Talk:Sarah Palin/Archive 45

Critters
Previously removed. I plan to restore it. Not asking 'if' there are objections, that is not the purpose of discussion, and I would be naiive to assume there weren't any. Asking 'what' objections there are, and what basis there is for them. Pretty much going to ignore the usual round of un-backed assertions of 'weight', and 'main article', due to abuse of same. 'Editor bias', as I have previously shown, is never an issue, only bias in the material. These decisions of Palin's have far reaching implications and consequences. "' She brought suit to overturn the listing of polar bears under the federal Endangered Species Act, and also opposed strengthening protections for beluga whales in Alaska’s Cook Inlet. '" Anarchangel (talk) 20:57, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Seems ok to me (assuming the cite checks out). Could we lengthen the sentence to include her stated reason for doing so (assuming she ever gave one)? This issue doesn't seem particularly important to me, though, and I would think that one sentence on this is enough.LedRush (talk) 00:03, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

As the governor's office also issued a press release stating reasons for its actions, it would be irresponsible not to note the reasons given. And the whole issue is not really one of specific biographical interest in the first place. Collect (talk) 17:21, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Agree with the above, particularly the "not of biographical interest" part. Kelly  hi! 21:25, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

So add them. /Ignore ad nauseum weight assertion. Anarchangel (talk) 00:19, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Palin quote
Consensus Three guidelines from WP:ETIQUETTE aka WP:EQ are particularly useful:


 * Work towards agreement.
 * Do not ignore questions.

It says flat out, do not. Not, it is best not to, or it is good to respond to questions, or, responding to questions is part of the process.


 * If another disagrees with your edit, provide good reasons why you think that it is appropriate.

In other words, respond to responses.


 * Concede a point when you have no response to it, or admit when you disagree based on intuition or taste.

And that doesn't mean, respond to some relatively unimportant aspect related to it, nor does it mean, respond with a new issue, it means, aid the process of definition of the consensus by defining the boundaries of your argument. Faced with these guidelines being ignored, go to arbitration. Additions? Anarchangel (talk) 18:01, 1 December 2008 (UTC) This is intended to focus attention on these three rules, as key to beginning a consensus-building process. It is not intended to focus attention away from other rules such as WP:NPA or WP:AGF. Anarchangel (talk) 23:49, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Suggest some portion of the Palin reply to the Frontiersman question, if not the entire exchange, would be more notable than the reply of her spokesperson. Frontiersman: "During your tenure as mayor in 2000, then police chief Charlie Fannon commented in a May 23, 2000 Frontiersman article about legislation Gov. Tony Knowles signed protecting victims of sexual assault from being billed for rape kits collected by police as part of their investigations. Fannon revealed then that Knowles’ decision would cost Wasilla $5,000 to $14,000 a year, insinuating that the department’s policy was to bill victims for this testing. During your tenure as Mayor, what was the police department and city’s standard operating procedure in recovering costs of rape kits? Were any sexual assault victims ever charged for this testing while you were mayor?"

Sarah Palin: "The entire notion of making a victim of a crime pay for anything is crazy. I do not believe, nor have I ever believed, that rape victims should have to pay for an evidence-gathering test. As governor, I worked in a variety of ways to tackle the problem of sexual assault and rape, including making domestic violence a priority of my administration." FRONTIERSMAN EXCLUSIVE: Palin responds to questions Published on Tuesday, September 30, 2008 12:39 AM AKDT. Accessed 3rd Dec, 08. Anarchangel (talk) 15:42, 3 December 2008 (UTC)


 * And you would have answered every phrase in a tedious question? Seems to me that she showed no knowledge of any of the "facts" presented in the lengthy preamble.  Collect (talk) 15:48, 3 December 2008 (UTC)


 * If she had no knowledge of the matters expressed by a journalist, she is incompetent. The material is relevant either way. Anarchangel (talk) 22:09, 3 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Why would you put "facts" in quotes, as if to imply that they're not facts? They are facts, and obviously so. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 17:44, 3 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Also misuse of double quotes, which implies a direct quote. Anarchangel (talk) 22:09, 3 December 2008 (UTC)


 * We should also include "when did she stopped beating her husband?". --Tom 15:58, 3 December 2008 (UTC)


 * You're still here? I thought you only came in to announce that you've deleted something out of the article. Anarchangel (talk) 22:09, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Actually, there were just two questions: "During your tenure as Mayor, what was the police department and city’s standard operating procedure in recovering costs of rape kits? Were any sexual assault victims ever charged for this testing while you were mayor?"

She answered neither. This was her opportunity to say, quite simply, "The policy was to bill the insurance company of the victim. That was Charles Fannon's idea... I had nothing to do with it," instead of evading the actual questions asked.

Anyway, I'd say it's fair to include those two questions as long as we're including her response to the questions.Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 16:38, 3 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I'd say that the whole thing should be excised from the article as having no relevance to the subject of the article.--Paul (talk) 17:51, 3 December 2008 (UTC)


 * One would think there would have to be some reason for that, but you fail to provide one. Please attempt to be constructive. Anarchangel (talk) 22:09, 3 December 2008 (UTC)


 * If Palin isn't responsible for major decisions made as Mayor and Governor (which would include hiring, firing and budget decisions), then the entire article should be excised, because Palin would not be a notable person. You're implying that the reasons Palin is notable have no relevance.Jimmuldrow (talk) 21:22, 3 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Oh course it has no relevance but the single purpose agenda pushers feel differently. --Tom 18:22, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I'd say it's clearly relevant to the subject of the article. Numerous newspapers, wire services, and notable critics (as well as Wikipedia editors who have commented on the subject) seem to agree. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 18:02, 3 December 2008 (UTC)


 * There are hundreds of relevant quotes, but we can't include them all. Would this matter be better handled in Mayoralty of Sarah Palin? ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 18:06, 3 December 2008 (UTC)


 * It's in Mayoralty now. I think you'll agree that Mayoralty is not a dump for things that are too touchy to be easy to include here. The preamble touches on many of the issues we have been discussing, in a much more constructive way than the St Petersburg article, and for this reason, I would like to include it. The questions go to the heart of the matter as regards Palin. I feel much more strongly that the questions themselves should be included. And the answer is direct from Palin. I support its inclusion most strongly, it would replace the spokeswoman's quote. Anarchangel (talk) 22:09, 3 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Maybe it isn't 'the single issue agenda pushers' but the people who think that it symbolizes her entire political career? 216.215.233.66 (talk) 21:15, 3 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Whatever the case may be, how long do you think this non issue muckracking "material" would last on the Obama bio article? Again, its bad enough the amount of space it is given in the mayor article, but to have it here? Come on folks, --Tom 21:22, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

So what is wrong with what's in the article already? It establishes what we know (that Fannon grumbled about the law after it was passed), and that the SPT found there was no evidence she was involved in his practice. If one wishes to conclude from those facts that she was a detached leader and should have known about what Fannon was doing, that's their prerogative. If one wishes to conclude that she actually knew about his practice and was just being coy about it, that's also their prerogative. But neither of those conclusions is supported by fact in reliable sources, and we need to limit ourselves to those facts. Fcreid (talk) 23:11, 3 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I had no burning problem with what with in the article before. Although it was far from perfect, it was much drier and more neutral, and FWIW it was written by "committee", with editors on both "sides" of the issue contributing to a specific discussion about how it would be worded. But then, Threeafterthree removed the last sentence (referring to the St. Petersburg Times investigation finding no evidence) and replaced it with a quote in which Palin is responding to a specific pair of questions, and not only fails to answer either question, but also appears to make an accusation that the questions themselves are intended to distort the truth. Given the inclusion of this implied accusation, I think it's fair to include the actual questions to which she was non-responsive and appeared to lash out against. Additionally, this was an email exchange, so they were not simply "off the cuff" comments made on the spot and in person, but rather a calculated reply. And in all fairness, those questions only total 35 words, not 100 as was suggested by Collect.


 * On the other hand, if the paragraph were rolled back to what it was before, I would be fine with it staying that way, although I admit I am taking this position mainly out of a desire to achieve agreement among us, and not because I think it's the most legitimate and NPOV reflection of the issue. I realize that others on "my side" would take issue with this, and I share their objections, to be sure, but I am quite sick of the debate.


 * I'd like to add that at this point, only Threeafterthree (and earlier, Collect) is taking it upon himself to continue changing this committee-written passage without bringing it up in discussion first, paying no respect to any objections that might be made against his edits. If anyone on "my side of the mountain" were doing the same, I'm confident that Threeafterthree would be immediately and repeatedly reverting it. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 02:00, 4 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I would concur with reverting to the previous succinct, consensus wording. In the for what it's worth category, I'm not shocked by her calculated answer to the questions posed, though... it seems a typical public figure response to state a position while steering clear of specific aspects of a question that might later be misconstrued.  Fcreid (talk) 02:11, 4 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Kindly note that I was counting the words as presented -- including the lengthy preamble to the final question. As the paper indicated it was all part of one query, it is proper to include the full count of words. Unless, of course, the (sic) patrol is still functioning . Collect (talk) 20:55, 4 December 2008 (UTC)


 * You were originally appearing to suggest that it was some rambling, 100 word, 20 part question and that Palin only failed to answer a couple phrases out of it. In actuality, the "preamble" was just to set up context for the reader. Or, if you wish to believe that Palin didn't know about this issue at the time, never read the newspaper discussion of it, never had Fannon mention it to her, never spoke to a politician or other Alaskan who had heard about it and mentioned it, and had still not heard about it in 2008, including not having heard about or read the latest coverage, and thus this email from the Frontiersman was the first she had ever heard of it... even in that case, the first 60-70 words did not ask any questions of her at all, and just provided the needed context for her to understand what was being asked.


 * The actual questions asked were brief and simple. One 20-word question, one 15-word question. She answered neither. So it was not a failure, as you put it, to have "answered every phrase in a tedious question".. it was simply a failure to answer the questions at all. Kindly acknowledge that, and don't make sarcastic comments. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 10:41, 5 December 2008 (UTC)


 * ""During your tenure as mayor in 2000, then police chief Charlie Fannon commented in a May 23, 2000 Frontiersman article about legislation Gov. Tony Knowles signed protecting victims of sexual assault from being billed for rape kits collected by police as part of their investigations. Fannon revealed then that Knowles’ decision would cost Wasilla $5,000 to $14,000 a year, insinuating that the department’s policy was to bill victims for this testing. During your tenure as Mayor, what was the police department and city’s standard operating procedure in recovering costs of rape kits? Were any sexual assault victims ever charged for this testing while you were mayor?"  Is over a hundred words. As I doubt that the interviewer used the Borge punctuation style, I doubt that Palin, nor anyone else, would hear any place where a "full stop" was indicated by the person asking the question.  Most people hearing such a sequence of words would call the entire group, including the preamble which you seem to forget, as the "question"  Example: "Mr. Doe, you went into the house with the intent of killing Mr. Boddy. You killed him brutally with the candlestick. You did this in the ballroom while everyone else was chasing Professor Plum. Is this not so?" is only a four word question?  I guess so to you ... Collect (talk) 11:26, 5 December 2008 (UTC)


 * As usual, you reply without reading or understanding what you're replying to. As I stated just a couple messages back, the questions were not verbal or on the spot. Palin didn't have to "hear" anything. The questions were asked via email... so Palin had every opportunity to read the questions carefully before responding. In case you are going to claim ignorance on the subject, see the actual email interview here. And once again, you give a horrible example which is nothing like the original item you are trying to (mis)characterize. In your example, the "4 word question" simply refers to all the preceding sentences and does not present anything new.. it is not standalone, it just asks "Is everything I just said true?". On the other hand, the brief questions asked of Palin could be easily understood all by themselves, and didn't even refer to the "preamble"... in fact they could be answered without even reading the "preamble". Again, the preceding language was just to give context for the reader. The questions were brief, simple, straightforward, and she did not answer them. I assume your next response will ignore this fact and claim that the interviewer was speaking too fast and Palin didn't hear the question. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 13:00, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

I break the thin ice that your argument rests upon; your argument is nothing but conflation of a charge of murder with the Frontiersman's charges. It is neither the interviewer's fault nor ours, the observers, that, to follow your analogy, Mr. Doe is suspected of killing Mr. Boddy. It isn't entrapment, or dirty tricks, or unfair in any way to ask the suspected Mr. Doe if he killed Mr. Boddy, but it is evasion, if I may finish the analogy you inexplicably left unfinished, for Mr. Doe to ignore the question and say that he abhors killing and has in fact started up a program to rehabilitate killers. This is true no matter how many other politicians evade questions, how much they evade them, or how routinely they do it. Anarchangel (talk) 20:23, 5 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Congrats on mmisapprising an example of a short question with a long preamble with "conflation of a charge of murder." Clear example of White Queenism.  Collect (talk) 23:26, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

White Queenism? What? Being helpful to Alice albeit in a cryptic way? (guilty) Claiming to have done 'six impossible things before breakfast'? (not usually) Living backwards in time, like Merlin? (newp) Of great speed, outdistancing the White King? (um,) Or eventually turning into a sheep? What do you mean? Anarchangel (talk) 22:40, 8 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Congrats on ignoring the analogy and once again completely disregarding what the other person says. Hasn't Anarch repeatedly pointed out that you're supposed to respond and rebut, not change the subject and call people names?


