Talk:Sarah Palin/Archive 46

World's second-most admired woman
Gallup is showing Palin as the world's second-most admired woman by Americans, behind Hillary Clinton and ahead of Oprah Winfrey. Is this notable enough for inclusion, and, if so, should it go here, in the "Public image and reception" subarticle, or both. Cheers - Kelly  hi! 17:30, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
 * IMO, first place is marginal; second is not worth including. One puppy's opinion. KillerChihuahua?!? 17:54, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
 * You may be right, we seem to have done a fairly good job at avoiding day-to-day polling data in these articles so far. Perhaps worthy to provide some balance somewhere, will take a look around the subarticles again. Kelly  hi! 17:57, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Criticism in "Public Image" section
I noticed that the "public image" section includes basically every self-described Republican that has criticized Palin - even such non-entities as Kathleen Parker, who probably 1% of Americans have never ever heard of. However, the only Republican described as praising her in this section is Bill Kristol, a noted neocon. It's pretty easy to dig up statements from other conservatives who praise her in print - ranging from Rush Limbaugh to Mark Steyn to Fred Thompson to Byron York, and even praise from liberals and feminists - Lynn Forester de Rothschild, Camille Paglia, and Elaine Lafferty come to mind.

How should we handle this - trim back the "conservative" criticism section, beef up the praise section, both, or eliminate both altogether? Kelly hi! 21:30, 26 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Kathleen Parker a "non-entity"? On what planet and in which country? Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 01:12, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Hmmm - I've been a conservative since Reagan's first term, I'm a political junkie, and I never heard of Parker until she criticized Palin. Got a reference for Parker being a significant voice among conservatives and/or Republicans? Kelly  hi! 01:19, 27 December 2008 (UTC)


 * It's common knowledge, so I think it's a little pedantic to demand I provide sources, but I've gotten used to such things around here.


 * Her conservative column has been nationally syndicated for over 13 years and appears in more than 350 newspapers. Archives of it going back 12 years are kept by The National Review, where her column calling for Palin to step down appeared. She received over 11,000 emails from conservatives who were angry that she had "betrayed" them by doing so. She is writer in residence of Bill Buckley's School of Public Speaking (you do know who Bill Buckley is, right?). She joined The Washington Post Writers Group in 2006 and has contributed articles to The Weekly Standard, Time, Town & Country, Cosmopolitan and Fortune Small Business, and she serves on USA Today's Board of Contributors and writes for that newspaper's op-ed page.


 * So do you have a source for her being a "non-entity" ? Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 01:47, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Being a writer for National Review is hardly an impeccable badge of conservatism. Ann Coulter and Michelle Malkin have written there, should we include their opinions of Palin? Also, many other (the majority of) writers at NR praised Palin - should we mention each and every one of them? Kelly  hi! 02:13, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Hey, I was only demonstrating that your reference to Parker as a "non-entity" was outrageously false. It's quite clear that she is a notable conservative columnist and pundit and that it was unnecessary for me to dig up a CV to prove this to you. Anyway though, I've got no direct problem with reflecting praise by Malkin, Coulter, or whomever you like. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 02:34, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
 * "Non-entity" was probably too harsh, but she's no more notable than hundreds of other columnists/pundits/bloggers. Kelly  hi! 03:13, 27 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I am of the opinion that BLP articles should fairly represent the issues. Clearly placing undue weight on criticism does not meet WP official standards, no matter who the BLP is about. In the case of people who ar part of campaigns, I suspect that having zero examples of political rhetoric is fairer than trying to weigh out numbers of views of all types. Collect (talk) 21:35, 26 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Removing all criticism would run directly counter to BLP policy, and it's pretty easy to label any kind of criticism of a political figure as "political rhetoric". Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 01:12, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Should we include all instances of Palin praise, then? Kelly  hi! 01:19, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I didn't say that by any stretch of the imagination. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 01:47, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Then where do we draw the line? That was the original point of my question. Kelly  hi! 02:13, 27 December 2008 (UTC)


 * You use judgment and read the BLP guidelines. You pay attention to whether the primary sources are notable, and how many of them there are, you pay attention to the manner it's presented in the secondary sources, how reliable those sources are, how many different sources cover it, etc. etc. You ask yourself whether the criticism is relevant to the subject's notability. It's not something so mechanical that it can be done by a machine. Wikipedia rules are not like computer programs where everything is spelled out in exhaustive detail. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 02:38, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
 * So should I include all the examples I included in my opening paragraph? Kelly  hi! 02:39, 27 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't see why not, especially if it helps round out the public image section. The section should not contain only criticism. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 02:49, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The problem is that probably every single published pundit in the Anglosphere has written an opinion of Palin. We need to weed things down to the truly significant. For example, Colin Powell's opinion is noteworthy here, I think, but Kathleen Parker and Peggy Noonan are not. Kelly  hi! 03:16, 27 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Dunno, Noonan seems purty notable to me. Anyway though, I'd err on the side of an excess of both criticism and praise, since that allows the reader to do his own signal/noise filtration. Too much selective editing will just give an incomplete picture. The goal of Wikipedia is to present material from reliable sources, without endorsing it. Overall, I don't really think this article is too long. My suggestion would be to just add praise to the public image section, and use your own judgment on how much praise is enough. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 03:28, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Meh, so far as Noonan goes, not really. The same with Frum - they're just ex-speechwriters turned pundits, a dime a dozen in Washington. In regards to the praise/criticism, probably a good model to follow would be Barack Obama, since it's a featured article of a political comtemporary of Palin. That section avoids the "roll-call" style of admirers/critics; I think we should follow that example. Kelly  hi! 03:35, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, I am no administrator, and don't have the time or energy to track or argue against changes you might make. But FWIW I think if you go just go editing that section with an eye for trimming out the criticism, you will be taking the article in a wrong direction. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 03:58, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh, I'm a stickler for WP:NPOV, have no fear. Kelly  hi! 03:59, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Post-election information
Just curious about how we should handle this article going forward, post-election...looking at the discussion above, the Campaign '08 rhetoric seems to be going full swing. However, we've got some new notable information happening since the election, and I'm wondering how we should structure this article as a result. Some of the information undoubtedly belongs in the "Governorship" section and/or subarticle (like the rollout of her comprehensive energy plan for Alaska), but other things are not directly related to her governorship...for instance, Saxby Chambliss credited her as a significant factor in his Senate runoff victory, Human Events named her Conservative of the Year, and she's been invited to speak at the Conservative Political Action Conference. Assuming the info is notable enough for inclusion, where should we place it? Kelly hi! 16:01, 24 December 2008 (UTC)


 * We could create a "Campaign '08 Rhetoric" section and put it there... ;)   Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 17:21, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Kelly, if you can incorporate the Conservative of the Year and CPAC appearance in the article here, I suggest this is the appropriate place. The Chambliss content IMO is more appropriat3ely kept on his article. KillerChihuahua?!? 18:29, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Sounds logical...I guess what I was asking was whether we should create a new section, or maybe restructure the political career sections somewhat. If nobody has any ideas I'll try to be bold and think of something. Thanks. Kelly  hi! 18:31, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I suggest trying to fit it in the Political careers section first; if it seems to be getting unwieldy perhaps we can examine splitting the pre- and post- vp candidate career, or trimming the section. KillerChihuahua?!? 03:44, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

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

'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'. Do Not.
 * Work towards agreement.
 * Do not ignore questions.


 * 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. 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. Additions?

Disputed Talk page addition
Can we please try to use this page for discussing how to improve the article rather than just linking to garbage (see above)? Also the single purpose trolls still seem to be out in force here. Oh well, --Tom 18:01, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Garbage? I'm actually trying to have a serious discussion about how we integrate new developments into the existing structure. Kelly  hi! 18:07, 24 December 2008 (UTC)  Sorry for the misunderstanding, the information referred to was, indeed, garbage. :)  Kelly  hi! 18:13, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I was referring to the "material" that was deleted, not towards you. It was the run of the mill muckracking, see history if interested.--Tom 18:09, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

I will continue to remove the POV pushing essay crap which is being posted here as vandalism, and will start blocking vandals if you do not cease. Puppy has spoken; puppy is in no mood to tolerate this crap. KillerChihuahua?!? 18:17, 24 December 2008 (UTC)


 * The appropriate course of action would be for editors to discuss the essay, briefly or not, and why it is/is not appropriate as a source. There's absolutely no need or basis for simply deleting the comments instead of answering them and just saying the source is not appropriate or the material therein is not relevant/notable/etc. This was not vandalism by any stretch of the imagination. I'm sure you're within your authority, Killer, but you're wrong. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 18:30, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I've had my disagreements with KC in the past, but she's correct here. I'd expect her to slap me down just as hard if I included Ann Coulter essays about Palin on this page, and she'd be right to do so. Kelly  hi! 18:37, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Apples and oranges. Jonathan Raban is not a rabid extremist. He does not make his living by iconoclasm, provocation and controversialism. He's just a serious English author who lives part-time in America, and whose views are taken seriously across all political spectra.  (Except yours and KillerChihuahua's, apparently.) — Writegeist (talk) 03:00, 25 December 2008 (UTC)


 * If the source or subject of the article is truly inappropriate, then it should be a simple matter to dispose of that here. That's what the talk page is for, after all. Simply deleting the comments and refusing to even discuss the merits (or lack thereof) does a serious disservice. I mean, I can see how some people would dismiss Huffington Post out of hand, but the London Review of Books? Bit of a stretch if you ask me. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 18:50, 24 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I'd object strongly to blocking anyone just for bringing potential sources to this page for discussion. By no means would that fall under the definition of vandalism. All that's necessary is to say that it isn't a suitable source. Blocking would be overkill, and it would be especially inappropriate if done by admins who have edited this article. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 19:42, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Whether you agree with the comments in question or not, they seemed to be posted as a good faith attempt to improve the article, as opposed to the obvious attempts at vandalism.Jimmuldrow (talk) 00:28, 25 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Agreed. I have raised the sysop KillerChihuahua's behaviour here at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents, where, unfortunately, so far, responders apparently prefer to swap red herrings (some kind of American seasonal tradition?) than address the overriding issue of her behaviour. — Writegeist (talk) 00:41, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Meh - people are pretty much laughing at your complaint. Why don't you try approaching things from a neutral, encyclopedic, perspective? Kelly  hi! 02:17, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Meh - why don't you? — Writegeist (talk) 02:33, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Agree with Kelly on this one. Don't assume that just because they're not agreeing with you, they're not listening. Dayewalker (talk) 02:20, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I've learned not to assume anything at WP. Hearing is not the same as listening. — Writegeist (talk) 02:33, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
 * So true. Also, "writing a bunch of stuff" is not the same as "proving." Dayewalker (talk) 02:35, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Retraction: My self-reverted assertion about Dayewalker's edit was mistaken. Since this is the only thing I have ever said about Dayewalker, it might just be simpler to say, everything I have said about Dayewalker up 'til now is wrong. I misread the diff. This isn't the first time that I have been seen to be deleting people's edits, but I assure you it was not with my knowledge, and since I can't attribute it to my mistake, I am thinking what I thought the last time, that there is some technical glitch or bug in the Edit Conflict or some such software. This time isn't as clear as the last, where separate edits many paragraphs apart were individually deleted, which would have been completely impossible to do by accidentally backspacing over highlighted text or some such. I got in the habit of always checking Show Changes immediately preceding Saving for a while, but it never happened again, so I slacked on it. Guess it is time to start again. Anyways, it wasn't intentional. Happy whatever you call your personal holiday; mine is Yule, on account of its astronomical verifiability :o). Anarchangel (talk) 00:48, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
 * So true. And ignoring the facts staring you in the face in a "bunch of stuff" is not the same as having the bottle to stand up and be counted. However, the SP Talk page is no place for this discussion. Thank you. Happy Christmas. — Writegeist (talk) 02:52, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
 * You are right. About Christmas I mean, on the other stuff, you're being rightfully ignored. Merry Christmas and Happy Holidays to all. Dayewalker (talk) 02:54, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Nice. — Writegeist (talk) 03:01, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) What was posted here was in no way a suggestion for improving the article. It was links, with very long excerpts, to opinion pieces. If someone has a suggestion for article improvement, we all welcome it. Make it concise, please, and make it clear. Do not edit war when a long post with no reference to the article is removed from an article talk page; this is appropriate and I will continue to do it if it happens again. I play no favorites (Well ok, Bishonen and Giano and a few other editors will virtually always get my support but that's because they write too damn well to disagree with) and have little patience for WP:TE. I also keep no grudges, so shall we move along now? I for one am past done with this; it is a closed subject, or should be. Enough bits have been wasted on it. KillerChihuahua?!? 03:49, 25 December 2008 (UTC)


 * That's plain nonsense. The comment included two links, one long-ish excerpt, and suggested that either or both articles could be cited in the article. It was not vandalism by any stretch of the imagination, nor were the comments disruptive or made in bad faith, nor was the linked material irrelevant or offensive. Deleting the comments was inappropriate and unnecessary, and my restoration of the comments was not "edit-warring".. rather, it was preventing talk page abuse. The appropriate place and manner in which to address the comments was to simply rebut them in talk and state that the articles would or would not be fit as a source.


