Talk:Sarah Palin/Archive 48

Straw poll on rape kits
This is not intended to be binding, just a way to gauge where we currently stand. We can figure where to go from here based on what kind of numbers we see. I'm only trying this technique because it helped to break a deadlock on another controversial article I was involved with (John Edwards) Once we figure out whether to keep or include we can work more on the specific wording.
 * Can we agree to keep this poll open for awhile, say 1-2 weeks, before presuming to draw any conclusions from it? Less than that would seem a bit hasty given that this debate has fairly raged for at least 3 months. The article is full-protected for the next 3 weeks anyway. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 20:54, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Sounds reasonable, absolutely. Basically what I'm looking for is clear consensus one way or the other from established editors. If consensus isn't clear from this, we should try to assemble all of the evidence and proceed to a request for comment with an attempt to draw in established users with a neutral point of view. Kelly  hi! 20:57, 28 December 2008 (UTC)


 * In other words, it appears like editors want to keep on discussing this month after month until they find a way to eliminate it. QuackGuru (talk) 21:09, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
 * No, more like finding a reasonable way to handle this now that the majority of campaign partisans have moved on. Kelly  hi! 21:16, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

WP:PRACTICAL : "Polls are structured discussions, not votes. Opinion has more weight when you provide a rationale during a poll, not just a vote. Convince others of your views, and give them a chance to convince you."

In that this is not a poll in any real sense of the word as regards WP policy, WP:PRACTICAL points specifically to another procedure to be followed, and lack of respect for the WP process towards consensus is already a problem on this page, I find it not only irrelevant, but counterproductive to the process of consensus, and refuse to participate. However, I will give a short precis of my views here outside of the main body of this would-be poll, in the manner of a real poll. In addition to relevance in its own right, it has significance in the Stambaugh firing because of Stambaugh's assertion that he had proposed a line item in the budget to cover the cost of the kits. It is indispensable to an understanding of Palin's choice of subordinates, her handling of their policies, and her treatment of political rivals. I support the inclusion of any of Fannon's quotes, any and all material from the Legislature, the CNN article, and the source material on the budget from the Wasilla City Records department if links to that can be found, otherwise the HuffPo piece that links to that as a last resort, and anything I forgot. I specifically exclude support for inclusion of material from the SPT article as all of its material that doesn't rely for its notability on a negative proof can be found from other sources that reported earlier and with less editorializing. Anarchangel (talk) 22:21, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I took a few days away from this rape kit fiasco to see if I was part of the reason we couldn't bring the matter to closure. I am comforted to see anarchy still reigned in my absence. I will withhold my position in the straw poll another day or two, however. Fcreid (talk) 01:02, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi, thanks for your opinion, but we're really just looking for a quick read here going forward, not repeats of points made above. However, if you wish to abstain, that's your choice. Once everyone has weighed in, we can look at the !voters to see who are established editors and who are SPAs, weight opinions accordingly, and go from there. Kelly hi! 22:35, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Eliminate mention of rape kit billing from Palin bio

 * 1)  Kelly  hi! 20:41, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) --Evb-wiki (talk) 20:46, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 3) Billing insurance companies can be briefly mentioned in sub-article but not in this main article (cuz Palin may not have known about it), and billing victims should be in neither article (cuz no evidence it happened in Wasilla).Ferrylodge (talk) 20:50, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 4) after reviewing the arguments on the talk page, this seems to be essentially an election meme without real evidence that any victims were billed. Dman727 (talk)
 * 5) This is purely and totally talking head muckracker that reared its ugly head 2 hours after Palin's nomination. It is a totally minor blip on the radar of Palin's mayorship and nothing to date has even really tied this to Palin other than she was the mayor when Fannon objected to a bill when asked by a local newspaper. This crap would last a nano second on the Obama article and rightly so. Cheers and Happy New Years to all!! --Tom 21:31, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 6) The undue weight given to this issue is ridiculous.  Political figures are more than the sum of their blog-generated controversies.  Coemgenus 22:49, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 7) As an analogy, Stephen Conroy's internet censorship plans (a massively controversial plan which is a major part of his political career) consists of half a sentence in his biography, with the main information rightfully being placed elsewhere. The payment of rape kits in Wasilla is not as major an issue in Palin's career as Conroy's internet censorship plans, therefore should have half a sentence less. If people really cared about rape kits rather than wanting a talking point, maybe the rape kit article would mention that some jurisdictions are still billing victims. Andjam (talk) 02:38, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 8) I think that this is clearly an issue that is not notable in Palin's biography, but only in the campaign article.  As I have stated many times, I believe its inclusion is a violation of BLP guidelines and put undue weight on an issue which seems never to have really related to Palin directly.  However, I am willing to keep the consensus language to which Factchecker refers below if it will end this discussion once and for all.LedRush (talk) 02:48, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 9) Beyond the attention this never-invoked policy to which no direct Palin connection has been made received during the campaign, I fail to see how this is relevant to Palin's biography. I hate to draw parallels between this and Obama's article, but Obama's connection to Bill Ayers earned far more notoriety in the press, yet his biography appropriately makes no mention of it. I think the same standard should be applied here. »S0CO ( talk 03:40, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 10) This "controversy" is much ado about nothing. Nothing happened. It has nothing to do with Palin. It is notable only as an illustration of the absurd reaching that partisan attacks can take during a political campaign. Its inclusion makes the article and Wikipedia look absurd. It is ridiculous that it was ever allowed into the article.--Paul (talk) 04:56, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 11)  No connection has been established to Palin and the underlying activity, charging the insurance companies of victims, is far less sinister than the original attention-getting claim of charging victims themselves. National political campaigns typically produce a large number of accusations that receive press coverage but are never substantiated. They may belong in an article about the campaign, but not in a bio.--agr (talk) 14:14, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 12) After watching arguments on both sides of this issue over the past couple months, I see no reason to include this information in a bio of Palin. JenWSU (talk) 14:55, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 13) The rape kit stuff is inappropriate in the Palin bio. I am also opposed to the compromise statements which have proven to be a camel's nose under the tent kinda thing where not only does the whole camel come in but the caravan along with it. WTucker (talk) 18:38, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 14) Agree with the large number of editors who have already weighed in on the material which is not only not relevant to a BLP, is filled with conjecture, hits the lines of WP:UNDUE and more, but which consensus seems to be clear on as not belonging in the article. Collect (talk) 18:43, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 15) An utterly silly attack --B (talk) 20:59, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 16) Total non-issue. Sceptre (talk) 12:19, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 17) A trumped up non-controversy that only exists to be used as a weak attack upon Palin. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 12:24, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 18) Leotohill (talk) 19:50, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 19) I say eliminate for the reasons I stated below. This was just an attempt at mudslinging, and a poor one at that. Zaereth (talk) 22:50, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Keep mention of rape kit billing in Palin bio

 * 1) QuackGuru (talk) 20:44, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) User:Factchecker_atyourservice And I specifically recommend the version that was reached via compromise. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 20:48, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
 * And that version would be???? --Tom 21:32, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Per my comment above, saying that the controversy surrounding the alleged belief is notable because this article exists for two reasons, the first being that Palin is governor (the second being her run for vice-president), and in either case Palin's alleged political beliefs are notable.-- daniel  folsom  03:22, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Are you suggesting that since Palin is a Governor and was on the Republican ticket as Vice President that we should include every specious charge ever made against her or anyone she ever knew?--Paul (talk) 05:09, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * No, you're deliberately ignoring a big part of my post. If the controversy surrounding the alleged beliefs is significant then it should be included. Please read my entire post above if you're going to try and pass it off as silly. -- daniel  folsom  06:34, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The more common way to describe it is that he is using a straw man to describe your position, so that it looks weaker. Don't feel compelled to answer when someone uses a logical fallacy to attack your position; most people here are experienced editors and know better. Anarchangel (talk) 06:52, 29 December 2008 (UTC) Restored, I stand by this statement. I removed the 'scruples' charge, but only because I haven't had long experience of Paul's editing style. 'Specious charge' is not includable as rhetoric. To continue to use it as though it were, would indeed show a lack of scruples, as have the actions of other editors in the main discussion.
 * I should note that I would have preferred that editors not respond to other editors' comments here, and would welcome the deletion of all such comments, starting with "And that version would be?" I am going to try it that way, after this edit. Anarchangel (talk) 21:58, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Didn't work. KC says nothing here is a violation of WP:CIVIL and I do mostly agree with that assessment. However, I still think that one does not conduct a discussion in the middle of a poll, for similar reasons to the laws prohibiting campaigning in polling places. Anarchangel (talk) 02:49, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Discussion in the middle of polls is messy but not against policy nor even guidelines; polls are non-binding on WP and are used to gauge opinion and to spark productive conversation. KillerChihuahua?!? 14:17, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * But that is the whole point. This has NOT been significant except here on Wikipedia and also breifly by the talking heads after it was first thrown against the wall to see if this mud would stick. The entire world (except here) has moved on from this non-issue and rightly so. The agenda pushers would like to keep this going, but.....--Tom 14:52, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * "moved on"? Wikipedia isn't a news-outlet that let's go of old stories. It reports present and past. And jeeze - first Paul says I support an absolutely ridiculous idea (which I don't) and now you call me an agenda-pusher, why can't people around here stick to the arguments? And it's the news-coverage that determines whether there has been significant coverage.-- daniel  folsom  16:04, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * How much news coverage has this really recieved? Also, the agenda pushing comment was sort of generalized and not really directed towards you in perticular. --Tom 17:56, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Jimmuldrow (talk) 14:50, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) Significant news coverage, public statements of rebuke from multiple national women's rights groups, and a point of discussion in her candidacy for VP. Relates to her views on family-planning and religion, as well as demonstrates how she conflated her personal and professional goals, in the name of 'cutting costs'. ThuranX (talk) 00:06, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * It probably will not change your view, Thuran, but you just described exactly what this issue is not. There is no evidence Palin was even aware of this practice.  Therefore, it says nothing on her views on family planning, religion or cutting cost at any expense.  In short, you took the media hype hook, line and sinker, and your statement represents exactly the reason why so many editors are intent on not even including the matter in this article (to preclude other gullible souls from doing likewise). Fcreid (talk) 01:05, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * As discussed below - the fact that Palin wasn't aware doesn't mean it shouldn't be included, as per two out of three of the Grant scandals.-- daniel  folsom  01:10, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * This rises to the same level as those scandals?? --Tom 21:09, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Edit request
editprotected Per the above, please remove the following sentence from the "Mayor of Wasilla - First term" section:

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]

Thanks - Kelly  hi! 20:55, 2 January 2009 (UTC)


 * ✅ Arguments for removal are strong enough reason to remove the sentence for the time being. -- SB_Johnny | talk  11:02, 3 January 2009 (UTC)


 * See my refutation of three of the arguments below, and my reasons for it being only three so far. You fail to cite any.
 * And what of the arguments for inclusion? You fail to mention them at all.
 * What of the two weeks promised before action was taken? Do you not find Kelly's request precipitous and a breach of consensus?
 * What of your connection to Killerchihuaha, and your admitted inexperience on BLPs? "since it's my first "venture" into the kwazy world of protected BLPs :-)" http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:KillerChihuahua&diff=prev&oldid=261553620
 * How would you describe Kelly's behaviour on the talk page recently?

...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....Kelly hi!03:06, 27 Dec
 * 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...03:18, 27 Dec
 * 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.Kelly hi!]]03:22, 27 Dec
 * 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 05:42, 27 Dec
 * How many rape victims were charged for rape kits? Kelly hi! 19:15, 27 Dec
 * You know all you need to to concede the point. Stalling doesn't help your position. Anarchangel (talk) 21:33, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

The conversation ends with my refusal to cooperate further with the ad nauseum presentation of peripheral points before receiving a concession on a point Kelly was directly refuted on. Awaiting the concession was a further refutation of the contention "the Wasilla Police Dept, and Palin herself, have denied any policy of charging victims." The latter is obvious; it is refuted by the same cite as the first. The first is a misunderstanding of the nature of Palin's reply in her own Frontiersman interview, in which she replies to "During your tenure as mayor in 2000, then police chief Charlie Fannon commented in a May 23, 2000 Frontiersman article about legislation Gov. Tony Knowles signed protecting victims of sexual assault from being billed for rape kits collected by police as part of their investigations. Fannon revealed then that Knowles’ decision would cost Wasilla $5,000 to $14,000 a year, insinuating that the department’s policy was to bill victims for this testing. During your tenure as Mayor, what was the police department and city’s standard operating procedure in recovering costs of rape kits? Were any sexual assault victims ever charged for this testing while you were mayor?" with "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." So she never denied that she had knowledge of the practice, she never denied charges, she denied nothing. I find this frustrating, and it makes me feel better to categorize her answer as saying, 'charging for rape kits is bad'. It amounts to little more. Note that 'your repeated use of those two articles' shows that Kelly was aware of the articles and yet could find none of the evidence I presented, in them.

So basically, Kelly knows Jack about this issue. Kelly refuses to participate in discussion. Kelly is more interested in the fast track. We are subjected to a demolition of the material. And you have allowed the former and facilitated the latter. What say you? Anarchangel (talk) 03:40, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

First sentences & relevant excerpts of new sections all started by Kelly. Gallup is showing[1] Palin as the world's second-most admired woman... Just curious about how we should handle this article...we've got some new notable information...Saxby Chambliss credited her...Human Events named her Conservative of the Year...and she's been invited to speak at the Conservative Political Action Conference... Should we move discussion of the rape kit thingy to Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard..? Could someone explain why the rape kit thing belongs in Sarah Palin...? Just a dump of some evidence links regarding the rape kit controversy... This is not intended to be binding... Per the above, please remove... Criticisms of bias are better spoken by the unbiased. In lieu of that, with factual evidence, as I have presented, and Kelly has not. Anarchangel (talk) 21:25, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Per the above? You mean the section entitled 'Straw poll on rape kits'? You mean like very first sentence of the poll, where you defined it? : "This is not intended to be binding, just a way to gauge where we currently stand" - Kelly. I thought it was intended to mislead when I first saw it; it appears I was right. Moving a little fast doesn't quite cover it. When the results of a real poll or a RFC indicate deletion, then you may have authorization to request this edit. Anarchangel (talk) 23:33, 2 January 2009 (UTC) Reword the last phrase to: "then -it would be appropriate- to request this edit". And I should clarify: A real poll would be a good reason for a RFC, a RFC would be a good reason for requesting deletion. Just want to make sure my goalposts are anchored really tightly; goalposts have a way of drifting around on this discussion page; kind of disturbing when they wander a ways up the playing field. Anarchangel (talk) 23:59, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
 * It's just that nobody has offered a new opinion for several days...and it's 15 current editors for removal, 4 for retention. And now some folks are trolling the archives looking for archeological evidence of old opinions on the subject. In any case, the consensus seems fairly clear to at least remove the controversial material for now - this is, after all, a BLP. Kelly  hi! 01:09, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
 * There is no part of the process of people casting their votes for a non-binding poll at which it is appropriate to change it to binding other than before they start. Anarchangel (talk) 02:20, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
 * While no "vote" exists, nor can any "binding vote" occur on WP, nor can a "real poll" (whatever that means) trump consensus on a matter, the reasons given by the 15 are real and substantial evidence of a consensus on the matter. And retention of contentious material contrary to a consensus violates WP principles. Collect (talk) 02:30, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Who are you and what have you done with Collect? He doesn't make reasoned arguments.
 * There's just one problem with your assertions : "Wikipedia does not base its decisions on the number of people who show up and vote; we work on a system of good reasons" - WP:Consensus. Therefore 115 votes do not constitute consensus. Interesting you should use the phrase 'reasons given by the 15', as that was the reason I gave originally that the straw poll was not contributing to consensus: that it called for no (and unsurprisingly received little) reasoning. Anarchangel (talk) 10:17, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The editors who have shoiwn up have given good and substantial reasons for their positions. Absent a crystal ball, we can not try assigning former editors who made one or two edits into any camp in determining consensus, and we certainly can not ascribe reasons for thier ESP positions.  It appears at this point that not only is their a "numerical consensus" but also a "reasoned consensus" on the matter.  Collect (talk) 21:56, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah, there he is. I concede that editors have given reasons, which deviates from the poll's description as non-binding "Can we agree to keep this poll open for awhile, say 1-2 weeks, before presuming to draw any conclusions from it? Factchecker atyourservice 20:54, 28"; "Sounds reasonable, absolutely. Kelly hi! 20:57, 28 December" I concede that polls are not binding. Not a real poll means one that was introduced as -no big deal and we're just trying to further the conversation here, we won't be taking any action- despite the fact that conversation already existed and still exists on this page that has not been answered. Negative proof. Palin's own words. Kelly's own refusal to concede that Kelly's statement that there is no evidence Wasilla charged for rape kits is false. The rebuttal of Kelly's fallback position, that both Palin and the Wasilla police dept have denied charging for rape kits, that awaits Kelly's concession of the first point. This is an involved discussion, it requires involved editors. Newbies to it charging in and dictating policy is not helping.