 * Q: "Did your town have a policy billing rape victims?" A: "I've never thought a policy billing rape victims was a good idea." (Flash to comments by critic: "If she was against the policy, as Mayor she could have changed the policy.") Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 02:03, 7 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Based on your succinct points, i.e. her police chief billed rape victims and she didn't support the notion, it's really the most logical conclusion that she wasn't even aware of Fannon's practice. (I conceded on including the issue because some felt her obliviousness was damning by itself.)  I'm pretty sure I understand Anarchangel's motivation based on diatribes about Palin being a backstabbing and manipulative something-or-other, but out of curiosity what makes you suspect Palin actually knew about this policy?  It really wasn't as big a deal as partisan attacks made it in Campaign 2008, and given her position (and, honestly, the fact she's a woman), I tend to believe she didn't even know. Fcreid (talk) 02:31, 7 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I suspect she knew because it was a controversial issue, a state law was passed to make the policy illegal, and Fannon appeared in the papers in connection with it. Also it seems to me that she appointed Fannon specifically because he was willing to cut the budget in this way. I also find the 3 separate comments by Croft, quoted above, saying she probably knew/it's difficult to see how she wouldn't know, sincere and convincing. Also I find her own repeated evasion of any direct questions asking about the Wasilla policy to be damning. Specifically, I think her comments were meant to distance herself from the policy and Fannon, without actually making a statement of denial that might later be proven to be a lie. I think she knew about it at the time, supported it even if it wasn't her idea, and now knows it's necessary to keep mum to avoid having to take a stand in defense of the policy. That's the gist of it. And in fairness, the gist of the comments by critics was that she probably knew, or in the case of some critics, that she ought to have known. That's more or less what I think on the subject. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 20:33, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
 * That was kind of my point. It actually doesn't seem like it was a controversial issue in 2000 whatsoever... at least no sources indicate it was, and this Frontiersman local rag was the only discussion that even mentions Wasilla's opposition under Fannon.  Croft's assessment that it was a battle fought for six months doesn't jive with the reality of reliable sources, either.  This was in 2000, not 1900, and there should be all kinds of records (legislative and mainstream) to back up his accusations and presumptions... and there aren't.  Regardless, the fact that her police chief was up to something that she didn't know is significant in itself, even if it was purely a perfunctory administrative checkbox at the hospital.  Thus, our original consensus language still seems appropriate. Fcreid (talk) 01:04, 8 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, regardless of whether you think it was controversial (I think the fact that a law had to be passed in order to prevent this from happening to be pretty inherently controversial, but oh well..) it was a prominent source of criticism. I'm also not sure what sources you think contradict what Croft said... If you mean that Croft's claims aren't sourced, remember that he was a primary figure in the event, and not a Wikipedia editor looking for articles to substantiate what he says ;) Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 03:20, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
 * For example, "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"... what evidence backs up this statement? Croft fought with Fannon for six months on the issue, and there's not a single piece of legislative or media evidence to support that?  Moreover, the Wasilla official records indicate no insurance was ever charged in calendar year 2000, so I'm not even sure what Croft considers a "fight" in that regard.  He then goes further to state that, despite this "fight", he never once contacted the city mayor regarding it?  Pardon my incredulousness!  Finally, and in the purely for what it's worth category and independent of Palin's knowledge or obliviousness, I contend that Campaign 2008 turned this into an issue more than it actually ever was.  It was a medical procedure, administered at the hospital which the person's insurance covered.  While it may have been the solitary woman in Juneau who ended up getting the bill because she was uninsured to highlight the potential for unplanned repercussions, but it's not as if there were ever malevolent intent.  Anyway, as I stated before, I'll concede the mention as long as it's clear there's no evidence Palin was aware of or participated in the practice. Fcreid (talk) 04:42, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

The CNN vid report that includes the Croft interview begins with a statement that they talked to people in Wasilla who said that Wasilla PD charged. Fannon, for crissakes, said he charged. Enough of this, only hospitals charged, nonsense, please.

You mention there was the testimony of only one woman from Juneau. It wasn't because there was only one woman charged; Hugonin herself mentioned that the same thing had occurred in the Kenai peninsula, Anchorage, Mat-Su Valley and Juneau, for example. I believe it was because the committee did not see fit to give this more time. You may agree when you look at all four meetings; Hugonin ended up giving pretty much the same testimony at least three times, and the other woman twice, so anything they can do to save time, I guess. Also see the original text of AS 11.71.900. One 'test case' in which a man was carrying a concealed weapon in his own bar is used as an illustration of something that happens repeatedly, to show the reasons for the bill.


 * You're free to think he's a liar who exposed himself to slander liability by making that stuff up, but.. it's sort of not even original research, it's lack thereof. If this story was false, don't you think it would have been exposed and retracted by now and Palin would be suing? And, the law was passed in March 2000, so doesn't that 2000 budged figure just mean no one was charged from January to March when the policy had to be rescinded due to the force of the new law? I would sort of assume the "fight" Croft was referring to was a refusal to rescind that policy voluntarily. In fact I do recall a quote from one source, not sure if it was Croft, saying "We couldn't get the police chief in Wasilla to stop charging" or something like that. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 05:07, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Liar is a strong word. I think perspective is more accurate.  As the sponsor of the bill, and as a Democrat who had committed himself to supporting Obama in the election, I believe he was predisposed to a specific perspective.  (I will not that some here have used the word liar directed at Palin on this matter, however!)  More importantly, as accuser (which he is in this matter), there should be some onus upon Croft to produce some evidence supporting his statements, yet we've seen nothing.  My conclusion is this is pure election year politics. Fcreid (talk) 05:29, 8 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Oh, as far as the slander thing, there isn't any. You see Croft never actually said Palin knew about it.  In fact, as we discussed before, if you read his words closely--"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"--he's not even suggesting that she knew about it.  It's a perfectly crafted statement of non-accusal and deniability! Fcreid (talk) 05:36, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

He is implying that she knew. He can't say that she knew, but he can say that it is unlikely in his opinion. Wasn't it Collect who first suggested that this was in some way not an accusation? You have more sense than that, I think. Anarchangel (talk) 22:40, 8 December 2008 (UTC)


 * You misunderstood. If he's lying about Fannon leading the fight for six months, that's slander. Anyway, there's absolutely nothing (other than wishful thinking by you, in my opinion) to indicate he was lying about it. If he distorted facts because of his "political perspective", that's still lying.. but there's no indication of this. And once again, if Croft were a wikipedia editor, there would be a burden on him to produce sources to prove his claim. But he was interviewed as a primary source -- someone whose opinion on the subject was thought to be relevant, and, more importantly, not a lie. Finally I would say Croft's statement was a direct accusation. Palin's response, on the other hand, maintained the maximum possible deniability due to avoiding answering the question directly... actually it avoided making any factual statements whatsoever that could later be disproven. Overall, you seem eager to discount Croft entirely based on absolutely nothing except your opinion or feelings that he's lying. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 16:02, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Hmm. While I agree with your case overall, I doubt that a case for slander can be brought up for so small an offense. Anarchangel (talk) 22:40, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) Overall, you seem eager to discount Croft entirely based on absolutely nothing except your opinion or feelings that he's lying. No, really not at all. It's more the lack of historical evidence to support his statements, and a very small leap of logic to understand them. First, one would expect there to be some evidence of a six-month long battle--a newspaper article, some legislative minutes or whatever--yet we have only the Frontiersman as a contemporaneous mention of Fannon's opposition. (Ironically, had it not been for that Frontiersman article discovered during the Obama campaign, Croft would never even have been called to be interviewed about the matter.) Next, during the course of this "fight", why would the state legislator and sponsor of the bill never have contacted the mayor of this Alaska town to resolve it? Certainly Croft would have escalated to the mayor and behind if he were getting stonewalled by Fannon, no? Finally, in view of the inexplicable event of never asking the mayor directly, why would Croft eight years later state "I can't imagine how she didn't know"? Again, there are so many holes in the historical record on this issue (and we're talking 2000 and not 1900) that make me very circumspect that perspective wasn't a bit distorted eight years later in the heat of a campaign. Fcreid (talk) 18:17, 8 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't think "googling the subject extensively" is a reliable way of uncovering all the available evidence on a given issue. Nor is all the evidence necessarily recorded.. I'm sure plenty of people could give anecdotal accounts of what went on -- Croft, for instance. As for "escalating" the issue, I'd say that passing a law making the policy illegal was more effective than getting on the horn with Sarah to ask her to have a chat with her police chief. It's not like he was an executive whose job it was to call around making sure bureaucrats were doing their jobs. Also, as noted, Wasilla was not the only town with such a policy, but the law took care of all of them in one swoop. So I'd hardly call it "inexplicable" that Croft didn't contact Palin directly, and I can't say that any of this undermines the credibility of Croft's claim. I'd say his speculation, that Palin either knew about the issue or had approved it, is pretty spot on. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 20:38, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Do you have sources to substantiate that there are plenty of people with anecdotal accounts? A good deal of research went into this by multiple sources on both sides of Palin support... note the Politifact article where they examined all local and state legislative records and interviewed people, but nothing surfaced to indicate it was the controversy Croft claims.  Particularly note the following, "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," and "Legislators and activists have said the law was prompted  by Wasilla and several other communities with a similar policy," "But a search of the committee minutes for the bill found  no mention of Wasilla or Palin. Nor could we find any indication that city  officials spoke up about the bill until after it was passed, when Police Chief  Charlie Fannon was quoted in the local newspaper The Frontiersman  saying he opposed it."  It appears this source did a good deal of investigation into the history and finds nothing to substantiate Croft's recollections.  Now I know the "rules of evidence" don't apply to WP, and I'm sure the lawyers here will educate me on this, but I believe the process by which expert witnesses who provide testimony for conclusions based on evidence are vetted through voir dire, and that criteria includes that a witness is both an expert in his field and would have nothing to gain by his testimony.  Is Croft an expert mayor or city administrator where he could absolutely know that Palin should have known about this obscure practice Fannon was doing, particularly given that it happened so rarely?  Is he so objective that he would not have had no benefit had this issue become damaged Palin's campaign?  Regarding his statement that Wasilla fought this for months and "wouldn't stop charging", the city records refute that completely.  The law was passed in CY-00, and they have made those records public that show no victims or their insurance were charged in that calendar year. Fcreid (talk) 21:16, 8 December 2008 (UTC)


 * FY, not CY. Croft never said the words "wouldn't stop charging". The records only show fiscal year 2000.


 * In fact, those were his exact words in the CNN interview, "Former state Rep. Eric Croft, a Democrat, sponsored a state law requiring cities to provide the examinations free of charge to victims. He said the only ongoing resistance he met was from Wasilla, where Palin was mayor from 1996 to 2002."It was one of those things everyone could agree on except Wasilla," Croft told CNN. "We couldn't convince the chief of police to stop charging them." Fcreid (talk) 23:03, 8 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Exact words? C'mon.
 * Say hello to my little friend, the single quotation mark ('). That's what one uses, on either side of a near-quote, or very close paraphrase. Only when it is a verbatim quote does one use ("). Give your shift finger and me a break, please. Anarchangel (talk) 23:09, 9 December 2008 (UTC)


 * note the Politifact article where they examined all local and state legislative records and interviewed people, but nothing surfaced to indicate it was the controversy Croft claims -- You are distorting that pretty significantly. They weren't looking for evidence it was a controversy... nor did they say they examined all local and state records. They were looking for evidence that Palin was involved and found none. The comments cited merely indicate it wasn't a controversy in Wasilla during Palin's early years as mayor. Clearly it became a controversial issue at the state level later on, or they wouldn't have passed a state law against it. The Politfact article does nothing to discount Croft's comments. He only said that he thinks it was likely Palin knew. He said he thinks it was unlikely that a small town's police chief would publically oppose a piece of statewide legislation receiving unanimous support without consulting with or at least mentioning it to the mayor. He said he thinks the policy went on too long to not have the mayor's support. Four years is, after all, a long time. Personally, what do I find to be the most compelling circumstantial evidence? The fact that she fired the guy who did the exact opposite, hired the guy who instituted the new policy, and was known as a cost cutter. I think she just didn't count on it being received negatively.


 * And again ... the law was passed in early 2000, so records indicating nobody was charged for a rape examination in the first few months of 2000 doesn't really demonstrate much. If the policy says victim's insurance gets charged for rape investigation, victim's insurance will be charged whenever there's a rape reported. Rapes just don't happen very often (and are reported less often) so there won't be lots of instances. Anyway, the committee minutes contain one decent anecdotal account: "It is a problem that has come up sporadically around the state. She has been working with victims of sexual assault since 1982, and it  has been around since  then.  It is time  to support victims and say this won't be allowed to happen to them." As for lots of specific women publically complaining about the issue, I really can't imagine many rape victims would want to publically identify themselves as such. I supposed it's possible that Fannon was completely oblivious to the possibility this would be seen as a grotesque policy, nobody ever mentioned it to anyone, he never mentioned it to anyone, and somehow it existed in a vacuum up until the moment it was overturned. If not, I imagine you could interview people and learn some pretty interesting accounts of what went on. The bottom line is, we have a limited account and we're each drawing separate, contradictory conclusions. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 00:23, 9 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't know where you get the idea that Politifact is a reliable source; even the small amount of digging I have done reveals they cherrypick information to serve an agenda. They pursue as though it were their duty, the logical error of assuming that lack of evidence equals proof. This is true of not only their reporting on the rape kit issue, but also on the library censorship issue, where they reported the local author's quote that he didn't know for sure his book was banned by Palin, but didn't report that Wasilla Assembly had attempted to ban his book. And it wasn't like they didn't have the time or availability; all of their reporting is second hand. They are a tertiary source; all of their material has been printed elsewhere first. They just pick out things that support their judgement, and if the facts don't support it, they leave them out, or misrepresent them, like calling someone an activist and not mentioning she was Palin's secretary for years. Isn't the Truth-o-meter itself a clue to you? Anarchangel (talk) 22:40, 8 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Journalism Award. They are an division of the Saint Petersburg Times.  Start at their main page, and explain to me where they do equally refute nonsense from both sides of the political spectrum.  In contrast, the NY Times, LA Times and Washington Post showed consistent partisanship during this election cycle, yet I'm sure you would accept a story from them at face value (like the Sarah and the Dinosaurs nonsense for which they provided a megphone). And the "activist" you imply was a Palin supporter was in fact Anne Kilkenny, one of Palin's arch-rivals in Wasilla and a friend of the librarian, Emmons, whom Palin at one time threatened to can.  Kilkenny was the author of the infamous scathing letter railing against Palin that was released throughout the Internet hours after her being announced as VP candidate.  If you haven't read Kilkenny's letter, please do and then tell me again that she would not have lunged upon any possible attempt to derail Palin's candidacy.  The fact is that you guys believe Palin was involved because that's what you want to believe about Palin, and not based on any rationale or objective interpretation of the facts.  I conceded that it would be included in the article only because some rightfully felt that Palin's lack of knowledge of Fannon's activities was telling in itself.  It was certainly not because even a shred of evidence implicates her in being involved in the practice. Fcreid (talk) 23:28, 8 December 2008 (UTC)