 * You made an error of judgment and your decision was backed up only by your ability to hand out punishment. I'd suggest you simply acknowledge the mistake rather than exaggerating the circumstances under which you made the decision, issuing renewed threats, and wrongly accusing editors of vandalism. You also might want to consider acting either as an administrator or an editor when dealing with a controversial article, but not both. Otherwise it may leave people with the distinct impression that you are using your authority to bully other editors.Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 17:29, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. KillerChihuahua?!? 21:31, 25 December 2008 (UTC)


 * This thread is not helping us improve the article. Let's just drop it, OK? The spirit of the season favors forgiveness and good will. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 21:56, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Proposed changes for consideration
All of the below changes up to 'Public image section' were originally added to the main article in my edit of 22nd Dec 08 at 1:25 although earlier versions of the kit material and the Critters material were added on 19 Dec 08 at 21:07 and 21:09 respectively. As the kit material summary says, the Palin quote itself had been in the article before that, in and out since September, as I recall, but I haven't checked lately. An early proponent, and as far back as I have checked, the originator of the idea of including some reference to the questions that Palin was asked was [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sarah_Palin&diff=249463399&oldid=249462526 Factcheckeratyourservice on 3 Nov.

Editor Coemgenus was the originator of the Stambaugh-mentioned-SB177 material on Nov 3, although not in this form, and he removed the Palin quote and replaced it with the negative proof fallacy mentioned below. One step forward, one step back. He also removed the Obama-Meyers material, which had remained for quite a long time, right up until election day. I have changed my position on the Stambaugh-mentioned-SB177 issue considerably. From what I can tell, everyone including myself were reading the bill wrongly; making this text a perfect case of not only why primary sources are considered a problem, but also why they are not banned outright. They are extremely easy to misuse (our error) and yet they can be, as in this case, the most reliable source of information if they are used properly. To clarify the error: The underlined text is deleted from AS whatever it was, and the CAPITAL LETTERS text is what is added. SB177 turns out to be a much different bill than anyone was representing it as, including Stambaugh and Knowles. Whether that was due to perfidy or lack of knowledge, I wonder if we'll ever know. In Stambaugh's case, I doubt very much if it was perfidy; he had every opportunity to misunderstand the bill, as he didn't even have access to the information we have, and he was just a small town cop. It may well have been misrepresented during the debate. Now I can bet you think that that means we should automatically discard this sentence. I contend that is not so, although this does complicate the issue so much that we may have to. SB177 wasn't a gun bill that would have allowed guns in schools. There's that. But neither was it legislation that prohibited guns in schools; my initial edit was to replace a sentence saying that, with the sentence saying it allowed guns in colleges, which was also wrong, as they had always been allowed in colleges, before SB177, and weren't allowed by SB177, and for all I know, are still allowed. Stambaugh believed SB177 to be gun control legislation that would have allowed guns in schools, he reported as such in every interview that brought the subject up, and for all we know, Palin believed it to be so, but we can't rely on that in any way. Stambaugh is reported in various news sources, and this is reflected, although not confirmed, in the Alaska Legislature's own record of Tony Knowles' veto, as having objected to Knowles about SB177, leading to Knowles' veto. Palin had been supported by the NRA since early in her career, and you better believe they knew about the veto, and possibly who influenced Knowles to veto. We can't prove that yet. So I dunno. Include or not, revamp, whatever, we'll see. I thought I ought to give the whole story though.

First term / Sexual assault evidence gathering kits section
Propose adding this to the First term section, and preferably make separate subheadings within that section per Mayoralty of Sarah Palin Palin appointed Charles Fannon to replace Irl Stambaugh as police chief. Fannon's department charged the cost of sexual assault evidence collection kits to the victims; he opposed a 2001 state law requiring police departments to pay for the kits. Palin, who was responsible for creating and overseeing the budget, cut funds to the "Contractual Services" line item for the kits; Stambaugh said he had included the line item to cover the kits when he was police chief under Stein. "Frontiersman: During your tenure as Mayor, what was the police department and city’s standard operating procedure in recovering costs of rape kits? Were any sexual assault victims ever charged for this testing while you were mayor?' Sarah Palin: 'The entire notion of making a victim of a crime pay for anything is crazy. I do not believe, nor have I ever believed, that rape victims should have to pay for an evidence-gathering test. As governor, I worked in a variety of ways to tackle the problem of sexual assault and rape, including making domestic violence a priority of my administration.' - Mat-Su Valley Frontiersman, September 30, 2008" The above text to replace the current version below: Palin appointed Charles Fannon to replace Stambaugh as police chief. Fannon later publicly opposed new legislation preventing police departments from billing adult rape victims or their health insurance for evidence collection kits, stating that the Wasilla police had sometimes billed victims' health insurance in the past. An investigation by the St. Petersburg Times found no evidence that Palin had explicitly supported or opposed this policy. Note that the current version ends with a sentence that, as it is not cited, is currently unverifiable. Note also that it in fact can never be verified, even by a citation, as it is a near-perfect example of a negative proof fallacy.

My edit changed the material above in a way such that the below comments on my previous edit may seem out of place. This was caused by me editing during the time that the below comments were added, resulting in an edit conflict, and was not my intention. See my previous edit diff for the version they were responding to. Anarchangel (talk) 09:37, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I am not sure that Anarchangel understands the negative proof fallacy. It is when the lack of evidence that something is true is used to definitively state that that thing is true.  That is not the case here.  We are using a citation from a reliable source which says only that they didn't find evidence that Palin knew about something.  The article doesn't state that Palin didn't know about something.  The difference is huge.LedRush (talk) 13:43, 25 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Interesting. When did Wikipedia become Wikitrial (and with such thin circumstantial evidence to boot?)  Anyway, on the substance, are we to understand that "Contractual Services" specifically identifies these evidence collection kits as a budget line item as you imply here?  In other words, you're stating Palin signed a budget that explicitly identified these rape kits, right?  Next, your phrasing of Stambaugh's statement implies he created this "Contractual Services" budgetary line item specifically for these kits, and only these kits.  Is that correct?  Next, one of your cited references states that Fannon felt the new law would cost the city between $5K-14K annually.  Is that the exact delta in amounts between when Wasilla stopped billing to the insurers?  By the way, the item will never say "billed... to the rape victims", as that is simply a lie.  No victim was ever billed.  Finally, I notice you missed the reliably-sourced information from the Saint Petersburg Times, an award-winning investigative print and online publication, which investigated all available records and found no evidence Palin either supported or opposed this practice.  That will be in the final iteration of this item, I assure you.  I can help you dig up the reference if you like. Fcreid (talk) 06:01, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Help me dig it up? Were you not among those who have added that information to the article? You certainly take every conceivable opportunity to sing SPT's praises. They won an award? Which, and when? Best editorial? Anarchangel (talk) 09:37, 25 December 2008 (UTC) No, you're supposed to go look in the article and follow the link, where you can see the budget PDF, that has Palin's signature on it, that was first mentioned in this discussion in September, and the line item within it, on the page of the PDF I specified, that is mentioned in the citation note that I added to the main article page in the edit that you deleted, with your own eyes, actually. Please rephrase 'exact delta in amounts between when Wasilla stopped billing to the insurers?' so that I can respond to that. Anarchangel (talk) 09:37, 25 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, I really suggest you derive a new method of working on your comments, as it makes it very hard to participate in a discussion when you add large numbers of hard breaks at various places in text. Cut/paste works fine and usually foils edit conflicts.  If not, you can always cut/paste again.  Now, back to substance... the budget says nothing about rape kits or evidence collection, so there is no way we're going to mislead our readers into thinking that Palin knew "Contractual Services" included them.  More importantly, you're citing as noteworthy a delta of a mere $400 from prior years.  Again, there is no way we will mislead our readers by implying Palin could or should have had insight into the reason for a $400 budget submission difference.  Most importantly, how many rape kits did $400 buy, particularly given that Fannon said the law would cost him $5-14K/year?  There is absolutely no case for inclusion of this level of detail in the article except to provide WP:UNDUE weight on this, and my recommendation is that your WP:OR not be included, particularly given that more experienced investigative teams have done far more extensive research and refute your fundamental premise. Fcreid (talk) 11:45, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

More to the point, how much "Medical testing, road maintenance, equipment rental, airport snow removal" would $2600 buy? (Page H-5 of the PDF linked to in the HP article) Fannon was only budgeted $1000 that year.(link to budget PDF in article) Therefore it can't have cost $4000-15,000. Fannon was lying about how much it would cost. End of story. Against facts like that, your subjective assertions without supporting facts, like weight, go -poof- and disappear. How many rape kits did $400 buy? None. They charged for them all. Come on, admit it, you were really asking for that one. The real answer is complicated by the fact that rape exam procedures varied case by case; the Frontiersman estimate of $300-1200 is the commonly used one so far. There wasn't enough in the FY 2000 budget for a single rape kit at the upper levels of that estimate, let alone the other FY Contractual Services of "medical testing, road maintenance, equipment rental, airport snow removal". 1.Please show how cutting the budgeted amount for the line item by 13% ($400 of $3000) is "WP:UNDUE weight". 2.Please show "WP:OR". 3.Please show how 'investigative teams...refute (my) fundamental premise" 4.Show where and for what SPT won an award. 5.Explain 'delta'. Until you have gone to the site and look at the PDF and seen Palin's signature on the 2000 budget, and the "Contractual Services: Costs for medical blood tests for intoxicated drivers and medical exam / evidence collection for sexual assaults" line item you really aren't in a good position to criticize my research. Anarchangel (talk) 14:02, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Fannon was lying on the impact of the law, eh? Are you suggesting we discredit Fannon's testimony in all of this or just the pieces that don't make your case?  Perhaps he never actually billed insurers at all, and he was simply hypothesizing on the matter in the Frontiersman article (in which Fannon's self-admission remains the only contemporaneous evidence the practice ever occurred in Wasilla).  Do you have any evidence that insurers were ever actually billed by the Wasilla Hospital for these kits?  By the way, the items in the "Contractual Services" seem to be the most variable possible, and a $400 difference could be easily explained as the Wasilla PD opting not to have their landscaping done in the spring.  This is now getting into the realm of ludicrous. Fcreid (talk) 14:15, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh, if you're really interested (and we know you're not), SPT's "Politifact" award is described here. Also, I'm glad you're at least admitting it's my research above which, it would seem, is the very definition of WP:OR, no? Fcreid (talk) 14:30, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

One lie is evidence that a person is capable of others, but not proof that others occurred. I take the evidence as it comes. I was responding to your usage of Fannon's quote about the 4-15K; the fact that he was lying about it costing that much means that amount shouldn't be used in our equations. I concede that the variety within the Contractual Services line item is a problem in obtaining verifiable evidence of exactly what happened, but that has never been the objective of my proposals; I don't think there is a verifiability problem with us including cites to the line item itself or even mentions of it; my proposed text contains no assertions about its contents other than verifiable ones. No, only evidence victims were charged from the Alaska State Legislature Finance Committee hearings and possibly other Committees. Ok, that's it "(and we know you're not)". That's the third time, at least. I absolve myself of the responsibility of ever answering another of your insinuations. I am always interested in a response. I don't agree with the The National Press Foundation, of course; they found the graphics 'exciting', whereas I find the Truth-o-meter to editorialise and oversimplify issues. But thank you for providing the cite. So does that misconception, or misrepresentation, or whatever, explain why you won't go find the cite, I wonder, you're afraid that if you do it's original research? Surely not. Please show numbers 1-5 above, or retract. Anarchangel (talk) 04:21, 26 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I have no idea what you're talking about with "show numbers" or whatever, Anarchangel, but this thing has been an WP:OR project for you since the start. You're apparently convinced Palin was involved in Fannon's ad hoc practice (which we now must suspect may never have actually occurred).  My suggestion is you imagine Palin didn't know and see how readily the facts support that position, rather than cherry-picking facts and other contrived bits and arranging them in an order that leads only to your desired conclusion.  Palin is not on trial here.  It's nonsensical to introduce a WP:OR budget submission reflecting a $400 difference from (already variable) prior budget submissions as evidence she knew.  That difference isn't enough to buy a single rape kit, and it's certainly not an amount that would red-flag within an operating budget for a town of 5,000 people!  I really need a break from this, because it gets quite frustrating chasing all this circuitous logic, but I will say the more you outline your case, the weaker it appears. And I doubt anyone here is going to accept your WP:OR as more sound and authoritative than an award-winning investigative publication.  (By the way, if you really don't like SPT, the same fact--that no evidence indicates Palin supported the practice--is reported in multiple other sources... yours to find if you really wanted your research project to be objective!) Fcreid (talk) 10:09, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Show = prove your previous statements, as I requested earlier, in the now-numbered sentences above. It is a time-saving device.