The point about assigning positions to absent editors has been conceded already, below. Proceeding without them also has its difficulties, particularly around the holiday season. The list below has its merits, as described below. Substantial? "Stephen Conroy's internet censorship plans" - who? Ultimately articles should not be compared with each other at all, but Sarah Palin is a mainstream political party's pick for VP, and Stephen Conroy is not. "...If people really cared about rape kits rather than wanting a talking point, maybe the rape kit article would mention that some jurisdictions are still billing victims." Good point for inclusion, thanks. And I should add, I am interested in this information for inclusion. You can go ahead and try and paint a sign on me of what you think my agenda is, but I won't be there. Another point to consider: a nationwide law was enacted -removed own unnecessary info- to ban billing victims. Not sure whether that makes these instances that you mention crimes, or attempts by states to evade national law. So, although I have not been able to extensively show it here, as neither time nor the framing of the discussion has permitted: interesting perhaps, but not substantive arguments against inclusion by any means. As this poll was introduced as no big deal, I didn't bother addressing the points. That's just a first stab at one picked at random, that looked like it had more substance than the others. Others include assertions that have been refuted long ago, (and incidentally, have to be refuted over and over again, until I am just so sick of it I can't tell you) such as "after reviewing the arguments on the talk page, this seems to be essentially an election meme without real evidence that any victims were billed. -Dman727. I refer you to the very first piece of evidence that editors who start on this issue practically know the URL of by heart, Fannon's interview with the Mat-Su Valley Frontiersman on the 22nd (from memory) of um, May, it says here, '08. Then, the misleading and evasive. "Billing insurance companies can be briefly mentioned in sub-article but not in this main article (cuz Palin may not have known about it), and billing victims should be in neither article (cuz no evidence it happened in Wasilla).Ferrylodge (talk) 20:50, 28 Dec". Not only is billing victims mentioned in the subarticle already, but as Ferrylodge should know, charging victims is mentioned, and I notice he now knows to use the word 'billed' to distinguish who gets the bill, from 'charged', to denote who carries the weight of the charge: the victim who has to have paid for health insurance. I know this because I was the one that pointed it out. Victims -were- charged in Wasilla. We don't know if victims were billed in Wasilla. To say that they weren't is false, and additionally misleading, as they were charged. Then there are assertions that can 'never' be proven, as they are 100% rhetoric and/or subjective, such as "The undue weight given to this issue is ridiculous. Political figures are more than the sum of their blog-generated controversies.Coemgenus 22:49, 28 Dec" Anarchangel (talk) 03:40, 4 January 2009 (UTC) While I think a strong (and winning) case could be made for consensus, it is not appropriate for us to ask for this edit now for a couple of reasons. 1. Some posters have asked that the straw poll be included for at least 1 or 2 weeks. This discussion has been going on for a long time, and there is no reason to rush it. 2. While the straw poll is an excellent source of gauging opinion, it doesn't replace consensus building. The option in the poll is binary and doesn't give the editors who support inclusion the opportunity to argue for some different form of included material which may result in some editors who don't favor inclusion (like me) to support that language. I could easily see myself agreeing to some language in order to end this dispute (in fact, I already have).

Anyway, I don't see a reason to rush this...in a week or so we should close the straw poll and try to civilly listen to each other's arguments and proposals one more time and respectfully come to a decision.LedRush (talk) 04:27, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I am working on a list of conceded, refuted and disputed points, and a list of accepted and disputed sources. Anarchangel (talk) 10:17, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Anarchangel, when you copy and paste material onto this talk page, would you please remove signatures (i.e. the four tilde "~" things)? The only person who should be signing is the person who clicks the "Save Page" button.  Otherwise, things get very confusing.  Thanks.Ferrylodge (talk) 04:01, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

In reference to prior discussions on this subject
I think it's important not to lose sight of preceding debates on this same subject, but I don't want to be accused of canvassing or whatever other forms of bad faith people will inevitably try to ascribe to me. So I have attempted to create a list of past debate participants and to characterize each user's position on the debate. Where I am somewhat uncertain of somebody's position, I put a question mark (?) after their name. Where I am completely unsure, I have placed them in a "neutral" category.

If I have mischaracterized anybody's position, I am sorry. I'm sure this is also not a 100% complete list as I only went back about 4 months in the talk page history. I also did not include any IP's ... as far as I am concerned these are not editors. Finally, I did not list anyone who has already voted in this straw poll.

For inclusion User:LamaLoLeshLa User:Jim62sch User:JamesMLane User:Manticore55 Moved to Neutral; JcSoco's assessment is correct, his position is unclear Anarchangel (talk) 21:47, 3 January 2009 (UTC) User:Slrubenstein(?) User:Tvoz User:Homunq User:GreekParadise User:Anarchangel User:Writegeist -- has since been indefinitely blocked User:Appraiser User:Facts707 User:Zeamays User:Geo_Swan Removed; JcSoco's assessment is correct, only one edit Anarchangel (talk) 10:02, 3 January 2009 (UTC) Removed; JcSoco's assessment is correct, only three edits Anarchangel (talk) 10:02, 3 January 2009 (UTC) User:Fresheneesz User:Pmanderson / Septentrionalis

Against inclusion, or for moving to subarticle User:Wallamoose User:Elmmapleoakpine User:Zaereth User:Zsero User:oren0oreno's comment on Joe the Plumber talk: User:Hobartimus User:Wikidemon (? -- WD suggests to put in mayoralty article) User:Fcreid(? -- FC opposed inclusion but agreed on compromise language after discussion with Appraiser) Moved to neutral; passage had language this user supported Anarchangel (talk) 10:02, 3 January 2009 (UTC) User:MastCell (? -- suggests mayoralty article)

Neutral or I can't figure out their position User:KillerChihuahua (? -- KC made suggestions on how to word material in NPOV fashion, also reverted at least once when the section was deleted by Ferrylodge, but also stated he/she didn't have a strong opinion on whether to include) User:Grsz11 (?) User:Probios no evidence either way. This is evidence of nothing, hence Neutral. Anarchangel (talk) 21:47, 3 January 2009 (UTC) User:BenAveling(? -- Ben states he has seen no evidence Palin knew this was happening); this has been supported for months by the passage's final sentence in two forms: the SPT cite and Palin's own email interview answer. User:11dimensions-only one edit, removed from Support.Anarchangel (talk) 10:02, 3 January 2009 (UTC) User:Oldmann_d - only three edits, removed from Support, Anarchangel (talk) 10:02, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
 * (comment) I am not sure why this guy gets in the list and IPs don't...he was an editor for four minutes only (3 edits all to this talk page four months ago.LedRush (talk) 15:51, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

I removed him from Support. Anarchangel (talk) 10:02, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Just FWIW. Again, I'll state my own opinion that this was a criticism by notable parties which was relevant to Palin's notability as a politician and which received significant media coverage. Better to address it in NPOV fashion than to simply pretend it didn't happen. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 18:00, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

"See WP:VOTE and WP:DEMOCRACY. Far worse conflicts than this have been resolved by discussion; a majority vote is never going to convince anyone of consensus anyway. Oren0 (talk) 20:28, 6 December 2008 (UTC)" -Quote from Joe the Plumber talk page. oren0 is currently listed as Opposed. Regardless of how he might prefer to be listed, I think it would be hypocritical for him to choose.

I give up looking for MastCell's opinion; closest I could find was that he felt that someone was right to delete contributions to the SP talk page. Which is funny, 'cause he was right there to say just that exact same thing on the ANI page too. If anyone can find any examples of him objecting to the kit passage, go right ahead and cite them, otherwise I personally will be not crediting any count with his name in it as bona fide. Anarchangel (talk) 10:02, 3 January 2009 (UTC) I agree with JcSoco's statements about the value of Probios' contributions (here and on my talk), but it just isn't egregious enough to be relevant to a list of editors' stand on inclusion. I totally agree that Probios had nothing whatsoever to say about inclusion, and for this reason I will move him from Support to Neutral. Anarchangel (talk) 21:47, 3 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I have a couple of thoughts on this list:
 * 1. The idea of this was to see where we were with editors who have moved on since the partisan attacks of the election.
 * 2. The list includes people who've been indefinitely blocked and who've not contributed for a long time.


 * My feeling is that this list was put together to make it look like the poll was not an accurate assessment of what the editors of the page feel. However, it is deeply flawed in both concept and execution.LedRush (talk) 18:27, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Disagree. In what ways do you feel the concept and execution are flawed? Anarchangel (talk) 21:47, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 1. Yes, one of the purposes was to indicate that current straw poll is not an accurate assessment of what the editors of the page feel. But it's also to ensure any "consensus" that is taken is actually a broad consensus which reflects the scope of discussion which has taken place. "Consensus" isn't synonymous with "agreement among only those editors who have been watching this page in the past two weeks"... especially not when both the article itself and the issue we're debating have been the subject of intense discussion for months.
 * I thought we were trying to assess where we are now, not count where we once were.LedRush (talk) 21:51, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I do not believe you would categorize your argument as being based on this, but just to clear the air : the belief that the opinion of editors who edited before the election is worth less than those who edited afterwards is quite hollow, as would be the reverse. Anarchangel (talk) 21:47, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
 * If you're not dismissing the positions of those people, then why does the list not successfully show that the straw poll results are not an accurate assessment of how editors of the article feel? And how is listing the positions "deeply flawed"?Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 14:43, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I have already answered this.LedRush (talk) 17:17, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
 * If you mean, "I thought we were trying to assess where we are now, not count where we once were.", then you have not answered. That is a rhetorical question. Anarchangel (talk) 21:47, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
 * And I have shown that the current straw poll is not an accurate indicator of the opinions of editors who have debated this issue. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 21:52, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 2. So is it your claim that anyone who discussed this issue prior to this new straw poll, and who argued for inclusion, was just a partisan hack attempting to make a smear, and so we should not only disregard the prior discussions themselves, but declare anyone who participated in them to be unfit as editors -- except for those who argued against inclusion, who are to be regarded as exemplary editors? This really just sounds like a mass ad hominem argument.
 * You have yet again created a straw man. My claim is exactly what I have said it was...see where we are with the editors who have stayed on after the election.LedRush (talk) 21:49, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * See again, point above. I'm just trying to stress that the discussions that took place earlier were no less valid, nor the participants less sincere, during the election cycle. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 14:43, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, you've almost admitted you were wrong. Will you apologize for your baseless insulting attack?LedRush (talk) 17:17, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
 * How about you apologize for your own personal attacks before publically demanding an apology for my alleged attacks? Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 21:53, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 3. Please mention the users who have been permanently blocked and I will either remove them from the list or make a note of the block in the list.
 * WritegeistLedRush (talk) 21:49, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 4. Could you please describe more explicitly how this list is "deeply flawed" in both concept and execution? Neither of your objections really supports this claim.Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 18:44, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * No. I have explained it sufficiently and my objections support the claim perfectly: the first is the problem with your idea, the second with execution.LedRush (talk) 21:49, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The idea was to remind everyone of the previous discussions that took place on the subject, as well as the positions taken by users involved. The execution of the idea was to list the users as well as a general statement of whether they favored or opposed inclusion. It was a well-founded and well-executed idea, and your comments have done nothing to undermine that except to case doubt on the users involved in these previous discussions by implying that they were involved in "partisan attacks". Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 14:43, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, you've proclaimed your ill-conceived plan a success. I've proven otherwise and others seem to agree.  Why do editors who come here once to make minor additions get listed yet IPs don't?  Poor execution of a flawed idea.  We all agreed to keep this thread up for a long time to get the opinion of all who are interested.  If you don't like the results, maybe there is a problem with your underlying position.  Please don't facilitate the degeneration of this discussion with personal attacks, accusations, and attempts to undermine the consensus building process with bad lists.LedRush (talk) 17:17, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
 * And you've proclaimed it a failure without beginning to show why. I included people with user accounts because we can contact them and track their activity. Not so with IPs. Creating an account also shows that the person has some basic interest in Wikipedia beyond posting a single comment on a single page. Please stop your constant accusations of bad faith and simply admit that I am an honest editor who strongly disagrees with you and who is attempting to substantiate that numerous other editors have shared my position on this issue. This is not "facilitating the degeneration of this discussion" -- it's simply showing that your position has been argued against by numerous editors other than myself. This in no way undermines the consensus building process but instead provides a convenient reference to numerous others who have contributed to the debate -- just in case anyone cares that others have held opinions on the subject in the very recent past and wants to give those opinions a fair hearing.Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 22:00, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
 * mention the users who have been permanently blocked Is indefinate the same as permenent??See User:Writegeist. --Tom 19:29, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * deeply flawed in both concept and execution, to quote Hannah Montana, "yaaa thinnnkkk"?? Of course its flawed since probably 5 of the inclusionists are the same person :). Factchecker is at it again with his "facts" :) --Tom 18:32, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Of course since probably. Anarchangel (talk) 10:02, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Once again all you offer is ad hominem attacks. You're calling other editors sock puppets with no basis, and insulting me, in lieu of a serious response. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 18:48, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * ps received significant media coverage?? You are kidding, right? --Tom 18:34, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * No... I'm not kidding. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 18:50, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Attributing opinions to editors without their permission (or even confirmation) is problematic. Coemgenus 18:36, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * If I had contacted them I would have been accused (and somebody would have sought a block) for "Canvassing". So it's sort of a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" situation. Also, each attribution was based on their comments... it's not like I am just making it up. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 18:50, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * pss Factchecker, IPs are just as much editors to this project as registered users. I actually sometimes prefer to edit as an IP but they are treated as 2nd class sometimes which, imho is unfair and not right. Anyways, --Tom 18:38, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I see no way we could possibly involve IPs with discussion since we have no way of contacting them and they probably don't have the same IP address now, anyway. PS, the IPs I saw that I didn't include were in favor of including this issue, so it was a bit of a concession to your side that I excluded IPs. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 18:50, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * How bout the IPs who thought inclusion was "silly"? I know, I know, all you offer is ad hominem attacks, isn't that line getting a tad old? Anyways, --Tom 19:33, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I didn't notice any. Like I said, the IPs I excluded were in favor of inclusion. And anytime you wish to actually discuss something without insulting me, I'll be glad to oblige. So long as you constantly make ad hominem attacks, I will constantly call attention to that fact. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 19:39, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * You didn't notice any? How convienient is that?. I know, I know, another ad hominem attack. --Tom 20:24, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Do you have anything to add other than that I am a big fat poopypants who is not to be trusted? Shall we settle this on the playground at recess? Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 14:51, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

(undent) People can change their positions after discussion. That's the whole point of discussion. Positions from a long time ago are of even less relevance in a situation like this, where an election has intervened, and many people with more political or propagandist motives have either moved on or relaxed.Ferrylodge (talk) 18:53, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Really just seems like a way of dismissing everyone who has contributed to prior discussions on this issue by subjecting them to a mass ad hominem attack in which you accuse them all of having propagandist motives, in one fell swoop. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 19:00, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * No one is being dismissed. This RfC will be open a good long time, so that anyone can chime in.  And perhaps the idea that no one at this article has ever had a propagandist motive is just a tad naive?Ferrylodge (talk) 19:05, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * You, Led, and Kelly are all dismissing these users by implying that they had "propagandist motives" when they debated this issue and suggesting that we should now ignore the positions they took in the debate. I'm going to ignore your last comment as it makes a pretty grand and incorrect assumption about my views. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 19:14, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * You have again falsely accused me of making personal attacks. I have never ascribed propagandist motives to anyone, nonetheless dismissed their opinion for this reason.  Please try to remain civil and correct this misrepresentation that you've made.LedRush (talk) 21:49, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Your comments left the distinct impression that you were trying to minimize or dismiss the contributions to this debate that have been made prior to the past 2 weeks. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 14:51, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Again, this is almost an admission of wrongdoing. I hope you'll retract your false personal attack openly and completely.LedRush (talk) 17:17, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Courtesy is a two-way street. Apologize for repeatedly and directly stating that I act in bad faith, and perhaps explain what wrongdoing I am expected to apologize for, and then maybe our mutual hatchet-burying will be a constructive addition to this talk page? For the time being, I don't see the value in constant accusations (without any specific detail about what the accusation is about) and demands for apologies. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 22:08, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
 * You said "You, Led, and Kelly are all dismissing these users by implying that they had "propagandist motives" when they debated this issue and suggesting that we should now ignore the positions they took in the debate." I never said or implied that anyone had "propagandist motives, I never dismissed any users, and I never suggested that we should now ignore users.  Please show an example of me doing this in relation to your post or apologize.  The closest I can find to your assertion is that I mentioned the point of the straw poll was to see where we were after the partisan attacks associated with the election have ended.  This is, of course, directed at both sides of the fence and wasn't attributed to any specific editors or any political parties or positions.  The same was true of the Obama article...after the election the partisan attacks from both sides died down, and people were generally able to strike a more civil tone.  I had hoped the same would happen here, but...
 * Your assertion of courtesy being a two-way street is correct. We have both had heated disagreements in the past and I admit that I have not always been civil, (though I would meet Wikipedia's standards of civility).  For that I apologize.  I have apologized in the past when I have made mistakes or crossed lines.  But when I start a new discussion I treat people with respect.  However, you continue to make personal attacks on me, create strawmen arguments, and say I've done things I haven't.  Seeing I have proven your above statements about me are false, I would appreciate an apology.LedRush (talk) 05:36, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I would also like an apology for your accusations of bad faith, use of strawmen, misrepresentations of what I have said, etc. Basically, you are demanding an apology for things that you yourself have done but are not willing to apologize for. See the incongruity? And once again, this finger-pointing which you seem to insist upon is not productive for the article. Take it to my talk page, or an admin board? Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 15:18, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Above I have apologized for past actions which may have crossed the line. However, in this case, I have done none of the things you accuse me of, and I have proven you have done them to me.LedRush (talk) 15:53, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I am unable to locate any apology. And your claims of innocence, as well as your claims of having provided proof of anything, ring hollow. This discussion and these demands for apology are pointless and unproductive. Let's end both. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 16:48, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeh, he did, Fact. "We have both had heated disagreements in the past and I admit that I have not always been civil, (though I would meet Wikipedia's standards of civility). For that I apologize." He then went and made some more accusations, but he did at one point apologize. And Led? Factchecker does not owe you an apology. Thanks for yours. Might have seemed more noble if you didn't demand one from him afterwards. Nobody has said anything that can't be just ignored. So start ignoring it already. On the other hand, noone has said anything purely civil the entire, very long, conversation. This jabbing while acting as wounded as possible back and forth is making me queasy. Any chance you could wrap it up? Anarchangel (talk) 10:02, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Sure, assuming no one makes any more false attacks on me, this will be my last post on the subject: My reply below (repeated from above) proves without doubt that Factchecker misrepresented my position (despite a clear statement that my purpose was precisely not what he accused it to be) and made false accusations about me.  If he is unwilling to either back up his claim or retract it, there is nothing I can do.  But I will not accept false statements about me to go unanswered.LedRush (talk) 19:29, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I repeat my apology for unspecified past incivility and my proof that you've attacked me without reason below.