 * You don't know if I would accept anything at face value, let alone what it would be. You don't even know what I believe. None of those things, are, with respect, even slightly your business, let alone helpful to a consensus-building discussion. I've read Kilkenny's letter. Critic adequately describes that part of Anne Kilkenny's relationship with Palin. It utterly fails to describe her prior status as Palin's aide. The point is, St Pete didn't mention aide, in a place where it was not only relevant, it defined the information they got from her. She isn't going to implicate herself by talking about things that Palin did that she was a party to. I thank you for at least attempting to answer my questions, but if this is going to be the extent of it, then you should consider making some concessions. St Pete's, for one. They only started 'debunking' Obama myths once he was declared the winner. Anarchangel (talk) 23:09, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * First, as an editor-to-editor request, I'm guessing you take the entire section/topic offline somewhere to edit your responses. When you bring it back in, can you not replace the entire body of an existing section?  It makes it impossible to see a "diff", and one must re-read the entire section to figure out what new comments you've made.  Any chance you might change your process just to insert selectively with just the comments that you make?  Back to the topic, it's nonsensical to suggest Kilkenny was covering up for Palin, and you've gone even further in suggesting she was somehow complicit in the practice itself!  You're going out onto a limb here, Anarchangel, and it doesn't become you.  No, I will not concede to omit the SPT findings.  In fact, they are the only reliable source that's actually done a fair investigation of this matter, and they found nothing.  I could care less what you think of them.  Wasn't it you who wished to introduce the Huffington Post as reliable... and yet you want to exclude the Saint Petersburg Times?! Anyway, if you have a reliable source that contradicts the SPT findings and demonstrates Palin was involved, you're welcome to present that.  I think that's unlikely, however, and the SPT findings will remain that state she neither endorsed nor opposed this practice.  Finally, the reason you're not likely to find anything contemporaneous is because this issue is and always has been Campaign 2008 nonsense.  It has been misrepresented as Fannon billing rape victims for investigation, but that is a distortion of the truth that he was billing insurance companies... the same company that pays for the other portions of the medical treatment consequential to the crime.  (You didn't think the police pay all the medical bills when someone is hurt in a crime, did you?)  Do I think Fannon's practice was a smart idea?  No, but probably not for the same reason you do.  I believe that today, as it was in 1998, private insurance of any type is not communal property.  The town sherriff had no business billing his expense (for the rape investigation kit) to anyone's private medical insurance.  It has nothing to do with rape or crime or sensitivity.  It's a matter of appropriate responsibility of government agencies.  With that said, and ironically, we actually now have an administration with a centerpiece policy based on instituting medical insurance as communal property (which is a fine idea by me).  When that occurs, it will be the norm to bill rape kits to taxpayers, as that will be effectively become the only arrangement.  So, again, the reason no one make a big deal about it in 2000 was that people didn't distort the issue... until it became a campaign smear against Palin that didn't stick because there is no evidence she had anything to do with it. Fcreid (talk) 01:56, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

When I look at the diff of my edit, I see, on the right hand side at the top, Line 822. Then section: Palin quote in grey. Then Line 985. Ending at Parodies of Sarah Palin in grey at the bottom. Does yours look different? Should have been fairly obvious, but Kilkenny is covering up for herself. She isn't covering up for Palin, SPT is covering up for Palin by not noting they were colleagues, not only in the sense I described earlier, but that their ad hominem assessment of her testimony as coming from a 'critic' would be weakened by SPT admitting that they worked together. I don't introduce the Huffington Post as reliable. It has always been considered reliable. To my knowledge, only Ferrylodge has ever suggested otherwise. Et tu? "the reason you're not likely to find anything contemporaneous is because this issue is and always has been Campaign 2008 nonsense." Nonsense, no. I concede that much of the information comes from 2008. There is a whole discussion we could get into there, about the merits of information from a later date. It most certainly does not exclude any of the information, but obviously newer information should be used if it is found. The Fannon interview, for example, comes from 2000, and the Palin interview directly deals with events of 96-00 by interviewing someone who was there, at that time, in that office. The spokeswoman's testimony, which I attempted to replace, is none of those things. So in fact, if being as close to the center of an incident is truly an issue for you, then you have at least one reason to support the Palin quote.
 * Fcreid: "It has been misrepresented as Fannon billing rape victims for investigation, but that is a distortion of the truth that he was billing insurance companies... the same company that pays for the other portions of the medical treatment consequential to the crime. (You didn't think the police pay all the medical bills when someone is hurt in a crime, did you?)"

Frontiersman:
 * "In the past weve charged the cost of exams to the victims insurance company when possible. I just dont want to see any more burden put on the taxpayer, Fannon said.
 * According to Fannon, the new law will cost the Wasilla Police Department approximately $5,000 to $14,000 a year to collect evidence for sexual assault cases.
 * Ultimately it is the criminal who should bear the burden of the added costs, Fannon said.
 * My indents above. I just wanted to point out that you're completely misunderstanding (and I don't think misrepresenting) Fannon's words, the law and police procedures, in general.  What is at issue here is charging for the examination and materials used for collection of evidence.  This law, and no other law, introduces a requirement on the taxpayer that we pay the entire medical expenses of a victim, even in the case of rape.  For instance, were the victim to have required other medical treatment, that would be a matter for the victim's insurance and the hospital.  The same is true whether it's a shooting or a mugging.  No one, to my knowledge, has ever advocated that taxpayers must pay for the entire medical treatment... well, until we get government-sponsored health care, I suppose.  Still, there will be a medical cost associated with this victim visiting the hospital... the law simply ensures it will not be for the investigative portions of that visit. Fcreid (talk) 22:51, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

The forensic exam is just one part of the equation. Id like to see the courts make these people pay restitution for these things, Fannon said." From the same article, Tony Knowles: "We would never bill the victim of a burglary for fingerprinting and photographing the crime scene, or for the cost of gathering other evidence. Nor should we bill rape victims just because the crime scene happens to be their bodies." Published on Monday, May 22, 2000 9:00 PM AKDT "The town sherriff had no business billing his expense (for the rape investigation kit) to anyone's private medical insurance. It has nothing to do with rape or crime or sensitivity. It's a matter of appropriate responsibility of government agencies." Agree Fannon had no business charging. Disagree, it has everything to do with rape and crime and sensitivity. Also, none of the above arguments on either side, after the discussion of the SPT & HuffPo, have anything to do with improving the article. Well, they do in that if people believed them as you appear to, they would wonder what all the fuss was about, I suppose. But I have disproved them all with exactly the same cites as this time, many times. How come you haven't gotten it yet? Please would you confine yourself to discussion of the material?Not that it concerns the article, but have you not considered that the billing of PDs will continue even should this 'instituting medical insurance as communal property' take place?"that didn't stick because there is no evidence she had anything to do with it" Ignore 'campaign smear'. It stuck. I concede that that had more to do with agendas than evidence. You wish to keep out of the article the only evidence available that shows that she either knew of the policy or was not acting competently with regard to the policy, though. That is what this section is about. You wrote hundreds of words and not one of them is about that. Anarchangel (talk) 06:01, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I will interject one additional point acknowledging your ad hominem against me personally. I consider myself a reasonable and objective person, and I sincerely try to evaluate every situation uniquely based on the evidence that is presented to me.  I even change my mind occasionally when new or more compelling evidence is presented.  While few (if any) can claim absolute objectivity, I will state in all modesty that your attacks against me fall flat from my perspective (which, frankly, is the only one that matters to me).  While I have no expectation that you'll look at this issue rationally now, as you've provided no indication you're likely to budge on your opinion, I suggest you review the archives and see that I found myself arbitrating attempts to reach consensus on this material that ultimately resulted in its inclusion.  If the consensus reached during that very long and tedious process doesn't suit your agenda (apparently to smear Palin as opposed to telling the truth), then that's just too bad. Fcreid (talk) 17:11, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I use the WP-integrated diff utility, and when you copy/paste the entire section, it shows you removed all previous editor's contributions and then re-added them as new with your own comments interspersed. Not sure why that's so, but again it makes it hard to find what you've changed.  Perhaps that's why you think people don't always address your points?  Anyway, this response showed only the changed portions.  On Huffington Post, that has demonstrated itself to be decidedly unreliable in my estimation.  In many cases, their reporting was devoid of journalistic integrity during the recent presidential campaign, and they were particularly reckless when it came to Palin.  I'll admit I'm not a newshound, and I'm certain there are right-wing equivalents out on the Information Superhighway, but I wouldn't touch a Huffington Post piece with a ten-foot pole.  I don't know if they retain archives, but it wouldn't take much for you to see countless examples of their poor journalism during September and October regarding Palin (Trig's her son, she had an affair, the rape kits had contraception, etc.)  Their agenda has caused them to lose their way towards objectivity, I'm afraid.  Regarding your contention that the rape kit material matters, both in actual substance and with respect to Palin, that is simply untrue.  It's a dead story that only very few people with an HuffPo-like agenda are trying to perpetuate.  It has no legs.  I challenged you with a couple of direct facts above, e.g. to find evidence from any reliable source that Wasilla was ever mentioned in the legislative records or mainstream media prior to this Frontiersman article, to find evidence that anyone couldn't get Wasilla to stop charging as alleged by Croft, etc.  That evidence doesn't exist, does it?  Thus, I'm going to accept the findings of the Saint Petersburg Times, which actually did review the legislative records, mainstream media and interviewed people and found all of this to be both blown out of proportion and, more importantly here, completely unrelated to Palin.  Now, I concede that Fannon was involved in this ad hoc practice (which cannot be labeled a policy as that implies consistent application and codified processes) at some point in 1998 and 1999 (well after he was appointed by Palin).  I also concede that it's clear Palin wasn't aware what Fannon was up to and, thus, may not have been entirely abreast of everything happening on her watch.  So, I have agreed to include those two points only, and that leaves it up to the reader to decide whether Palin should be faulted for not knowing every detail of minutiae under her administration.  I will again suggest that attempts to yank the perspective on this portion of the article into Huffington Post Territory will do nothing more than jeopardize that fragile consensus.  There are many editors, including others who wouldn't identify themselves as Palin supporters, who feel even that mention is more than this deserves.  (Just to elaborate, I think it's important to highlight that you would accept the Huffington Post as a reliable source, but you would then suggest we dismiss the findings of the Saint Petersburg Times as not credible... thus the long diatribe of my thoughts on those sources.) Fcreid (talk) 12:42, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

When I have made 4 edits that are separated by intervening type, amidst a sea of other type, and I get an edit conflict of one passage, it is more difficult to add my 4 comments separately than it is to add the one to my version. So I copy my version of the page, and paste it, after having copied and pasted the single comment to add at the end. Is there no way that you can view the page normally? Edit conflict is a common occurrence; it happened twice again today. Agenda is none of editors' concern, as has been pointed out previously, although not as many times as agenda has been used as a argument; oftentimes I have merely ignored it. I will continue to point this out whenever I feel good about it; I am most certainly not obligated to address this or any of your other would-be arguments that fail to follow WP procedure. I have already conceded that there most of the stories are from 2008. The SPT article picks at the carcasses of 2008 articles for whatever bits it finds to its taste, and yet you claim to prefer timeliness. You 'concede' that Palin wasn't aware? You're a little unclear on the concept of concede there, F. The track of subverting the process that you're on goes straight thru RFC on an express train to Arb. But by all means, carry on creating more documentation. Anarchangel (talk) 04:40, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I'll live with whatever editing methodology you choose, of course, but it just makes it easier if I can highlight the (diff) on my watchlist and see quickly what's changed. When a section gets large and unwieldy like this, it becomes difficult to see what comments you've interspersed.  Personally, I just comment, copy to my buffer (in case of edit conflict) and save each comment individually rather than bouncing around.  This issue actually highlights the way this entire rape kit issue has gone off on tangents from the start!  :)  Back to substance, you've completely misrepresented the core values I hold true.  I care little for current attacks issuing from partisan camps and strongly favor salient facts contemporaneous to the event.  I recognize that sometimes facts go unreported, and I'll welcome any new revelation of extant facts.  To that end, the SPT seems to be the only reliable source that actually did an investigation to uncover the relevant facts, and they don't support whatsoever your allegations that Palin was aware or or involved in Fannon's practice.  The SPT wasn't picking at carcasses as you suggested, but rather exhuming and examining the remains to see if the current stories had merit.  Of particular note, they found that no official transcripts, meeting minutes, media reports or persons involved noted this as a contemporaneous controversy... do you have anything that refutes that it was?  They also noted that nothing contemporaneous ever mentioned Wasilla in any context, pulling at the strings of accuracy in Croft's recollection that he couldn't get Fannon to stop charging for the examination kits... do you have anything that refutes that?  They certainly didn't find anything that implicates Palin as being involved... do you have anything that refutes that?  As far as your threats of arbitration, I would welcome that.  Frankly, I'm a bit tired of wasting my time on deaf ears on this matter.  I've been threatened with arbitration only once before, and coincidentally that was also you making the threat.  I'm all for open hearings and the rule of law... let's do it! By the way, your agenda does become the concern of your fellow editors when you can't leave it at the door before editing here.  I really could care less about your ideological beliefs.  Palin may well represent everything you despise.  However, you won't be given free rein to lace this biographical article with allegations and unsubstantiated smears because of that.  Stick to the facts, and you'll feel better about your contributions, the resulting article and yourself when all is said and done. Fcreid (talk) 12:13, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Only one thing in here to address. See above for everything else. Or possibly below, as these are new additions to a tertiary threadlet. ...And the one thing is: Pretty much, we have access to the same evidence. I contend that your assertions' interpretation of it, such as maintaining that 'no evidence' is notable, is faulty. So if you find there is a lack of evidence in a particular area, be assured that I am aware of this, but don't take that to mean that we interpret those facts or the lack of them to mean the same thing. So, a qualified concession. Can't really see what I would get out of Arb at this point. My point was that, after I had made an effort to introduce the procedure of making concessions, your very first 'concession' ever was a subversion of that process. I should add, I am disappointed, to what I said before. Anarchangel (talk) 21:21, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I certainly can't qualify this for consideration herein, and I'm honestly unsure I can even quantify it tangibly, but my gut feeling is that Palin made more than enough enemies in her activities as Mayor of Wasilla, that if there were anyone who had information that would have entangled her in Fannon's practice, that person would have come forward by now. Thus, my conclusion based on the physical evidence, and what my gut instinct tells me, is that she was oblivious to the practice, probably until the Frontiersman article appeared.  (Don't forget she was far from a seasoned public administrator at that time.)  It find it unlikely that she, Fannon or others would have had secretive discussions on the practice contemporaneously, as they had no reason to believe it was controversial.  In the pure for what it's worth category... Fcreid (talk) 22:19, 12 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Anyway, when all's said and done, I think you and I and Anarchangel agree in substance that the issue warrants mention under her mayoralty with the previous consensus provisions we devised. There's certainly no need to mention my skepticism in there... I was merely trying to establish that there's more evidence supporting the historical record of macro-evolution than there is of this issue! :) Fcreid (talk) 18:36, 8 December 2008 (UTC)