You repeatedly ignore my arguments; I chose numbers as a way of bringing your attention to them without having to repeatedly write out the questions. Please show numbers 1-5 above. As for the rest of your statement: 'OR' three times, 'Cherry-picked', 'contrived', 'arranging them in an order that leads to desired conclusion', 'nonsensical', 'circuitous logic' as it is not backed by an example, or it would be worthy of consideration, 'if you really wanted'...nah, I won't address this sort of stuff anymore. Especially since arguments 1-5 are still awaiting consideration for concession or rebuttal. Anarchangel (talk) 11:00, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Re: lie. Although really, why should I be having to respond to that? Still, I am used to it by now. The CNN cite, and in fact the text above includes the citation note with this quote verbatim, "Multiple sources tell CNN...her police department charged some rape victims the cost of the forensic exam...". The Fannon quote also specifically states that he charged victims. Your contention that it makes a difference that he billed insurance companies has long been noted, as has my contention, and that of others, that it does not.

Wait, so 7 out of 8 editors who responded to a proposed change above agreed that the compromise language or no language at all was appropriate, and now we have to discuss the same thing again? This is the very definition of tendentious editing.LedRush (talk) 06:11, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

7 out of 8? Oh, you bet your rare and strange hind end we're starting again. That is the very definition of an administrative review. - Anarchangel Bizarre statement even to me, in 'hindsight' Anarchangel (talk) 04:21, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Branchflower section
Have not been happy with this material since it was first introduced; just never had the time to deal with it. The article is referencing earlier statements by Palin's lawyers, not its own conclusions, when it mentions partisan smear job. It never considered that argument worthy of anything other than a mention, until this passage, which is in my opinion, an attempt to seem unbiased simply by including a mention. This is hamhanded, but neither should we misrepresent the material by giving this peripheral nod to an argument not addressed in the article the weight of inclusion in ours.

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


 * The entire section regarding the firings should be severely shortened because it currently allows undue weight on this issue, which seems not to be worth 10% of Palin's life. In shortening the section to about 1/3 its current length, let's work to make sure we are all happy with the language.LedRush (talk) 13:35, 25 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Agree in the direction you appear to be going with this, toward a reassessment of the section and its length etc, due to the issue being older, but I will never agree with an assertion of undue weight without evidence.

...And I never agreed to unilateral removal of words, let alone key sentences. Proposals here. I'm all ears. Anarchangel (talk) 07:06, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
 * While I would argue nothing I deleted was key, I understand of course that you didn't agree to the unilateral removal of anything. I was bold and tried to make uncontroversial edits to a controversial subject.  I am trying to achieve some of everyone's goals and get a better tone of discourse on this article.LedRush (talk) 15:13, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Speaking of proposals, if you look at the discussion above, my insertion of the lawyer's quote, way back in September, was so that the part of the Dobbs quote at the bottom that I proposed deleting, could be removed; the first part of Dobbs' sentence only referred to the lawyer's statement; its inclusion makes equivocal what was intended to be a statement on her post-proceeding claim of victory. The author wasn't writing his sentence so that he could be quoted unequivocally, he was writing so that the article flowed nicely. What had been done is take his statement dismissing the previous material: the lawyer's statement, and move on, to Palin's quote, in one sentence. It's misleading to include the first part of the sentence. As I said, I had included the 'smear' quote in order that both sides be given a chance to speak. Her lawyer already said it; Dobb's opinion was focused in another direction. Here's the cite, you can see for yourselves. Anarchangel (talk) 07:06, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I am not quite sure I understand your proposal. Could you present it more specifically (or with more illustration)?  I don't see the quote your talking about.LedRush (talk) 15:13, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Palin's "silly claim about the Branchflower report"
Palin's public response to the Branchflower report was to claim that it had cleared her of any wrongdoing, prompting criticism alleging that it had not in fact cleared her of wrongdoing. This assertion by Palin, and the corresponding criticism, has now been removed by another editor on the grounds that Palin's claim was "silly".

While I agree that the claim itself was silly, it was also politically significant, as was the report itself, and the criticism made in response to Palin's assertion. I cannot think of a legitimate reason to remove this from the article. The actual effect of deleting this was to eliminate a significant criticism that was made. I'm not firing any shots in an edit war, but this deletion does not seem appropriate to me. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 01:14, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I restored it but slashed the commentary.Ferrylodge (talk) 01:27, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I thought that the entire coverage of the incident was too great as a percentage of the article and tried to trim it down while not affecting the balance of the article. My deletion took out Palin's claim, the reply, and the reply to the reply...basically 2 claims pro-Palin and one anti-Palin.  I thought the balance was a good one seeing as none of it really adds anything we didn't already say in the article.LedRush (talk) 03:55, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Also, you shouldn't use quotes unless they are accurate.LedRush (talk) 03:56, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I hope maybe it's okay now: much shorter, with emphasis on facts rather than commentary. What we have is accurate ("Palin said that she was 'very very pleased to be cleared of any legal wrongdoing, any hint of any kind of unethical activity there'") whereas it might be inaccurate if we said something like "Palin was 'cleared of any legal wrongdoing, any hint of any kind of unethical activity,' as she put it."Ferrylodge (talk) 04:28, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

You seem by the sweeping nature of your edits to have missed the ongoing discussion regarding the Branchflower section. The material should be restored to its former state before continuing the discussion. I don't suggest you do this, Ferrylodge, as you are currently at 5 nonconsecutive edits. Your WP:3RR warning to other editors was ill considered. Anarchangel (talk) 06:15, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Anarchangel...I tried to do some modest trimming without affecting the previous balance...and quite honestly I thought I veered closer to what I thought some critics of Palin would prefer. On the whole, what did you think of the edits?LedRush (talk) 06:21, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Although I appreciate the gesture, and not intending to take advantage of your generous speech to make a snappy comeback, it really isn't about pleasing one side or another. I really am here for the balanced article. There may be another Palin quote that may be relevant to her position during the investigation, but her quote after it is relevant to her supporters and critics alike. Ferrylodge was quite right to restore it, although I object to his deletion of the comments on the quote. The rest of what I have to say is pertinent to the above discussion. Anarchangel (talk) 07:06, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I thought a balanced article must keep this material shorter than it is. My edits tried to do this while keeping the current balance of the article, something I thought was done quite successfully.  Oh well...LedRush (talk) 15:10, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Political positions section
This material was previously proposed for addition by myself in the talk section Critters above. After a couple of days with only positive feedback, I made the error of inserting it without checking discussion, in which comments against inclusion had been posted. It was deleted by Kelly. Should it be restored, as is my hope, there is a redundancy to be removed from what I believe to be an inappropriate place: Public image section.

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.

Collect, in section Critters above, has expressed the opinion that this does not include a press release issued by Palin's staff. I noted, somewhat curtly, that he should add this information rather than deleting the material. This is my opinion still, although of course to be exact, it would be more proper to introduce it here beforehand as the material is currently under discussion, just as it would have been proper for Kelly to discuss the deletion of the above material here both before deleting it or once it had been deleted, or after my reply to Collect's comment about its deletion. Kelly has not discussed the material that Kelly deleted in any way, other than the ironic summary: "(remove the critter stuff per discussion on talk page)" I restored it along with other material, and LedRush, who had actually supported its inclusion in Critters section, reverted its a second time. Must have been the other material, I guess, but for every time I have been told that I shouldn't do large edits, I have also thought that editors ought to do a little more preserving of valuable material and not just reverting everything in a large edit, this being a prime example.


 * I am inclined to agree with Anarchangel on this one, both on the content and on my actions. I reverted both because I didn't see that I was reverting this.  I should be more careful...I apologize.LedRush (talk) 13:37, 25 December 2008 (UTC)


 * (...where's that irony switch...turns it Off) Can't thank you enough for this concession! Congrats, you are the first ever on this page to make one! Pretty sure. Anyways, honorable unequivocal apology, thank you very much. (irony back On) Anarchangel (talk) 03:00, 26 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm not convinced this issue has the weight to be included in this biography...however, it would be inappropriate to include without presenting both sides of the issue. A technical quibble is that Palin herself did not bring suit, the State of Alaska did. There's a difference - and the stated reason for the positions is that the State of Alaska feels they can do a better job protecting these species than the federal government can. Kelly  hi! 15:37, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
 * If included, I agree that some "official" explanation of the bill should be included. The whole thing problem shouldn't be more than a sentence, and while I think it's borderline to include in the article, it does explain her political position on an issue.LedRush (talk) 17:02, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. The issue has sufficient weight to be included in the biography. Both sides of the argument should be included, but the topic is relevant to the biography. Manticore55 (talk) 05:17, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Public image section
In addition to the redundancy mentioned above that would be created by the edit above, there is a redundancy already in this material. Should the above edit be accepted, the current material :
 * title=Is Palin foe of big oil or a new Cheney? |publisher=Reuters|date= September 12, 2008}} In turn, others have said that she is a "friend of Big Oil" due to her advocacy of oil exploitation, including her push to open the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to drilling and an effort to de-list the polar bear as an endangered species, since this could hinder oil searching.

would be replaced by Note that this adds a new ref, which is a Factbox linked to by the Reuters page cited already. This new ref, from the Reuters site of impeccable quality, replaces what is in my opinion an editorial posing as a top 10 countdown posing as a news story from the extremely low rent St. Petersburg Times, which news outlet has in turns provided me with much grief due to its inclusion here and much amusement at seeing its opaque attempts to sway public opinion with cherry picked rehashes of other news outlets' news stories given an editorial spin. Anarchangel (talk) 09:37, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
 * title=Is Palin foe of big oil or a new Cheney? |publisher=Reuters|date= September 12, 2008}} In turn, others have said that she is a "friend of Big Oil" due to her advocacy of oil exploitation.


 * Anarchangel, no one cares how you feel about SPT, and it will remain among the reliable sources used here no matter how much you malign it. No one cares about your motivations for editing (while methinks thou dost protest too much), but your agenda here is obvious and unwelcome to me and I suspect many other editors.  I suggest you take a good, long read of WP:NPOV particularly as it discusses neutrality and the use of sources.  If you've found another reliable source for some of the material in the article (which Huffington Post--a self-described liberal blog--will never be) that presents material of a differing but verifiable perspective, you're welcome to propose revisions that mention that viewpoint without placing WP:UNDUE weight on that particular viewpoint (and certainly without removing any opposing viewpoints from equally reliable sources).  Your present methodology appears to be a wholesale attempt to transform this article into some political hit-job by removing the neutrality that was gained during several months of prior discussion.  We get that you despise Palin... write a book or something if you want a forum for that, but let's try to keep the encyclopedic value of WP intact.  Happy holidays. Fcreid (talk) 12:23, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Happy Holidays.Ferrylodge (talk) 22:58, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Negative proof fallacy
I have been aware of both negative proof and the impossibility of proving the non-existence of God just as logical realities that must be, long before I looked logical fallacies up. From the page, which admittedly I left a red link to, by including fallacy in the link. This logical fallacy is so far as I know unique in not being titled on its page with the complete name :

"Negative proof, the fallacy of appealing to lack of proof of the negative, is a logical fallacy of the following form:

"X is true because there is no proof that X is false."

It is asserted that a proposition is true, only because it has not been proven false. The negative proof fallacy often occurs in the debate of the existence of supernatural phenomena, in the following form:

"A supernatural force must exist, because there is no proof that it does not exist".

However, the fallacy can also occur when the predicate of a subject is denied:

"Religious people haven't been able to produce conclusive evidence to support the existence of a "God", therefore such a being must not exist."