 * You said "You, Led, and Kelly are all dismissing these users by implying that they had "propagandist motives" when they debated this issue and suggesting that we should now ignore the positions they took in the debate." I never said or implied that anyone had "propagandist motives, I never dismissed any users, and I never suggested that we should now ignore users.  Please show an example of me doing this in relation to your post or apologize.  The closest I can find to your assertion is that I mentioned the point of the straw poll was to see where we were after the partisan attacks associated with the election have ended.  This is, of course, directed at both sides of the fence and wasn't attributed to any specific editors or any political parties or positions.  The same was true of the Obama article...after the election the partisan attacks from both sides died down, and people were generally able to strike a more civil tone.  I had hoped the same would happen here, but...
 * Your assertion of courtesy being a two-way street is correct. We have both had heated disagreements in the past and I admit that I have not always been civil, (though I would meet Wikipedia's standards of civility).  For that I apologize.  I have apologized in the past when I have made mistakes or crossed lines.  But when I start a new discussion I treat people with respect.  However, you continue to make personal attacks on me, create strawmen arguments, and say I've done things I haven't.  Seeing I have proven your above statements about me are false, I would appreciate an apology.LedRush (talk) 05:36, 2 January 2009 (UTC)


 * End quote...LedRush (talk) 17:03, 2 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I wish you wouldn't ignore that last comment, because it accurately describes my view.Ferrylodge (talk) 20:39, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Then try not using "your view" to rhetorically imply something about me that is untrue. You said "And perhaps the idea that no one at this article has ever had a propagandist motive is just a tad naive?" You clearly and obviously said this in order to suggest that I am naive because I supposedly believe that "no one at this article has ever had a propagandist motive". But I don't believe that no one at this article has ever had a propagandist motive.. not by a long shot.. or I wouldn't have started editing it in the first place.Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 14:51, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Ferrylodge is correct. Nobody's being dismissed here, but the consensus of what belongs in an article changes over time. This is especially true of figures in an emotional national election. As an example, I admit I was initially horrified at the thought of Obama as president (which was the main reason I never edited his biography). Now that we are past the election rhetoric, I'm encouraged that he is appointing centrists and Republicans to his cabinet, and has even espoused some socially conservative policies, so I now feel all right with the thought of him representing me as President. The campaign memes about him, like abandoning the mission in Iraq or bankrupting the coal industry, seem silly and exaggerated in retrospect and would never belong in his biography. I would assume that the same sense of resolution/calm has prevailed with many editors who were horrified at the thought of Palin as VP, and many have moved on, changed their minds, or just don't care anymore. The poll above seems to be indicating that, but we're in no hurry. Kelly  hi! 20:41, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * What you're seeing is roughly the same set of editors who have always opposed inclusion of this. It's not evidence that editors who favored inclusion have "moved on" or "changed their minds". I'm sure if you posted on the talk page of each user, the majority of them would express the same opinion that they originally expressed. I wanted to do this but judged that I would be accused of dishonesty in some way. Most of these people also probably did not assume that their opinion would be discarded later simply because they didn't keep a vigil over this article, while the people they debated against did.


 * Finally, I'll point out that several people in that list are still actively editing this article. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 14:51, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
 * And several of your "list" NEVER "actively edited" here at all, or officially made "minor" edits and who have not made the position you ascribe to them in any recent posts at all.  Collect (talk) 15:43, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
 * There are people on both "sides" of the list who have not been major contributors to the article content. Others have contributed substantially but have not put the article on their Watch list and don't patrol it for recent changes. There are also, in general, numerous people who comment on subjects related to an article, but do not actively edit the article itself. None of this is really relevant to anything, nor does it mean their contributions to the discussion are to be ignored or minimized. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 15:55, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
 * If they are actively editing, this list is unnecessary. If not, listing them here doesn't help as we're trying to get a sense of where we now stand with editors who have decided to remain and make the article good after the bitter election ended.  I've explained this several times, but...LedRush (talk) 17:17, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't believe it would be inappropriate to, in a NPOV manner]], inform the users who previously weighed in on the issue that a new poll is being had. See WP:CANVAS. --Evb-wiki (talk) 17:27, 1 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree that ascribing positions to editors is problematic. However, consider the alternatives: Canvassing. This is right out. No can do. Citing the listed editors' support for inclusion. This is messy and time consuming. Additionally, it is arguably not possible, as deleting the material has not come up as a serious discussion since the material was first introduced in August.

I think the list is valuable as far as it goes. It is obviously not to be incorporated with the poll. And it obviously shows a completely different conclusion, one which has prevailed since August, when the material was first introduced. In an environment where five or six deletions a day of a single sentence is common, that's notable. Anarchangel (talk) 19:55, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
 * There has never been a clear consensus to include this material in the article. And the material has not been in the article since August, as it didn't make its first appearance on a liberal blog "Stop All Monsters (like Sara Palin)" until September 8th.  In fact since mid September when this controversy first arose, the material has been out of the article more than it has been in.--Paul (talk) 20:59, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Now that I think upon it, neither poll is consensus either, as oren0's quote from Joe the Plumber page points out. Anarchangel (talk) 10:02, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree about consensus. My thoughts on consensus in this article are known to the regulars in discussion. It has been my strong contention on numerous occasions that true consensus has never existed on any issue since October.
 * You're right, my bad. It entered the article in September where it remained until it was deleted by Threeafterthree on September 14 at 2:40 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sarah_Palin&diff=238276447&oldid=238276121, returning in October to be deleted in its entirety four times in one day, the 15th, by Threeafterthree; four of seven nonconsecutive edits and 11 total edits to SP he made on that day. I had it confused with something else, either the first edits Tom made on the article, which was in August, or the first rush of edits on SP, in the same month.
 * Overall, it may have been out more than in, but since October, it has been in more than out. It seems fairly obvious that the arguments that it does not have support therefore it should be deleted, and it has support therefore it should remain, are both unfounded, and relative to other arguments for and against inclusion, of little consequence in any case. Anarchangel (talk) 23:33, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, the reason I pointed out the flaws of the list are for this very reason. It doesn't effectively "show" anything.  Someone has already removed his name from the list for misattribution, one of the guys is indefinitely banned, the list doesn't include IP contributions so it doesn't show the real thoughts of all contributors on this, names are duplicated from the straw poll so it gives the false impression of where the board was at the time...it's just a bad idea to have done this and it was done badly.  I also disagree with Anarchangel's opinion that the list shows a conclusion which has prevailed since august for different reasons than the above mentioned ones: many editors like myself have participated in the discussion about the wording of the language as a compromise to our real position that it doesn't belong at all.LedRush (talk) 20:06, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
 * It shows that numerous people have supported inclusion, in order to contradict repeated claims that almost nobody has. Anyway, there were *maybe* 2 or 3 IPs excluded from the list. Which names are you saying are duplicated from the straw poll? I didn't see any. Anyway, I completely disagree that it was a bad idea... since it has been claimed over and over and over again that "only a few" editors have ever supported inclusion, it's important to at least reference discussions in which numerous people have argued for inclusion. And it was done about as well as it could be done without actually contacting the editors in a canvass... which would have prompted even more accusations of bad faith (and possibly block attempts) than the list itself has.


 * Finally, many editors such as myself also offered heavy concessions in crafting the compromise. There were those who contributed but felt it should be excluded entirely, then there were those who contributed but felt that the compromise text failed to convey any sense of why there was a criticism directed at Palin in the first place, omitted the complaint of bill sponsor Croft, etc. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 21:51, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not convinced the list is reliable. One person has already removed himself/herself.  And why is Buster7 listed as supporting inclusion?  Anyway, as I said before, the list does not seem relevant at this stage of things.Ferrylodge (talk) 20:26, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

That was a -long- time ago, before the Huffington Post information was introduced, before I proved the 'no evidence' statement relied on negative proof for notability, before the connection with Stambaugh was established. He has consistently supported including more facts in the rape kit budget passage, such as this one; his objection was based on the information discussed at the time, which was a lot weaker.Anarchangel (talk) 10:02, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Consider some of the editors who are listed in support of inclusion. User:Probios presented Munger's allegation of "Palin the YEC" as fact on the article and then went on the talk page and argued in defense of this distortion of the source he cited. User:11dimensions has archived only one edit on Wikipedia; a talk-page rant about the "whitewash" of the Sarah Palin article. User:Oldman d has only three. Are these not exactly the kinds of come-and-go POV-warriors LedRush was talking about? Should they be fully weighted against editors who have regularly contributed both to this article and the project as a whole? Clearly, the answer is "no." »S0CO ( talk 04:32, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Distortion of the source? Pht. The Palin as YEC story would be in the article now if the source had been good. The source gave evidence that, if believed, showed Palin was a YEC.
 * I totally agree about 11dimensions and Oldman d and have removed them from Support. Anarchangel (talk) 10:02, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Replied at your talk. »S0CO ( talk 20:45, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

So this is about the rape kit thing? I saw the edit request above, then saw this section, and got to tl;dr before seeing what the actual topic here is (no offense, but it's really not clear!) -- SB_Johnny | talk  00:06, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes it is. I prefer to call it the 'rape kit budget' thing, these days, it makes it so much more difficult to assert that Palin had nothing to do with it. Anarchangel (talk) 10:02, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Removed
As per the arguments above (waaay up there!), the referenced material doesn't establish enough of a connection to Palin herself to withstand the arguments for removal. -- SB_Johnny | talk  11:05, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Fannon was Palin's employee subordinate. Palin made the budget that cut funding for rape kits.The links in this article have the information directly from the budget. Even St Petersburg Times explains that her budget was related to Fannon's policy "she indirectly endorsed it by approving city budgets that relied on the revenue".Anarchangel (talk) 06:07, 4 January 2009 (UTC)


 * "Fannon was made Police Chief by the City Council of Wasilla. Mayor Palin had no day-to-day control over police actions and practices. Budgets which were approved by the City Council made changes in how funds were allocated, but "rape kits" were not specifically dealt with in any single budget line item." is far closer to fact -- and it makes clear that there was no substantial nexus between Palin and any actions by a City Council appointed Police Chief, or between Palin and any use of budget line items. Collect (talk) 12:46, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Refrain from using quotes when you are not quoting something, or cite it, please. The Municipal Code shows Palin's duties as regards the Police Department, including:

"4.   Appoint, suspend or remove city employees and administrative officials, except as provided otherwise in AS Title 29 and the Wasilla Municipal Code; 5.    Supervise the enforcement of city law and carry out the directives of the city council; 6.    Prepare and submit an annual budget and capital improvement program for consideration by the council, and execute the budget and capital program as adopted; 7.    Make monthly financial reports and other reports on city finances and operations as required by the council;".


 * 1. The Muni Code is a "primary source" and unless you are asserting specialist knowledge in the interpretation of it, then it can not be used. Note especially "EXCEPT AS PROVIDED OTHERWISE" and note also that you missed the fact that the City Council is the primary body in Wasilla.   And you seem not to notice the "CARRY OUT THE DIRECTIVES OF THE CITY COUNCIL" as well. Fannon was not her "employee" - he was an employee of the City of Wasilla, pursuant to the direction of the City Council of Wasilla. As stated. Thank you most kindly! Collect (talk) 14:31, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

The budget for '94 had a line item called Contractual Services that was entitled: "costs for medical blood tests for intoxicated drivers & medical exam/evidence collection for sexual assaults." Subsequent budgets retained the name Contractual Services, and still showed medical exams, but did not contain the 'evidence collection for sexual assaults', as one would expect, if the Police Department had stopped paying for them. Or, something else happened to that. Which is why my edit to the main article showed that the line item for Contractual Services had been cut by an average of $400 a year since Palin became mayor, instead of claiming that it showed the kits had been cut. So it is both accurate and not misleading to say that the budget for the kits was cut, and that Fannon's department had charged for kits.


 * Aha!! Palin was Mayor in 1994!!!! A new fact -- I did not know anyone would actually try writing that one! Can you give us a cite for her being Mayor in 1994??? Collect (talk) 14:31, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

The arguments are way up there because there have been many more arguments to the contrary that you have not even mentioned, and indeed, whose nature you seem to have not understood, right up until very near the time of your edit. Anarchangel (talk) 03:40, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I disagree with the well-intentioned removal of this content. We're meant to be writing a factual article on Sarah Palin, not editing facts into or out of her life.  We write facts; Readers draw conclusions.  Any variation on this pattern on our part lets the reader down and impedes our goal of writing an encyclopedia.
 * Palin was a hands-on mayor, according to secondary sources and to her own statements. The police chief reported to her directly.  A factual statement of what happened, without overstating her part in the controversy, belongs in the article, as it is intrinsically connected to Palin's tenure as mayor and became a point of contention in Palin's later political activities, as well, transcending her mayoralty and impacting on other activities of hers, including her run for Vice-President.  To omit mention of this issue entirely gives the misleading impression that the controversy both didn't involve her and didn't have any effect on her activities, either as mayor or afterward.  It's better to trust the reader with the facts than to sculpt their impression by presenting a subset of those facts.  --SSBohio 18:06, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
 * While I may disagree with the procedure of the removal, I cannot say I disagree with the substance of the decision...it is quite correct in my opinion. The "controversy" wasn't really widely covered in the mainstream press (yes, we will find many hits on articles about it, but it never became a substantial campaign issue), there is no evidence that it involved Palin, and there is no evidence it effected the events of her life in any meaningful way.  This doesn't meet the standards for entry into a BLP (or perhaps any biography) in the same way that the far more discussed and covered Ayers controversy doesn't belong in the Obama biography.LedRush (talk) 19:21, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
 * It was widely covered.. no evidence showing direct involvement by Palin has been found, and it's worth mentioning that despite addressing the issue in the press multiple times, Palin never actually said she was unaware of the policy or didn't approve of it. This leaves a fairly reasonable suspicion that she did know but is now trying to sweep it under the rug. As SSB just above pointed out, it's appropriate to simply state the facts and let readers form their own conclusions rather than withholding the facts for fear that readers might form the "wrong" conclusion.Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 19:18, 9 January 2009 (UTC)


 * "fairly reasonable suspicion " is why BLP rules exist. A BLP is not supposed to list stuff to give "fairly reasonable suspicions" (that is -- speculation) any foothold in any BLP article. Thanks for making this quite clear. Collect (talk) 19:27, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi, Collect. I wasn't talking about putting my suspicion into the article. But it would be wildly inappropriate to omit actual factual details which would even give a reader the basis upon which he or she might form such a suspicion. BLP guidelines don't exist to prevent the wrong ideas from gaining a "foothold". They exist to prevent Wikipedia from being used to commit libel -- not so that editors can try to influence what readers think about the subject by selectively omitting criticism based on their own original-research analysis that the criticism is false. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 19:39, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Nope. The reason is not "libel" it is "fairness" in a BLP. Absent facts to support your "suspicions" the material you use to support your "suspicions" is, at this point, under legitimate dispute. And, per BLP, such material requires a positive consensus for insertion. No matter what your "suspicions" are. Collect (talk) 20:31, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * "Fairness" would seem to indicate that notable criticism should be reflected, and that is in fact exactly what BLP policy says. BLP policy does not say that editors who think that a criticism or allegation should be included must factually prove the allegation or show that the criticism is absolutely accurate beyond any doubt or difference of opinion. Nor does the policy appear to say that unanimous approval must be gained for any and all additions of material. In fact, in the case of criticism and allegations, it seems fairly obvious that there will always be someone who disputes the allegation or criticism and argues it should not be included. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 20:40, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Don't worry too much about the procedure... it's certainly a matter of dispute, so it makes sense not to have it in while discussions are taking place. I'll happily edit war with myself and add it back if that's where the sense of the tides leads me :-). The point of protecting the page is that it's better to discuss than edit war over it, but it's still a wiki, and any problem can be fixed. -- SB_Johnny | talk  23:55, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Are you assuming that the burden of proof has not been met by previous editors? Or is there another reason that it makes sense not to have it in while discussions are taking place? Anarchangel (talk) 03:40, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 * LedRush, it seems to me that the standard you're applying is arbitrarily high. The issue received non-trivial coverage in more than one reliable source and Palin is a public figure.  That generally marks an item as being "in bounds".  To add the burden that the issue must be "widely covered," that coverage must be in the "mainstream press," and that it must have become a "substantial campaign issue" presents arbitrary obstacles to inclusion.  Two editors have provided demonstration of Palin's link to the issue.  As for the Obama biography, the Ayers issue certainly bears mention there, for the same reasons that this issue (and others) should be mentioned here.  The reader must be allowed to consider the facts and draw their own conclusion, rather than be channeled one way or another.  --SSBohio 17:11, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I would say "hear, hear" after each of your comments, but that would take up too much space, so I'll just say it here.

Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 19:18, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The standard is nether arbitrary nor high. The reason the Ayers issue isn't in the Obama article is for precisely the same reasons that rape kits shouldn't be in here.  The purpose of the much more widely covered and discussed Ayers issue was merely to hurt Obama by linking him to a controversy.  Ditto Palin and rapekits.  Remember, this article is a biography and its contents should be reasonably related to the topic.  Both Ayers and rapekits belong in campaign articles, not biographies.LedRush (talk) 17:40, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The standard stated exceeds what's in WP:BLP and it relies on subjective judgments about "wide coverage, "mainstream press," and a "substantial ... issue", which are more arbitrary criteria than found in WP:BLP. Therefore, I described it as "arbitrarily high."  I meant no negative connotation, only that the bar was being raised higher and the criteria made less definite.
 * The reason the Ayers issue should be in the Obama biography (even if only a passing reference to a more in-depth article) is the same reason that this issue should be in the Palin biography. Obama's relationship with Ayers was the controversy: He was already intrinsically linked to it before any press reports came out.  Similarly, Palin's role as mayor of a town that had a policy of billing for "rape kits" is the controversy here.  That the controversy has been reported in reliable sources makes it includable here, as it involves the subject of this article.  Do we need a multiparagraph exposition on the issue here?  Not in my opinion.  But, by the same token, not mentioning it at all omits what we know, which reduces the completeness of this article, and hence, its quality.  I think there can be a middle ground between "all" and "nothing" where this issue is concerned.  We just need to find it.  --SSBohio 18:08, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

As it might help people to understand my 'agenda', which actually has been the subject of many a post here, on the basis of the articles currently cited there and on Ayers own page, I note that I support inclusion of sufficient material on the Ayers meetings in the Obama article to introduce it, and enough material -somewhere- to fully explore it. Anarchangel (talk) 21:25, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Ditto for me on that; ditto also on Rev. Wright. Pretending these were non-issues is not appropriate.Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 19:18, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, and I don't see my standards as being particularly arbitrary or high. I have stated my reasons many, many times on this talk page (some of which are still on this page)(I say this as an explanation of why my answers are short: it's nothing about your questions or arguments, just how many times I've addressed them on this page).  Basically, this has nothing to do with her biography, there is no provable connection (so far, anyway) between Palin and the policy, and the mere mention of "rape kits" in this article will do damage to her reputation.  Without more, insertion of this issue is a BLP violation, IMHO.  Others, including Killer, disagree, and I can respect there opinion.  I have participated in compromise language in the past to keep this issue from reoccurring, but editors just push for more and more to get included.  My opinion is the best way to make sure that this article comports with Wikipedia standards and improves the quality of the article itself is to omit any reference to this issue.LedRush (talk) 19:57, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * It's been repeatedly noted that Wiki BLP's are not "biographies" in the traditional sense of "a book about someone's life". The genesis of a BLP on a subject is the subject's notability. We don't just take someone who's notable, reprint their resume and add fluffy details about their distance running exploits or whatnot. If there's been criticism and praise that's relevant to the subject's notability, we reflect it. Mentioning criticism is not only not a BLP violation... it's specifically required by the BLP guidelines.Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 19:18, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm glad you brought up the matter of the fact of her performance in the marathon. It has been repeatedly removed as "fluff" when it seems clear to many of us that it is a biographical fact that communicates real information about the subject of this biography, unlike some of the material pushed into the article.--Paul (talk) 19:35, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, real information which just happens to be totally irrelevant to the subject's notability ... this is in fact exactly why I chose that example. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 19:41, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Interesting claim. Unfortunately inaccurate.  And adding material because you have a "suspicion" about a person is clearly in the category of material which does not belong in any BLP at all.  Collect (talk) 19:30, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not even sure what any of what you just said is supposed to mean. Which claim is inaccurate? And would it kill you to say how or why? And I certainly have not added any material to any article at all just "because I have a suspicion about a person"... this almost sounds like a PA. I have repeatedly, and with direct, explicit reference to BLP policy, stated why this criticism is appropriate for inclusion under BLP policy. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 20:26, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

RFC or ANI?
This is not intended to be a vote. Constructive comments only, furthering the process of deciding whether to begin proceedings to RFC on the rape kit budget material or go to ANI to get SB Johnny's removal of the rape kit budget material reversed.

From the bottom of 'Straw poll on rape kits' section, subsection 'In reference to prior discussions on this subject' : "So this is about the rape kit thing? I saw the edit request above, then saw this section, and got to tl;dr before seeing what the actual topic here is (no offense, but it's really not clear!) --SB_Johnny | talk 00:06, 3 January 2009 (UTC) Yes it is. I prefer to call it the 'rape kit budget' thing, these days, it makes it so much more difficult to assert that Palin had nothing to do with it. Anarchangel (talk) 10:02, 3 January 2009 (UTC)"

The only sign that SB Johnny noticed the half of the discussion indicating inclusion was to say, as I read it, Huh? However, he had been advised that the discussion was about the rape kit article as of his removal of the entire rape kit budget passage as of 11:00 on 3 January

In light of this, the summary given "(rm "rape kit" discussion per talk page discussion)" really reminds me of Threeafterthree's edits and summaries. For 'Per talk page discussion', read, 'despite half the talk page being given over to a discussion of reasons for inclusion'.

I am so very uninterested in censuring action. It is so irrelevant. I support only restoration of the material as an action in ANI. However, I am concerned about the length of time that an RFC would take, and 'using up' of an RFC. Later on, should we need an RFC on another issue, the fact that we had had one already would be used against the new RFC, in the same way that 'tendentious editing' claims are used against our proposals even now on ANI, RFC, and other administrative pages. If it is possible to reverse the deletion in ANI, I want to do so. Anarchangel (talk) 01:37, 4 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I just want to be clear on your reasoning. Do you believe that because SB Johnny didn't post a lot on the talk page that he couldn't have made a correct decision about whether the rape kit language should be removed and therefore want to know whether people want to join you in questioning his thought process on this issue in either RFC or ANI format?  If this is indeed your opinion, he seems to indicate very clearly above that he will put the language back in the article if that is where the talk page discussion goes, so this whole post seems unnecessary.  If this is not your opinion, could perhaps state what it is for me again so I can properly and productively respond?LedRush (talk) 06:09, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, in fairness, he was basing the removal on his impression that there was a consensus for removal. It would seem that familiarity with the history of the debate would be requisite in accurately making such an assessment. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 19:18, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * As he did familiarize himself with the arguments, it would appear then that you back his decision. Thanks! Collect (talk) 19:44, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I've been asking you for months to drop the obvious sarcasm. Please oblige. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 20:20, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I was not being sarcastic there. Johnny made a goof faith effort to become familiar with the article and talk page. I would appreciate it if you would AGF here. Collect (talk) 20:34, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I AGF, Collect, but by saying "it would appear then that you back his decision. Thanks!" you were obviously making a sarcastic comment. You have done this countless times in the past. Please do not do it. It is obvious that I do not back Johnny's decision, and you know it. And please don't compound your sarcasm by accusing me of not AGF'ing when I ask you not to be sarcastic. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 20:44, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Because he will correct his mistake, he didn't make a mistake? Kelly said the poll would be up two weeks, no big deal, not binding. There is no way I believe anyone anymore when they say things like, it is no big deal, I can put it back no problem. SB Johnny was wrong in many ways to remove the material, I have noted my reasons above. Kelly and SB Johnny have together done exactly what Threeafterthree did exactly 30 times. Same amount of comment, same amount of reasoning, same amount of attention to the opinions of editors. Anarchangel (talk) 06:44, 4 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I have steered clear of this for the past week to see whether I was no longer seeing things clearly, Anarchangel. In my time of observation, it has become clear to me that this has become an obsession for you.  Paul's advice above is sound.  Take a break.  I and everyone else appreciates that this is a sincere cause for you, but your anger and activism is misdirected in this matter.  Palin may well represent the antithesis of every woman's cause you hold dear, but it's illogical to think she would target rape victims.  When you have to dredge up support from a Huffington Post piece in order to make a case against her in this rape kit issue, it's time to assess whether this is a winnable battle. Fcreid (talk) 11:51, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Fcreid, categorizing others as obsessed and suggesting they "take a break" from the page is, frankly, not helpful. If the person is "on the other side" it looks, I am sorry to say, either baiting or condescending. Realize that this is a heated topic, with strong views, else we would not be working with a protected article which may well be officially moderated in the near future. Given that parameter, most of the editors could be described as obsessed to one degree or another, else they'd be off editing grammatical errors on My Little Pony article. See what I mean?
 * Your post is almost 100% commentary on another editor. It is unacceptable. Don't do this again. Comment on content, not on the contributor. KillerChihuahua?!? 12:54, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I have been debating content for nearly four months, from the day this issue first surfaced and with multiple editors before Anarchangel. In its initial iteration, it was presented as unequivocally involving Palin.  In one form, it actually perpetuated a lie that these kits included "morning after" contraception (later debunked as they weren't even available then).  Despite these lies being perpetuated by liberal blogs as campaign smears--Huffington Post and dKos notably--I was among a few who conceded it should be included with the rationale that, while multiple reliable sources found Palin had no direct involvement in the ad hoc practice by her police chief, her lack of awareness might call into question her management acumen.  In fact, I still feel that way, i.e. the article should state succinctly that her police chief admittedly practiced this, yet there is no evidence Palin supported or opposed it--both points are fully supported by reliable sources.  In contrast, I object to the position of this particular editor who has apparently made it a quest to bring Palin to trial here in her BLP on flimsy evidence from questionable sources.  The editor's argument is simply that Palin must have been complicit in the practice based on a $400 difference between budget years in a line item which included variable contractual services costs, such as snow removal--an amount insufficient to pay for a single evidence collection kit and certainly not the $5K-14K claimed by her police chief.  Moreover, there is no conceivable motive for Palin's involvement, save nonsensical attribution that Palin had a vendetta against rape victims.  You're right on one point--this issue will never die, because there will always be an editor wanting again to bring Palin to trial on the matter. Fcreid (talk) 13:39, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

(Outdent) Great. Keep up the good work. However, I state again, since you seem to have missed or ignored this pint: Don't attack your fellow editors. KillerChihuahua?!? 13:52, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I'll try to say this delicately and without hostility, but there comes a time when mediation means telling otherwise well-intentioned editors that the material they hope to introduce (and the sources being presented to support it) represent a fringe perspective. That doesn't negate that future evidence might emerge that prompts reevaluation, but rather that the present evidence and arguments are not convincing to other well-intentioned editors, no matter how many times the evidence is rehashed and repeated.  I thought we had achieved that months ago with the consensus wording on this issue, which made virtually no one happy (and, thus, was likely the best conceivable presentation of the material). Fcreid (talk) 14:54, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Fcreid, please read WP:Fringe... man-on-mars theory, moon-landing hoax, etc. Not even the same ballpark. I'm not even sure if I would categorize this as a minority opinion, but even if so it would be improper not to reflect it. Total omission would seem to violate WP:Weight by giving no weight at all to a significant opinion/controversy/allegation/whatever you want to call it. However, I do agree, and stated myself many months ago, that a well-fashioned NPOV reflection of this material would probably leave both "sides" feeling that the whole story was not being told.Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 19:18, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Iterated too many times. Omission of what should be omitted is what WP:BLP calls for. Collect (talk) 20:40, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Collect, I have made numerous separate and distinct points and you simply sit there and call them "iteration" without replying in substance. And BLP guidelines do not call for this specific criticism to be omitted, no matter how coyly you phrase it. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 20:46, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Notes of opposition to either RFC or ANI
Please let's not reiterate the same stuff over and over again. The consensus of the editors who participated in the straw poll couldn't be more clear. There's not a chance that ANI would overturn Johnny's reading of the consensus. Kelly hi! 01:48, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 * That's not an issue for the above discussion, as the opening sentence shows. Your opposition is noted. Anarchangel (talk) 03:40, 4 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Note: I have reverted the edit which removed the rape kit budget bit. There was clearly NOT a consensus for removal, or the section "RFC or ANI?" would not have appeared. Please note, this is not an endorsement of this section. I have, officially, no opinion. I am acting as moderator of this page only, and undoing what was a slightly hasty reading of consensus by SBJohnny. I am sure he acted in good faith and believed he was enacting consensus; subsequent posts have made it clear he was not doing so. Puppy has spoken. KillerChihuahua?!? 12:49, 4 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I do not want to go bark to the future -- the issue has been discussed as nauseam, and per BLP I consider 1. it is "contentious" and 2. that per BLP it requires a clear consensus to INCLUDE the material for it to be included, and does not require, therefore, a clear consensus not to include. Thus I would demur on your interpretation of SBJohnny's actions. Thanks! Collect (talk) 13:07, 4 January 2009 (UTC)


 * That's more or less what my impression of the approach was... similar to how something "iffy" would be removed for discussion until a strong reference was found. This is my first foray into the BLPs though, so I'll bow to Puppy's mentorship here :-). -- SB_Johnny | talk  13:12, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Not a BLP uissue. This was in a plethora of mainstream news sources, online, onair, and printed. She's a politician. She's not a housefrau with only minor claims to notability. The issue was raised, thoroughly, during her vice-presidential campaign. The debate at hand is not whether this is a BLP violation (which is good, because that's nonsense) but whether it should be included in the article. That is a content debate and requires consensus. KillerChihuahua?!? 13:17, 4 January 2009 (UTC)