 * With all due respect, that's a horrible analogy! "Macroevolution" is overwhelmingly supported by mountains of scientific evidence. Your analogy appears to say that there's "less than tons and tons" of evidence pertaining to this issue... not exactly a strong claim. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 20:28, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
 * That all depends on who you ask and how you define macroevolution, and it's not something I would debate! Fcreid (talk) 21:16, 8 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your concession, Fcreid, and I concede, if I haven't already, that we cannot know for sure. Her evasion of the subject is evidence she knew, or the alternate conclusion that she was oblivious. Anarchangel (talk) 21:18, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks and agree. Fcreid (talk) 01:04, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

I would say the discussion has gone full circle, but it is more like, turned around and gone back over old unrelated ground. The Palin quote and the two questions address the issue of whether or not and to what extent Palin was involved. They show that we can't know, because Palin won't tell. The preamble isn't necessary, forget it. Its usefulness as a precis is weakened by its length. Two questions, 29 words I think it was, and the Palin quote instead of the first part of the Palin spokeswoman's quote. We should keep the second part of the spokeswoman's quote, as was done in the Mayoralty article. Notability is from notoriety.

I will not accept the old order of: suggestion, unsupported assertions against, and then endless wide-ranging debate with the only opposer here who gives a damn enough to actually answer assertions. If you don't contribute, you don't count. The opinions are two to one in favor, and even if he bothers to show up, F still isn't covering all the assertions. Material inserted.

Inevitably, it will be reverted, with something in the page summary about no consensus, by someone who didn't even bother coming to the discussion to see if there is a consensus, because they only come to the discussion to type a single contentious unsupported assertion one sentence long every week or so. Anarchangel (talk) 23:09, 9 December 2008 (UTC)


 * So despite all this dialog, you just went and did whatever the hell you wanted to do, Anarchangel? You entirely removed the part that ultimately achieved consensus with the quote from SPT article that there was no evidence she was involved.  Are you actually attempting to erode any aspirations of a consensus edit on this?  You apparently don't realize how deeply you're in the minority of even having this included among all editors, and you honestly can't afford to lose many friends.  I will leave it to you to revert, or maybe we again need to have a consensus tally on whether it belongs or not? Fcreid (talk) 00:33, 10 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Damn, I'm good. Did I not say there would be something about 'consensus' in the summary? And no comment here from LedRush; his only two edits here were both on 8th Dec, one of which strenuously objected to the inclusion of material in the article that has never been included, and the other commenced with the immortal line "Your indignation is insulting". Ok, the "single contentious unsupported assertion one sentence long" was a bit of a stretch. But look how close it came!

There is no consensus here, and I have not seen one from Oct 7th to this day. I don't think anyone here knows what one is, or how to go about achieving it, despite my attempts to quote WP:EQ as an illustration. Consensus is not achieved by a tally. That's a vote. Consensus is the result of discussion that considers each person's assertions, and by a process of eliminating assertions that do not stand, arrives at a definitive conclusion. In lieu of challenges to my assertions, and having challenged all others, my assertions stand. That's not consensus either, but it is a damn sight nearer to it than, 'we all say no, so no'. In short, if you don't show up to the discussion, you are not part of the consensus. Anarchangel (talk) 03:04, 10 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I was happily enjoying a vacation and missed much of this conversation, though I have made many, many contributions to this page in the past. I admit, I haven't been part of this discussion, but quite simply you and Factchecker have proven to me beyond any doubt that you don't argue in good faith and that you are too biased to make positive contributions.  I simply don't have the energy to confront every silly contention, especially when I don't have anything to say in addition to someone else (in this case, FCried).  Now, I hope you can stop insulting me and start doing something, anything, constructive.  Also, perhaps you were so close on your prediction because you knew what you were doing was wrong.  I read your prediction beforehand, but what I did was the right thing to do, so no need to fight it.LedRush (talk) 03:42, 10 December 2008 (UTC)


 * It's been clear to me for a long time that Collect and Ferrylodge act entirely in bad faith. I haven't paid enough attention to your actions to form a specific opinion about you. But those other two have engage in nothing but sarcasm and insults. Where their arguments are refuted, they simply edit war and indulge in offensive name-calling. I agree that Wikipedia is not a vote. But neither is it anarchy; there are rules which are supposed to be observed. Yet from the very start those editors and others have been committed to distorting or even ignoring policy with the ultimate goal not just of simply excluding specific criticism which they would like to deny, but also of bullying other editors into submission and making blatantly false claims about Wikipedia policy in an effort to deceive them. At various points I have invested the energy needed to refute every single contention (usually Collect's)... but there's no point when the person whose position has been refuted simply clams up or resorts to name-calling. On that note, what you have done in the above comment... is resort to name-calling. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 14:13, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I have been here long enough to see that you resort to name calling and ignoring others' arguments while repeating refuted ideas over and over again until people leave exasperated. Actually, it's an ingenius strategy if you have the stamina.  I, unfortunately, do not have that stamina.  The best I can do is muster 4 or 5 comments in a day or two and then leave, disgusted at the process (but with still enough morbid curiousity to see what is going on).  It is truly sad that this article is among the most slanted and poorly crafted among Wikipedia because a couple of editors have such an ideological problem with the subject that they cannot stomach an article in which their beliefs are not represented, even when it goes against policy.  BTW, I did not resort to name calling in my above post.  I said that you are biased and that you don't edit in good faith.  There is no name calling in there, so I would appreciate it if you apologize.LedRush (talk) 16:28, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I have been here long enough to see that Ferry, Collect, Threeafterthree, and some others, don't even bother with arguments, but just insult insult insult and post absolute nonsense and distortions of policy over and over again until the other guy gets tired and leaves. That is why I have resolved not to buckle to this abusive strategy; because "editing by attrition" is profoundly inappropriate for Wikipedia. Wikipedia policy demands that this significant and relevant issue be reflected, although not without reserving judgment and not necessarily in any great magnitude. And I'm just going to laugh and ignore your statement that you ascribe bad faith to me but didn't mean it as name-calling. This reminds me of the first few days when I was editing this article, where I would make a suggestion or comment, have Ferry or Collect respond with a sarcastic insult, and then when I point out their sarcasm they would say "AGF!! AGF!!" and accuse me of a personal attack while ignoring their own. It's a perfect example of the underlying "ad hominem" strategy that's been in play here for months now. Attack... insult... ascribe bad faith ... cry "personal attacks! insults!"... insist opponent AGF... assert distortions of rules as if they were rules... change subject upon being rebutted and introduce irrelevant commentary... back to the top of the dial with personal attacks... rinse.. repeat.


 * It's also eerily similar to this template for strategic edit warring which Collect authored, which he has since rewritten to clarify/explain that it's intended as "humor" but which is a remarkable facsimile of his actual approach to editing and pushing other editors around. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 18:21, 10 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Perhaps you would do well to note that my humorous essay was not deleted. While some comments from some people (mentioned above) are splendid examples of actual ad hominem attacks. Such as calling editors "stooge" and "sockpuppets" or the like. Thank you most kindly. Collect (talk) 23:06, 10 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I also think Collect/z says more about Collect than any other users, real or imaginary, but not for the reason that it reflects his own editing style. Anarchangel (talk) 23:49, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Just to clarify, as the red link supra corolla yaris doesn't work, it's User:Collect/z, e.g. . — Writegeist (talk) 11:09, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Hey Factchecker atyourservice, seriously, you are taking this way to seriously or personally or something. Anyways, --Tom 18:31, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Contributing to the discussion by pointing out things that do not contribute to the discussion: Tom's contribution above is everyone's opportunity to try out their best Valley Boy or Girl accent. Don't worry if you're not good at it; the material will pull you through. Anarchangel (talk) 23:49, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Dishing insults while ignoring actual discussion tends to make it personal. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 18:35, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * See WP:Ad hominem . — Writegeist (talk) 17:29, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * "Name calling" is different than "ad hominem". You should read more carefully.  However, you are correct that Anarchangel has made an ad hominem attack on me rather than discuss my edit.LedRush (talk) 17:35, 10 December 2008 (UTC)


 * My comments on your deletion and the circumstances surrounding it are not ad hominem. It would further the course of consensus building for you to consider the issues that I brought up. Your edit was a deletion of material that had been proposed and not addressed conclusively. You had no part in the discussion of the material in its section. There was neither consensus for the existing material nor concerning the inserted material. My hypothesis as to the inevitable outcome of my insertion was obviously humorous but less obviously self satirizing: I did not have to be a wizard, or "Damn I'm Good" to see the outcome. Hence my criticism of the real cause, which was not Fate, but agenda serving Tag Teaming by relatively uninvolved editors. I challenge your deletion on the grounds that it is not based on consensus as you claim in your edit summary, and in fact the notion that there had been in fact any consensus. There had been no substance in any of your edits that has not been addressed. Anarchangel (talk) 23:49, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Note that discussion has recommenced around a topic of your choosing, which is argument about "silly assertions" and "insulting". This is not a step forward. I urge everyone to talk about the material, the meaning and procedure of consensus, anything that might actually lead to improving the article. Anarchangel (talk) 23:49, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * For example . Collect (talk) 17:40, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Which was on the User's own Talk page. Anarchangel (talk) 23:49, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * For example — Writegeist (talk) 20:03, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) Just to make sure I understand, the current consensus is that we remove all "material" related to "rape kits" and Wasilla from this current bio and possibly include that material in a bio about Fannon or a Palin subarticle as it currently is, correct? Thanks for everybodies help!! --Tom 18:40, 10 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Absolutely not. There is no consensus for anything in the article or proposed for it. Please don't take that as a suggestion that we start at the top of the article and work down. Anarchangel (talk) 23:49, 10 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Obviously you know that not to be the case and are trying to pull a fast one. Sort of like the 25 separate times you deleted the whole section without actually seeking consensus, you're hoping to do the same thing, again, without consensus. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 18:42, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Moi pull a fast one??? Just trying to keep "score" here :) Cheers! --Tom 19:09, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * While obviously not a "consensus" the thread above seems to indicate there is more support for the old language or nothing at all than for expanded language.LedRush (talk) 18:57, 10 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Many assertions for inclusion, in this section, notably those before my edit including the material, remain unanswered. Bald assertions, such as that immediately above, do not require an answer, but are in most cases answered, as that is the only discourse of those seeking exclusion, with the notable, if not untarnished, exception of Fcreid. Anarchangel (talk) 23:49, 10 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Factchecker...You are perfectly correct when you say that "Collect/z" is a template for the way that Collect behaves. Rather than the current version, editors should refer to the original version prior to "softening it" to appear Humorous. I have been paying minimum attention to Talk/Sara Palin. But I see that nothing has changed. Certain editors still play "Hopscotch" with Consensus...snide remarks are woven into opposing stands. Its like the French Court of Louis XIV but without the powdered wigs. Good Luck to you and fellow editors. --Buster7 (talk) 22:53, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I would say calling editors "stooge" and "sockpuppet" and "tagteam" are actually ad hominem attacks. Nothing in my essay is in any way an attack on anyone at all, though it does decry editors who do abuse the system. Thank you most kindly. Collect (talk) 23:09, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * "Nothing in my essay is in any way an attack on anyone at all..." Oh, the nostalgia! Brings back fond memories of the aristocratic British government minister Alan Clark, a man genuinely educated in Latin, classical Greek and the gentlemanly tradition of unflinching fidelity to the truth when under oath (albeit with a little help from the French language): accused in court (in the Matrix Churchill trial) of having set fire to his pants on behalf of Her Majesty's Government, he agreed without a moment's hesitation that he had indeed been "economical with the actualité". — Writegeist (talk) 11:09, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
 * LedRush was correct when he said, "Name calling" is different than "ad hominem". Factchecker's descriptions of ad hominem have also been correct. An example of Ad Hominem is Ferrylodge's insertion of "defeated by Palin" or "critic of Palin" whenever someone matching that description is mentioned in the article. In this sense, ad hominem can be considered what people who say someone is 'cynical' mean; as it is not known what is in the hearts of others, and because it does not pertain directly to the subject of discussion, (& w/e other reasons) their motivation is not a legitimate subject for the discussion. 'Sockpuppet', and 'tagteam', on the other hand, are descriptions of infractions of the spirit or substance of WP rules. "Stooge" is a PA, not ad hominem, but there are many ameliorating factors to consider: it occurred on the User's Talk page, the 'stooge' wasn't directly named, and it was in the context of a situation that is not even close to what WP intends for a discussion to be. Anarchangel (talk) 23:49, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