"I am not sure that Anarchangel understands the negative proof fallacy. It is when the lack of evidence that something is true is used to definitively state that that thing is true.  That is not the case here.  We are using a citation from a reliable source which says only that they didn't find evidence that Palin knew about something.  The article doesn't state that Palin didn't know about something.  The difference is huge." - LedRush

Now, consider the statement, currently in the article uncited, "An investigation by the St. Petersburg Times found no evidence that Palin had explicitly supported or opposed this policy."

X=Palin never "explicitly supported or opposed this policy". It is true because "An investigation by the St. Petersburg Times found no evidence that Palin had explicitly supported or opposed this policy."

A perfect match to "X is true because there is no proof that X is false."

This statement is a negative proof fallacy.

But there is evidence, although it has its own baggage, that Sarah Palin had nothing to do with Fannon's misdeeds, namely her statement of it; I have been supporting its inclusion in the article.("And the answer is direct from Palin. I support its inclusion most strongly,"-3 Dec. Because that statement is itself suspect, however, I have insisted that the question that prompted the answer be included, the question being notable as it is notable that anyone notable would evade a question put to them regarding a notable issue. Notable. Sorry, I ordered one too many 'Notables' and didn't have anywhere else to put it. Merry X. Anarchangel (talk) 03:00, 26 December 2008 (UTC)


 * As stated above, I don't think that the response does anything to further any evidence of anything. The interpretation of the response is original research, and the inclusion of the questions and answers is undue weight.  Anarchangel (and a couple of others) and I (and several other editors have been over this ad nauseum and I doubt we'll ever agree on either point.


 * But the real reason I responded was because I don't think the negative proof fallacy is relevant here. Anarchangel incorrectly states (or implies?) that the current language in the article says that "PAlin never 'explicitly supported or opposed this policy'".  That is not true.  The article merely states that the SPT didn't find evidence that she explicitly supported or opposed this policy.  This is a statement about what the SPT found (or didn't find) and allows the reader come to any conlusion about this that they want (i.e., that there is no evidence or that there is evidence that has just not yet been uncovered by the SPT).LedRush (talk) 04:16, 26 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Tell me, Led, how'd you do in math? Specifically, algebra? Anarchangel (talk) 09:47, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
 * This is just stupid. The wording I used comes directly from the article. The formula is a 100% transposition. You're wasting my time. Anarchangel (talk) 09:52, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
 * What is stupid is that you've clearly made a mistake and you can't bring yourself to admit it. The wording you use comes from the article, but you've deliberately changed the meaning from a statement about what the SPT found (which is what the article says) to a statement Wikipedia is supposedly making about a fact (which helps your argument but just doesn't exist).LedRush (talk) 14:41, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Rape kit "material"
I have changed Fannon's "involvement" to Fannon later did not agree with new legislation per the citation given. Are there more citations about his "involement" in this "matter" so it can be clarified?. Thank you, --Tom 21:28, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
 * See below for details, accuracy should be your concern, with or without quotiness. How's your imaginary Fannon page coming along?Jimmuldrow (talk) 22:10, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Fannon is quoted in: Anarchangel (talk) 06:04, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The Frontiersman Fannon interview
 * Frontiersman Palin interview
 * CNN
 * Huffington Post
 * McClatchy
 * USA Today
 * SPT

"does not agree with..."
This is yet again about Fannon. While The Frontiersman article did include the phrase "does not agree with the new legislation," a direct quote should be optional, and honestly describing the article should be required. The phrase "does not agree with" by itself is (perhaps intentionally) misleading, in that it portrays public opposition before the Alaska state government and the local newspaper as though it were a private, personal opinion. More important than a direct quote, could the article clarify that Fannon's disagreement was in the form of very public opposition to an Alaska state law. The quote is ok on that condition, but accuracy is more important than quotiness.

I personally think it would combine conciseness and accuracy (even though at the expense of being less quoty) to say that Fannon "publicly opposed" the law, not as "POV pushing" but because this is true.

Inaccurate and misleading statements fit the definition of "POV pushing" more than lack of direct quotes, as does Tom's imaginary Fannon page and imaginary (up to now) love of discussion and consensus.Jimmuldrow (talk) 22:07, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not about the "truth", but about the facts. Your repeated lies about me still don't impress me.Do you have a citation to support your "truth" that Fannon "publicly opposed" the law??? If so, just post it here and let the communitty decide.--Tom 21:47, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
 * How about the same article we've been discussing for months?
 * "Wasilla Police Chief Charlie Fannon does not agree with the new legislation"Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 01:24, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
 * How about it?? Just look at the title of the article!! No where in that article does it say "Fannon publicly opposed" anything, but that is the verbage you want??. What a joke this is. --Tom 22:20, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Rape kit stuff
I've been involved with this article since before Palin was nominated for VP...the whole rape kit meme is prime FRINGE material, and that includes the section at Mayoralty of Sarah Palin. Nobody has ever come up with a case that Palin supported billing rape victims, and it just doesn't pass the common sense test anyway. Palin is a feminist, a woman, and the mother of three daughters - all of that aside, even the most misogynistic politician wouldn't support billing rape victims, it would be political suicide. And although many argue that Palin wasn't ready for a national campaign, everyone who knows her seems to agree that she has killer political instincts. All of this rape kit nonsense seems to originate in an attempt to drive a wedge between Palin and feminists for the 2008 national campaign - that's fine as a campaign talking point, but it doesn't belong in the encyclopedia. Propose removing all of the rape kit stuff from both here and Mayoralty of Sarah Palin. An argument could be made for keeping it in John McCain presidential campaign, 2008, since it was a talking point of Obama supporters, but it should be removed from the Palin biographical articles. Kelly hi! 22:23, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm sure Palin is not pro-rape. However, the person who makes hiring, firing and budget decisions, whether the CEO at Merrill Lynch or the mayor of Wasilla, is responsible for decisions made. Also, the facts that are mentioned should not be deliberately misleading. Also, while it should not be said or implied that Palin was pro-rape, there is a great deal of evidence that her hiring and firing decisions were based more on loyalty than competance.Jimmuldrow (talk) 22:27, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Jimmuldrow, you don't think Palin is pro rape?? For real?? Are you sure?? Don't you think that way down deep she is really for rape?? Please come clean. --Tom 21:54, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
 * If there's evidence to support that, then so be it. But how does that point apply to the rape kit meme? Kelly  hi! 22:33, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
 * At the very least, Palin's many hiring and firing decisions were based on something other than getting a police chief more competent than Fannon, and there was no oversight or any attempt to monitor Fannon's competence. If anyone wants to add referenced material indicating that Palin was not pro-rape, I would support that. However, she was probably an imperfect administrator, and not ready for prime time. I agree with the least bad interpretation of these events, which is still far from perfection. The other possibilities would make Palin appear to be much worse.Jimmuldrow (talk) 22:38, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
 * anyone wants to add referenced material indicating that Palin was not pro-rape is anybody falling for this idiotic garbage?? --Tom 22:29, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
 * So the point of the rape kit stuff is to express Palin incompetence, rather than Palin misogyny? I guess my base question would be "How many rape victims were billed for rape kits, due to either Palin's policy or incompetence?" If the answer is "none", then this issue is completely in the realm of the theoretical and doesn't belong in Palin's biography. Kelly  hi! 22:43, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The whole rape kit meme might have been a political tactic to tarnish Palin's name for all we know. The issue was a critical point in the election and as demonstrated by the article, it is covered extensively by numerous references. This whole point is vaguely reminiscent of the Willie Horton issue in the Dukakis campaign. Dukakis did not personally release Horton as part of the weekend furlough program (although he did play a key role in keeping the program in place), yet he drew tons of flak from opponents for Horton's murderous rampage during his release. I don't think Dukakis would have released a murderer who he didn't think was rehabilitated, if the decision had been in his hands. However, what I think does not matter. What matters is the extent of the controversy's notability. This is the only thing which I think should be taken into account here. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 22:55, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Willie Horton is a great analogy...like I said, it may be notable as a campaign meme but not as a bio entry. Kelly  hi! 23:06, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not going to compare the level of notability of Willie Horton vs. rape kits, but the furlough controversy is included in its own section in Michael Dukakis. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 23:37, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
 * But the the "rape kit issue" was not nearly as known as the Horton issue, which was the centerpiece of an unfair attack on Dukakis. I never heard rape kit billings discussed as a serious criticism of Palin.  I have argued, with the agreement even of pro-Obama liberals who edit the Obama page, that even mentioning this puts undue weight on a fringe theory.LedRush (talk) 23:50, 26 December 2008 (UTC


 * (Continued from above) The only reason the current language remains is as a compromise with some editors who wished to explode this article into a full sized witch hunt.LedRush (talk) 23:50, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I enjoy seeing how there is no good faith assumed for anybody who argues that this is a significant and relevant issue whose media coverage ought to be reflected per Wikipedia policy. We are all just a bunch of evil trolls, right? Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 01:05, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) "evil trolls"? Don't know about evil, but troll definately fits. --Tom 21:56, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Still continuing in the tradition of on-topic, substantive discussion and diligently avoiding the ad hominem stuff, I see. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 00:59, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I assume good faith for people for all their arguments until they prove otherwise. You are an example of this: you've proven that you don't have good faith by personally insulting my intelligence and saying my contributions are stupid...both within the last 24 hours.LedRush (talk) 02:31, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Ok, so am I allowed to stop assuming good faith for the half-dozen editors who have shown this same behavior to me? (You're one of them). I think not... AGF means AGF. It doesn't mean you don't have to assume good faith but others do. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 02:52, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't think you have read what AGF means. "This guideline does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of contrary evidence."  You have attacked my intelligence on a point in which you are proven incorrect a short time after I thought you had at least acknowledged that I was willing to apologize to you when I believed I was incorrect (which by all accounts is an act of good faith).  Your actions on this issue demonstrate bad faith.  However, I have still engaged in arguing against your points and treating your arguments as if they were in good faith, though sometimes my exasperation at your bad faith does creep out.LedRush (talk) 08:21, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Your accusations of "bad faith" have always been rhetorical in nature -- a tool to attack my credibility so that you don't have to engage in discussion. The AGF guidelines page explicitly states that if you honestly believe someone is acting in bad faith (do you?) then you should seek intervention rather than make accusations -- as sitting there making accusations just makes it appear that you are acting in bad faith, attempting to smear me instead of seeking appropriate resolution. To be quite honest, I am fairly confident that no administrator conducting a thorough review of our discussions would find that I have been acting in bad faith.  My involvement in this article, besdies being confined almost entirely to the talk page (in the interest of avoiding edit wars) has been characterized by thorough, patient, and reasonable discussion, albeit occasionally punctuated by a heated exchange -- and those heated exchanges nearly always occur with the same two or three editors, and often in direct response to their own insults and incivility. As you yourself noted, getting frustrated in the course of an honest discussion is nowhere near the same as acting in bad faith. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 18:22, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Your continued personal attacks against me and accusations of my bad faith belie your protestations of other motives.LedRush (talk) 19:23, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
 * "Continued personal attacks" ? Now you are just making stuff up. Anyway, if you honestly think I am acting in bad faith, please take it to an administrative noticeboard. That is the appropriate course of action; sitting here pointing fingers, instead of discussing anything at all related to the article, is not. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 00:56, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Maybe it is time you stop your personal attacks or take your own advice.LedRush (talk) 04:06, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not making personal attacks. Again, AGF specifically says you should take it to an admin board instead of sitting here tossing out accusations. Please either seek a block or start treating me like an honest editor with honest opinions. Enough with the finger-pointing. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 20:22, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, you are making personal attacks. Yet I will not take it to the admin board as I don't want to further escalate issues here.  You have accused me here several times...take it to the admin board and follow your own advice or just let it die already.LedRush (talk) 03:00, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

(undent)I'll agree with Kelly and LedRush. Except I'd like to point out that there is no Willie Horton here; no rape victim in Wasilla is known to have come forward or lodged any complaint with anyone, saying that she was billed. No news article or government record indicates that any victim in Wasilla was ever billed (though insurance companies were evidently billed), so it's understandable why no outraged victims came forward to complain to then-Mayor Palin about having been billed. There's no indication she became aware of this issue during her time as mayor., the notoriety of this matter is not comparable to the Horton matter. And, Dukakis had personally vetoed a bill to ban furloughs for first-degree murderers, saying that it would “cut the heart out of efforts of inmate rehabilitation.” Where is Palin’s statement supporting billing victims for rape kits?

