, just because an article about Palin exists does not mean it has to be summarized here in the main Palin article. In particular, WP:Summary style involves splitting off material that's already in an article, into a sub-article; that's very different from summarizing material that was never in this article in the first place.Ferrylodge (talk) 23:19, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

I also find it interesting that when editors here try to resist inclusion of the tempest-in-a-teapot-du-jour, by pointing out that the Ayers/Dohrn affair has been kept rigorously out of the article on their close ally Barack Obama, they're told that each article must be considered independently, but suddenly now we get this huge summary of anti-Palin smears dumped on us "in order to be consistent". It seems "consistency" is a very selective trait. -- Zsero (talk) 23:26, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely concur with decision to remove. I just came online and hadn't noticed. This article is not the place for that. Fcreid (talk) 23:29, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

• Beg you pardon, but a short summary should stay there with pointing out to the main-sub about this. Don't you think so???--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 23:47, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Probably so, but I think those who have worked on this main article for so long to make it a better piece deserve at least to assist in crafting that summary. Fcreid (talk) 23:49, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Sure they do. Don't want to take it away from them as long as my "concern" is addressed.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 23:57, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

I put back the seealso. I don't see why a separate summary of that article is needed here in this article. We don't have to summarize every article listed at http://en.wikipedia.org/Category:Sarah_Palin.Ferrylodge (talk) 23:54, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

FL. Didn't you point out "other stuff exist"? And how "hurtful" would be a brief summary?--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 00:01, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Add on: Simply put, Don't blank a whole section just because it is way to long and specific. Just cut it down as it was done at "the other" articles.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 00:15, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, but wow! That subarticle needs to be cleaned up majorly by someone not wielding a massive axe on their shoulder! From the introduction to the finish, it reads like a stream-of-consciousness political hit-job. It avoids all but the most perfunctory acknowledgements of her political accomplishments and would lead the reader to wonder how she managed to have the most popular governorship in the nation. Linking "Public Image" to DailyKos or Huffington Post would probably be a fairer treatment. Can someone who actually wants that to be summarized here do a LOT of housework on it? Fcreid (talk) 00:10, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

As I mentioned above, much of the stuff in that new section was about the 2008 campaign. And we already have a 2008 campaign section that summarizes the 2008 campaign. Is there any particular stuff in the image article that you think belongs here? Just summarizing for the sake of summarizing doesn't make sense to me.Ferrylodge (talk) 00:05, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Add on: The structure of this article is not set in stone, but it has existed for months with the acquiescence or concurrence of hundreds of editors. If there's going to be a new section added, that should be decided here at the talk page first. If some editor comes along, and inserts a whole new section summarizing Who's Nailin' Paylin? or summarizing The Exorcist, without any talk page discussion, then other editors are under no obligation to merely cut it down, instead of removing it.Ferrylodge (talk) 00:24, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

This section is unneeded, and does not serve the case for this article becoming stable at all. It maes no sense to add it in. Collect (talk) 00:20, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

It's not about the "campaign section". It's about the "Public image and perception of Sarah Palin" section and sub comparable to the "Cultural and political image of John McCain" section as an example.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 00:21, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Firstly, can you imagine the new arguments that would ensue to introduce contentious material right now? We haven't even finished our old arguments for stuff on which we agree should be in the main biography! Secondly, what's in that article that's worth summarizing here? What's the better end to pick up a turd? Fcreid (talk) 00:24, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

gosh, it would be only contentious if it would be written by partisan editors. sigh... --The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 00:29, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

That's what I mean. There's an obvious dearth of moderation in the subarticle, and it would be backwards to craft an NPOV summary of that here. There's little balance in the subarticle to begin. After that one cleans itself up considerably, it will be far easier to summarize here. Also, my gut tells me there will be little interest in maintaining that article in about a week or so, so I can't personally get excited about cleaning it up. It's just better left untouched this week to see what value it has next week. Fcreid (talk) 00:39, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