I have made many arguments for why the info shouldn't be included, as have many others. Unfortunately, you would have to be a longer term contributor to know this as they are in the archives. Just because all editors don't run out and respond to walls of text every 5th day when someone tries to undo the fragile peace we spend countless hours crafting doesn't mean our opinions don't matter.LedRush (talk) 00:33, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

"The info"? That sounds awfully inclusive. We were discussing the insertion of the Palin interview. Your objections are in the archives? Now that makes it objection to entirely different material, or objection to the article as a whole. For someone who deleted material with a claims to be representing 'consensus', that is at least two very substantive anamolies. Stop me if I go off track: you're opposed to inclusion of the rape kit material in general, and just thought any bit you could take out would be lending a helping hand? Anarchangel (talk)
 * I am opposed to the inclusion of the rape kit material in general, as were a vast majority of editors here at the time of inclusion. However, we agreed to a compromise which had specific language.  By expanding it you are bringing up all the old questions of why it was even allowed in the first place.  However, I have not taken that view yet.  However, when a compromise is worked on and discussed for as long as this, it is not promising to see the integrity of the process undermined.  AS you flippantly ask me, I could ask you: Let me guess, you think that the rape kit material is essential and just figure anything you can add to it will make it seem more so?LedRush (talk) 15:48, 11 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Do you have evidence of an instance of such behaviour in mind, as I showed, your Holier-than-thou-ness? Pursuant to which, do you deny or concede the point I made, and if deny, for what reason? Anarchangel (talk) 21:56, 11 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I too am opposed to the inclusion of the rape kit material. It is irrelevant to Palin. It is about Fannon, not Palin. WTucker (talk) 18:59, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Well said. I might have posted the same thing here in the past. --Tom 19:26, 11 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I am opposed to removing it. Manticore55 (talk) 19:51, 11 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I am also opposed to removing it, Manticore, but I am also opposed to expanding it as you just did. Can someone please go back to our original, consensus-based language which stated that a) Fannon opposed the state law, and b) the SPT found no evidence Palin either endorsed or opposed that practice.  Somehow that latter fact has been removed entirely, and I will readily change my position on inclusion if that fact is suppressed. Fcreid (talk) 20:43, 11 December 2008 (UTC)


 * "Expand"? The Palin statement and the spokeswoman's statement are exactly the same words.

"I will readily change my position on inclusion if that fact is suppressed" : Holding inclusion of the three sentences for a ransom that isn't supported by any facts, and never will be, as by definition, 'no evidence' can never be supported by facts. Wiki editors bear the burden of proof. Anarchangel (talk) 21:56, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not holding anything hostage. What's in there now is not what we agreed to consensus, which was a single statement with multiple clauses that stated Palin appointed Fannon, Fannon voiced his opposition to the new state legislation prohibiting law enforcement activities from charging for evidence collection kits, and that SPT (a reliable source whether you like it or not) found no evidence that Palin ever mentioned (endorsed or opposed) the policy.  If you have anything that contradicts those basic facts, please share it.  Otherwise, anything above those immutable facts is grossly undue weight on the topic. Fcreid (talk) 22:41, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

So let's delete the whole thing and you guys can try and demonstrate why the rape kit "controversy" even belongs at all in a BLP when such living person has no provable connection to it. If you convince people here and your insertion of language gains acceptance, we'll include it. Wait, we already did that? And now people are greatly expanding the section? Oh yeah...LedRush (talk) 22:00, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

I believe the following was the consensus insertion (though I admit it is a little awkward):

Palin appointed Charles Fannon to replace Stambaugh as police chief. Fannon later opposed a state law preventing police departments from billing rape victims or their health insurance for evidence collection kits. Fannon said that the Wasilla police had sometimes billed victims' health insurance in the past; Stambaugh said that under his tenure the city had paid. An investigation by the St. Petersburg Times found no evidence that Palin had explicitly supported or opposed the policy.

End Quote. LedRush (talk) 22:57, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks. That's pretty close.  I don't recall agreeing to the part about Stambaugh didn't and Fannon did, and I don't see how that's relevant to Palin's biography given our closing statement.  Suggest that we revert even further prior to that part being introduced.  It has no relevance. Fcreid (talk) 23:01, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, Led. Tom already tried that. Your yearning for the good old days of extremely bad behaviour, that attempted to bypass and even subvert WP procedures, and was resoundingly unpopular to boot, is noted. The Stambaugh info was inserted in place of a large amount of text by Coemgenus: "(Summary:(this is way too much weight on one topic, and way too long for a summary-style article -- let's get consensus before re-adding (or not)) Revision as of 22:51, 3 November 2008)" I looked for your comments in the archives from that period on, and this is the first time you've mentioned it. So I concede that you have not expressly supported it, but on the other hand, you have never objected to it until now. If you're looking for something to do, there are quite a few other pages out there. Coemgenus' edit The Stambaugh material was good enough to keep me from objecting to the SPT dreck for many weeks. Coemgenus is no Palin basher; he trimmed the material, pro and con, down to two sentences, and he was right; he cut right to the heart of things, past all the back and forth of 'Fannon: I am fiscally responsible', 'USA Today: victims pay a deductible', 'SPT: no evidence (gotta laugh at the repeat MO) anyone paid such a deductible', and SPT again 'no evidence', which he kept, while trashing the Palin quote. Yep, he was the one who replaced "When asked by the Mat-Su Valley Frontiersman what the policy had been and whether any victims had been required to pay, Palin stated: "I do not believe, nor have I ever believed, that rape victims should have to pay for an evidence-gathering test." . with the SPT 'no evidence' negative proof fallacy. This of course is where I begin to disagree with his edit, and even more so, the outrageous gallons of dismissive whitewash in the wording "There is no proof Palin had anything to do with this matter". Factchecker changed it, and someone else changed it again, to its most recent form, which is considerably less obfuscating. If I had been paying closer attention, I would have called for the Palin quote to replace the SPT story immediately. But o well, someone else, again, basically had already done it for me. So you see, the history of your SPT material includes the fact that editors from both sides of the issue didn't and presumably still don't much care for it, preferring something a little closer to Palin's own words. It is a point particularly worth considering that all this time, you have been arguing that a quote directly from Palin and the question that prompted it are less valuable than a quote from her spokeswoman. Or do I have your concession on that point, which is why you have switched to the Stambaugh material? Coemgenus seems to have thought the Stambaugh phrase more noteworthy than five other pieces of info on the topic. I think it shows an irreplacable part of the continuum: Stambaugh paid for kits, and was fired. Palin replaced him with Fannon, who charged for them. You say you think "I don't see how that's relevant to Palin's biography given our closing statement"; the closing statement I presume is the disputed SPT phrase. Even if that were included, they are about two different things. If you are giving the closing statement as evidence, how does it pertain to the Stambaugh statement? What is it evidence of? And then you repeat that it has no relevance, again without providing reasons. The Stambaugh phrase needs to stay, and the Palin quote needs to stay. Anarchangel (talk) 04:40, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
 * You continue to malign the SPT investigation and report of findings (and the SPT itself, for some odd reason), yet you've yet to provide one iota of evidence refuting them. Are you simply dissatisfied with their findings because they found no evidence Palin was involved in Fannon's activities and that this rape kit issue was not really the controversy in 2000 that partisan operatives hoped to make it in 2008?  Instead of squawking incessantly about SPT, why not find sources that refute their findings?  If such sources don't exist, then we will must leave what SPT found as conclusive, right? Fcreid (talk) 11:19, 12 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I'll agree to something reasonable, but you continue to allude to things that you claim refute the SPT findings. If you have reliable sources that state Palin was aware, supported or participated in Fannon's practice, please provide those.  Otherwise, these add-ons to this portion are thinly veiled accusations against the subject and are inappropriate for inclusion in this WP:BLP.  We are reporting--not indicting and trying her--so let's just stick to the known facts. Fcreid (talk) 10:09, 12 December 2008 (UTC)


 * This material still does not belong in this bio. Maybe we should recruit some of the folks who are working on the Obama bio to try to help here. They seem to be very good at keeping the muckracking smear out of his bio. Maybe they could do the same here? --Tom 15:54, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
 * My only reservation in removing it is that some editors (and I believe justifiably) indicated that if Palin were not aware of Fannon's activities, which the evidence indicates to be the case, then that in itself is notable, i.e. that she probably should have been aware of what he was up to. One could make the argument that the infrequency of the activity coupled with the associated noise level might be justification for that lack of awareness.  In other words, it would make sense that the mayor may not have asked, how did you bill for the evidence collection kit and associated hospital examination amidst the turmoil of the rare Wasilla rape incident.  Certainly, the fact that no one in her administration recollects the issue arising lends credence to that.  However, just as would be so with the opposite, that should be for the reader to conclude and not for WP to lead him to concluding. Fcreid (talk) 16:11, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
 * She didn't know about this non issue is notable? According to who? The single purpose muchrackers in here? The talking heads? How long would this nonsense last over at the Obama article? About a nano second as it should. Maybe we should just spin this off into its own article, that would be be awesome. --Tom 16:17, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Tom, your commentary is almost uniformly unproductive. One reason is that you demonize everyone and everything who doesn't agree with you ... editors who think this should be included are "single-purpose agenda pushers" or "muckrakers"... news sources or opinion columnists are "talking heads" or "tabloids". Those are fighting words, not discussion. And just because there are NPOV problems over at the Obama article doesn't give you a blank check to re-create those same problems here. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 16:36, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, the Obama article is pretty good because their are enough NPOV editors to combat single purpose adgenda pushers, which is not the case here. Anyways, --Tom 18:21, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Imagine, then, how the Obama article would take a turn for the worse if it were inundated by PR-minded campaign volunteers and spinmeisters, as this one is. There, I can engage in unconstructive name-calling too! Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 18:58, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
 * It wouldn't take a turn for the worse because there are enough NPOV editors there, unlike here. Anyways, --Tom 19:32, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
 * At least we agree that there are editors here who have serious problems with the concept of NPOV. Best, Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 20:48, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
 * You raise a valid point on whether the incident, in and of itself, is significant enough to warrant inclusion in a biographical article, and I'm just not the right person to argue the dissenting opinion. Again, my only criteria are that if we include it, we limit its scope to those facts relevant to Palin only, and not Stambaugh, Fannon or any other players in the matter, and that we also include the reliably-sourced results of the SPT investigation that concluded no evidence indicated she either supported or opposed the practice. Fcreid (talk) 16:34, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
 * As an uninvolved editor in this long, long discussion, I think Fcreid makes a fair point. I'll put it another way: Was this controversy influential on the perception of Palin?  Was it widely reported about her?  If we can say yes to those two items, then this topic can warrant inclusion.  And we don't have to force a conclusion whether she knew, or didn't know about the rape kits.  And I like the idea of limiting the scope to Palin, since it's her bio after all.  If we keep it tight, and avoid material that's unnecessarily harsh (per WP:BLP), that would work for me.Bruno23 (talk) 17:10, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
 * But if we ask those two questions about other "controversies", like Obama being a Muslim, Obama not having a birth certificate, and other crazy stuff, the answers would still be yes. I think there needs to be substantial nexus between the controversy and the subject, and that needs to be backed by reliable sources.  Here, because there is no evidence that Palin knew about this, the nexus doesn't exist.  However, as I have said above, while I oppose any inclusion of the rape kit materials, I was a party to the accepted compromise with the brief explanation similar to the one I posted above and I will not welch on that deal.LedRush (talk) 17:37, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I haven't been following those issues very closely, but I don't think any of them were represented in the news media as reputable sources making a serious claim.. unlike the situation with the rape kits. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 18:56, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
 * My purpose wasn't to say we should include the conspiracy threories, but only to talk about bruno's test questions. And the birth certificate one actually did make all the major media outlets and remained a story for a week, though probably because of the fascination with Obama and not because of the merits of the claim (which were virtually always mocked).LedRush (talk) 19:11, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I suppose my tests left a hole big enough to drive a truck through ;) This of course is all subjective on what's notable in a biography and what sticks.  I don't know if absolute proof of her knowledge is the acid test for inclusion.  It's factor, no doubt.  My opinion, based on what I've seen on this talk page and elsewhere, is that questions around the rape kits are somewhat more substantive than whether a fringe group contested Obama's citizenship (especially since it went nowhere in court).  And I think finding "Nexus" is the right idea. So if we have reliable sources that say something along the line of "she knew or should have known", PLUS RS that indicate this controversy had some impact on her campaign, PLUS it having relevance to a part of her biographical record, it could warrant inclusion in my opinion (which admittedly is one among many).Bruno23 (talk) 18:15, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I think the revised criteria is correct. I would say that the first question might be a yes (but I don't know), the second is a yes, and the third has been the source of contention around here for months.  I would argue it is clearly not relevent to her biographical record (as several "pro-Obama" Obama page editors have agreed, in addition to the majority of editors on this page).  Because there were a few editors who argued strenuously that it is relevent, we made the compromise that a short entry would be included, largely in the form I pasted above.  As I have stated several times, I am of the opinion that the info doesn't belong, but I will accept the terms of the agreement we reached to resolve this issue.LedRush (talk) 19:11, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Anarchangel said: Your [LedRush] yearning for the good old days of extremely bad behaviour, that attempted to bypass and even subvert WP procedures, and was resoundingly unpopular to boot, is noted.