It's hard to see why we should hang Fannon’s position around Palin’s neck. Fannon said that the proposed legislation would prevent rapists themselves from being billed, which is a perfectly normal sentiment. Fannon also acknowledged billing insurance companies, but did not acknowledge billing victims. There is no indication that Palin was involved in any of this.Ferrylodge (talk) 00:15, 27 December 2008 (UTC)


 * "Fannon said that the proposed legislation would prevent rapists themselves from being billed, which is a perfectly normal sentiment" -- he did not say that, nor would it have been true if he had ever said it. He complained that prohibiting Wasilla from charging rape investigations to the health insurance of the victim would have cost the city budget up to $14,000 per year. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 01:05, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Fannon: "Ultimately it is the criminal who should bear the burden of the added costs."Ferrylodge (talk) 02:16, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Ferry. That is precisely the article in which Fannon does not say that the new law would prevent rapists themselves from being billed. He didn't say it, and it wouldn't have been true if he had said it. Please the article read more carefully.Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 02:44, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I have no idea what you are referring to. The cited article says that "The new bill would also make law enforcement agencies that are investigating a sexual assault responsible for the costs of testing victims for sexually transmitted diseases and emergency contraception."  Fannon clearly preferred that the rapists be responsible for such costs.Ferrylodge (talk) 02:51, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
 * (1) the law only prohibits victims' insurance from being billed, but does not specifically say who must actually pony up the cash; (2) Making police departments responsible for costs does not imply that they can't pass the costs on to the criminals that commit the crimes; (3) Fannon still clearly did not say that the law would prevent rapists from being billed, and if he had, he would have been mistaken Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 02:56, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
 * This is not complicated. The bill in question said: "A law enforcement agency or other authority that is investigating a sexual assault that is alleged or suspected to have occurred within its jurisdiction is responsible for the costs...." Fannon objected: "Ultimately it is the criminal who should bear the burden of the added costs."  Those are direct quotes, and I'll let them speak for themselves.  However, if you were trying to slime Fannon for being a neanderthal, and were trying to smear Palin using guilt by association, then I could understand why you'd like to deny that Fannon made a rational comment.Ferrylodge (talk) 03:04, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
 * "Ultimately it is the criminal who should bear the burden of the added costs" does not even begin to say "this new law prohibits me from billing rapists for their crimes", in any sense whatsoever. You are saying "I'll just let these quotes speak for themselves" because there is no logical or rational way you can make Fannons actual words seem to say what you are trying to say they say.


 * Nor does the law say anything except that rape victims' insurance companies may not be billed. I'll ignore your deliberately insulting comments about sliming, etc, even though I'm sure you would immediately seek a ban if I said anything similar. For your convenience I will quote the entire text of the bill here:

(outdent)''"00 CS FOR SPONSOR SUBSTITUTE FOR HOUSE BILL NO. 270(HES)                                                                01 "An Act relating to payment for certain examinations in cases of sexual assault."                                       02 BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF ALASKA:                                                               03    * Section 1.  AS 18.68 is amended by adding a new section to read:                                                 04 Sec. 18.68.040.  Sexual assault victim may not be required to pay for 05 examination.  A law enforcement agency, health care facility, or other entity may not                                  06 require a victim of sexual assault under AS 11.41.410 - 11.41.425 who is 16 years of                                    07 age or older to pay, directly or indirectly, through health insurance or any other means, 08 for the costs of examination of the victim necessary for 09            (1)  collecting evidence using the sexual assault examination kit under 10 AS 18.68.010 or otherwise; or                                                                                          11             (2)  determining whether a sexual assault has occurred. "''


 * If you try to place text in the article indicating that Fannon complained the law would prohibit him from billing rapists, you will be distorting reality and making a conjectural interpretation of a source, which is original research. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 03:16, 27 December 2008 (UTC)


 * What the "law" says is irrelevant. Fannon was objecting against a bill not a law.  And, the initial bill said: "A law enforcement agency or other authority that is investigating a sexual assault that is alleged or suspected to have occurred within its jurisdiction is responsible for the costs...."  Please heed your own comments about distorting reality.  The initial bill said that Wasilla would be responsible for the costs.  Fannon objected, saying that the rapists should ultimately be responsible.  And, regardless of this eminently sensible objection by Fannon (which you forbid us to include in this Wikipedia article), Palin had absolutely nothing to do with it.  The whole rape kit issue has nothing to do with her mayoralty, because she did not know about it, there is no evidence that she knew about it, no rape victim has said that she was billed (as opposed to her insurance company being billed), and the whole thing is a red herring.Ferrylodge (talk) 03:27, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Again, you are profoundly wrong. The text I reproduced above is the exact text of the bill which Fannon objected to. He objected to the bill as it had been passed. What I quoted was the bill exactly as it was passed. And I am not forbidding you from reflecting Fannon's comment that he'd like to bill rape victims for rape investigations. I am simply saying it will be an egregious violation of policy in numerous ways if you distort his statement by paraphrasing it to say something completely different than what it actually says. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 03:33, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
 * No, you are profoundly wrong. The initial bill (which I have quoted here twice) would have precluded payment by the rapists.  The final enacted bill corrected that problem.  Your theory that Fannon only became concerned about that problem after the problem had already been corrected is preposterous.  It was very obviously one of the reasons why he opposed the initial bill.  And it's not even clear he knew that the problem had been corrected.Ferrylodge (talk) 03:42, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Very obviously? It might have been one of the reasons. Your claim to know for certain is more than just mistaken. It is not logical. Anarchangel (talk) 11:00, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Fannon didn't express any opposition to the bill until it passed. I've been over this already with Collect. Kudos to him for pointing it out to me. If you'll notice, the headline for the article in which Fannon's complaints are expressed is Knowles signs sexual assault bill... meaning it had already passed. Notice the date of the article... May 22 2000... a full month after it had passed the Alaska house and senate. Plus, Fannon's actual complaint as quoted in the article clearly does not say that the law prohibited him from billing rapists... nor did the law in fact prohibit him from billing rapists. No matter what you say you are not going to be able to make a credible claim that this plain English statement is meant to say anything other than what it actually says.Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 03:50, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
 * “Tara Henry, a forensic nurse who has been treating rape victims across Alaska for the last 12 years, told CNN that opposition to Croft's bill from Wasilla Police Chief Charlie Fannon was memorable…. Croft has a similar memory. He said victims' advocates suggested he introduce legislation as a way to shame cities into changing their practice, and Wasilla resisted.”Ferrylodge (talk) 04:00, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
 * That doesn't say the opposition took place before the bill passed.. just that it was memorable. Nor have you produced any quote by Fannon complaining that the law prohibited rapists from being charged. And in fact, the law did not prohibit rapists from being charged... which is probably why he didn't say that it did. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 04:04, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
 * "...opposition to Croft's bill from Wasilla Police Chief Charlie Fannon." After it passed, it wasn't a bill anymore.Ferrylodge (talk) 04:13, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm really not so sure that a nurse recalling the event 12 years later would know to use the exact legal terminology differentiating between a law that has passed and law that has not passed. Anyway, that still doesn't turn Fannon's actual quote, "Ultimately, it is the criminal who should bear the added costs... The forensic exam is just one part of the equation. I'd like to see the courts make these people pay restitution for these things" into a complaint that the new law would prohibit police departments from charging crime perpetrators for the investigations resulting from their crimes.


 * In fact, the next sentence in the article, "Fannon said he intends to include the cost of exams required to collect evidence in a restitution request as a part of a criminals sentencing.", clearly indicates that he knew the law would not prevent him from passing the costs along!! So again, changing his actual quote into a distorted "paraphrase" -- saying that he complained the new law would prevent rapists from being billed -- would be a conjectural (and, I think, false) interpretation of a source, which is expressly prohibited. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 04:49, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

I have to say, again, that is not a certainty. This argument is over the factual basis of two conjectures. I do agree with you insofar as deletion of the mention of HB 270 and Fannon's quotes about the cost and the charging. Insertion of the quote about his brand new idea that he had just that week thought of, or during the interview for all we know, after it turned out -he- had to pay, of charging someone other than rape victims, is completely out of context in its current usage. Its current usage is completely out of the question. Anarchangel (talk) 11:00, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Usually people who oppose bills make their opinions known before the bills pass. Otherwise, they are known as ineffectual, stupid, or insane.  In any event, I have removed Fannon's opinions from the article.  They are much less relevant than what he and his department actually did, which is of very questionable relvance anyway.Ferrylodge (talk) 04:53, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

His quotes, as you well know, are the proof that victims were charged. It is pointless even trying to remove it, as it is quite obviously the primary evidence for the case. You would be laughed out of any hearing on it. I am interested to hear of why you have changed your position on those quotes, Ferrylodge. When I first came to this article, you were at great pains to include as much as possible about Fannon and what he said as you possibly could, to the extent of adding his quotes to what is normally the spot for citation clarification, and which ended up looking more like footnotes. Anarchangel (talk) 11:00, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually not. The quote of a person in Dallas are not proof that anyone shot from the "grassy knoll." Proof requitres what is known as "facts" and so far no one has shown that any victim was ever billed. And with all the media scrutiny, had one been billed in the period claimed, I would suspect that the case would have been found. From personal experience, I know that police officials do not know who is billed for what. And so I suspect that using a "quote" as proof falls into that same category. Collect (talk) 13:37, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
 * You are absolutely right, I was mistaken to use the word proof, I should have used the word, 'evidence', as I did in the second sentence. However, you don't need spurious subjective analogies such as the 'grassy knoll', above, to point this out, nor are they in fact an assertion with weight, and if it's all the same to you, I think this discussion is better off without them. Anarchangel (talk) 22:21, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
 * That's still no excuse to distort the quote. And what's with this edit? Is it no longer relevant that the practice was made illegal by state law in response to complaints from victims' advocates? That's the whole essence of the criticism. By making that wholesale change, you've basically just sort of resumed the multilateral edit war that went on for weeks and subsided only when we reached a compromise. The whole point of talk is that we keep talking until we can agree on something. Each of us is now speaking, on the roughest terms, for a large number of editors. We don't all agree on the details, but people in each camp agree on the fundamentals, and each camp now has to agree on representing this issue, the purported criticism, and the salient defenses. Each side probably agrees that the compromise version was not perfect, but do we now stick with it, or come up with a new one? I am not going to revert you back to the prior compromise, but I'm going to point out that you have basically just decided to arbitrate this issue by force. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 05:34, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The article presently is simple and brief and totally free of any distortion: "Palin appointed[29] Charles Fannon to replace Stambaugh as police chief. Fannon and his department sometimes billed rape victims' health insurance for evidence collection kits.[46] An investigation by the St. Petersburg Times found no evidence that Palin had explicitly supported or opposed this policy.[47]"

Not any more. Currently it says, "Palin appointed Charles Fannon to replace Stambaugh as police chief. Fannon later did not agree with new legislation preventing police departments from billing adult rape victims or their health insurance for evidence collection kits, stating that the Wasilla police had sometimes billed victims' health insurance in the past. An investigation by the St. Petersburg Times found no evidence that Palin had explicitly supported or opposed this policy. It still needs work, as I mistakenly picked up the version that existed at my last edit, forgetting that people had already messed it up by then. I wanted to take it back to the version that was on the page for a month or so. Someone has been trying to make some obscure point by adding 'later' and such. The 'later did not agree' part in particular was something I had been wanting to fix before all this started; when you keep messing with the edits, I don't have time to set things right. And of course the SPT thing relies for its notability on a negative proof. As it is not true that finding no evidence means that Palin did not support the policy, the sentence has no notability. No one so far has been able to wrap their head around that one. Ask yourselves, does this prove that Palin did not support the policy? It does not. So if it doesn't mean that, what exactly does it mean? Only the implication that it in fact means anything keeps it going. Anyways, even if you don't understand it, someone else will, I am not bothered about that. Just prefer to get you on board if possible. Anarchangel (talk) 11:00, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The practice was ultimately made illegal by state law, "But a search of the committee minutes for the bill found no mention of Wasilla or Palin." The most egregious things happened elsewhere, as in Juneau where a woman (not her insurance company) was billed.  All of this is covered in the sub-article, and it's extremely tangential here.  Mentioning the subsequent bill would be a vehicle for saying that victims were sometimes billed in Alaska, which would be extremely misleading since there's no indication such a thing ever happened in Wasilla. "Bloggers have portrayed it as a heartless rule seeking money from rape victims, but they have neglected to mention that the policy seems to have been aimed more at getting money from insurance companies than from victims."  Many types of official actions are subsequently ended by legislation, but that's no reason for Wikipedia to mention the subsequent legislation every time we mention the official action.  If we mention that George Washington offered a toast to the Marquis de Lafayette, we don't have to mention that alcohol was subsequently banned in the United States during prohibition.  Anyway, I hope maybe everyone can live with the text as it is; obviously, many of us would prefer to remove it entirely as having marginal relevance.Ferrylodge (talk) 19:03, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