90% of the current article is about "perception" -- all this section does is provide yet one more section to repeat stuff already here, or which does not belong in this BLP in the first place. We are at the ragged edge of size already, remember? Collect (talk) 00:25, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Collect. I am talking about a very very slight and extremely brief summary to lead to the sub and not even a bit more!--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 00:33, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Let's not make a bigg deal out of it because it's not.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 00:36, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

I sincerely do not believe that that article is more deserving of a summary than Who's Nailin' Paylin?, which is also tenuously related to the present article. I'm serious. The sub-article Public_image_and_reception_of_Sarah_Palin is not neutral (here is its Misplaced Pages dashboard page). If we create a section for it in this article, it will be a source of endless arguments even far beyond what has already occurred at this article, and would be constantly expanded and contracted by opposing editors. The Biden article doesn't have a section like that, and this one shouldn't suddenly have one either (especially this close to the election).Ferrylodge (talk) 00:40, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

"Who's Nailin' Paylin?" Now you've lost me! ??????? That is not even worth to mention at this talk page!--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 00:50, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

And yet if my memory does not fail, several editors seemed quite insistent that it be mentioned in the article itself. I'm not sure whether they thought this would hurt Palin or help her, but they wanted it there! -- Zsero (talk) 01:01, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, screw them no matter of their "intentions".--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 01:08, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Dumb question #99. What's that Misplaced Pages dashboard page? In what way does it differ from the article itself on WP servers? Fcreid (talk) 00:47, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

No problem. The Misplaced Pages dashboard page describes who the top editors of an article are. For example, the Misplaced Pages dashboard page for the Palin image article shows that over 50% of edits to that article were made by a single editor.Ferrylodge (talk) 00:53, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Huh! Thanks. Didn't realize that tool existed and can see its usefulness. Fcreid (talk) 01:03, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

• Concur once more. If there are specific issues in that subarticle that should be captured in the main article, it would be appropriate to do so here by consensus, in the manner we recently achieved with the rape kit issue. Fcreid (talk) 00:44, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Of course by consensus! But just blanking the whole section by "quick" consensus wasn't the right deal (even so I'm pleased in part since that section was WAY to much and needed to go as it was). Again, I plead for a short brief summary as stated above and that's it. Nothing else to say.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 01:03, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

I think you misunderstood me. I was suggesting that if there are significant aspects/issues relevant to her biography that are only mentioned in that subarticle, i.e. something we missed, it would be more appropriate that such issues be brought here to craft something NPOV for inclusion in the main article. Really, I have to agree with Ferrylodge that the subarticle, at least in its current form, isn't worthy of summary in this article. You can't get through the first paragraph without being blinded by both blatant and insidious POV-pushing. Fcreid (talk) 01:12, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Magnificent Clean-keeper, are you saying that you believe the article in question is neutral, or not? If it's not (as I believe), then why should it be summarized here?Ferrylodge (talk) 01:11, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

FL. We're talking about THIS article and not the problems with the sub article. The need for an overhaul of the sub isn't an excuse to just leave it out here. Nobody is preventing you (and others) from fixing the sub to be neutral. So please go and do this if this is your only concern. I'm all behind you.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 01:24, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm not categorically for excluding image material from this article. If anyone can find something in the image article that is neutral and verifiable and noteworthy, then we can consider it for inclusion in this article. I just don't think we should create a new section in this article summarizing that one. Just like I don't think we should create a new section in this article summarizing Who's Nailin' Paylin?. I really don't think the quality of those two articles is much different. As I mentioned above, over 50% of the edits to the image article are by a single editor, and I really would prefer to run into a buzzsaw than try to go one-on-one with that editor at that article.Ferrylodge (talk) 01:28, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

FL. Would you please cut it off with your "Who's Nailin' Paylin?" remarks? Thanks! You also should stop complaining about "one editor who made 50% of the edits". YOU can change that if you wish! Ok?--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 01:56, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Magnificent Clean-keeper, I wish you would take a moment to explain why we should create a new section in this article to summarize Public image and reception of Sarah Palin, but we should not create new sections in this article to respectively summarize A Nonpartisan Message from Governor Sarah Palin & Senator Hillary Clinton or Who's Nailin' Paylin? or Parodies of Sarah Palin or Sarah Palin email hack.Ferrylodge (talk) 02:03, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

FL, please. With all respect, what kind of comparison are you laying out there? You're really getting off the message with this instead of keeping your focus on the issue. I'm not going to respond to such far fetched non related comments (as I see it). But I was about to send the following:

FL. I don't get it. You didn't make a single edit to the Public image and reception of Sarah Palin article at least for a month if at all (if I'm not mistaken). So how can you complain while just watching? Again, I really don't get it.