 * KC, I totally disagree with your assesment that This was in a plethora of mainstream news sources, online, onair, and printed...this was brought up by muckracker talking heads, the same folks who brought us Palin didn't give birth nut jobs. This was not even a blip on the political radar until the election. It was covered in how many articles beforehand?? One or two local newsclippings? This is distortion to say this was some huge story before the mud started flying. --Tom 17:09, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 * No, it wasn't the "same folks", and anyway, attacking the messenger doesn't diminish the message.. plus, it was in a plethora of mainstream news sources, regardless of how biased you apparently think major new outlets are. It wasn't a blip on the political radar until the election because Palin wasn't a blip on the political radar until the election. Media coverage is proportional to notability, and Palin's notability skyrocketed the day she was named as VP candidate. Anyway, it would be a distortion to say it was a huge issue before the election, but Killer did not say this. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 19:18, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually some of the same folks were involved. No need to attack Tom, is there? Collect (talk) 19:44, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Which folks would those be? Croft? Knowles? And how was I attacking Tom, simply by pointing out that it's illogical to dismiss a claim just based on negative opinions about the person making the claim. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 20:20, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I demur. In fact, this article has been often discussed as a BLP, and no one in the WP discussions has ever said BLP does not apply to "a politician." In point of fact, it is political articles where BLP issues have most often arisen, and ruled to be BLP issues. I would most kindly ask that you ask those involved in (for example) [  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Sarah_Palin_-_article_probation.3F], , , and scores more -- all of which assert that this is a BLP article, and that BLP guidelines and rules apply.  Thank! Collect (talk) 13:46, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh heck yes, the ARTICLE is a BLP. The disputed content is not, however, a BLP issue. KillerChihuahua?!? 13:47, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Contrariwise (I like that word) it is a contentious BLP issue. Just look at the reams of electrical paper used on it. Collect (talk) 14:00, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Contentious in a basic disagreement and argument sense, not contentious in a BLP sense. Think of the great Gdansk/Danzig war - far, far more hostility and argument was expended there, for a country name. Was it contentious? Indeed, yes. Had we been editing in the same place in real time, there would have been violence committed. However, contentiousness alone does not make something a BLP issue, even on a BLP article. The content in question must be questionable and contentious - whereas the very purpose of this content, when originally introduced to the press, was arguably to cause contention, or at least doubt in Palin's judgment or abilities. The questionable status must be concerning the veracity of the actuality of the subject - for example, if we were uncertain whether there were rape kits, or a police chief, due to the borderline or even complete non-reliability of the sources, if you follow. This is not unsourced or poorly sourced, where we may legitimately question whether there ever was a rape kit, or budget rules which affected rape kits, or whether Palin was gov. at the time. The BLP phrasing is currently "Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons—whether the material is negative, positive, or just questionable" and frankly, the rape kit stuff doesn't fit the criteria. Now, if someone has placed a personal rumor without sourcing in the article, such as "Palin told the lawmakers that paying for rape kits should be the victims' responsibility because it was their fault they were raped" - or "Palin pocketed money intended to pay for rape kits" - then that would fit the BLP criteria. Unless, as has happened in American politics over similarly unflattering positions on events and issues - think Blagojevich, as no one is arguing that the accusation that he tried or planned to sell a senate seat is a BLP violation (admittedly the FBI charges help, but this is key: It was not a BLP violation even before he was charged) - there was actually strong sourcing for those accusations. In which case there might be a huge debate about whether to include, or how much, but not a BLP removal. KillerChihuahua?!? 14:18, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Again I demur. The questionable claim about the amounts spent on "rape kits" when only one rape per year was reported. The issue of whether the budget for "rape kits" was reduced. The issue of whther Palin as Mayor ought to have known of every police policy. All of these are contentions and, indeed, questionable issues. We may indeed legitimately question whther any significant number of "rape kits" were used, were covered in any budget, and were billed to any victims at all (so far, no evidence has been found to verify the claims made).  In short -- it completely and precisely fits the BLP usage of "contentious." Thanks! Collect (talk) 15:01, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Collect, as I have pointed out to you at least a half dozen times, the only BLP restriction on "contentious material" is that it must be well-sourced... and this contentious material is well sourced. As Anarchangel has repeatedly pointed out, and as I pointed out long ago, before him, the burden of evidence is met. And again, for the umpteenth time, comments or claims about how many kits were billed, etc, must also be sourced'... your own opinions and research don't count for anything in a Wikipedia article. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 19:18, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * And again misciting BLP is not working for you. See also WP:3RR which says material which is disputed may be removed and requires consensus for insertion. And if there is a further dispute that we should then post on BLP/N. Did that elide your notice? Collect (talk) 19:44, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * If you're going to claim I am misciting BLP, it would help a lot if you could specifically say how. And 3RR says that poorly sourced controversial material may be removed if it violates BLP policy. This doesn't, nor is this content dispute really appropriate for a BLP noticeboard discussion. Furthermore, "elide" is a bit too fancy a word to be using here, and you are also using it incorrectly. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 20:20, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * You seemed to have inadvertently missed WP:3RR on this. As for "elide" my mom was a Latin teacher ... it means to leave out of consideration, which is preciesly what you appear to have done. It is not marked as "rare" or the like, and is, to my knowledge, a common word.  As for using the equivalent of (sic) on someone's word usage, I find that a tad off-putting on a talk page, n'est-ce pas?  Collect (talk) 20:57, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Could you please explicitly reference the text you are referring to? It would help you make your point and help me understand your point. And I do know what "elide" means... and you're using it incorrectly. When you say "did that elide your notice?" you are saying "did that omit from consideration your notice", or "did that suppress your notice?", or "did that leave out something of your notice?" Completely incomprehensible. The correct usage would be "have you elided that?" It's a transitive verb and the direct object is supposed to be the item that was elided. Even if you were speaking in Latin, using the original Latin word in that way would be incorrect. Anyway, I find the use of SAT words in casual conversation to be a bit pretentious, even though I absolutely destroyed the SAT back in high school. It's just a lot more polite and inclusive to use simpler words when simpler words are available, rather than using esoteric, uncommon words that most people are unfamiliar with. Ditto with French. This is English wikipedia. Just use clear, simple English words IMO. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 21:06, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * That's content. I suggest you discuss inclusion/exclusion and or phrasing with your fellow editors. KillerChihuahua?!? 17:13, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 * One of the most difficult aspects of dealing with this material from the onset has simply been a potentially unfair association with "Palin" and "rape kits", given WP's conspicuous and prominent placement in Internet searches. In fact, the correct (and more neutral) name is sexual assault evidence collection kit (as I'm quite certain one would not find rape in the nomenclature on either hospital inventories or budget plans).  From the start, the intent here was to associate the subject of this BLP with rape, and my own attempts to use the more neutral and accurate term several months ago were foiled. Fcreid (talk) 16:00, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 * several editors have suggested inclusion utilizing htat aspect - iow, include, but as a "an attack raised against Palin during the campaign" as the notability aspect, rather than the core funding issue itself. IIRC, your suggestion was shot down due to sourcing, yes? The sources all refer to "rape kit" rather than "sexual assault evidence collection kit", is that correct? KillerChihuahua?!? 17:13, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 * There are sources for either, and a Google of "palin sexual assault kits" turns up ~125K matches versus "palin rape kits" ~450K. Rape sells more newspapers or blog eyeballs, of course. Fcreid (talk) 18:07, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 * You may wish to broach the subject again, with your best sources linked here in the section below. KillerChihuahua?!? 19:07, 4 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Short version: Just because you argue about something on a BLP article, does not make the argument a BLP issue. Really truly. Otherwise all we'd have would be whitewash articles, because supporters could argue, then claim "Oh look, its contentious! Remove per BLP" and everything remotely unflattering would begone from all BLP articles overnight. Which would really gut some of our articles. KillerChihuahua?!? 14:22, 4 January 2009 (UTC)


 * This is a nice summary, but as with most things in Wikipedia and life, there are gradations. If being a public figure automatically exempts an article from the rules of a BLP, the material charging Palin faked her pregnancy with her son Trig would be in the article. The fact that there was a controversy, and that it was widely reported is verifiable, and editors made just such arguments for its inclusion.  However, it is not in the article because editors of good faith used judgment in determining that it did not belong in a biography of a living person - sometimes you have to be fair. On the other side, the article is full of examples of controversial criticisms; there are hundreds of words in this article describing contentious matters from libraries to polar bears, and they remain in the article because a majority of editors view the criticisms as fair.  This is not the case with the rape-kit material. The majority of editors clearly feel it is not fair because it is a tempest in a teapot connected to Palin only by the finest silk thread from the Emperor's new wardrobe. I think SB_Johnny's edit was a good one, -- especially since it was by an disinterested editor who reviewed the arguments and came to a unbiased conclusion. If the edit had stood, this controversy would have been behind us.--Paul (talk) 16:10, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 * "However, it is not in the article because editors of good faith used judgment in determining that it did not belong in a biography of a living person "


 * According to BLP guidelines, it does belong. It's notable and relevant criticism, properly sourced. The fake-pregnancy flap fails all of those criteria.. it's a totally irrelevant straw man with respect to this issue, and not a fit comparison. Anyway, just proclaiming that your "side" has better faith than the other, or that the numerous editors who have supported inclusion aren't good-faith editors, or whatever it is that you are trying to say, doesn't mean that we can ignore the actual policies on the subject. I can't even begin to address the vacuous rhetoric you present about tempests and teapots and the emperor's clothes. Comments are best kept on-topic and policy arguments should be mediated by actual references to policy instead of wishy-washy metaphors.Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 19:18, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you like to lecture. Lengthy posts which iterate a position do not strengthen the position. Collect (talk) 19:44, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Vacuous rhetoric also does not strengthen a position. Why must you consistently make comments about me instead of debating on-topic?Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 20:20, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * (Edit conflict) While I strongly disagree with Killer's statement that there wasn't a consensus for removal, I agree that the current language should remain as a procedural matter...until we agree on what of several options (not of a yes or no vote) should do. My problem with the language and its inclusion (which I do believe is against the policy on BLPs) is that an issue which was not a campaign issue of any significance and which has had no provable affect on Palin's life whatsoever has been included in her biography, ensuring that the mere mention of charging victims for rape kits will taint Palin, whether or not the material is written in a NPOV manner.  The issue is such a third rail that we cannot write it in any manner which will not seriously harm her reputation, yet there is no evidence that she knew of or approved the policy (and mixed evidence of whether the practice even happened.)  This may be a content dispute, but it is also clearly a BLP issue.LedRush (talk)
 * Inclusion is supported by BLP policy, exclusion is not. If you believe exclusion is supported by policy, please state explicitly and in completely unambiguous terms why this is so, and in so doing, please don't offer any novel interpretations of the policies which would appear to contradict their plain language. Anyway, even if the rape kits aren't especially relevant to her life, they are relevant to her notability. As I've repeatedly pointed out, BLPs are not trivial articles about people that just happen to be notable... they are articles about topics relevant to the subject's notability. Anyway, the claims about "damage" to Palin are both false and moot. The stories were published by CNN, USA Today, NY Times, McClatchy, St. Pete Times, etc.... if there was "damage" done, they were responsible, not Wikipedia. Wikipedia doesn't publish criticisms -- it repeats them.Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 19:18, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Nope. Again iteration does not trump "Reverting the addition of libelous, biased, unsourced, or poorly sourced controversial material which violates the policy on biographies of living persons. What counts as exempt under BLP can be controversial. Consider reporting to Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard instead of relying on this exemption. " for example. And the onus is on the person seeking insertion to gain consensus in any event. Absent consensus, WP says disputed material does not belong in any BLP. Collect (talk) 19:44, 9 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Are you calling the original articles (sources) poor sources? I cannot comprehend your meaning, and I presume your fellow editors might have a similar problem. KillerChihuahua?!? 20:03, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Saying that the material is libelous, biased, unsourced, or poorly sourced, doesn't make it so. Saying that the material violates BLP policy doesn't make it so. None of what you just said actually applies to the media coverage which substantiates the rape kit issue. I also didn't see anything anywhere saying that a person attempting to add material needs to get unanimous approval before adding it, nor that "disputed material does not belong in any BLP". Seems to me you are still dramatically distorting policy whenever you attempt to cite it, just as you previously distorted policy when you tried to claim that "conjectural" and "contentious" material are both prohibited by BLP policy. (They are not -- conjectural interpretations of sources are prohibited, as is the insertion of unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 20:20, 9 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Killer, perhaps my interjection won't be helpful, but I think that the disagreement stems from a divergence of opinion on whether the language in the BLP guidelines (suggestions?) that states "The burden of evidence for any edit on Wikipedia, but especially for edits about living persons, rests firmly on the shoulders of the person who adds or restores the material." is talking only about citations or whether it is a general rule on the insertion of contentious material. There is language that speaks directly about citations: "Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons—whether the material is negative, positive, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion." That the issue of unsourced material gets a specific and different procedure than other BLP edits makes me believe that the former quote is for all BLP edits and the latter just for poorly sourced ones.  In a nutshell, poorly sourced material is to be removed immediately, while the burden of evidence rests on editors adding/restoring material for everything.   Killer, what do you think?LedRush (talk) 20:28, 9 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I have also wanted clarification on this for some time. My reading of it is that the "burden of evidence" means that the editor has to show that the material being added is substantiated by reliable sources -- not that the editor has to prove that the criticism or allegation is correct. Otherwise there would be no allegations at all in BLPs, since an allegation is by definition unproven, yet BLP policy does specifically say "If an allegation or incident is notable, relevant, and well-documented by reliable published sources, it belongs in the article — even if it's negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it. If it is not documented by reliable third-party sources, leave it out." Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 20:33, 9 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Just to be clear, it was never my contention that my reading of the "burden of evidence" would mean that the editor "has to prove that the criticism or allegation is correct''. It is as stated above.LedRush (talk) 21:01, 9 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Well said Ledrush as always, thanks for posting what I am thinking and feeling :) Cheers! --Tom 17:00, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Puppy, with respect, you probably should have recused yourself from overturning another admin's action with regard to this particular issue, because you've been involved in this particular content dispute in the past. Kelly  hi! 16:16, 4 January 2009 (UTC)


 * KC, also with respect, you seem to have been a voice of reason, but I must admitt I am amazed that you do not see the consensus for not including this so called "material" in this bio. It seems that there should be a clear consensus for including material in bios and not the other way around, ie, consensus for removal. This garbage, yes garbage, was introduced by agenda driven muck rackers, pure and simple during a heated campaign. Again, how long would this trash last at the Obama article? About a nano second. Archangel can attack me all day long but the facts are the facts are facts. I was pleased to see the number of totally uninvolved editors comment above how this "material" had no part in this bio and the few number who argued for inclusion. KC, what numbers of editors would have to argue for non-inclusion to have you say a consensus has formed? 15? 20? 25? 50? Very curious. Thanks, --Tom 16:58, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Tom, in fairness, you ought to be arguing about Obama at the Obama article... in particular, pushing for inclusion of Ayers/Wright in the main article, where it belongs. Also, it is by no means true that there were "few" editors arguing that this issue should be included. Perhaps three dozen editors have argued for inclusion. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 19:18, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

With all due respect to all, did you read my edit summary when I reverted? "No consensus for removal of rape kit budget, as is clear by the outrage on the talk page (Section "RFC or ANI?"" Now get back to discussing this content issue on a BLP, and be sure to note the points made by others above. KillerChihuahua?!? 17:08, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 * You aren't looking for consensus, you are looking for unanimity. Given the history of this article and this material, we aren't going to get it. Outrage? So what? The Trig pregnancy folks were outraged.  The Alaska Independence Party pushers were outraged. It's difficult to say this in a completely neutral way, but how many people were outraged?--Paul (talk) 17:41, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 * KC, the nut job wackos are outraged that there is no mention that Obama was supposidely not born in Hawai, should that be a reason for including that nonsense? Oh course not. --Tom 17:12, 4 January 2009 (UTC)ps, I did read your edit summary and 1) I thought there was consensus forming for non inclusion and 2) Since when do people being outraged or threating ANI sway consensus?? --Tom 17:15, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Puppy, what kind of numbers are necessary for consensus in your view? Kelly  hi! 17:16, 4 January 2009 (UTC)


 * After ec x2:
 * Tom, I'm not editing. I'm watchdogging a fully protected article. Edits to fully protected articles only happen when there is vandalism to clean yup; when there is a clear BLP violation; when there is strong consensus. If you wish to discuss Obama, do so on his article. If you wish to draw a comparison in order to sway opinion, address yourself to those who are active on this talk page, who are 'not me or SBJohnny. You are wasting time and space talking to either of us unless you're asking about Rules and Guidelines or other Wikipedia related queries, or unless there is actually consensus and an edit is desired. KillerChihuahua?!? 17:19, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Kelly: Numbers is a really bad way to judge consensus. Consensus is actually everyone agreeing, more or less, that even if the content isn't the best, it at least is acceptable. In practice, we tend to go with majority, but that's not consensus. KillerChihuahua?!? 17:19, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I get you, but I have to say I'm uncomfortable with you making the call on this, given your prior involvement in this issue. So basically you're saying that if anyone makes a good argument for including the material, the material has to be included, regardless of the numbers of editors that make arguments for its exclusion? This seems odd to me. This example has been given before, but the word "Ayers" appears nowhere in Barack Obama (a decision I agree with, by the way) despite countless passionate arguments for its inclusion. I'm not understanding the different approaches to BLPs here. Kelly  hi! 17:26, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I'll address my earlier comment to Tom, to you as well: Obama issues are best argued at the Obama article.Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 19:18, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I understand your concern. FWIW, I am certainly NOT saying that one fringe view can trump all the other editors - in fact, I mention the system gaming aspect of that somewhere else on this talk page - What I have seen is that there was a poll, which has not run very long - and please recall Polls are not binding, etc - and an edit request, followed by an edit to a fully protected page, which led to a strong protest. The entire process was a little rushed. As Anarchangel, while not the only person to argue here for inclusion, is the only one currently available AND the one who voiced the protest, I am encouraging you all to discuss Anarchangels views w/him; attempt to discuss, civilly and rationally, your reasons for feeling the content should not be included, and discuss whether there are any compromise positions which would work for all. The entire reason this page is protected is because of people wanting to rush in and OMG Fix it Now! Now! Now! and I'm saying, a little patience and discussion with another editor is more in keeping with our ways here, and will not kill anyone. Puppy has spoken; puppy is done. KillerChihuahua?!? 19:05, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 * No comment on your previous involvement with this content issue? Kelly  hi! 19:08, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 * What's wrong with the comment, "I understand your concern", with which I began my reply? KillerChihuahua?!? 19:21, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Please resist the temptation to make this personal, but my issue is that you overturned (I don't think we're into wheel-war territory yet) another admin to re-insert the material, you've previously been involved in this content dispute, and you haven't explained why you're now an uninvolved admin in regards to this content issue. Kelly  hi! 19:27, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not resisting, because I'm not even tempted. If you look at the dif you linked, or better yet the dif of the edit you were talking about which is here I cited CON (as I believed it then was) on that reversion also. IOW, I wan't involved then either. And you're damn right we're not into wheel warring; that would happen only if Johnny have reverted me. KillerChihuahua?!? 19:35, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 * It was other comments in that thread that concerned me more, such as ...Well, duh, of course its supposed to make Palin look bad....KillerChihuahua?!? 23:24, 7 October 2008 (UTC) My only point here is that you should stand aside on this particular content issue and let a truly uninvolved admin handle this, that's all. Kelly  hi! 19:50, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) You're joking. Putting Palin and 'Rape victims must pay for their own evidence kits' together in an article, and often in the same sentence, is not supposed to make her look bad? Are you actually saying it was not intended to make Palin look bad???? Can you explain what other purpose this particular meme might have? Oh and btw, I'm still uninvolved, no matter how many posts you post to the contrary. That I've removed some BLP vios on this article and attempted to prevent you from committing over 7RR and so on doesn't make me involved, no matter how many edits it adds up to. KillerChihuahua?!? 20:01, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Wow, OK. That was nonproductive. Well, let's hope some truly uninvolved admins dare to wander into this swamp. Kelly  hi! 20:06, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 * KC, I'm a bit unsure of what your position is here. Are you saying that putting "rape kit" material into this article is intended to make Palin look bad?  If so, then why would you also take the position that inclusion of the "rape kit" material is not only a non-BLP-vio, but is not even subject to BLP guidelines?  Also, I agree with Kelly that this controversy might resolve itself more quickly with the help of a further admin, who has not been involved.  I thought that the admin SB Johnny was doing a good and neutral job here.Ferrylodge (talk) 20:17, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I said, some time ago, that the original story was intended to be unflattering to Palin. Justly or unjustly; either way it isn't somethign which is designed to make her look good - and now Kelly is complaining about that rather simple observation. Inclusion or not in this article is a different subject. Clear? KillerChihuahua?!? 20:25, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I have asked on WP:BLP/N pursuant to the instructions in WP:3RR in a neutral manner about the issue in question. I hope we can get some third opinions from the outside world. Thanks! Collect (talk) 17:21, 4 January 2009 (UTC) added to Collect (talk) 19:44, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Cut, Kill, Dig, Drill
has added a link to an op-ed from the London Review of Books. I removed it once per WP:EL, the link has been re-added. Bringing it here for opinions. Kelly hi! 07:57, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, per WP:BLP, I removed it a second time - I think that policy would say an addition like this should get consensus before being included. Kelly  hi! 08:03, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