What a load. The most egregious thing is that the victims got either a bill straight from the source, or got an item on their statement from the insurance company, reminding them of the rape, as the expert in the Committees pointed out. The money is incidental, it is the emotional impact. All this dreck about insurance is completely beside the point in the first place. That's a new low, and no surprise it came from that scumpit SPT. I really think it is about time you considered that the difference between a person being personally sent the bill and their insurance company being sent the bill is no more than matter of them having sent their hard earned cash to the insurance company; a person's insurance is their asset, that they paid for. I first mentioned this in October. The insured person is charged; note that the law specifically states, "A law enforcement agency, health care facility, or other entity may not require a victim of sexual assaulta victim of sexual assault ... to pay, directly or indirectly, through health insurance or any other means," See, they say 'a victim...pay', even when it is via insurance. Also, the reason for specifying insurance was based on a narrow interpretation of Fannon's statement. There is the possibility he meant, "tried to bill", as in, when we weren't able to bill the insurers, we had to bill the victims. And although you don't know that he didn't, and I don't know that he did, there is the possibility. So the language should reflect that victims were charged for three reasons; the Legislature considers a charge to the insurer as 'requiring the victim to pay'; we don't know that Fannon only billed insurance; a bill to the insurer is a charge to the insuree in any case. It is true that there was no specific mention of Wasilla, but there was a mention of Mat-Su Valley among other areas. And neither was Wasilla excluded as a place where it happened. Wasilla is 50% of the population of Mat-Su Valley, once you exclude Palmer, whose police chief, in the Fannon interview story, said he would 'never charge' in very strong terms. Plus Fannon said he charged. It's obvious they meant Wasilla, and were just being discrete, or being seen to be discrete, as far as I am concerned. Anarchangel (talk) 11:00, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
 * So no mention of Wasilla? It appears that since Palin was not "Mayor of Mat-Su Valley" then that any claims about ther fail instantly, right? Collect (talk) 13:37, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The distortion I was talking about was your suggested factual distortion of the Fannon quote. I was pointing out that this would have been original research on your part, and likely false as well. And, I'd still say the current text totally fails NPOV by neglecting to mention that the practice was made illegal. You have just taken the article back to two months ago, when there was no explanation or context offered -- since anything else was promptly reverted by Threeafterthree. You've completely eliminated any mention why there was any criticism on this issue in the first place. Anyway, if you are really hoping to make everyone happy, how about we roll back to the compromise version that was actually arrived at by consensus among multiple editors? It's much preferable to your version, which is so vague as to be useless. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 00:58, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Show me where I made a "factual distortion of the Fannon quote."  And it was you who misstated the consensus, so I am unsure what you consider a "factual distortion."  Thank  you in advance for your apology on this one. Collect (talk) 17:56, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Pardon me, Collect, are you also Ferrylodge? If so, we've got some serious problems. If not, thanks in advance for your apology. PS, you are the only person I've met who can manage to give an insulting tone to the word "thanks". Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 20:27, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
 * He is not.Ferrylodge (talk) 23:24, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Actually, it has never been as bad as this. Unless you mean, when it was utterly deleted. Anarchangel (talk) 11:00, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
 * For BLPs, consensus is generally needed to include, not to remove. The present text says what actually happened, not what others subsequently thought about it.  If it leaves people scratching their heads wondering why it's notable, that's fine.  If the actual facts about what Wasilla did are "so vague as to be useless" then that perfectly conveys the truth.Ferrylodge (talk) 01:10, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Seriously, check that sentence. No consensus needed to remove? You might want to amend that statement. You are confusing need for consensus with the burden of proof. The burden of proof for inclusion lies on the included material, which is why the negative proof of the SPT is OUTTAHERE. Anarchangel (talk) 11:00, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Check WP:BLP about contentious material and the like. It is up to those who wish to INCLUDE to provide proof. Absent that, there is an obligation to remove. Collect (talk) 13:37, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
 * BLP guidelines say contentious material must be sourced. The burden of evidence is on the person including the material, to show that it is properly sourced. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 20:30, 28 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Your deletion undid consensus, and the material you replaced it with is horribly inadequate in that it is somewhat POV pushing and completely fails to provide any context or explain the significance of the event. It's like saying "Johnny went to the store" without indicating why he went, why it's mentioned in the article, or why anyone should care. It is not ok to leave the reader scratching their heads wondering why it's notable. Criticism is supposed to be reflected in BLPs, not entirely stripped out, leaving an inexplicable and random description of events without any suggestion of why they are relevant. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 01:20, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
 * (outdent-mostly) While I prefer Ferrylodge's language to the consensus language above (and most prefer to delete the entire section), I have to agree with Factchecker on this. We fought for weeks on this language (on two separate occasions) and the agreed upon language was mostly agreed to so that we could move on and focus on other areas of the article.  While some people have unilaterally tried to add more detail to the section, they have been rightly reverted.  The same should be true for further removals or significant changes (meaning changes not for grammar or clarity).  Can't we just keep the consensus language from above and move to other sections of the article?LedRush (talk) 06:01, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
 * All the known facts about what Wasilla actually did are presented. And please, enough of the mythical consensus that I've destroyed.  You know that numerous editors are arguing to remove every last word about rape kits from this article.Ferrylodge (talk) 01:29, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

An unbacked assertion, in lieu of concession. Some facts are presented, that seems indisputable. Your statement is even now, as the conversation ensues, being disputed, 'by' the current conversation. How can you expect it to be considered a statement of fact? I would agree that it wasn't a consensus as it is known by WP:CONSENSUS, but then I am not entirely convinced we mean the same thing by that word, F. You have certainly never used it as it is described on that page. It was a truce. And as this page goes, that's not too shabby, and we must respect as much as possible what vestiges of WP rules are to be found here. Anarchangel (talk) 11:00, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
 * WP:CONSENSUS defines "consensus" as it is used on WP. Sorry -- you have just indicated a belief that WP guidelines do not apply to your definition of "consensus." Collect (talk) 13:37, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Anarchangel and Factchecker are right about this. We had agreed to the language very recently, and changes made to that should be done with respect to the process that has preceded it.  As I said above, if I were making the edits I'd delete the whole section as a violation of BLP and as providing undue weight.  But I'm not.  I was part of weeks of discussions to come to a compromise, and now we should respect the process and make edits after at least some agreement has been reached on this talk page.LedRush (talk) 15:36, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Facts about criticism and other opinions are expected to be included. This ongoing, pedantic discussion of "facts", as if we are only permitted to mention Palin's eye color, blood type, etc, is not constructive and has no grounding in policy. And you know that numerous editors have argued for inclusion of this incident and criticism. That the two sides disagree was the whole reason we worked to reach a compromise in the first place. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 01:42, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The facts here speak for themselves. We also don't need opinions and criticism about her family's 5 km and 10 km races, or about her reduced spending on the town museum, new library and city hall.Ferrylodge (talk) 01:50, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
 * BLP guidelines specifically require that criticism and praise relevant to the subject's notability should be included. And "the facts here speak for themselves" is just vacuous rhetoric... if the facts spoke for themselves, the context and significance of the events would be obvious just by mentioning what happened. But they're not. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 01:56, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
 * "But a search of the committee minutes for the bill found no mention of Wasilla or Palin." The legislators didn't criticize Fannon, much less Palin.Ferrylodge (talk) 02:01, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
 * That's false. See the outdented quotes by bill sponsor Croft, below:

(outdent)''"I can’t imagine any police chief, big city or small, who would take on the entire State Legislature on a bill that passed unanimously and not mention to their mayor that they’re doing this,” Mr. Croft said. Even if he didn’t inform her, the newspaper article would have been hard for her to miss." and also "I find it hard to believe that for six months a small town, a police chief, would lead the fight against a statewide piece of legislation receiving unanimous support and the mayor not know about it," and also "It's incomprehensible to me that this could be a rogue police chief and not a policy decision. It lasted too long and it was too high-profile,"''... see also the NYT opinion piece which opined that even if she didn't know, she owed voters an answer on the issue, as she was asking to be elected VP and presenting her credentials as mayor of Wasilla as evidence of her leadership experience. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 02:08, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Please provide links. I did not remove any remarks by Croft from this article, as you know.  But maybe I would if you insert them.  Were those remarks made at the time, or in the middle of the 2008 campaign?  Is Croft a Democrat or a Republican?Ferrylodge (talk) 02:10, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Croft was the bill sponsor, and was interviewed in the CNN program in the video link. Note the Mat-Su reference in the Committees; Wasilla was not specifically excluded either. Democrat or Republican? Not going to listen to that 'not a reliable source because they could be not a reliable source because they might be biased because they might hold a grudge or might be partisan' crapage again. You'll notice I have always criticized SPT on merit, not on partisan affiliation. Anarchangel (talk) 11:00, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
 * You know the links and the answers to all those questions. We've been over this issue repeatedly for months. This is filibustering on your part. And regardless of whether you removed any claims by Croft, your assertion that the legislators never criticized Fannon or Palin is false, because Croft did criticize her. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 02:19, 28 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I do not know the links, and I do not want to investigate to find them. If you think I already know all this information, then don't quote it.  If you quote it, then provide links.  It's common courtesy, and you can see that I've done my best to provide links as well.  Not providing links makes it very difficult for me to see the context, and makes it impossible for newcomers to see the context too.
 * Additionally, I made no edits to this article from November 8 to November 26, nor from December 4 to December 27. You may have been saying things during that time, but it doesn't mean I was reading them.Ferrylodge (talk) 02:29, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
 * It would be nice if you would familiarize yourself with the sources before making blanket assertions about them and insisting that only your position could possibly be the correct one. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 20:20, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

In this above argument, we have seen: charged.
 * Fannon made his comments after the bill was signed.
 * Fannon said he charged. Whether he meant he charged victims insurance only or, failing that, victims directly, we don't know. The description of this must take care to include all possibilities.
 * A person pays for insurance; it is their personal asset against which charges are levied. It is argued that by this, they are
 * In any case, the distinction between the charge being to the insurer and to the insuree is a fine one and its notability is questioned.
 * It is not specifically stated what the outcome of the policy was, or would have been, for victims without insurance.
 * Pursuant to the above point, A.S. Legislature calls billing insurance, billing the victim. They don't make a distinction between paying directly and the insurance covering it. Still counts as the victim paying.
 * The Legislature said nothing in the hearings directly about Wasilla.
 * They did not specifically exclude Wasilla
 * They mentioned Mat-Su Valley.
 * Wasilla is 50% of the population of Mat-Su Valley, if you exclude Palmer.
 * Palmer police chief said he would never charge

Anyone have anything to add? I haven't gotten to conclusions or disputed statements yet, but it's quittin' time. Anyway, by this hopefully you've got an idea of how this should be run. Point, counterpoint, note all the results, til we arrive at a Consensus.

The WP:EQ points are back up in the Post-election information section, as they were deleted in this last round of Archiving. Anarchangel (talk) 11:00, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Billing victims
To my mind, it is completely 100% unacceptable for this article to mention anything about billing victims. There was a concerted attempt in the blogosphere to confuse billing victims with billing insurance companies: "Bloggers have portrayed it as a heartless rule seeking money from rape victims, but they have neglected to mention that the policy seems to have been aimed more at getting money from insurance companies than from victims."