One more thing: Let's not make this a "personal" issue, ok? It's still about WP ;)--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 02:34, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

What did I say that was personal? I do not understand why you won't reply to a sincere question.

If there's a high-quality Misplaced Pages article about Palin full of neutral and notable material, then of course we should summarize it here. If there's a low-quality Misplaced Pages article about Palin, then we should not summarize it here. Doesn't that make sense? I think the image article is low quality, just like the other Palin articles I mentioned, and I don't hear you saying otherwise. As for my efforts at the image article, they were futile; every time I tried to upgrade the article I was reverted. If the Joe Biden article doesn't have a section on his "image" then why's it so important for this article to have one?Ferrylodge (talk) 02:44, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Joe Biden page: Characteristics as senator. Anarchangel (talk) 21:07, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

FL. Just a quick response to the "personal" issue I mentioned. It was just a "preemptive strike", no accusation what-so-ever. Apologies for having said this in a way that was way open for interpretation.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 00:30, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

As of for the rest of your question: I think I somehow answered it in my posts. If you read them again you might find it not so "avoiding" than it seems to you.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 00:37, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Okay, thanks.Ferrylodge (talk) 00:40, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

For the record, I am posting the section, which should have been negotiated, not deleted wholesale, here: (link to diff: ) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Refcahman (talk • contribs) Oct 27, 2008

• Edited for context by --The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 02:19, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Improper -- just give the "diff" reference for the main article. This is not a page where an extra 16K characters is something we need. Anyone who wants to read it can read it there. Thanks! Collect (talk) 12:55, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

VP campaign details moved to John McCain presidential campaign, 2008

Hi, all. I have moved details of the VP campaign to John McCain presidential campaign, 2008, subsection Sarah Palin's Vice Presidential candidacy. There were several comments suggesting that material about Palin's campaign be placed there. I also renamed the remaining section here to "Sarah Palin's Vice Presidential candidacy". Please place all campaign related details that aren't really important to her bio there. Thanks! Facts707 (talk) 11:13, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm not going to get involved in this, as I've always felt this was a collection bin for opinion (which is virtually impossible to present in NPOV anyway). However, it seems like such a radical change to this article could be perceived as both precipitous and of questionable motivation. It would have served you better to confer here in talk before making such major changes to the article. Also, if consensus is to support your unilateral decision (which I highly doubt), I would recommend that article be fully-protected to preclude changes not previously agreed upon. Fcreid (talk) 11:26, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

There have been many editors in the past two months that have come along and re-arranged the furniture, so to speak. This was usually with complete disregard for the editors that were present. But, eventually things went back to what was. However, I dont recall anyone that has decided to completely empty a room and move it elsewhere. This article has evolved a "let's talk about it first" dynamic...a good thing for those editors that may have stepped back from active participation. Facts707 has bypassed an important step and taken it upon himself to chop off a part of the article. A bit presumptuous, IMHO.--Buster7 (talk) 12:11, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

As one of the editors on the receiving end of this "gift", it doesn't thrill me either. The John McCain presidential campaign, 2008#General election campaign 2008 part of that article now has more material on Palin than on McCain! Wasted Time R (talk) 13:30, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

And sure to grow! Help yourself to the four zillion pages of talk archive here to help determine what's already received a lukewarm "well, maybe for the image article" and what's gotten the "are you out of your mind?"  :) Fcreid (talk) 13:43, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I've been monitoring the rapid accumulation of talk page archives here. It's quite, umm, impressive. Wasted Time R (talk) 13:50, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Facts, I have not decided if I support your unilateral, major edit to the campaign section. As Fcreid pointed out above, you should have discussed this on talk prior to the edit as there are many editors that have contributed to this section over a period of time. Per WP:SS, a summary of the deleted/moved material is required and discussion is needed to achieve consensus. IP75 (talk) 22:55, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Wow, I didn't expect there to be much controversy over moving 5 paragraphs to a more relevant subarticle, as most of the talk pages say "please move that to a subarticle, this bio is too big already!". Despite comments questioning my motivation, please WP:AGF assume good faith on this. I wasn't trying to help Palin's election campaign by moving 3 paragraphs critical of her, one neutral, and one discussing her (refuted) attacks on Obama.