This statemtn is inaccurate, insulting, and offensive. Please apologize as their is no evidence that I tried to bypass or subvert WP procedures or engaged in bad behavior on this issue.LedRush (talk) 16:33, 12 December 2008 (UTC)


 * The statement was accurate; it had nothing insulting or offensive in it. It is, however, unclear. I should have used a comma after yearning; the bad behaviour "bypassed and subverted WP procedures", not the yearning for it. Whether or not your behaviour itself in this matter is a breach of WP rules is not something I plan on making an issue, only your support for behaviour that was a breach. Anarchangel (talk) 20:57, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Absurd and innaccurate in two places. Can you show where I supported the breach of WP standards, please?LedRush (talk) 21:48, 12 December 2008 (UTC)


 * "So let's delete the whole thing and you guys can try and demonstrate why the rape kit "controversy" even belongs at all in a BLP when such living person has no provable connection to it. If you convince people here and your insertion of language gains acceptance, we'll include it.  Wait, we already did that?  And now people are greatly expanding the section?  Oh yeah..." Anarchangel (talk) 22:03, 12 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, thank you for agreeing with me that I act in defense of WP. You wrote about FCried: "Holding inclusion of the three sentences for a ransom that isn't supported by any facts, and never will be, as by definition, 'no evidence' can never be supported by facts. Wiki editors bear the burden of proof."  Your statement was simply not true (of course you can prove a negative, and you don't need to to include negative statements...we use RS here).  You did correctly state that wiki editors have the burden of proof.  In my post I suggested you accept that burden and prove that this info should be in there at all.  Of course you can't as no one has yet made a convincing argument for that premise.  Yet, we did reach a consensus back in the day, and if we simply go back to that starting point, I think we can all end this flame-fest.LedRush (talk) 23:49, 12 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I’ve trudged through this thickly overgrown discussion. I’ve hacked my way through the myriad thorny accusations and tripped over the fallen branches where from time to time the odd bird still twitters for attention like an indignant child demanding apology from an adult for laughing at something, well, infantile that he did. Just now, retracing my steps for the umpteenth time (yes, get a life), I realized the utility of this sharp observation, left by a considerate pioneer (Factchecker) to help us carve a path through these dark tangles to the bright nirvana of Consensus:


 * “[I]f you wish to believe that Palin didn't know about this issue at the time, never read the newspaper discussion of it, never had Fannon mention it to her, never spoke to a politician or other Alaskan who had heard about it and mentioned it, and had still not heard about it in 2008, including not having heard about or read the latest coverage, and thus this email from the Frontiersman was the first she had ever heard of it... even in that case [...] the actual questions asked were brief and simple [and] she answered neither. [I]t was simply a failure to answer the questions at all.”


 * Not to mention the fact that, as it was an email exchange, she had all the time in the world to come up with an answer. Anarchangel (talk) 22:03, 12 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Collect tried to dull the cutting edge with his considerable, and renowned, bluntifying powers; but such is its integrity that, as Messrs. Factchecker and Anarchangel demonstrated, attempts at bluntification just kinda bounce off.


 * We can argue the question of Mrs. Palin’s knowledge until the cows come home. In fact they can come home, die of old age and become part of the fossil record (created together with everything else last Wednesday, just in time for me to see a dinosaur eat an enormous Chevrolet SUV in the Safeway parking lot) – and we still won’t know what she knew. (I tend to think that as she knows diddlysquat about everything else, chances are that this is no exception. But that's just me.)


 * The fact is that in 2008, when the issue of the rape kit billing was already one of public record, Mrs. Palin was asked two direct questions by an Alaskan newspaper: (1) “During your tenure as Mayor, what was the police department and city’s standard operating procedure in recovering costs of rape kits?” And (2) “Were any sexual assault victims ever charged for this testing while you were mayor?” She didn’t say that the operating procedure was such-and-such or that the number of tests billed was one, ten, none or whatever.  If she did not know the answers, this was a very clear opportunity to say so. Yet that’s not what she said either:  she ducked both questions.


 * (Cue the Ferrylodge Choir performing the Hallelujah Chorus: “Politicians duck questions, duck questions, duck questions all the time! Nothing to see here, move along! And She shall reign for ever and e-e-ver, For ever and ever, forever and e-e-ver!”)


 * The reasonable course is to mention both questions, with wording along the lines of: “In 2008 she was asked about the operating procedure and the number of assault victims billed”, and to add that she did not to answer, e.g.: “Her reply did not answer either question.”


 * Bald statements of fact, totally V, NPOV and DUE WEIGHT, presented in an appropriately encyclopedic form of words. — Writegeist (talk) 21:24, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
 * What a load of horse hockey. Do you get off writing this garbage? There is nothing reasonable in your ramblings. --Tom 21:29, 12 December 2008 (UTC)


 * He obviously does enjoy his work, yes. Obviously you gain no satisfaction from it, and you would be quite free to tell us all about your pain if this were a forum. As it is not, I suggest you 'maintain'. Anarchangel (talk) 22:03, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Sounds like HEMINGWAY to me.....Stanley Hemingway that is. But the Readers Digest version of his epic is that she was asked 2 questions and she declined to answer. Simple really!--Buster7 (talk) 22:16, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I thought it might bore Collect into staying away. (Working well so far.) I can do brevity, but usually only when someone's paying me for it.


 * Threeafterthree: generous contributions would ease your pain. I'm desperately sorry to have upset you, by the way. Oh, and sorry I forgot to add WP:HORSEHOCKEY to V, NPOV and DUE WEIGHT :~).


 * Well chaps and/or chapesses, what do you think of my suggestion (for the article)? — Writegeist (talk) 23:07, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
 * In 2008 she was asked about the operating procedure and the number of assault victims billed. Her reply did not answer either. Concise and precise...--Buster7 (talk) 23:20, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Totally an opinion. She may feel she answered the questions appropriately. Fcreid (talk) 23:39, 12 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Gawd, I do hope your reply is not the first in a filibustering series that will be employed to suppress information that qualifies for inclusion.


 * Mrs. Palin's feelings about her answer are irrelevant; and anyway they do not trump the fact that she did not answer the question.


 * If you asked Mrs. Palin on a wet Wednesday, "Can you see Russia from your doorstep?" and she replied, "Russia is a horrible country that rears Putin's ugly head on the border of this here state of Alaska that I be chief executive of, and it's the first place they rear his head on a wet Wednesday so we send them you betcha", you might say that she felt she gave an appropriate answer. Indeed it was a response to the question.  But did it answer the question? No. An accurate record of the exchange would be: "When asked if she could see Russia from her doorstep, her reply did not answer the question."


 * However, if you prefer a verbatim quote of her long-winded response instead, that’s fine by me. I was just trying to keep it, um, brief. Or would you prefer the following compromise, which concedes the inclusion of reference to her irrelevant feelings? "Although she may have felt that she gave an appropriate answer, her reply did not answer the question."
 * Ugh... when did we get into the Op-Ed business. It's bad enough that we have to endure notable opinion from RS, but now we want leeway to form and publish our own opinions in this bio? Fcreid (talk) 10:28, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Let's assume that we take your interpretation of her answers. (I don't, but let's play pretend for a moment). Why would we include a non-answer in a BLP? Why would we include a statement about someone not directly answering a question to some small matter in a small town? How would this be relevent to a biography of a person of her stature unless we are assuming that she knew about it and is covering it up? Because that is an assumption we cannot make in a BLP, the info is not notable and cannot be included.LedRush (talk) 03:18, 13 December 2008 (UTC)


 * If the questions she didn't answer are not included, then we should also not include her scathing reply in which she appears to accuse the person asking the question of deliberately distorting the truth. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 15:12, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Generally you don't include the previous question to a quote, just the quote. However, while you are wrong on the merits, I am more than willing to concede the point to you because we should just be using the passage we all agreed upon before anyway.LedRush (talk) 18:02, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Wrong. Typically a quote in response to a question would be preceded, either by the question itself, or a paraphrase of it, such as "When asked what the policy on funding rape kits had been while she was mayor, Palin responded..." Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 16:17, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
 * You just exemplified everything wrong with wikipedia: you argued a conceded point rudely. Good job.  Oh, and you're still wrong about it, too.  Read any newspaper and you'll see that most quotes aren't thusly added (though you are right that some are).  But of course, I am still willing to concede the point as we should not include either the questions or the reply, just the agreed upon language.LedRush (talk) 17:11, 14 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Wrong again. I can see you share Collect's failure to grasp basic logic. That is what is wrong with Wikipedia. You didn't concede any point. You used the word "concede" but you simultaneously argued you were right. "Conceding" involves admitting that your opponent might be right about something, and that you might be wrong, and that you grant that your opponent's point is correct, or might be correct, and stop arguing about it. Thus anything equivalent to "I concede you this point but I'm right anyway" is not actually a concession, just the same as "I'm sorry for what I did but I was right and you deserved it" is not an apology. It's just stating an unwillingness to continue arguing, without conceding anything, but meanwhile also continuing the argument by trying to get the last word. Anyway, I've been fine all along with the original consensus wording, and I have stated that repeatedly. And examining a few newspapers has shown me no evidence that there is some general rule that you omit the question but include the quoted response, nor any clear indication of why such a convention among newspapers would be appropriate for an "encyclopedia". The Frontiersman article, itself, includes the entire unedited question and entire unedited response. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 18:11, 14 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I think you are making a habit of being both as wrong and as rude as possible. I conceded the point.  First, I argued why your point is wrong (which is pretty clear, and I can't believe you're arguing this losing point).  But then I say that it doesn't matter and concede it anyway.  (By concede, meaning I will yield to you.  I will say, even though you're ignorant on the issue, I will pretend you're not and make my argument from that starting point.)  You say that if we include the answers we need the questions.  That's fine, because I don't want either.  I've conceded your ridiculous point and argued as if it were correct.


 * If we are both ok with the old consensus language, as I've been stating I have for days now, why are you even arguing anything? Why are you rudely arguing the definition of consensus?  Why are you making personal attacks left and right?  Why are you diverting the conversation from the issues at every opportunity?  Let's just stick the old consensus language in there and be done with this silliness.LedRush (talk) 20:11, 14 December 2008 (UTC)


 * You're not alone in feeling that way about other editors. But when in Rome... OK -- I'll concede the point about quotations, but you're wrong about it. Does that make sense to you? And since you've conceded my point will you drop your objection to including the questions if the answers are included? I'll point out the silliness of your entire second paragraph by saying, If you are ok with the old consensus language, why are you even arguing anything? Shouldn't you be absolutely silent and not comment on related issues or discussions? Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 00:20, 15 December 2008 (UTC)


 * No, I will not drop my objections to included the questions and answers. I have made my position clear: either the old consensus language (basically in the form I've added above) or delete the whole the section as not-notable and against wikipedia policies on a BLP.LedRush (talk) 00:54, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Then I suppose I should stick to my position that if Palin's answer is included, the questions should be included as well. By the way, the section is notable and is well in line with Wikipedia BLP policies. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 19:03, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Concerning "Generally you don't include the previous question to a quote, just the quote." et al: Articles are not required to be written like other articles, they are required to be written following WP rules. Therefore, the common form of inserting quotes is not relevant, only rules governing inserting quotes. There are no prohibitions of questions preceding answers in MOS:QUOTE; the subject is not mentioned. Anarchangel (talk) 02:57, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
 * And no requirement, as has been implied. So, as the only other editor who wants to include this info, would you agree to the old consensus language that Factchecker and Fcried have agreed to?LedRush (talk) 04:08, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
 * LedRush....You lost count somewhere along the line....Maybe there are more editors present than you are aware of...Why don't you repeat the old consensus language that Factchecker and Fcried have agreed to so that we are all in agreement as to what our consensus has determined to be the acceptable version. --Buster7 (talk) 05:15, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I like your first idea better. "In 2008 she was asked about the operating procedure and the number of assault victims billed. Her reply did not answer either.'' Concise and precise..." - Buster 7. On the other hand, the question and reply potentially says the same thing, if one is so inclined, without forcing that opinion. Anarchangel (talk) 07:18, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Upon rereading Buster 7's edit, it seems he was calling for you to back your assertions, not for inclusion of the old material. I think quotation marks around the word 'consensus' is called for on this page, though. Anarchangel (talk) 21:49, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Consensus for Rape Kit Wording

 * As stated above: Palin appointed[1] Charles Fannon to replace Stambaugh as police chief. Fannon later opposed a state law preventing police departments from billing rape victims or their health insurance for evidence collection kits.[2] Fannon said that the Wasilla police had sometimes billed victims' health insurance in the past; Stambaugh said that under his tenure the city had paid.[3] An investigation by the St. Petersburg Times found no evidence that Palin had explicitly supported or opposed the policy.[4]LedRush (talk) 05:54, 15 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Concur. The portion about "Stambaugh didn't, but Fannon did" snuck in at some point, and I don't see its relevance to a Palin bio, but I'd agree to what's been retrieved above in order to put this to rest for the holidays! :) Fcreid (talk) 12:16, 15 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Agree I don't believe the material belongs at all in a BLP as there is no evidence that this issue has a substantial enough nexus to Palin to merit inclusion in a BLP, however, I am willing to put up with the old consensus language to end this discussion and focus on actual editing.LedRush (talk) 13:45, 15 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Agree. Manticore55 (talk) 18:20, 15 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Agree. - This deserves mention. I'm in between on this one, in that the one who makes hiring, firing and budget decisions is definitely responsible to that extent, and this has nothing at all to do with speculation (probably false) that she was pro-rape, or anything like that.Jimmuldrow (talk) 04:04, 16 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Agree to mention; not sure of wording - There's been enough discussion of this in the national press to give readers the full facts surrounding this, with both sides presented. While I recognize that goal as the goal of the "consensus" version, the actual writing seems a bit convoluted to me hard to follow for a non-preinformed reader. Perhaps it could be written more clearly. But I can't do it because I don't claim to know the detailed facts on this one. I'm curious to know what knowledgeable proponents of including the issue such as Factchecker think of the language and whether he/she has an alternative to propose. I would like to get to an agreement though.  This issue has been around a long time and it would be very nice to end the obvious and unfortunate friction between editors on the issue.GreekParadise (talk) 05:20, 16 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Do not include - This "material" still does not belong in this bio. Add it to the Fannon bio or keep it in the Palin subarticles about her mayorship or campaighn ect. --Tom 17:29, 17 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Another of ThreeAfterThree's "volumes under multiple sections" about a completely non-existent Fannon page.Jimmuldrow (talk) 04:21, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't think that was the point.LedRush (talk) 05:14, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
 * No need to feed the troll.--Tom 14:06, 19 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Agree...This issue has surfaced 1/2 dozen times. It is time to put it to bed. --Buster7 (talk) 21:41, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Obviously not. Restoring Palin quote and question that prompted it. Present assertions against this previous wording with logical reasons, preferably cited. The cat's back, playtime's over. Anarchangel (talk) 09:37, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