There is zero evidence that Wasilla ever billed a victim. There is zero evidence that Palin even knew the town was billing insurance companies, and less than zero evidence that she conspired to bill any victims. It's simply not appropriate to mention in this article a horrible, disgusting billing practice that occurred in Juneau (not Wasilla), thereby sliming Palin in the process. I don't care how long this article mentioned billing victims, the fact is it shouldn't be in this article. At most, we can mention billing insurance companies. Otherwise, it's an egregious BLP violation, guilt by association, WP:Undue weight, original research, POV, and a whole bunch of other acronyms that I can get into if you like.Ferrylodge (talk) 20:03, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

talk page courtesy
Just a reminder to assume good faith and be nice. I don't actually care if you really truly are agf'ing; but if you parse your posts as though you were the end effect is virtually the same. Demanding apologies, accusing others of deliberate falsehoods, etc are unhelpful. I will start removing uncivil posts if you cannot learn to moderate your tone (this is a blanket message to all who have become a little heated.) KillerChihuahua?!? 18:46, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Rape stuff break-new above

 * You've never explained exactly how the above rationale applies to a biography of Sarah Palin, even if true. As an example, Jon Favreau, Barack Obama's speechwriter, was photographed groping the breast of a Hillary Clinton cutout, an event that got extensive media coverage. Does that event belong in the biography of Obama? I think not. Kelly  hi! 01:11, 27 December 2008 (UTC)


 * On the one hand, we have a mayor of a tiny town, lauded in the press for her micromanagement of town affairs, who fired the city police chief and whose handpicked replacement then began to charge (or intended to begin charging) the insurance companies of rape victims for investigations into the victims' rape, but was subsequently prohibited from doing so when such practice was made illegal, and complained about the increased cost to the city due to not being able to make the insurance companies pay. Palin, it was also noted, went over the budgets line by line and cut the budget item that the city had previously used to pay for the rape investigations (although that budget item did not explicitly mention the rape kits). Palin was criticized by various notable parties for either not knowing about it, or for knowing about it but not prohibiting the practice herself without the need for a state law.


 * On the other hand, we have a campaign staffer who got photographed in the midst of an offensive party gag?


 * You think these two are comparable? Really? I don't see how you could think that, but I also don't know where you get off calling Kathleen Parker a "non-entity", but anyhoo... where's all this press that you mentioned criticizing Obama for it? Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 01:31, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
 * "Lauded for micromanagement"? That's a new one. So if the guy who drove the snowplow in Wasilla chipped concrete off the curbs, that should be placed in the biography of Sarah Palin? I'm guessing you would say yes, since it's a probably approaching certainty that the snowplow driver did damage the streets a time or two, but there's zero evidence that any rape victim paid a dime for evidence collection. Kelly  hi! 01:37, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
 * He means the CNN article: "She does recall Palin going through the budget in detail. She said Palin would review each department's budget line by line and send it back to department heads with her changes." She being Judy Patrick, "Palin's deputy mayor and friend". Anarchangel (talk) 01:42, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I was going to say, ironically, but since almost all the stories reported that victims were charged for rape kits, perhaps it isn't so surprising that the CNN one does also. See, "multiple sources told CNN" in an above section. Anarchangel (talk) 02:02, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, that is the article we're discussing. It's nothing but supposition and innuendo (despite the sensational headline) and there's zero evidence that any rape victim in Wasilla was ever charged or that Palin was aware of her subordinate's position on the relevant policies. It's pure campaign rhetoric. Kelly  hi! 01:48, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Just as directly above, your example is ludicrous and not comparable to the actual issue we are discussing. It's a straw man. And Fannon himself said on record that they had charged rape investigations to victims' insurance companies. That, presumably, is why he complained that prohibiting the practice would cost the city an additional $14,000 a year. By all means, bring on the original research, though. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 01:55, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
 * So it seems that you too, Kelly, are hellbent on destroying what credibility you had left after your edit warring and one sentence unbacked assertions, by ignoring the evidence of Fannon's statement and the CNN article. Anarchangel (talk) 02:02, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The article only gives the example of a woman in Juneau being charged - nobody in Wasilla. Kelly  hi! 02:09, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Was Fannon lying/mistaken when he said they'd charged rape investigations to victims' insurance in the past? Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 02:26, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Try the video link. It is in the first line of the video report. Anarchangel (talk) 02:21, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
 * And this brings us back to the root point which you never seem to address - exactly why does this belong in Sarah Palin as opposed to, say, the history of Wasilla, Alaska? Kelly  hi! 01:57, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Does it? Does not being able to answer rebuttals always bring you back to a point that has never been discussed in the history of a talk page? Anarchangel (talk) 02:02, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I have addressed it repeatedly and at length. Check the archives. The summary version is Because it's a subject relevant to her notability -- the standard for inclusion -- on which she has received substantial criticism on record by notable parties, reflected in numerous reliable sources, and which she has directly addressed in the media. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 02:05, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, ok, fine, you answered Kelly's point, I answered Kelly's point and her false analogy combined. And the issue of not answering rebuttals is a long standing one. In case you haven't seen it, Kelly, it was addressed at the beginning of the Palin quote section. Anarchangel (talk) 02:21, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
 * There are also notable people in reliable sources who claim that Palin didn't give birth to her own chldren (and she has directly addressed those allegations in the media). But it's a fringe theory and doesn't belong here. Kelly  hi! 02:09, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Another false analogy. Anarchangel (talk) 02:21, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
 * How so? Kelly  hi! 02:23, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Much the same way as the first was. It isn't my responsibility to think for you. Anarchangel (talk) 02:48, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
 * If you expect us to take this supposed counterexample seriously (seems like just another straw man to me), please provide articles to indicate substantial and serious coverage of this issue by multiple reliable sources and reflecting criticism from multiple notable primary sources. Please also suggest how that would be relevant to the source of Palin's notability -- i.e. her career as a politician. Otherwise, again, it's not even the same ballpark as the rape kits issue.


 * By the way, if you bother to read WP:Fringe it doesn't even apply to this. Have you noticed that the examples of "fringe theories" given on that exact page are: "Face on mars" theory, "Apollo moon landing hoax" theory, "Paul McCartney is dead" theory... you know, actual fringe theories? Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 02:24, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

The problem with Factchecker's arguments, and all arguments on this subject (of course including mine), is that it comes down to a matter of opinion, not some clearly objective "yes" or "no" answer. In his opinion it's relevant to her notability. In mine it's not because I don't believe that there is evidence that she knew of this issue or that it was relevant to her political history. While it has been mentioned in reliable sources, so have lawsuits about Obama not being a natural born citizen. In my mind, it is clearly off topic and the mere inclusion of this type of inflammatory innuendo is a violation of our BLP standards. Alas, this policy, like almost all, is rarely cut and dry in its interpretation. I honestly belive both sides of this issue have clearly stated their reasons numerous times, and both sides can be defended, and we seem to be at an impass. That's why we agreed on the consensus language above.LedRush (talk) 03:00, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Move to Fringe Noticeboard
Should we move discussion of the rape kit thingy to Fringe theories/Noticeboard? Kelly hi! 02:23, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

It's a minority criticism, not a fringe theory, as I think is pretty clearly indicated by WP:Fringe, but knock yourself out. Please go ahead and give notice here if you start a discussion on that noticeboard to get it removed. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 02:27, 27 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm thinking that maybe the BLP Noticeboard might be a better venue.Ferrylodge (talk) 02:30, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I thought that at first, but the Fringe folks seem to have a better nose for crap like this. How was the Barack Obama birth certificate stuff handled? That seems similar in terms of it being a campaign talking point, and receiving extensive media coverage. Kelly  hi! 02:36, 27 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Out of curiosity, who are the primary sources making the claim that Obama's birth certificate is fake? Are they elected officials from his home state, or just non-notable wackos? Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 02:40, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
 * See Barack Obama citizenship fringe theories for a rundown. Kelly  hi! 02:42, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Only skimmed it, but those people look like non-notable wackos to me, as opposed to elected officials from the state of Alaska. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 02:47, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Heh, those wackos have been heard by the U.S. Supreme Court at least twice already (they got turned down, though). Kelly  hi! 02:50, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
 * According to that fringe theory, Obama is ineligible to be president. According to this fringe theory, Palin is somehow responsible for poor billing practices regarding rape kits.  This Palin thing might be appropriate for the fringe noticeboard, but the Obama ineligibility seems more outlandish.  Suggesting Palin might be responsible for the rape billing seems less like fringe and more like smear/undue weight/coatrack/summary style.  Maybe we could ask the fringe noticeboard folks if they think we're in the right place.Ferrylodge (talk) 02:44, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I guess you're right - WP:COAT seems the best fit to me. Trying to figure a good way forward, the normal consensus model is failing under the usual filibustering. I take it a request for comment has already been tried? The problem is that Sarah Palin has a horrific reputation as an article since the Arb case and nobody neutral wants to touch it with a ten-foot pole. Hell, I stayed away for a couple months because it was driving me crazy. Kelly  hi! 02:49, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The normal consensus model produced the compromise language included in the article. You are filibustering to try to undo consensus. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 02:57, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Just for the record, the above is total bull feathers. Lies being repeated over and over and over and over are still...lies...I still love your handle :)--Tom 21:43, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't know if an RfC was tried. I haven't been here much lately.Ferrylodge (talk) 02:54, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

This would be fringy if any allegation that Palin is pro-rape were made, or if any Willie Horton level of exageration was made of it. However, is the CEO at Merryll Lynch responsible for massive failure? Is anyone in a decision making decision ever responsible for anything, including poor leadership and management decisions and complete lack of oversight? I think this is what is getting lost in the shuffle.Jimmuldrow (talk) 02:56, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I get you, but we circle back around to the elephant in the room - I've looked through all of the given sources and can't find a single piece of evidence that a single rape victim in Palin's jurisdiction was ever charged for an evidence kit. It's all theoretical, I understand how theoreticals become campaign talking points, but how does something that never provably happened belong in an encyclopedia biography of a living person? Kelly  hi! 03:06, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
 * It's not an elephant in the room. It's being ignored because it's irrelevant. And we don't rely on the original research of editors to "disprove" the claims of primary sources that are reflected in reliable secondary sources. Finally, even if no rape victim ever received a bill, that doesn't show that no rape victim ever had her insurance company billed.. nor does it disprove Fannon's complaint that the new law would cost Wasilla up to $14,000 in costs to pay for rape investigations, nor his claim that "In the past weve charged the cost of exams to the victims insurance company when possible." Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 03:21, 27 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Insurance companies evidently were billed in Wasilla for the costs of rape kits. But there's no indication that any rape victim ever objected to palin or to anyone else about that, which is understandable since the money would not come out of the rape victim's pocket.  Palin evidently knew nothing about the practice while mayor.  It belongs in a description of the 2008 campaign, rather than in the section about her mayoralty.Ferrylodge (talk) 03:33, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Nobody ever said the state law was proposed because of Wasilla. Wasilla, under Fannon, just happened to have the practice that was banned. The sources do in fact indicate complaints about the practice of charging insurance.. just not people specifically from Wasilla complaining about it. Finally, lack of evidence that Palin knew is not the same as evidence she didn't know, so it's a bit misleading to say "Palin evidently knew nothing" about it. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 03:38, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Agreed, or possibly in the article on Wasilla. Kelly  hi! 03:37, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Obviously the fact that victims were charged for their own rape kits in Wasilla is not a fringe theory, as the Fannon quote and CNN article prove. It does not speak well of your time on this page, as evidenced by your user page, that you are not familiar with those facts. I suggest not ignoring them again. I have an interest in acquainting myself with the appeal process and a nice low learning curve is very appealing. Anarchangel (talk) 03:18, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Anarchangel, I appreciate your repeated use of those two articles, but they ignore the facts that the Wasilla Police Dept, and Palin herself, have denied any policy of charging victims. By the way, I'm not sure what you mean by that last sentence. Kelly  hi! 03:22, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Your 'elephant in the room' was that no one was charged. I refuted that. Once you concede that your elephant was a pink elephant in your imagination, we can move on. Anarchangel (talk) 05:42, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
 * How many rape victims were charged for rape kits? Kelly  hi! 19:15, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
 * You know all you need to to concede the point. Stalling doesn't help your position. Anarchangel (talk) 21:33, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Why in this article?
Could someone explain why the rape kit thing belongs in Sarah Palin, as opposed to Wasilla, Alaska, History of Alaska, United States presidential election, 2008 or some other more general article? Kelly hi! 03:55, 27 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Come on.. is it really necessary to start a whole new section heading each time you have a new point to make, or a new way to rephrase a point you've made, just inches above, in a discussion that took place 20 minutes ago? Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 04:01, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I know you don't have much experience with Wikipedia outside this article and maybe one or two others, but it's customary to try to break the arguments down into separate points to find areas of agreement. Kelly  hi! 04:05, 27 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Seems to me you are just, as you said above, "filibustering". I already expressed why it should be included in this article, just minutes ago. I'll reprint it for you, otherwise your creation of the new section might give others the impression that the question has not already been addressed over and over and over again.