I read the section on WP:SS short summary, and the main article John McCain presidential campaign, 2008 was already in place at the top the section, so it didn't require adding it or mentioning it in the edit comments.

In any event, after looking at some of the other VP candidate bios (1980-2004, GOP and Dem) this one seems to have the longest VP campaign section at over two pages.

However, this seems to be a touchy topic right now so I won't propose any more moves until at least after next Tuesday! Cheers! Facts707 (talk) 17:18, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

You're right, Facts, and you could likely have been a case for doing that. In fact, the lack of complaint here has been surprisingly subdued. Just bear in mind that a lot of editors have worked a long time on what you see here today, and Buster's analogy (above about moving the entire room) is how it felt! Anyway, good job on it, providing no one else chimes in with concerns. And thanks to Wasted Time R for taking on the new challenges! Fcreid (talk) 19:32, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Everything here's a touchy topic, that's why the need for discussion prior to making changes.Zaereth (talk) 17:33, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

I think things should go a bit easier after the election, but I expect that things will still be sensitive till the inauguration, and remain sensitive if McCain/Palin win.Aprock (talk) 17:45, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Is there a WP:UNDERSTATEMENT article? :) Fcreid (talk) 19:32, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for undoing Facts' massive deletion, IP. Facts, if you want to add to the McCain article, that's your choice (and up to editors there). But here, we don't delete major swaths of content without putting forth a proposal and submitting it for comment/consensus. I think Buster's analogy is apt. Please don't come into our house and empty an entire room without telling us first. If well-intentioned "movers" did that at my house, I'd call the police and report a burglary.GreekParadise (talk) 23:04, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

As far as length of Vice Presidential candidacy section goes, it should vary according to how prominent the vice presidential candidate was. The most obvious analogue, Geraldine Ferraro#1984 Vice-Presidential candidacy, has a fairly lengthy section, which is appropriate. Four years later, Lloyd Bentsen#1988 Vice Presidential candidate has a considerably shorter section, because other than the famous debate line with Quayle, he wasn't much of a factor in the race one way or the other. And so on. It would seem pretty self-evident to me that the Palin article merits a section towards the lengthy end of the scale. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:03, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Signature

I'm wondering what the purpose is for having Palin's signature available here? Does it serve any purpose? As well, is it wise to have a high rez image of *anyone’s* sig (save maybe historical figures) at Misplaced Pages? I don't think it serves any purpose or adds anything to the article. Proxy User (talk) 17:45, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, it's not without precedent in Misplaced Pages; See John Hancock for example. --BenBurch (talk) 18:50, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but John Hancock has a historically significant signature. This is not the case with Sarah Palin. So the comparison doesn't work. For historical reasons, John Hancock's signature is relevant to the article, Sarah Palin's exist here only to allow people to be mischievous. Proxy User (talk) 20:04, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

See also, e.g., George W. Bush, George H. W. Bush, Bill Clinton, Hillary Rodham Clinton, John McCain, Barack Obama and Joe Biden. --Evb-wiki (talk) 20:17, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

To assist voters expert in graphology?  ${\displaystyle \sim }$ Justmeherenow (  ) 01:21, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

It's always good and never too late to extended our readers knowledge, right? :)--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 02:35, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Sarah/Sally Heath

Oh, come on. . Sarah Palin's mother is Sarah Heath, who often goes by "Sally". Until this morning this was simply stated as Sarah Heath in the article. She is known as both "Sarah" and "Sally" and both should be included. However it is certainly silly for an encyclopedia to preferentially include her nickname only. Next we will be calling Charles Heath, "Chuck" I guess. Dragons flight (talk) 19:49, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Huh? Does he go by "Chuck"? At any rate, the parents are not the subject of the article, and I don't see why its necessary to refer to them by anything other than their given names.Zaereth (talk) 21:10, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