There was limited discussion about this source about ten days ago, and the consensus was there was no shortage of reference material criticizing Palin and nothing that set this particular criticism apart from the countless others, e.g. it didn't contain any notable opinion to Palin policies or actions, it doesn't provide uniquely informed insight to any decision-making process, etc. It could be a fine book, but it didn't add anything to the article that wasn't already documented by other sources in a neutral POV. As far as POV, I just read the referenced review, and with excerpts like "Wasilla found out it has a new mayor with either little understanding or little regard for the city’s own laws. Palin seems to have assumed her election was indeed a coronation. Welcome to Kingdom Palin, the land of no accountability.", something tells me we should not be looking to this as a source for objective discussion of both sides of the Palin story! :) Update: I was a bit confused on this. I actually thought the citation was a review of a forthcoming book from this author, and it's inclusion here was primarily of promotional intent.  However, further digestion indicates it's really just an Op-Ed column that savages Palin in blog-like fashion.  Thus, while my understanding of the source was erroneous, my understanding of consensus was spot-on... there is certainly no shortage of blog activity maligning Palin, and there's nothing notable about this one. Fcreid (talk) 12:01, 15 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Leave it off. Remove it if added. Cite BLP as Kelly did in the summary. Message me if anyone is blocked for removing this, and inform the blocking admin of this post. Thanks - KillerChihuahua?!? 00:30, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Branchflower Edit Request Discussion
I believe that the part of the article that deals with Public Safety Commissioner dismissal is too long and takes up too much of Palin's article in relation to the importance in her biographer. Clearly, this is a complicated and important issue, and it has it's own article. I believe that the goal of this section should be to accurately and concisely describe and summarize the issue for readers, who can then go to the sub article for more information. To this end, I made some edits making the language and descriptions in the "Public Commissioner dismissal" section shorter, though my edits to the "Branchflower Report" section were reverted. The discussion soon got lost in yet another Rape Kit controversy, but I thought with our current oversight and spirit of cooperation, we could take another look at this.

My proposal was simple (bold for insertions, strike for deletions):


 * On October 10, 2008, the Alaska Legislative Council unanimously voted to release, without endorsing,[121] the Branchflower Report, in which Stephen Branchflower found that firing Monegan "was a proper and lawful exercise of her constitutional and statutory authority," but that Palin abused her power as governor and violated the state's Executive Branch Ethics Act when her office pressured Monegan to fire Wooten .[122] The report stated that "Governor Palin knowingly permitted a situation to continue where impermissible pressure was placed on several subordinates in order to advance a personal agenda, to wit: to get Trooper Michael Wooten fired."[123] The report also said that Palin "permitted Todd Palin to use the Governor's office [...] to continue to contact subordinate state employees in an effort to find some way to get Trooper Wooten fired."[123][124]


 * On October 11, Palin's attorneys responded, condemning the Branchflower Report as "misleading and wrong on the law";[125] one, Thomas Van Flein, said that it was an attempt to "smear the governor by innuendo."[126] Van Flein further argues that Branchflower's findings are flawed because Palin received "no monetary benefit" from her actions.


 * Palin said that she was "very very pleased to be cleared of any legal wrongdoing, any hint of any kind of unethical activity there".[127] Among the commentators disputing her interpretation was a columnist for The Washington Post:


 * ""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."[126]


 * Another view was expressed in McClatchy's Kansascity.com, The Kansas City Star: "It’s just Steve Branchflower’s opinion that he thinks Governor Palin had, at worst, mixed motives for an action that even Branchflower admits she unquestionably had both the complete right to perform and other very good reasons to perform."[128]

Other than the reason for this cut described above (length, undue weight) I think this edit also helps the article by removing repeated concepts. Also, I don't believe this edit either alters the weight given to either side of the controversy significantly (the pro-Palin side has a greater number of deletions, but the controversy is more appropriately presented) because the article clearly articulates the Branchflower Report's position on Palin's activity, and the section on her attorney's response clearly shows Palin's objection to it. Palin's quote is unnecessary, but it's inclusion makes commentary pieces from both pro and con voices needed, and I think those types of voices are better left out in favor of s "spinless" presentation of the facts.

I am not married to this edit, and of course will be happy to discuss all possible variations. I just thought this was a simple, accurate, and elegant change. (sorry for the "wall of text")LedRush (talk) 16:56, 8 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Again, Palin's own quote is relevant, and I would prefer retention of both the Star and the Post's contributions, although note my previous suggestion regarding the Post quote, and I find the phrase "Another view was expressed in McClatchy's Kansascity.com, The Kansas City Star:" to be unwieldy. Anarchangel (talk) 22:59, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Balance requires editorial comments by one source to be balanced by other sources where such exist. Collect (talk) 00:16, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I would agree. Opinions, if included, need to address all relevant viewpoints in a balanced fashion, and need to be clearly attributed. Kelly  hi! 03:01, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Kelly, Collect...how what do you think about removing the quote and both editorials?LedRush (talk) 03:24, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Under WP:DEADLINE and considering nothing has been done by the legislature at this point, I would delete everything other than the fact the legislature "released" the report, and not make any further comments unless and until the legislature acts. "Release" of the report does not mean the legislature adopted anything, and if we list the accusations, we must also then list the defenses to be fair in a BLP.  If the legislature acts, then whatever it does likely belongs here. Collect (talk) 03:30, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * LedRush, I do not agree with your suggestion. Contrary to Collect's argument, in this particular instance the mere release of the report attracted significant attention, so it should be covered in the article regardless of whether the legislature takes further action.  When we include an investigative report about a bio subject, the bio subject's own reaction (the Palin quotation) would generally be significant and worth including, and is especially so here because there was a sharp divergence of opinion as to whether her assessment, expressed in the quotation you would delete, was accurate. JamesMLane t c 09:28, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * You may have misread what I wrote. If we include the "divergence of opinion" then we should include all such opinions, not just the ones which say she was wrong. If we try including only the one which says she was wrong in her response, then we have failed to give balance. If we do not include her response, then we also have failed to give balance. Thus either we report the main Branchflower finding and her response; the finding, her response and all further opinions; or we stick to saying it was released (allowing anyone to read it via cite) and wait for any legislative action per WP:DEADLINE.  Balance is key, and with the deadline involved, it is better to be balanced than to give a false impression that no-one agreed with her position. Correct? Collect (talk) 11:21, 9 January 2009 (UTC)


 * By that logic, if we quote a Washington Post columnist as disagreeing with her, we're giving the impression that no one other than that columnist disagreed with her. That impression would be false; her statement was widely criticized.  We have to strike a balance between fairly acquainting the reader with both sides of a controversy and not trying to catalog everything that's been said about it.  In any event, my main point wasn't about how we strike that balance in this particular instance, but was rather that the Palin quotation should remain.  There is another side to the dispute, which should also be presented.  Noting one prominent opinion on each side is the minimum.  You're arguing that, in this case, we must go beyond that and add more on the pro-Palin side, a point I didn't address before.  I'm inclined to think that one comment on each side is adequate here.  Perhaps we could drop the Kansas City Star quotation and substitute some general statement that there  was controversy, with some commentators agreeing with Palin and others, such as the Washington Post, stating: (then introduce the quotation).


 * I don't see the dividing line as "Branchflower says this and Palin says that". Disputes as to whether Branchflower got his facts right are a different category, one that's covered in the previous paragraph, with the summary of Van Flein's response to the report.  LedRush didn't propose any cuts there.  The issue we're addressing now is how to interpret the Branchflower report, assuming arguendo that its factual assertions are correct.  Palin interpreted it as a complete exoneration.  The columnist interpreted it as demonstrating that she acted unethically. JamesMLane t c 11:51, 9 January 2009 (UTC)


 * It appears that you still did not read what I wrote. Any editorial opinion is balanceable by another editorial opinion, not a weasel statement that "others do not agree" or the like. There is no "counting up of editorials" involved -- it is a matter of stating a balancing opinion in a fully cited manner. I am not proposing ADDING to this section at all -- that is a substantial misreading of all my posts.  It appears you wish to remove the fully-cited editorial opinion which was inserted as balance to the WaPo opinion.   As for interpreting a primary source (which the report clearly is), that is dealt with under WP guidelines which say we can not interpret it here.  In such a case, since we do not report all of its findings, we should just leave the report as a link to the primary source.  Clear now?  I will gladly show you archived discussions about "balance" where editorials are concerned.  Collect (talk) 12:26, 9 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't understand why you keep asserting that I didn't read what you wrote. You wrote, "I would delete everything other than the fact the legislature 'released' the report...."  I took that as meaning that you agreed with LedRush's suggestion to delete Palin's own comment.  I disagreed with that proposed deletion.  As for a balanced presentation of the interpretation of the report, my suggestion is that we present one quotation interpreting it favorably to Palin, and then balance that by one quotation critical of her.  The two quotations would be those from Palin and the Washington Post, respectively.  Including one piece of "spin" from each side is at least roughly balanced.  If we then add the favorable quotation from the Kansas City Star, supposedly to balance the one from the Washington Post, must we not then add another critical quotation, to balance the favorable one from the Star?


 * Of course, Wikipedia policy isn't to count the number of quotations or the number of lines devoted to each side. The policy is "[t]o fairly represent all the leading views in a dispute" (per WP:NPOV).  I believe that quoting Palin and the Post does that.  You expressed a concern that doing so would give the reader the impression that no one agreed with Palin.  I read that part of your comment, too, and tried to accommodate you by suggesting a general observation that would dispel any such misimpression -- a misimpression that I can't see a sensible reader forming, but I was trying to accommodate your expressed concern. JamesMLane t c 16:54, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I tried to accommodate both views with my edit suggestion below.LedRush (talk) 17:07, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

OK, as expected, we got a wide range of strong opinions. Here are some general thoughts:

I don't think the Palin response is necessary, though it is clearly relevant. I know that some think it should be included as an example of poor reasoning/reading, other just because it's from her. For me, I don't think it adds anything to the article...it is her spin/opinion on something which we've added based on fact.

Regarding trimming our description of the report, I don't find that argument compelling. If we don't quote the findings of the report I feel like we will be ignoring (not placing due weight on) something which was a big enough issue to merit a large section of her biography.

I agree that if we include one commentary, generally, we should include opposing ones. Though up until now, I don't know that anyone has proposed deleting just one. I kind of make that proposal below, but I think the request still strikes a good balance.

Anyway, in the spirit of moving forward, I offer this next edit:


 * On October 10, 2008, the Alaska Legislative Council unanimously voted to release, without endorsing,[121] the Branchflower Report, in which Stephen Branchflower found that firing Monegan "was a proper and lawful exercise of her constitutional and statutory authority," but that Palin abused her power as governor and violated the state's Executive Branch Ethics Act when her office pressured Monegan to fire Wooten .[122] The report stated that "Governor Palin knowingly permitted a situation to continue where impermissible pressure was placed on several subordinates in order to advance a personal agenda, to wit: to get Trooper Michael Wooten fired."[123] The report also said that Palin "permitted Todd Palin to use the Governor's office [...] to continue to contact subordinate state employees in an effort to find some way to get Trooper Wooten fired."[123][124]


 * On October 11, Palin's attorneys responded, condemning the Branchflower Report as "misleading and wrong on the law";[125] one, Thomas Van Flein, said that it was an attempt to "smear the governor by innuendo."[126] Van Flein further argues that Branchflower's findings are flawed because Palin received "no monetary benefit" from her actions.


 * Palin said that she was "very very pleased to be cleared of any legal wrongdoing, any hint of any kind of unethical activity there".[127]  Commentators disagreed on whether Palin's interpretation of the report was accurate.  While some, like the Kansas City Star, generally agreed with Palin's characterization of the report, others, like a columnist for the Washington Post, stated "it is the reverse of the truth to claim that she was cleared of 'any hint of any kind of unethical activity.'" Among the commentators disputing her interpretation was a columnist for The Washington Post:


 * "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.""[126]


 * Another view was expressed in McClatchy's Kansascity.com, The Kansas City Star: "It’s just Steve Branchflower’s opinion that he thinks Governor Palin had, at worst, mixed motives for an action that even Branchflower admits she unquestionably had both the complete right to perform and other very good reasons to perform."[128]

My reasoning on shortening this and making it more concise is the same as above. All this edit really does is condense the commentary reactions and delete one claim by the lawyer which is not particularly useful. As always, I'm open to suggestions, and prefer specific ones to general ones.LedRush (talk) 16:36, 9 January 2009 (UTC)


 * If one editorial gets a full quote, so ought the other. Or, conversely, if one is deleted, so ought the other. Collect (talk) 19:46, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree in principal - I did delete both originally - but I think in this case the end result is still a fair portrayal of both sides which addresses some of my concerns about length and weight.LedRush (talk) 19:57, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Couple methods of achieving balance - include only the primary sources (Branchflower's opinion and Palin's opinion) or also include outside sources like the Star and Post. If including editorial opinions from periodicals, there should be one from each side. Kelly  hi! 22:45, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, I have to say, I'm not really in favor of leaving an opinion, (even a partial one), from the Washington Post, and simply a 'they said' from the Star. How about changing the third paragraph above to read:


 * Palin said that she was "very very pleased to be cleared of any legal wrongdoing, any hint of any kind of unethical activity there".[127] Commentators disagreed on whether Palin's interpretation of the report was accurate. While some, like the Kansas City Star, generally agreed with Palin's characterization of the report, stating, "It’s just Steve Branchflower’s opinion ...", others, like a columnist for the Washington Post, stated "it is the reverse of the truth to claim that she was cleared of 'any hint of any kind of unethical activity.'


 * Does that seem to shorten it up enough and still keep all the vital information? Zaereth (talk) 00:09, 10 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Zaereth, I think that is an excellent suggestion.LedRush (talk) 00:21, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Nice to be able to agree with something for a change. No objection to that. Anarchangel (talk) 05:42, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Hmmm - I would change "Commentators disagreed on whether Palin's interpretation of the report was accurate." to "Commentators disagreed on whether the report was accurate." Kelly  hi! 04:49, 10 January 2009 (UTC)


 * The dispute of the accuracy of the report is already in the passage, hence the quote by Palin's lawyers. The current structure is report, dispute of report, Palin's comment, commentator's mixed reaction to Palin's interpretation.  I know you were making a funny, but I hope we can get to a real solution here.LedRush (talk) 05:03, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

It looks like Zaereth, Anarchangel, and LedRush are onboard for the following edit proposal:


 * On October 10, 2008, the Alaska Legislative Council unanimously voted to release, without endorsing,[121] the Branchflower Report, in which Stephen Branchflower found that firing Monegan "was a proper and lawful exercise of her constitutional and statutory authority," but that Palin abused her power as governor and violated the state's Executive Branch Ethics Act when her office pressured Monegan to fire Wooten .[122] The report stated that "Governor Palin knowingly permitted a situation to continue where impermissible pressure was placed on several subordinates in order to advance a personal agenda, to wit: to get Trooper Michael Wooten fired."[123] The report also said that Palin "permitted Todd Palin to use the Governor's office [...] to continue to contact subordinate state employees in an effort to find some way to get Trooper Wooten fired."[123][124]


 * On October 11, Palin's attorneys responded, condemning the Branchflower Report as "misleading and wrong on the law";[125] one, Thomas Van Flein, said that it was an attempt to "smear the governor by innuendo."[126] Van Flein further argues that Branchflower's findings are flawed because Palin received "no monetary benefit" from her actions.