 * Because it's a subject relevant to her notability -- the standard for inclusion -- on which she has received substantial criticism on record by notable parties, reflected in numerous reliable sources, and which she has directly addressed in the media. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 04:12, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Not all such subjects in the sub-article can be included in this article. See WP:SS.  Additionally, inclusion can be accomplished by moving it to a more appropriate location focussing on the 2008 campaign.  Note the heading of this talk page section uses the word "this".Ferrylodge (talk) 04:31, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
 * It is relevant beyond the 2008 campaign. Palin is notable for TWO (not one) reasons: she ran as the GOP's VP nominee and she is the Alaskan governor, therefore this alleged belief, assuming there has been significant news coverage, should be in this article. This is not an article on "Palin the person". Now I'm not saying that this thing should get it's own giant section ("THERE WAS A CONTROVERSY!" lol), but a mentioning, similar to what we currently have, is probably appropriate.-- daniel  folsom  14:50, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Kelly mentioning Factchecker's experience is close to an attack - it's completely irrelevant and you were obviously saying it as a way of disregarding his points. Kelly and Factchecker: both of you might want to take a step back - this argument seems to be getting a little politicized. What we need to do is to find sources that directly comment on the Palin issue. If there are enough sources, i.e. if the topic is notable, it should be mentioned. Controversy surrounding Palin's alleged beliefs is relevant to the article as her notability exists outside the realm of the 2008 presidential race; as the governor of a state her beliefs are relevant, and therefore a belief that she is alleged to have is relevant if there has been significant news coverage (and if there has been significant news coverage, to my understanding WP:FRINGE would not apply, as it is not a matter of whether many people believe Palin wanted to charge rape victims, it is a matter of whether there was significant coverage of this alleged belief - and the latter is what would be mentioned in the article). My word is obviously not final, so I don't mean to distract too much from the debate, I'm just saying that compiling sources might give us a place to start.-- daniel  folsom  04:36, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

With respect, Daniel, note who is initiating each exchange. WP:EQ recommends that assertions be answered. What's missing is conceding when points are made. Anarchangel (talk) 05:42, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
 * True - and I did make a point of addressing both of them, I'm simply trying to make the talk page slightly more on focus by pointing out the most recent uncivil claim; I really think that we need to move on from the political side of this argument, and perhaps that means moving on from using this talk page as a medium. If there are any serious questions over policy, perhaps mediation or discussion on that policy's notice-board (assuming there is one) would be best -- daniel  folsom  14:50, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Just a heads up Danielfolsom, single purpose muckrackers have been here a while, actually some time now, actually come to think about it, since Palin was nominated. There are still a few here, they know who they are. The amount of feeding they have recieved is pretty amazing. You probably already know this, but it is still worth noting. --Tom 15:49, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Do you have a substantive comment to make on this subject, or will this be like the two dozen times you simply ignored ongoing discussion and attempts to reach a compromise, and deleted the whole section? Edit warring and innuendo about other editors are not a substitute for discussion. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 18:29, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Are there any other editors besides "Anarchangel" and "Factchecker" who believe the rape kit crap belongs in this article? Kelly  hi! 18:53, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, probably a couple dozen overall. They have just not stuck around for the full 18-week "who can last the longest" extravaganza. Have you bothered to check the extensive archives in which we've discussed this "crap"? Did you notice that Daniel's comments, just a couple inches above this, seem to indicate that he is of the opinion that it is notable and relevant, though it doesn't have to be reflected in a full-blown expose? If so, he's far from alone. Anyway, I can't say your comment, or calling the topic "crap", is constructive ... sort of looks like an effort to attack editors who favor inclusion rather than debating the actual issue. 96.243.252.122 (talk) 19:24, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Writegeist has also been here the whole time, and Jimmuldrow edited a lot recently. Greekparadise was writing in favor of it when I first got here in early October. Not an exhaustive list by any means. We get a lot of support from IPs and people who come in and post two or three times and then leave. Probably they don't realize it's a siege. But that is all peripheral. What matters is reaching consensus. You have an opportunity to start, above, by conceding that there is in fact evidence that victims were charged in Wasilla. Anarchangel (talk) 21:31, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh look, another SPA IP just happened to show up. Or maybe somebody(ahhumm) loged off and posted?? Nahhh, that never happens here. Oh course there are no other NPOV editors that feel this "material" belongs in this bio. --Tom 19:34, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I get that SPA is a depersonalizing propaganda term, but what is it an acronym for? Three such questions have gone unanswered, so I am not holding my breath for an answer. Anarchangel (talk) 21:31, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Single purpose account. It has been used to describe editors on both sides of several issues here.  SPAs aren't necessarily bad because they can bring specific knowledge on a subject area, but they are generally considered more likely to be destabilizing to an article than a non-SPA.LedRush (talk) 21:46, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Ok, totally my bad. Retract "depersonalizing propaganda term" unconditionally. Thank you LedRush. I hope, nay, trust you are finding adhering to consensus promoting procedure agreeable. Anarchangel (talk) 22:11, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
 * No, I mean now that the campaign is over and we're hopefully back to the people interested in an actual scholarly biography as opposed to campaign talking points. Kelly  hi! 19:55, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
 * So will there be any actual discussion, or is this just the section for casting aspersions on editors with whom you disagree? Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 01:02, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

I can see that the rape kit section is once again being mediated by edit war rather than by discussion. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 02:11, 28 December 2008 (UTC)


 * And now, lies. There is consensus to include this. Just no consensus on how it should be worded, except for the compromise text we reached earlier. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 02:23, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

The Rape Kit must be included in the article. Given the history on this topic, any attempt to remove it is a deliberate and flagrant attempt to violate consensus if any of those attempting to remove it were involved in previous consensus. I will immediately escalate to mediation if it is removed. Manticore55 (talk) 05:12, 28 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I disagree with your ultimatum, and, in fact, consider such a position to be contrary to WP principles entirely. "Immediately escalate" indeed! Collect (talk) 17:59, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

I suggest everyone ignore and move past the several posts above. Work with your fellow editors to build consensus, Manticore; do not accuse them of ill motives or make ultimatums. Collect, please do not escalate but rather attempt to calm the situation, ok? And Factchecker, accusing others of lying is beyond unhelpful; I would appreciate it if you would strike your accusation. KillerChihuahua?!? 18:49, 28 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I was just responding in kind to other users who treat me like a Wiki-criminal, openly accuse me of bad faith, of spreading "lies", make claims about personal attacks that seem false to me, etc..  I will stop, [personal remark redacted] Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 20:16, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

"Personal remark" in full.: "I will stop, but I think singling me out for a single infraction belies the more widespread abuse to which I have been subjected, with nary a comment by you"-Factchecker atyourservice Anarchangel (talk) 21:58, 29 December 2008 (UTC) I can attest to this. So can the record of this very page, without even having to go to archives. Anarchangel (talk) 21:58, 29 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Responding in kind, unfortunately, keeps the hostility going, and does nothing to improve the article. KillerChihuahua?!? 20:55, 29 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Noting FCAYS comment -- KC, my comment was made in order to defuse the ultimatum, I fear you might possibly have misread my intent, for which I apologize. Collect (talk) 19:19, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

After reading this article which says that rape victims in North Carolina were billed for evidence kits until recently, and that rape victims in Illinois, Georgia, and Arkansas are continuing to be billed, I looked at a few random biographies of executive and legislative politicians from those states - and can find no mention of their states' rape kit policies in their biographies. Why the disparity? Kelly hi! 20:28, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
 * You are kidding right? The disparity is due to muckrackers run amok. --Tom 21:35, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Those legislators didn't run for Vice President of the United States and weren't subject to the same level of media scrutiny. They probably also were not budget-micromanaging mayors of small towns which held such policies. The article you read probably also doesn't question specific politicians and ask them what the policies are/were. In a nutshell, Palin is more notable than all of those people and so has received greater attention. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 20:38, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Heh - John Edwards from North Carolina ran for vice president of the U.S. Barack Obama of Illinois ran for (and won) the office of president. Kelly  hi! 20:43, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Were either of them mayors of small towns that enacted such a policy? Did either of them hire a police chief that publically complained when the policies were made illegal? Were either of them questioned or criticized in the media regarding such policies? Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 20:46, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Link dump
Just a dump of some evidence links regarding the rape kit controversy... Kelly hi! 21:14, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Wasilla police chief to blogger on billing for rape kits
 * 2) National Review on the story
 * 3) Jim Geraghty on the story
 * 4) Testimony in the Alaska legislature, including Del Smith, the Deputy Commissioner of Public Safety, stating that "he does not know of any police agency that has requested  payment"
 * 5) More links, including the fact that any billed victim can receive restitution from the Alaska Violent Crimes Compensation Board

1. SART was an operation allowed to use the City of Wasilla police facilities. Their charges to the hospital are not relevant, and as one might expect from a biased blog, are used in a misleading way. It is made up to look like an official bill but it isn't. I forgot this even existed, it was so obviously fabricated. 2. Opinion piece. Its first opinion runs along the lines of, although Wrong A was done in this case, Wrong A was done all the time, so why is everyone complaining? 3. This is at least based on fact. It attempts to gloss over the mention of Mat-Su Valley by rating it by size, rather than population. As noted above, Wasilla was half the population of the Mat-Su Valley once you take out the second biggest town, Palmer, whose police chief vowed he would never charge. To say nothing of the fact that the point is moot as Fannon already had said he charged. Slam dunk all over the debunk. Del Smith the desk jockey at Safety, speaking for police departments all over the state that he had quite obviously never visited, let alone supervised, was contradicted by both other witnesses in that they all reported victims were charged. Not content with reporting the fact that the other two witnesses at the Hearings told that hospitals charged, the article adds "not police stations", which the witnesses did not and would not have said, as their field of expertise did not include that. 4. Naff link. Better one with all the committees' links on one page, above. 5. Interesting. Is this to be considered proof that this compensation was readily available and widely known? Or that Fannon was incompetent in not advising victims of their options as well as charging them? It seems sure that he was less competent than the room full of Palin supporters with an internet connection it took to track this down, or he would have mentioned it in the Frontiersman interview. Shame they weren't there when victims were charged. Anarchangel (talk) 06:29, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Anarchangel (talk) 06:29, 29 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Neat idea! "once you take out the other town, the biggest town becomes half the population of the county" is the gist of your argument?   Um -- but that does not take the other town out of the county.  As to saying something was "obviously fabricated" -- find a reliable source for that claim, unless, of course, you assert that you have specialist knowledge in that field. Thanks. Collect (talk) 13:12, 29 December 2008 (UTC)


 * "Palmer police chief Laren Zager said that to his knowledge, no sexual assault victim has ever been billed by the city of Palmer for an exam to collect evidence of a crime. Zager, who has been police chief since January, said he would never expect a victim to be burdened with the cost of a police investigation.

Im prepared to pay every dime in an investigation. As long as I am chief, I would never bill a victim, Zager said." Frontiersman

The letter from, you claim, the police chief, to a blogger, is manufactured evidence after the controversy started, let alone after the bill was passed and other time frames that have been brought up to show irrelevance ad nauseum. If it confirms anything it is that the police dept. had a backlog of charges that it felt required to settle with the hospital after the law was passed. I had, and still have, considerably better evidence that police depts. were handing along the charges to the hospitals, and therefore, most likely the job of collecting evidence. Which can't be very good for the reliability of the evidence. There is no way you can slice this and not come up with something rotten. And we haven't even gotten to the takeover of the hospital. Anarchangel (talk) 20:50, 29 December 2008 (UTC)


 * 1. I made no claims at all about any letter. You might wich to redact that part of your post. 2. You stated that something was "obviously fabricated." In normal English, that means you felt it was faked. Are you asserting the item you describe was "faked" in some way?  Is it dated with a false date? Not to or from the people it is purported to be to or from? In what way do you mean it is "fabricated"? Thanks! Collect (talk) 21:01, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

1. I do wish to retract. You did not describe it as from the police chief. It is the original label of the link that describes it as from the police chief. I made a mistake. 2.I find my use of the word "fabricated", in the initial comment on the links, regrettable. That was rhetoric. However, you are cherry picking. I did not refer to it as fabricated in the reply to your edit, but 'manufactured'. The form and content of the letter were misleading; the source would therefore seem to be either biased or incompetent. In this way the appearance of an official document is, 'manufactured'; it is not even a copy, merely a list. The conclusions drawn from it in the accompanying article are erroneous, and the forum in which they appear, excruciatingly biased. The veracity of the information in the letter remains unclear. Anarchangel (talk) 22:37, 29 December 2008 (UTC)