The reference supplied, which was used by User:JenWSU in order to replace "Sarah" with "Sally", also refers to her father as "Chuck". The string "Charles" does not appear even once in that article. The fact remains, however, that their names are Sarah and Charles, not Sally and Chuck, and that should be what this article calls them. I notice that JenWSU didn't change Charles's name at the same time, and I wonder why. I'm reverting to the original text, Sarah and Charles. I don't see the need for a reference, but if someone insists then we can put in the Bangor one. -- Zsero (talk) 21:24, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Why did Misplaced Pages delete the exact date of Sarah Palin's wedding & the exact dates of each of her children's births from your original artical about her?!

When I first researched Sarah Palin and checked Misplaced Pages about her over a month ago, in the Personal Life section you gave the exact date of her wedding (not just the year) and the exact dates of her children's births (not just the year again). It was very obvious that Sarah was pregnant when she got married. Now you've removed those dates. This is such a blatant and obvious change in the original facts you gave. Personally I could care less whether she was pregnant or not when she got married, but it's not right for you to delete this information now in my opinion. Gee, could it possibly be for political reasons?

69.251.61.152 (talk) 04:36, 30 October 2008 (UTC)Alice Thompson

Nothing so nefarious, unfortunately. It was probably removed to protect her easily-hackable e-mail accounts... ~ L'Aquatique 05:09, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

No, I don't think fear of hacking was the reason. Tvoz/talk 05:13, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

The main reason was to protect the kids' privacy; there's no encyclopaedic value in their birth dates, nobody has any need to know them, and it's general WP policy not to. Another reason was precisely to avoid giving the impression that Track was conceived before his parents' marriage, since we have no proof that he wasn't premature. Again, there's no public interest in knowing the exact circumstances of his birth, and it could be embarrassing for him, especially if it's not true; so why even go there? -- Zsero (talk) 06:28, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

How does it invade the children's privacy? I just don't see it. For my indulgence, please advance a scenario where listing their birthrates would cause problems, and please show that this issue would be spacifically because of information not commonly available anywhere but Misplaced Pages? Proxy User (talk) 06:36, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

WP:BLP#Privacy of personal information -- Zsero (talk) 06:47, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) That "material" was removed because because the it was added and pushed by the "look, Todd was banging her before they got married because only 8 1/2 months past since the wedding before the kid was born" crowd. Anything else? If not, move along. --Tom 17:02, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

To be fair and provide full historical perspective, the original wording read something like, "Todd and Sarah got married, and Track appeared only eight months later" or something equally and intentionally transparent. Had the WP rule been that children's birth dates are included in true encyclopedic manner, e.g. in list format or something, it would have been supportable. However, those with more experience indicated it is neither appropriate nor the norm to do so. In this case, only this one child's birth date was stuck as a poignant subordinate clause to the date of their marriage, and with obvious intention. Technically, in the pure "for what it's worth" category, all of our WP:OR surrounding those ten words was quite enlightening. As it turns out, firstborn children are statistically more likely to be born at less than nine months (surprise!) It also turns out that, given the exact dates, Track was actually only three weeks premature. Well within the "margin of error", as they say, that its inclusion here would have been invasive and in violation of WP:BLP guidelines in the net result. Fcreid (talk) 17:37, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Protection

Hello everyone!
I have fully protected this page (along with the pages of the other candidates) until after the election because it is becoming impossible to handle the vandalism, edit warring, and pure drama that these pages are generating. As such, non-admin users will be unable to directly edit the page. Fear not, however, this is still a wiki and you have my firm promise that I and as many neutral admins as we can spare will be watching this page and the others to make requested edits. Simply start a new header and place {{editprotected}} along with an explanation of your edit. If your edit may be considered controversial, some time will be given to determine community consensus before it is made.
I am very sorry for the inconvenience this will cause but I believe the benefits outweigh the losses. Please feel free to direct any questions about this situation, my choice to protect, or protection in general to my talk page. Thanks, and have a wonderful weekend. ~ L'Aquatique 04:55, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Where's the vandalism?