 * Palin said that she was "very very pleased to be cleared of any legal wrongdoing, any hint of any kind of unethical activity there".[127]  Commentators disagreed on whether Palin's interpretation of the report was accurate.  While some, like the Kansas City Star, generally agreed with Palin's characterization of the report  stating, "It’s just Steve Branchflower’s opinion ...", others, like a columnist for the Washington Post, stated "it is the reverse of the truth to claim that she was cleared of 'any hint of any kind of unethical activity.'"


 * Among the commentators disputing her interpretation was a columnist for The Washington Post:


 * "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.""[126]


 * Another view was expressed in McClatchy's Kansascity.com, The Kansas City Star: "It’s just Steve Branchflower’s opinion that he thinks Governor Palin had, at worst, mixed motives for an action that even Branchflower admits she unquestionably had both the complete right to perform and other very good reasons to perform."[128]

Hopefully, by retaining smaller quotes from each commentator both Kelly's and Collect's issues are addressed. What are your (specific) thoughts (anyone)?LedRush (talk) 07:23, 10 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Looks good to me.Zaereth (talk) 22:43, 10 January 2009 (UTC)


 * If there are no comments before tomorrow when I wake up I will make the change and see what people have to say about it.LedRush (talk) 08:10, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Proposed language has WP:Weight problems
The main problem that I see with the proposed wording here is that the Kansas City Star opinion is a minority opinion but is being presented on par with the much more widely published opinion that Palin's words ("very very pleased to be cleared of any legal wrongdoing … any hint of any kind of unethical activity there") distort or at least inaccurately characterize the findings of the report, which concluded that she abused her power as Alaska's governor, and violated state ethics law by trying to get Wooten fired from the state police. This presents problems with WP:Weight in that we're supposed to represent such views in proportion to their prominence. The way I would suggest correcting this would be to say that "many" commentators disputed Palin's characterization of the report, while "some" agreed. Thoughts? Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 15:15, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The problem I have with this is that including the editorial opinions on this matter is a minefield. This whole event took place during an emotional election campairn, and many (most?) of the papers that disputed Palin's position on their editorial pages also endorsed her political opponent in the race. That's why I think we should be leaving out the newspapers' opinions entirely, and instead just writing about Branchflower's opinion and Palin's opinion. Kelly  hi! 15:26, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
 * That would give Palin's opinion undue weight by giving the impression that it was not a widely disputed minority view. Really, there is no clear reason to exclude opinions from a political subject, nor any policy that would appear to support this... to the contrary, policy explicitly calls for opinions to be reflected (including criticism). Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 15:37, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't have a problem with the criticism if it was scholarly and neutral in nature (say from law professors or ethics experts), but it's a problem to include editorial opinions of periodicals that endorsed her opponent, I think. Kelly  hi! 15:41, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
 * No, really, it's not a problem at all. This objection is already answered by WP:NPOV, specifically the part that reads "The policy requires that where multiple or conflicting perspectives exist within a topic each should be presented fairly. None of the views should be given undue weight...". Your proposal of excluding relevant commentary has no basis in policy and would actually violate core policies (NPOV, Weight, BLP). Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 16:11, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't have a problem with saying "many" and "some"...I personally find this accurate.  To be clear, I don't think there's a problem the way it is, but I don't think the change would be either inaccurate or bad in any way.  I say, let's make the change.LedRush (talk) 16:14, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I went ahead and made the change as Kelly seems to be arguing a larger point about excluding both opinions (which I originally supported, but only if we excluded Palin's opinion as well). I suggest if the discussion continues, for sake of clarity, we should have a new section as Factchecker was talking about a minor change to the Branchflower wording and not an omission which was heavily debated already.LedRush (talk) 16:19, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Meh, it's not a huge deal at this point. As I said before, if it turns out the legislature does nothing with this report (it hasn't even been endorsed by the committee that commissioned it), the whole Tasergate controversy can be trimmed down in this article as nothing but a campaign tempest in a teacup. It's probably unlikely that anything will happen - the incoming Senate president said "we've reached the end of the line as far as the Senate is concerned" and the incoming House speaker said the matter was "blown out of proportion." We can wait to see what happens, if anything. Kelly  hi! 16:35, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I think you're right. I suspect that eventually all but the actually report itself will be removed from the article, but we're still too close to the election and investigation to be sure.LedRush (talk) 17:14, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Collect has reverted my change from "others" to "many". While I don't believe we need a cite for a word like "many", I have two questions:

1. Does anyone dispute that more members of the media from reliable sources agreed with the Post editorial than the KC Star one? If so, why?

2. Factchecker, can you get a source to appease Collect?LedRush (talk) 17:14, 13 January 2009 (UTC)


 * What is the point in wasting my time attempting to have a discussion, researching, compiling sources, etc, when someone who feels that they WP:OWN the article will just come along and RRR or delete whatever they don't like, without even bothering to look at the talk page? I spend hours attempting to substantiate my position, while they spend mere seconds enforcing theirs? After months, I am getting sick of this. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 15:45, 14 January 2009 (UTC)


 * You assert "minority" which would, perforce, require a "reliable source" on your part. WP:BLP commends "balance" and where only two opinions are given, balance rather requires that one be on each side.   Did you make a count of editorials by any chance?  Absent such, the way it is handled is called for by WP:BLP fairly explicitly. Collect (talk) 15:50, 14 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't believe that the addition of the word many would require the use of a citation under any wikipedia guidelines. Evidence may be required on the talk page to convince everyone that there really is an issue of weight and that one view gets the word "many" while the other view gets "others" or "some".  But it would be both time consuming and, ultimately, impossible to prove.  Quite honestly, I doubt anyone would honestly dispute that more sources agreed with the Post interpretation than the Star.  I don't remember anyone agreeing with the star view after the report was released (of course there must be some, but I never saw them on regular news shows).  Collect, are you disputing the process (which I've addressed above) or the facts?LedRush (talk) 16:12, 14 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Find a RS for the use of "many" -- it is a claim of specific nature and applies greater weight to the WaPo opinion column than to the KS editorial opinion. Absent RS for "many" it is simpler by far not to add a word which makes an implication not supported by a cite.   There is no need in a balanced presentation to imply that one side had more adherents than the other.  Recall that this is about opinions -- ought we add up readership of each paper to give proper weight to each? .  I thought not.  Collect (talk) 16:33, 14 January 2009 (UTC)


 * You seem to have ignored my points and questions above. This is an issue of weighting the responses appropriately, and I believe that discussion goes on here.  Cites may convince people that it is true, but are not necessary for the article.  I ask again, do you dispute that many commentators disagreed with Palin's interpretation of the report?  More than agreed with it?LedRush (talk) 16:46, 14 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I would have to respectfully agree with Collect above that these quantitative terms are subjective and apparently controversial disputed. An argument could be made that "many" sources also agreed with Palin. Since the term is disputed, it would be best to cite and attribute it. Kelly  hi! 17:59, 14 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment: We (wp) use "vast majority" when that is accurate. "Most", "almost all", "a tiny minority" - all of these are perfectly acceptable. Accuracy is the goal here. Not weaseling. WP:Weight is clear: if most believe A, give A more weight than B. I am not making statement about content decision: making clarification about policy per request on my talk page. Those arguing that it is against policy, or controversial, to use quantifying terms are simply mistaken. Further note: Anyone who tries to make this "controversial" because there is an argument about it on this talk page is going to get short shrift. That particular ploy is getting very, very old. I now return you to your discussion. KillerChihuahua?!? 18:28, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Corrected my wording. Kelly  hi! 18:47, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Appreciated. "Controversial" has a weighted, if you will pardon the irony, meaning here on a BLP. KillerChihuahua?!? 22:39, 14 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Kelly, I am surprised that you and Collect wanted to go down this path, because I feel that Factchecker's proposal was more modest than possible. Kelly, you are correct that "many" could be described as to the number that agree with Palin's position, but I suspect the vast majority do not.  By simply keeping it as "some" and "many" we reflect reality without being too bold.  Do either of you think that as many or more commentators agreed with Palin's interpretation than didn't?  Please answer this question as it is rather important to the discussion.LedRush (talk) 19:15, 14 January 2009 (UTC)


 * The question is largely rhetorical, as one could undoubtedly find more editorial/op-ed pieces that found the report condemned rather than exonerated Palin. By the same token, I've no doubt you'll find more editorial/op-ed pieces that praised Obama's debate performances while criticizing McCain's and just about every other matter that called for a partisan perspective.  The reasons for that are too manifold even to enumerate here, but I suspect it would be a very different world if we used that criteria alone to dictate which quantitative qualifiers we use in our articles.  Is there a way to obviate the need for such a qualifier, e.g. "Notable columnists disagreed and agreed with..." or whatever?  Fcreid (talk) 19:40, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I feel like puppy clarified WP policy on this rather well. As I've said above, the proposed change seems modest in relation to the actual discrepancy in commentaries.LedRush (talk) 19:49, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Just to be clear, FCried, I understand your point and would generally agree with your reasoning on why it is easy to see why more commentators agreed with one position than the other. In this case, though, Palin's interpretation of the report was off-the-wall, and virtually no one supported her claim about it clearing her from any hint of ethical impropriety.  Many would argue that she didn't commit any ethical impropriety, but virtually none would say that the report explicitly agreed with that position.  I just feel like this edit is innocuous and accurate and that the argument against it is misplaced.LedRush (talk) 19:55, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Just to clarify, I also agree that Factchecker's recommended edit is non-controversial, but that's probably because I'm neither particularly well-versed nor do I feel strongly about the topic. My point was that when you start "measuring" popularity of partisan opinion by sampling how many columnists take one side versus the other (to use the dreaded "liberal" versus "conservative" POV), I'm not sure the results are either meaningful or necessarily reflective of the truth in the issue.  Quantitative words don't scare me... just the use of this sampling method as the means of "weighing" issues. Fcreid (talk) 19:58, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Point taken. But here, I don't even believe that measuring is necessary...this stuff is pretty uncontroversial.LedRush (talk) 20:03, 14 January 2009 (UTC)


 * My 2 cents: I see no problem with the current wording. Using "some" and "some" presents both sides of the argument (if I can call it that) without trying to stress one side or the other. We nust beware of Original Research in trying to say one opinion was held by more people than the other. JenWSU (talk) 19:55, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Killer has made clear that this is not an OP issue.
 * Pardon? JenWSU (talk) 21:33, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Outdent: I also ask people to think of how we can get some editors who have been more critical of Palin to concede points or come to a consensus when an issue as blatant as this hardens editors who are generally more protective of Palin. [note, "critical of Palin" and "protective of Palin" are not meant to do anything at all except to identify some of the groups that have had disputes on this article...please don't read into my naming conventions]LedRush (talk) 20:03, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Solomon would be proud, Ledrush! :) As stated above, and having no particular background on this issue, I will refrain from further comment, aside to say that I find Factchecker's recommended edit acceptable from my perspective while reserving future judgment on the sampling methodology. Fcreid (talk) 20:12, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Comment: I know absolutely nothing about the sources being quoted here, but is this one of those occasions where "generally liberal" publications say one thing, and "generally conservative" publications say another? If that's the case (and again, I have no idea if it's the case), then maybe the wording should just reflect that? Just trying to shake you all up a bit again :-). -- SB_Johnny | talk  20:22, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * It's not really that kind of issue...generally conservative publications agreed that the report didn't clear Palin of unethical activity, though they were more likely to think that she didn't actually break any ethics rules or do anything ethically wrong. Remember, these are interpretations of the Report (and Palin's reaction to it) and not of Palin's actions which prompted the report.LedRush (talk) 20:25, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * My novice understanding of this issue is that the findings are moot should no entity take legal or other actions that reinforce/validate the findings, right? In other words, will there come a point where we have absolute clarification of the underlying issue, i.e. that Palin either did or did not violate ethics regulations or whatever?  I presume we would modify this section if/when those administrative or legal actions occur, so is it also our intent to remove the initial allegations entirely from the article should some event not occur?  Do we know (and is there agreement) when such an action will either occur or not occur? Fcreid (talk) 20:35, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * We don't know at this point. The new leaders of the Alaska legislature have made noises that they are disinclined to pursue this (linked above) but they didn't close the door completely - apparently there are still some open issues over things like private vs. govt e-mail accounts and compliance with subpoenas. I guess we won't know for sure until the end of the next legislative session. Kelly  hi! 23:03, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * It's a thorny issue to document then, as it's possible there may never be full "vindication" for Palin. Remind me again why we're looking to third-party sources for an opinionated interpretation of the findings.  Is that driven by the inclusion of Palin's own (pretty obtuse IMO) interpretation of them as being her vindication?  Could we not eliminate that aspect entirely and preclude the need for a balance of editorial interpretation?  In essence, this is an undecided trial, of sorts, and it really matters not one whit how Palin or the press interpret the raw legal findings.  What matters is how the legislature ultimately does.  Maybe we could simply include a RS summary of the findings and a statement that the legislature will address the findings in their 2009 session (if such a beast exists?) Fcreid (talk) 23:33, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Definitely thorny...my own opinion of Palin's statement was that it was over-agressive campaign pushback again the media narrative of the report. If you go back and look at the sources, the news outlets were headlining "Branchflower Report: Palin abused power", whilst placing any mitigating information way down in their reporting. So I think the McCain/Palin campaign wanted to get the claim out there that Palin was acting within her purview in firing Monegan. This whole thing was tainted by campaign narrative from both sides - that's why I'd like to see us render this down to as factual a summary as possible. With respect - Kelly  hi! 23:51, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Concur on all counts. No one's interpretation of the raw findings matters, except the judge and jury who make the ruling based upon them.  Is there consensus to whittle it down considerably, or does that become contentious in and of itself? :) Fcreid (talk) 00:01, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Aeons ago I suggested that the release be noted, and that any future action is not known. Absent the Ouija Board . Collect (talk) 00:18, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Also a long time (aeons plus 1?), I suggested keeping only a very short description of the report (deleting Palin's quote and the commentary reaction to it). My suggestion was not well-received by anyone.LedRush (talk) 00:25, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm, looking at this, I do think that it would be a good idea to eliminate both the Palin statement and the editorial opinions. After all, there is neither of those in the paragraph discussing the State Personnel Board investigation. I guess we need to decide if we should continue to include the reaction of Palin's attorney to the Branchflower report. Kelly hi! 00:27, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I think that lawyer's statement ("the report is wrong on the law" or whatever cite that was) is fair game for inclusion, as we must assume it reflects what Palin's lawyers will present to the legislature in amplification and rebuttal of the Branchflower report itself. It's the non-authoritative interpretations--journalists and Palin's--that led us down this path, I think.  Fcreid (talk) 00:32, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I would keep the lawyer's opinion as well. As you can see above, this was basically my first proposal.LedRush (talk) 01:03, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, to my recollection, I equated the Branchflower report as a statement by the prosecution, and her legals team's rebuttal as statement for the defense. What we're missing is the judge's ruling! :) Fcreid (talk) 01:09, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Good analogy. Kelly  hi! 01:15, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) 1) In reference to Fcreid's objection, about using a count of the raw numbers of editorial opinions to determine how to reflect those opinions here, I do agree that it's hardly a way of establishing anything as the "truth" or "the best opinion" or anything like that, but nevertheless on my reading of WP:Weight that's still exactly how it's supposed to be done: "Neutrality requires that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each. Now an important qualification: In general, articles should not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views, and will generally not include tiny-minority views at all."

2) Although there's a case to be made for the position that Palin didn't violate any law and didn't conduct herself unethically, that's not quite the issue we're debating, as LedRush pointed out. But it's still the case that Palin's public and seemingly official response to the Branchflower report was to claim that it had cleared her of any unethical activity or rule-breaking. Even to people who feel she didn't do anything wrong, that's got to be quite a stretch of the imagination, since the report explicitly says that she violated the state ethics laws. That, in fact, is what makes the response so remarkable: Palin appeared to be displaying willful ignorance. Her lawyers may have a point (about the Branchflower report being wrong) -- but Palin herself seemed to almost intentionally misstate the report's findings.

She was even a bit cavalier about it -- when asked by a reporter if she had abused her power, her response was "No, and if you read the report, you'll see that there was nothing unlawful or unethical about replacing a cabinet member...You got to read the report, sir." Here, she is a bit condescending to a reporter by implying that his question reveals his ignorance of the contents of the report, yet at the same time the report does conclude that she abused her power, and her response simply emphasized a portion of the report detailing specific ways in which her actions weren't unlawful, while ignoring the ways in which the report said they were.