No solid reasons for your reversion. Sorry to point this out. Collect (talk) 12:47, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Anarchangel, you're being kind of obtuse on this, and I will revert once more after I post this until you convince us it should be in there. The majority of editors feel that the mention of this should be within the agreed upon scope defined in our earlier consensus on the topic (before you ever arrived to edit here, I believe). The only reason you want a lengthy diatribe of this question and answer is because you hope to lead a reader to conclude that Palin was aware of or even involved in Fannon's practice because she didn't answer the questions to your satisfaction. That is tantamount to WP:OR and is disingenuous editing. Unless you can provide actual evidence she was involved in the matter, anything beyond the concise wording above constitutes WP:UNDUE weight on the matter. As far as the question/answer itself, you're equally wrong on your interpretation. Again, you assume the answer reflects some attempt on her part to hide involvement. In fact, her response to this series of "when did you stop beating your wife" style questions is absolutely appropriate. Would you have her respond with, "Yeah, that was Charlie Fannon's doing" or "Yeah, I was an oblivious mayor for not knowing about this"? Her answer was the only feasible one, i.e. any suggestion that she advocated charging rape victims is preposterous, and her record reflects that. Fcreid (talk) 21:41, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Agree with Fcreid (and Collect) above. Kelly  hi! 21:44, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

The majority of students receive C's in school. Please show where they actually got the answers right and it is all a conspiracy. I showed that the SPT material was deficient, the Palin quote was straight from the source, and the questions were the most revealing detail of the entire affair. You have never shown that the material shouldn't be included. Quite obviously this could go on forever, and quite obviously, it should have ended with my insertion of the material. Might does not make right. Anarchangel (talk) 21:49, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
 * So, you showed where the Saint Petersburg Times investigation that found no evidence she supported or opposed Fannon's practice was deficient, eh? Was that because they didn't come up with the smear you want?  Do you have a reliable source that contradicts their findings, i.e. that states Palin did support or oppose the policy, or is it just your gut feeling?  Give it a rest, will you Anarchangel? Fcreid (talk) 22:56, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Only twice I think, once if you don't count the 'Truth-o-meter', which only discredits them as a source of useful conclusions, it doesn't discredit the content of their stories. In fact, every source fails as a source of conclusions, that's the problem. SPT is an editorial dressed up as a news story that also wants to add Zing!, by shouting Top 10 Biggest Flaming Lies From the Fact Source!!!! in all capital letters. Best bet for me giving it a rest; you first. I am not interested in messing with you, F, although I believe you think so. But the point of this all is to respond to another's assertions. You want to get the last word, but you never will. It's my job not to let you, if you see what I mean. I really don't think you want to hear the other. Anyway, you're right in one sense: we will never agree on this. You will always think SPT is good journalism, and I will delete all citations of the SPT while there is a reasonable alternative. And there always will be, because they never report on anything that hasn't been covered elsewhere. I won't hesitate to insert material unfavorable to Sarah Palin into the article. Nor should you. Other than that, my personal agenda is none of your business, personally, as I find I must say for the second time, and also for the second time, it is most certainly not the business of a Wiki editor. My material, and my assertions in discussion, are theoretically capable of being biased, but you have never shown that they are and you never will. I am scrupulous in that regard. Anarchangel (talk) 18:08, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Collect wrote "No solid reasons for your reversion..." Fcreid wrote, "... and I will revert once more..." I didn't revert. I mistook your continued opposition as a sign that you had, and didn't check the History first. You are characterizing this as me making multiple reverts, yet in fact there has been only one: your revert of my version. Fcreid: "The only reason you want a lengthy diatribe of this question and answer is because you hope to lead a reader to conclude that Palin was aware of or even involved in Fannon's practice because she didn't answer the questions to your satisfaction. That is tantamount to WP:OR and is disingenuous editing." My reasons for inclusion are quite separate from the included material, and I can make as many observations or assumptions about the material as I feel furthers the course of discussion on it; that is not OR, it is contributing to the discussion. I took great care to preface the material in a non-PoV way, and would never include my views on the reason she did not answer, in the article, as you can see above, in my reply to Buster 7, more than a day before your edit. "her response to this series of "when did you stop beating your wife" style questions is absolutely appropriate...Would you have her respond with, "Yeah, that was Charlie Fannon's doing" or "Yeah, I was an oblivious mayor for not knowing about this"?" You misrepresent the questions as misrepresenting the issue. You've limited my choice of responses for her, particularly with the "oblivious mayor" answer, but basically, yes. Why would she not answer? Kelly wrote, with a depth and relevance I find is best described as 'fatuous': "Agree with Fcreid (and Collect) above" Kelly, for what reasons and in what way do you agree? Do you have anything to add to the discussion? Anarchangel (talk) 00:19, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Again, the old cycle of Revert, add assertions bereft of supporting facts, ignore response and go on vacation. Anarchangel (talk) 21:49, 21 December 2008 (UTC) What part of this is unclear? No one made any answer to my question. They revert, they come here and blither, I answer anyway, but they have already left. What do they imagine is going to happen? I'm going to wait around for them to change their mind? Accept that a bad argument plus more deletors equals having it your way? Lots have. Lots of good editors have been worn down by this. I won't be, ever. Get over thinking that. There is no consensus for not including it, as there are no assertions for not including it that haven't been at least challenged without the challenge being answered, if not refuted. Anarchangel (talk) 18:08, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

I give up. We clearly have an editor here who has no intention of ever editing in good faith or cooperating in the discussion process. Some admin needs to deal with this. Fcreid (talk) 01:32, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Fcreid, you deserve alot of credit for your patience up to now, but at some point, please stop feeding the trolls and realize that trolls do live here. Sad but true. Just like militant fanaticals, nothing but them getting their way will slow them down. The trolls are not here to reach consensus but push their agenda. At some point, enough is enough. --Tom 14:43, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Fcreid, I have mostly kept out of this latest phase of discussion, partly because of exhaustion from previous rounds, but partly because I'd like to move past this issue. However, I'd like to say that however intense your disagreement with Anarchangel, it's uncalled for to make accusations of bad faith. Those of us who have been here awhile are all inevitably going to think such thoughts about someone or other from this article, but the bottom line is we have to keep such thoughts to ourselves and AGF. So let's all try to tone down the finger-pointing and name-calling, ok? We have some dramatically opposing points of view here, so civility is, shall we say, a thin sheet of ice that is very easily broken, and with unpleasant results. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 15:40, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I sincerely have tried, Factchecker, both here and elsewhere (e.g. on user talk). And, yes, I'm frustrated... I don't know how else to deal with an editor who would barge back in after a few days hiatus (an apparent computer outage) with comments like "the cat is back so the mice must stop playing" and such.  Then later, in the midst of dialog, take the entire Palin article into a sandbox and essentially rewrite any portion that doesn't suit the editor's fancy is impossible to digest.  Finally, Anarchangel's attempts to reject wholesale the findings of the Saint Petersburg Times (calling it right-wing or some nonsense) and to introduce content from a self-stated liberal blog (Huffington Post) to replace it goes beyond the ludicrous.  I think I understand the desired processes here, but it's very difficult to work within those guidelines when editors operate entirely unilaterally. Fcreid (talk) 16:17, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I completely fail to understand your frustration. I told you that I was going away, so you quickly prepare a little 'Consensus' party and try and slide a massive delete in. There is one possibility, of course, that you are angry that you got caught, and you don't like it when people say bad things about SPT.

Perhaps HuffPo does bad stories, but I haven't seen one yet. The one I quoted sure isn't. The HuffPo article is indispensable because it prints facts that no one else included, well documented, with links from the article to material to cite it. Where do you get that? Only Wikipedia and HP. The SPT printed its favorite selection of facts that everyone else had already printed. Anarchangel (talk) 18:08, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I completely understand your frustration, but just realize that he is frustrated with the actions of other editors as well. And so am I. Yet we must agree to disagree rather than just letting the fists fly. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 16:25, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Own comment removed Anarchangel (talk) 08:14, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Yet it is proper for you to make accusations of bad faith? Seems to me ... Collect (talk) 15:50, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Own comment removed Anarchangel (talk) 08:14, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Did I make such an accusation in my above comment? And on that note, given that you've been liberally indulging in insults, unmasked sarcasm, and open accusations of bad faith for almost four months now, what exactly is your point? Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 16:18, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

I suspect the reality is that admins can be as biased as you are, but it's nice to think you might get a reality check. Either way, win or lose, my argument stands on the letter of record. It's all there in the archives, to say nothing of this section. Nothing in my edit is entirely new; it has all been in the article and then out again at some point. For example, the Huffington Post article: I was pretty green when Ferrylodge pretended that HP wasn't a reliable source, so there I go off looking in vain for info on that, instead of telling him what he could do with his misinformation and stopping the insert fluff/revert substance madness. This is just, all the chickens coming home to roost. By the way, I should thank you for stopping me from making a serious error on the Stambaugh guns thing; we were all reading the amendment wrongly. So that's why that's not in. And there is still the hospital story. I was hoping for more on that, but I still have more than you've seen; I have the original Alaska Supreme Court case, and it shows how Palin's pals padded the hospital board, paying $5 to get onto the hospital board, then electing their choice to be on the next board, which then elected, surprise surprise, Palin to be on the top board, which is how she stopped abortions there. They bought policy, and the Supreme Court slapped it down, again no surprise. It's all here Palin being on the board is in the USA Today printing of the AP 'As governor, Palin at times bonds church and state' article : "In that same period, she also joined a grass-roots, faith-based movement to stop the local hospital from performing abortions, a fight that ultimately lost before the Alaska Supreme Court...Records show she was elected to the nonprofit's board in 2000." "'VHA is a membership organization. Any adult may become a VHA member upon paying a five dollar application fee. Members who are residents of the Mat-Su Borough, denominated &amp;quot;general members,&amp;quot; annually elect the Association Board. Abortion has been permitted in Alaska since 1970, when the state legislature passed the current abortion law. [Fn. 1] VHA permitted lawful abortion procedures at its facility from 1970 until 1992. [Fn. 2] In 1992 abortion opponents organized a campaign to enlarge the membership of VHA. In April 1992 a larger- than-usual membership elected the Association Board, which then elected the Operating Board. In September 1992 the Operating Board enacted a new policy on abortion. The policy prohibits abortions at the hospital unless (1) there is documentation by one or more physicians that the fetus has a condition that is incompatible with life; (2) the mother's life is threatened; or (3) the pregnancy is a result of rape or incest. All VHA Operating Board members supported this new policy. The Mat-Su Coalition for Choice, Dr. Susan Lemagie, and ten unnamed women (Coalition) filed suit against VHA and its executive director, seeking declaratory and injunctive relief.' Etc. Merry Christmas. Anarchangel (talk) 03:37, 22 December 2008 (UTC)"

Shelving the material immediately above for a bit until at least a couple of the Proposed Changes below are dealt with. If anyone has any comments, feel free, but since there hasn't been a reply for two days, I won't be holding my breath or checking this section every hour. Might be a good idea not to archive this section; the material above the Church and State material is directly related to a few of the Proposed changes. Anarchangel (talk) 09:58, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

From the Archives
Consensus has been a bone of contention througout this article since late August 2008.(Was there a Consensus to Fully protect just after Palin was announced?) I tried to find a thoughtful and educational contribution by SlRubenstein...so far unsuccessful. But this caught my eye...[]..not the one I'm searching for, but good advice.--Buster7 (talk) 07:45, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Undoubtedly consensus can and will change with time, Buster, and that process has been demonstrated even here during the past several months. However, on the rape kit matter in this topic, the substantive facts (and reports from reliable sources on those facts) has not changed in any way that would impact our prior consensus.  What we have is an editor with a preconceived notion that Palin was aware of (or even involved in) her police chief's practice of billing insurers for examination kits and is intent on painting a picture in the article that leads readers to that conclusion.  However, until further evidence arises or reliable sources report this differently (the proverbial smoking gun), it is not our job to hold trial here on WP.  We stick with the facts, and we don't selectively omit those that don't make our case. Fcreid (talk) 01:21, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Classy, F. Don't drag Buster's thread into this. Did you even read the quote from SlR? Anarchangel (talk) 03:37, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, I particularly enjoyed the part about consensus being momentum towards compromise. Did you read it? Fcreid (talk) 10:52, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

editing rights
okay the elections are over young trigg(shara palin and/or her husband) have retired from wikipedia can we edit this page now or ca  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.222.117.236 (talk) 12:50, 14 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Probably inappropriate (and inaccurate) to make insinuation towards the topic of this WP:BLP, but on your question I thought anyone with an account had editing rights in the semi-protect status. I don't see this article going to fully unprotected in the near-term.  Too much vandalism. Fcreid (talk) 14:44, 14 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Aw, c'mon, let's allow unrestricted editing by IPs. What's the worst that could happen!? Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 18:15, 14 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Noticed a bit of edits from IP on the main article the past couple days, but it still indicates a semi-protected status... I thought that precluded IP editing. :-\ Fcreid (talk) 17:22, 17 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Something has happened to the page protection - just log out and you will see that it is no longer semi-protected even though the lock icon is still in the article. Can someone please reprotect this article? It is already getting out of hand. WTucker (talk) 19:12, 17 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I've renewed semi-protection for a month, based on the rate of IP vandalism.--agr (talk) 19:36, 17 December 2008 (UTC)