I've been a regular here for about two months (like a lot of others), and I have not seen the "excessive vandalism" that resulted in the recent complete lock-down "edit protection" that appeared today. Is this a "pre-emptive strike" or just a profolactic? --Evb-wiki (talk) 05:06, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

See this discussion at ANI: Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#More_Obama-Drama -MBK₀₀₄ 05:11, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. It must be profolactic, how un-Misplaced Pages. --Evb-wiki (talk) 05:14, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Please see my reply at Talk:Joe Biden. : ) ~ L'Aquatique 05:20, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

I dispute the need for this action. See my longer reply at Talk:Joe Biden#Protection. -- Zsero (talk) 06:31, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

I dispute your dispute for the need for this action. Proxy User (talk) 06:45, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Huh? Oh, OK, I dispute your dispute of my dispute for the need for this action. Times infinity, so there. Seriously, though, huh? -- Zsero (talk) 06:49, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Zsero and Evb-wiki are right. The action is totally uncalled-for. The lockdown of SP, ditto McCain, is for bogus reasons. A couple of ignorant admins are shitting on WP editors and readers. The previous level of semi-protection should be restored immediately.— Writegeist (talk) 07:12, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Just as there was no need for vandalism protection in early September, there is absolutely no need for it now either. This is over-reaction X 10..an insult to the editors that have worked here for the last two months..the only "vandals" around were those editors that would not let this article become a political advertising campaign. This article and the actions of many editors deserve investigation after the 4th. I question an administrator that has had nothing overt to do with this article making decisions about it. Did someone ask for administrative supervision??? And, if so, there were admins that have been an active part of the editing here, Why were they not asked to decide about "locking the door"...????...Why is it an administrator that shows up in the dark of night and, without any consideration for fellow editors, without any discussion HERE, without any warning, locks the door. Bogus!--Buster7 (talk) 12:08, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Apparently a decision about all four major candidates, to prevent potential Halloween to Election Day vandalism. As it was not directed solely at SP, it appears that griping here is of little avail. Collect (talk) 13:09, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Apparently you assume that you are the only one that can figure things out and the rest of us need you to tell us what is happening. If any one has been wearing a Halloween Mask, it is you, Collect. No one is gripping, as you so derisively call it. The "Cloak of Silence" was uncalled for ...at any of the 4 articles. It is an act of aggression.--Buster7 (talk) 13:31, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Yikes! Not the place, I think! :( Fcreid (talk) 13:51, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Huge tag

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mayor of Wasilla/First Term/Stambaugh/SB 177

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

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

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

This definition does not include colleges.

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

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

• Do not concur with this edit, as it would place WP:UNDUE on this singular aspect of the Palin firing of Stambaugh. The primary reason Stambaugh provided in his lawsuit was sexual discrimination. If anything, that should be the main point of our encyclopedic coverage of that event. However, it wouldn't hurt to capture the quote from his trial where a witness testified Stambaugh said to Palin, in public, "Little lady, if you think you have our respect, you're wrong." That seems to speak volumes more in assessing Palin's rationale for canning him! Fcreid (talk) 10:11, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
• I would not concur with editing the material. WP:OR bars original research; for example, I do not see where any of the cited sources say anything about "colleges".Ferrylodge (talk) 10:19, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
• Do not concur. Unless you find a specific cite making the atatement you wish to use, it is OR. I strongly suspect, moreover, that "colleges, bars and public places" is an inaccurate claim absent such a cite. Collect (talk) 13:06, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
• I also have to agree with Fcreid, Ferrylodge and Collect. This seems like reading between the lines. From my own POV, colleges are private schools and should be subject to making their own bans, as well as bars, (which is probably why you find metal detectors at the entrances of many Alaskan bars). But, then again, I'm no lawyer.Zaereth (talk) 16:53, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Citations

1. Sarah Palin's rape kit controversy
2. Palin's town charged women for rape exams
3. Knowles signs sexual assault bill
4. Palin's town charged women for rape exams

• 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