 * As a general point of information, aside from protecting the article, are these scurrilous editors immediately banned from Wikipedia? Is there a "3 strikes-'yer out" policy? Just curious. (After posting this I see that Bryan Asian etc. has been banned indefinetly)--Buster7 (talk) 22:26, 17 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia's approach to vandalism is to first encourage vandals to become legit contributors, so the process is gradual with warnings that escalate. See Vandalism.--agr (talk) 04:02, 18 December 2008 (UTC)


 * There is no inherent right of a vandal to vandalize three or four times before getting blocked after a long series of graduated warnings. Sometimes an "only warning" is posted after the first vandalism, if it is egregious defamation of a living person, or otherwise clearly damaging to Wikipedia. Many vandals are blocked after fewer than 3 or 4 graduated warnings. Some vandals are quite experienced and know all the angles. Edison (talk) 17:08, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

editing rights
okay the elections are over young trigg(shara palin and/or her husband) have retired from wikipedia can we edit this page now or ca —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.222.117.236 (talk) 12:50, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Probably inappropriate (and inaccurate) to make insinuation towards the topic of this WP:BLP, but on your question I thought anyone with an account had editing rights in the semi-protect status. I don't see this article going to fully unprotected in the near-term. Too much vandalism. Fcreid (talk) 14:44, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Aw, c'mon, let's allow unrestricted editing by IPs. What's the worst that could happen!? Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 18:15, 14 December 2008 (UTC) Noticed a bit of edits from IP on the main article the past couple days, but it still indicates a semi-protected status... I thought that precluded IP editing. :-\ Fcreid (talk) 17:22, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Something has happened to the page protection - just log out and you will see that it is no longer semi-protected even though the lock icon is still in the article. Can someone please reprotect this article? It is already getting out of hand. WTucker (talk) 19:12, 17 December 2008 (UTC) I've renewed semi-protection for a month, based on the rate of IP vandalism.--agr (talk) 19:36, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

As a general point of information, aside from protecting the article, are these scurrilous editors immediately banned from Wikipedia? Is there a "3 strikes-'yer out" policy? Just curious. (After posting this I see that Bryan Asian etc. has been banned indefinetly)--Buster7 (talk) 22:26, 17 December 2008 (UTC) Wikipedia's approach to vandalism is to first encourage vandals to become legit contributors, so the process is gradual with warnings that escalate. See Wikipedia:Vandalism.--agr (talk) 04:02, 18 December 2008 (UTC) There is no inherent right of a vandal to vandalize three or four times before getting blocked after a long series of graduated warnings. Sometimes an "only warning" is posted after the first vandalism, if it is egregious defamation of a living person, or otherwise clearly damaging to Wikipedia. Many vandals are blocked after fewer than 3 or 4 graduated warnings. Some vandals are quite experienced and know all the angles. Edison (talk) 17:08, 19 December 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Youngtrigg(not sharapalin) (talk • contribs)

Banned book request records at Wasilla Library
Currently the article reads: "City of Wasilla Library records indicate that there was never a request for the library to remove the book and that no books were ever censored or banned."

However, this is misleading. The records don't "show that there was never a request," they simply "fail to show that a request was made."

There is a difference between records showing that something didn't happen and records failing to show that something did happen. The rhetoric of the former is very misleading and in fact is inaccurate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Trooper9951 (talk • contribs) 13:44, 22 December 2008 (UTC)


 * You are correct that the language omitted possibilities. Shame about the 'fail' part, but I tried for 5 minutes to come up with something better, including the now-thankfully-historic "records show no record" :o). It seems that someone has taken it on themselves to omit the passage entirely. This is not a good option in my opinion. Anarchangel (talk) 18:08, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

The official records are stated to be complete. They list all requests. They even list the names of the books involved. The book in question (Daddy's Roommate) is not on any such list. Ergo, there is a positive statement that this book was not requested to be removed or banned. This was, in fact, discussed at length in the past. As is the fact that no books were removed or banned at all. The statement in the article is therefore precisely accurate. Thanks! Collect (talk) 13:53, 22 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Trooper is aboslutely correct in saying the wording of the article is misleading. In fact, it seems as though it is carefully crafted to persuade the reader that Palin was never even interested in censoring or removing any books. The article currently uses very selective interpretation of sources to highlight the fact that Stein and Chase have been political opponents of Palin, while conveniently omitting most of the actual circumstances of the request, as well as the fact that the librarian was fired after telling Palin she would not cooperate with any attempts to censor or remove any books:


 * "Back in 1996, when she first became mayor, Sarah Palin asked the city librarian if she would be all right with censoring library books should she be asked to do so. According to news coverage at the time, the librarian said she would definitely not be all right with it. A few months later, the librarian, Mary Ellen Emmons, got a letter from Palin telling her she was going to be fired." Alaska Daily News. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 16:09, 22 December 2008 (UTC)


 * You're making a cause and effect conclusion that is not supported by the reliably-sourced evidence. Emmons' notice of termination came months after the book incident and coincided with Stambaugh's letter of termination.  Palin explained both, in context, as being due to her sense that these persons didn't support her.  It is entirely unsupported to suggest Emmons' termination had anything whatsoever to do with the book incident. In the scheme of things, that was insignificant compared to the budget and reorganization matters on which they clashed.  In addition, you've left out contemporaneous pieces where Palin herself said she was asking about the books only in the hypothetical, i.e. to understand the library's policy.  Finally, Stein's own statements that the book appropriateness was driven primarily by Palin's constituents is significant. Also, just to clarify, I think we're commingling two different events.  The Daddy's Roommate thing occurred during Palin's tenure on the City Council, and the Emmons issue occurred during her mayoralty.  There was never a mention of specific books during the latter, and Stein's comments pertain to this event.  Fcreid (talk) 16:51, 22 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Mentioning that the librarian expressed a lack of cooperation with a suggestion by the mayor and then was fired by the mayor, and suggesting a possible connection between the lack of cooperation and the suggestion itself, is not the same as making a factual assertion that the librarian was fired because, and only because, she wouldn't cooperate on that specific issue.


 * McClatchy newspapers takes a similar tack as Alaska Daily News... it suggests, but does not assert, a causal relationship:


 * "The censorship issue was not mentioned as a reason for the firing. The letter just said the new mayor felt Emmons didn't fully support her and had to go."


 * Saying that the firing was not related to the suggested lack of cooperation with possible censorship is unsupported by any source I've seen. The appropriate approach, I think, is to mention the firing without asserting that it was related to the pressure which had preceded it. Otherwise you're making an OR conclusion that the firing and the pressure were not related and using it to counter a reliable source. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 17:03, 22 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Concur, and I wasn't suggesting that Emmons' response to that request wasn't symptomatic of overall problems between the two, but rather that any enumeration of events that might have precipitated the termination should include the aggregate of events documented in reliable sources, e.g. the budgetary issues, disagreement on consolidation of facilities, support for her defeated rival, etc. Again, as with the Stambaugh firing, highlighting a singular cause among many creates an erroneous implication that cause was largely at the root.  In addition, the points that Stein made are significant, including (inter alia) that the Mat-Su Valley was turning into a "Bible Belt" (I believe his words), and that Palin was elected (defeated him) because people felt she represented their concerns better than Stein.  This is significant in the context of the book incident, as it's quite plausible (in fact, most logical) that Palin was petitioned by her constituents to investigate this library policy in execution of her mayoral duties (as Stein also suggests) rather than implying it was some unilateral crusade by Palin to rid the library shelves of controversial material. Fcreid (talk) 17:39, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
 * But, Fcreid, using that same logic wouldn't you have to conclude that, by repeatedly mentioning that Stein was Palin's political opponent, and going out of the way to mention that Chase had a falling out with Palin, the article improperly implies that their criticism of Palin was made solely because of these things? Goose/gander and all that. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 19:40, 22 December 2008 (UTC)


 * All of which means that the objection as stated at the start of this section was incorrect -- and the current language as quoted was correct. Collect (talk) 18:45, 22 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I simply didn't notice that there were two separate "library censorship" incidents. Regardless of that, it's still POV-pushing to state Palin's claims that she had no books in mind for banning, that no books were banned, and that she wouldn't let her religious beliefs dictate her political positions, without also mentioning that she fired the librarian who expressed opposition to removing books. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 19:40, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
 * You would have a point IF and Only If you had a statement that the librarian firing was due to the removal of a book. As the librarian position was tied to the museum director issue (per Wasilla budget reduction), that does not have anything near a Reliable Source at all. In short, it is OR and SYN to claim that the librarian temporary dismissal had anything at all to do with Daddy's Roommate at all.  Collect (talk) 19:44, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
 * You would have a point iff I were trying to use the article to state that the librarian firing was due to refusal to entertain the notion of removing books if asked to do so. It's still POV-pushing to omit the fact that the librarian who opposed the hypothetical censorship requests was fired, while simultaneously making a special effort to mention that Stein was Palin's political opponent and that Chase had a falling out with Palin. It's also definitely not OR or SYN to mention this firing in connection with the censorship inquiries since that is exactly the context in which the actual sources mentioned it. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 19:56, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Let's start with the simple facts: DR was never removed from the library shelves, nor did anyone ask that it be removed (per library records). Right? Now you assert that a librarian who was never asked to remove the book was fired because she did not remove the book (or any book, in fact).  Is this your assertion? The other explanation is that the librarian was specifically opposed to a new Mayor, and her position was in jeopardy in any case due to budgetary considerations (vide the firing of the museum director). Faced with two explanations, you assert that she was specifically fired for not removing books from the shelves. Is that correct?  Collect (talk) 20:03, 22 December 2008 (UTC)


 * No, that would be your wildly distorted and factually confused straw-man version of what I'm saying.


 * Shortly before taking office as mayor, Palin specifically inquired of the librarian on two separate occasions if she would object to censorship. The questions were about as direct and explicit as you could get; e.g.


 * "...on Monday, Oct. 28, Emmons said Palin asked her outright if she could live with censorship of library books." Frontiersman.


 * as well as


 * “This is different than a normal book-selection procedure or a book-challenge policy,” Emmons stressed Saturday. “She was asking me how I would deal with her saying a book can't be in the library.” (Frontiersman)


 * And then shortly thereafter, that librarian was fired for "disloyalty". So what I am asserting, Collect, is that there is the appearance and possibility that the firing was related to the librarian's antagonism on that issue.. just as it's possible that comments from political opponents and critics are motivated by their antagonism with Palin. So if we are making a point of noting when someone making a critical comment is a political opponent of Palin (allowing the reader to infer the possibility that the criticisms themselves are politically motivated), then on the same note, while making a point of reflecting Palin's defense that the questions were just rhetorical and she didn't have any books in mind (allowing the reader to infer the possibility that she really didn't care about the issue and was just asking a random hypothetical question on a random issue), then we should also mention that Palin just happened to fire that same librarian shortly afterwards, only to reinstate her after a public outcry, allowing the reader to infer the possibility that she actually did want to censor books and that her questions which appeared to "test the waters" were intended to do exactly that, and were not random at all. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 21:20, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
 * To interject here, you're both omitting the most significant dimension of this, i.e. that Palin was asked about removing the books by her constituents (stated by Stein). It is a perfectly plausible (in fact, logical) to conclude that Palin was actually doing her job, as mayor, to respond to her constituents' concerns.  It would have been perfectly appropriate for her to ask the town librarian what policies governed such practices before responding definitively to her constituents, thus supporting her statement that those questions were purely rhetorical. My logic here is supported by the reliably-sourced evidence, unlike the other hypothetical scenarios. Fcreid (talk) 21:34, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I meant to acknowledge that Palin surely had some constituents who wanted some books banned. But I don't see how this explains away the firing or otherwise shows that it was unconnected to the librarian's antagonism against Palin on censorship. What was it you were saying about other issues they clashed on? I never saw anything about that. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 22:22, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Personally, I don't think the book thing had anything to do with the firing, other than potentially being symptomatic of an acrimonious relationship with Emmons (who, again, actively campaigned against her candidacy). Remember, Palin cleaned house up there.  Not only did Emmons get the (threatened) axe, but she also fired the police chief (Stambaugh) and three other major city directors (public works and finances included).  Most contemporaneous evidence indicates the city was better for it, but that's a different story.  Anyway, in Emmons case, there were ongoing budgetary disputes (as with everyone who spent money), but I recall the big event was consolidation of services (library and museum among other things) on which Emmons refused to support her project.  One ADN or Frontiersman source makes it clear that Emmons agreement to support that effort was conditional to her remaining employed.  In fact, the article I think reflects this already, or it should.  As a somewhat philosophical aside, this argument highlights why I've consistently objected to these attempts to paint these personnel matters as predicated on ideological differences (religion or homosexual rights in Emmons' case and liberal v. conservative with Stambaugh and the gun bill).  Palin was elected Wasilla mayor on a platform of reform (i.e. change), with a laundry list of goals and projects that she ultimately brought to fruition as mayor.  I don't think it takes a rocket scientist to realize one wouldn't want to be on her enemies list, but by the same token she followed through with her promise for change by dislodging anything and anyone she perceived as an impediment.  All of this attribution to ideology is Campaign 2008 rhetoric.  Hell, in 1996, I suspect the difference between a liberal and conservative was that one didn't bring his handgun to church services! :) Fcreid (talk) 23:35, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

"religious beliefs" is in double quotes in the WP article. In the cited article, from Time, it is a paraphrase. "She asked the library how she could go about banning books" is in quotes in the cited article, but obscured by qualifications and out of quotes on WP. The statement, "Palin stated in 2006 that she would not allow her personal religious beliefs to dictate her political positions" is either a complete fabrication, good faith but OR, or good faith but poorly cited, or some combination thereof. The cite from CNN says only "Her campaign says she doesn't mix her faith with government business". Anarchangel (talk) 18:08, 23 December 2008 (UTC)