3) On the need for a source for specifically using the word "many": this would be hard to come by, and I don't really think it's required. In order for a source to say this, there would have to be a story, not just about the report, not just about Palin's reponse to the report, but a story synthesizing the reactions of other journalists to Palin's reaction to the report, and measuring the prominence of journalistic views either agreeing or disagreeing with Palin's assertion. That'd be a pretty esoteric news analysis, and I don't think anybody's going to write one -- nor, I think, is one necessary for us to simply say "many" vs "some". WP:Weight expects us to represent published viewpoints in proportion with their prominence, and use of these quantifying words is one way of doing so without laboriously citing all the opinions.

4) For whatever it's worth, some reliable sources -- undoubtedly not an exhaustive list, but I went 5 pages deep on several different Google searches, so it's not bad:

Reliable sources which simply confirm or restate the report's conclusion, but do not address Palin's assertion that the report cleared her of any hint of unlawful or unethical activity:

12345678910111213

Reliable sources which either directly contradict Palin's assertion, or point out that Palin's assertion contradicted the report:

12345

I think the available published opinion that I've shown here firmly establishes that Palin's assertion was a questionable analysis of the report, and that this was the prevailing opinion among journalists writing about the issue. Hence, I think as long as we are only showing two examples of opinion on the subject (one on each side), we should use the words "many" and "some" to indicate which opinion was more prominent. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 16:15, 15 January 2009 (UTC)


 * As I mentioned above, I have no problem with the more and less qualifiers as you suggested for this section, but I am wary of using quantity of editorial opinion on partisan matters as a yardstick for what receives more weight in an article. However, as you pointed out, we're talking about Palin's interpretation of the Branchflower report only, and not the actual substance of the findings.  A prudent person would also conclude that while Branchflower exonerated her of criminal misconduct, he also accused her of ethical violations.  Thus, notwithstanding her lawyer's claims that his findings were wrong on the law, Palin's statement that Branchflower's report vindicated her is inaccurate.  I would be very surprised to find that is not the majority viewpoint across the entire political spectrum.  The second aspect was whether the editorial opinions were added only to counter-balance that statement.  If people feel her statement is significant enough to include in the article, it is warranted to include others that dispute her view.  However, if her statement doesn't add value (as it certainly doesn't add substance to the case itself), we might be able to limit the section to RS summaries of the findings and of her lawyer's rebuttal.  Really, I don't feel strongly either way. Fcreid (talk) 01:06, 16 January 2009 (UTC)


 * (deled) "Many people supported Obama." "Some people supported McCain." is the sort of statement being claimed as balanced.  That is part of the gist here in a few short words.  Collect (talk) 16:40, 15 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Actually that looks like a straw man which thoroughly fails to capture any of the three separate, substantive points I made, and even distorts them by using a bad analogy. An actual accurate use of quantifying language using McCain/Obama as an example would have said that "many people supported McCain" and "most people supported Obama". When quantifying language is used in a way that is more or less accurate, generally nobody finds it false or objectionable.


 * ... and "TLDR" really seems like an obnoxious response to a detailed explanation which was only necessary in the first place due to your own reversions and misreading of policy. Since "TLDR" does nothing to proactively resolve this issue, I'm going to ask that you either read and respond to my comments, or else drop your objection and agree not to revert this. In short, either discuss it -- here on the talk page, not in the edit summaries of your reversions -- or leave it alone. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 17:03, 15 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Collect, Factchecker's response was not unnecessarily long, it was correct for making 3 distinct points we've talked about. Your response is not helpful or accurate.  More importantly, Factchecker is correct.  Killer has specifically said that WP allows for statements that attribute more weight to one view than another, so please drop it.LedRush (talk) 17:11, 15 January 2009 (UTC)


 * My suggestion is that assigning numbers to editorial opinions is not helpful in a BLP.  And the WP precedent is for assigning more weight to one side of a theory dispute than to another -- but last I looked, editorial opinions do not fall into that category.   Collect (talk) 17:25, 15 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, but Killer has killed that opinion, so it's time to move on. Also, no one is talking about assigning numbers, just weight.LedRush (talk) 17:38, 15 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Just FWIW, I still think WP:Weight addresses this head-on: "Neutrality requires that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each. Now an important qualification: In general, articles should not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views, and will generally not include tiny-minority views at all."


 * I see nothing whatsoever to suggest that editorial opinions would somehow be exempt from this. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 17:46, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

The source of contention (break for convenience)
Having not tangled with this section before, I decided to do a bit of digging. Both the original and the archived links for the Kansas City Star article are deadlinks. Regards. FangedFaerie ( Talk  |  Edits ) 23:33, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Aha. The Kansas City Star may have reprinted this, obviously with different formatting. I'm finding the author's name and quotes elsewhere online, but this is what they all lead back to. Regards. FangedFaerie  ( Talk  |  Edits ) 23:40, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Now that I'm reading it, I can't find any place in the blog post where the author says that the Branchflower report didn't accuse Palin of ethical misconduct. He argues that it's a political hatchet job, that it's bad research, that it contradicts itself....but he never seems to say what we've said he does: that Palin's interpretation of the report, ( that it clears her) is accurate.LedRush (talk) 05:05, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * You know, LedRush, I think you're right. He's not addressing Palin's opinion in and of itself here. He's tearing apart the report, but he doesn't specifically say anything like 'Palin's right, this clears her.' Assuming that I didn't muck up my Google search and grab the wrong source. Regards. FangedFaerie  ( Talk  |  Edits ) 06:06, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The article is still there in pay archives. "Investigations clears Palin in Troopergate controversy       LISA DEMER, McClatchy Newspapers  ANCHORAGE, Alaska A new report released Monday -- hours before the polls open on Election Day -- exonerates Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin in the Troopergate controversy.  The state Personnel Board-sanctioned investigation is the second into whether Palin violated state ethics law in firing her public safety commissioner, and it contradicts the earlier findings by a special counsel hired by the state Legislature.   Both investigations found that Palin was within her rights to fire Public...    Published on 2008-11-04, Page A3, Kansas City Star, The (MO)"   and also  "PRO-CON: DID AN INVESTIGATION VINDICATE SARAH PALIN IN THE "TROOPERGATE" MATTER? YES  Democratic state senator and staunch Barack Obama supporter Hollis French of Alaska boasted in early September that he would provide an "October Surprise" which would upset the McCain-Palin campaign. The investigator he hired, Steve Branchflower, has given birth to a bloated and redundant 263-page report which boils down to two paragraphs that completely contradict one another. The Branchflower Report is a series of guesses and insupportable conclusions drawn by exactly...  Published on 2008-10-16, Page B8, Kansas City Star, The (MO)"   Demer is not Hewitt I think.  The deadlinks should be converted to normal text refs.  After all, the hard copy papers still exist.  Collect (talk) 11:59, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * FYI, Lisa Demer is a reporter at the Anchorage Daily News, not the Kansas City Star. They're both owned by the McClatchy chain. Kelly  hi! 13:11, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I used ther Kansas search . Funny thing about chains, then tend to use material as many places as they are able. Collect (talk) 13:47, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm confused (as usual!) Was Palin's statement in response to the original Branchflower Report of the Personnel Board findings?  It appears the McClatchy article was in response to the latter, right? Fcreid (talk) 15:00, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Exactly. Palin's comments were in response to the Branchflower report, while the quote above is about the report that came out later.  We still haven't found any commentator to support the current statement in the article (that commentator's agreed with Palin that the Branchflower report cleared her of any hint of unethical activity".LedRush (talk) 15:04, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The McClatchey original cite was written before the second report (in fact the cite date is Oct. 16), so is likely to refer to the Branchflower report (and mentions it by name, to boot <g>). Collect (talk) 15:08, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Collect, every source I've found is treating the statement as if she was reacting to the Branchflower report. As I recall, she made those statements before the results of the McClatchey report were released (though I don't have proof at hand), and in particular, from the interview with the Alaska reporters, see my quotes in the next section of the talk page, where Branchflower is brought up by name and she repeats her statement. Regards. FangedFaerie  ( Talk  |  Edits ) 15:13, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Looking back at the snippets posted by Collect, the first one looks like a variant or repeat of this, dated Nov. 3, by Lisa Demer, which is specifically discussing the second investigation. There is nothing there about Palin's view of Branchflower's report. The second one is a repeat of the link I already posted, which is this, dated Oct. 10, and also says nothing about Palin's view of Branchflower's report.

Whether or not Bill Dyer's rant is a valid source, it does NOT address the topic at hand, except tangentially. He agrees with Palin's view, but he doesn't comment specifically on Palin's view.

Now, if someone wants to say X agreed with Palin's view, fine. But this cannot be used to say "Palin was right, according to X." Regards. FangedFaerie ( Talk  |  Edits ) 15:25, 16 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Mea culpa "The Branchflower Report is a series of guesses and insupportable conclusions drawn by exactly... Published on 2008-10-16, Page B8, Kansas City Star" is dated October 16. " Which does seem to indicate agreement with Palin.  It is an editorial column in the paper, not a blog, however as published. Collect (talk) 15:43, 16 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I am sorry, but I am getting a little confused here...Collect, can you provide either a link or a quote of the entire article which you contend will support the language in the article which says that commentator's agreed that Palin's interpretation of the Branchflower report was correct? I've just gotten a little lost with all the passages and links above.15:53, 16 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree that it "seems to" agree with Palin, but I'd like to find a reliable link. And if so, we need to be careful that we do not word it that "X says Palin was right," because it does not address Palin's comments if it's the article I think it is. As I pointed out below, if it's the content I think it is, it was originally published Oct. 10, the day before Palin made her comments. Regards. FangedFaerie  ( Talk  |  Edits ) 02:37, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Aside: I dug up some interesting tangents by searching the phrase The investigator he hired, Steve Branchflower, has given birth to a bloated and redundant 263-page report which boils down to two paragraphs that completely contradict one another. from the second source, as posted by Collect. That led me to the Townhall.com source I already found, which then led me back to the individual's personal blog, where it's copy-pasted. On the upper right of said blog is a link to "Index to posts on the GOP VPOTUS nominee, Gov. Sarah Palin of Alaska." There are 83 of them, ending with two that discuss the Branchflower report and Tasergate. He's now blogging about other topics.


 * I reeeeally need to quit Wiki and go do my homework. :) Regards. FangedFaerie  ( Talk  |  Edits ) 03:14, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
 * See also the Kansas.com blog site, where some of the Bill Dyer opinion is reposted. It's attributed to Hugh Hewitt, Townhall.com because the name of the site is "Hugh Hewitt: a blog of Townhall.com." The original cite had Hugh Hewitt as the author, so I'm fixing that and adding the Townhall link as a backup citation. Regards. FangedFaerie  ( Talk  |  Edits ) 16:02, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
 * At risk of causing a storm, I changed the phrase to this: "While some, like Bill Dyer, generally shared Palin's view of the report..." Regards. FangedFaerie  ( Talk  |  Edits ) 16:09, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I think it's a good change. In addition, I've deleted the sentence that said commentators disagreed about whether or not Palin's interpretation was accurate because we haven't found one that explicitly says this.  Also, I changes "some" to "many" regarding commentators who disagreed because of the mountain of cites demonstrated below and Killer's interpretation of Wikipedia policy which explicitly allows this type of language.LedRush (talk) 21:35, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The wording as edited implied that many used "the reverse of the truth" in their comments - while it was only one commentator who used those words AFAICT. Also "while some ... many" as a construction implies greater weight to the latter which would require actual cites not furnishesd. "Some ... others" is NPOV for sure.  WP is not a counter of google hits in weighing such claims. Collect (talk) 22:03, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Collect, we have not found any commentator, not one, who has argued that Palin's interpretation is correct. Yet we've left a quote in that incorrectly implies that commentators do agree with Palin's interpretation.
 * Also, Killer has explicitly stated that your argument for weight is invalid, so please stop making it. Policy is clear.  I will change the language so as not to imply that multiple commentators used that specific quote, though I don't think anyone could really get that from the old language.LedRush (talk) 22:23, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

I have added other sources and comments to justify the use of the word "many." Regards. FangedFaerie ( Talk  |  Edits ) 02:21, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Ugh. Now it seems like way too much weight on the reaction to Palin's statement. That paragraph is longer than the whole section discussing the Personnel Board investigation! Kelly  hi! 02:40, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I actually agree, Kelly. I was making the point that the word "many" is justified. Also, we have yet to see a reliable source provided that says Palin's view of the report was right. I'm content to leave it at some/others, though, even though I think that's not accurate. Regards. FangedFaerie  ( Talk  |  Edits ) 21:44, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Suggestion: "While some, like Bill Dyer, generally shared Palin's view of the report, stating, "[i]t’s just Steve Branchflower’s opinion ...",[130][131] many disagreed,(3 more refs) like a columnist for the Washington Post who stated "it is the reverse of the truth to claim that she was cleared of 'any hint of any kind of unethical activity.'"[128]
 * This supports the word "many" without adding length. Thoughts? Regards. FangedFaerie  ( Talk  |  Edits ) 21:49, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Palin's statement about Branchflower report (section break for convenience)
I don't want to want to take the conversation far afield from the topic, but a quick question - was the Palin statement a one-off comment to the press, or was this stated in a press release and/or multiple times? The reason I ask is that I just want to make sure we're not piling too much on what may have been an extemporaneous misstatement. Kelly hi! 05:21, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * From this, which I understand is the source, a phone interview with Alaska reporters. I some bits for space and to avoid TLDR.
 * <i>Palin: Let me talk a little bit about the Tasergate issue if you guys would let me.


 * Stapleton: Sure governor, go ahead.


 * Palin: OK cool. Well, I’m very very pleased to be cleared of any legal wrongdoing … any hint of any kind of unethical activity there. Very pleased to be cleared of any of that. <snip - Repeats that Todd did what any rational person would have> ...again very pleased to be cleared of any legal wrongdoing.


 * ADN: Governor, finding No.1 on the report was that you abused your power by violating state law. Do you think you did anything wrong at all in this Troopergate case?


 * Palin: Not at all... So no, not having done anything wrong, and again very much appreciating being cleared of any legal wrongdoing or unethical activity at all</i>.
 * It was an isolated event in the sense that it came from one interview. But she repeated the statement many times within that interview, and so far as I know has not retracted it. Regards. FangedFaerie  ( Talk  |  Edits ) 05:56, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah - many thanks for putting together the transcript. Kelly  hi! 05:58, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * In fact, she reiterated her position. See this: "If you read the report, you will see that there was nothing unlawful or unethical about replacing a cabinet member," Palin said as boarded her campaign bus in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. "You got to read the report." (My apologies for formatting issues in this comment, should they crop up.) Regards. FangedFaerie  ( Talk  |  Edits ) 06:00, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Hmmm - depending on how much you parse that, that seems to actually agree with what the report said...if you limit its application strictly to Monegan's reassignment. My understanding of the "ethics" part of the BR was strictly about people complaining about Wooten to Monegan, not Monegan's being reassigned from the Public Safety Commissioner position. Of course that's just my opinion and I haven't seen any sources discussing this particular statement, just the one you cited from the ADN. Kelly  hi! 06:05, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Statement from her lawyer from here: Palin attorney Thomas Van Flein told The Associated Press, "In order to violate the ethics law, there has to be some personal gain, usually financial. Mr. Branchflower has failed to identify any financial gain." The statute says "any effort to benefit a personal or financial interest through official action is a violation of that [public] trust."
 * Since we're veering off into personal opinions, I'd split hairs and say that having him fired would fall under "personal interest" though not necessarily financial. But that's not the actual topic at hand. :) Regards. FangedFaerie  ( Talk  |  Edits ) 06:13, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Further sources, possibly already listed, that include the Palin quote from Pittsburgh: I did find one person from Fox News, Rick DAVIS: ''The reality is there was absolutely no wrongdoing found in the report -- 1,000 pages, an enormous waste of time. And the best that they could come up with was no violations of any kind of laws or ethics rules, but...
 * PolitiFact: Yes, but when you do read the report, Palin's take on its findings falls apart.
 * Washington Post: (Four Pinocchios) The Republican vice-presidential pick has told critics to read the report... But the report's finding that Palin breached the Alaska Executive Branch Ethics Act is very clear.
 * NYDaily: The investigation... found Palin exceeded the limits of her power and was influenced by a personal grudge when she tried to get her former brother-in-law fired from the Alaska state police.

WALLACE: Well, wait, wait, wait, no, it says she violated the state ethics board.

DAVIS: But that -- that she acted within her power and scope of authority as governor to do exactly what she did.''

Also: Campaigning in Altoona, Pa., on Saturday, Ms. Palin provided her assessment of Mr. Branchflower’s findings, insisting that the investigation found “no unlawful or unethical activity on my part” and adding that “there was no abuse of authority at all in trying to get Officer Wooten fired.” Sorry to be so exhaustive and nit-picky. I'm sure the next argument will be over sourcing, but none of the above are blogs, and I provide them as a springboard. I'm up way too late as it is. :) Regards. FangedFaerie  ( Talk  |  Edits ) 06:36, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Branchflower timeline, Palin's statements
I'm summarizing things as I see it. I'm adding links to back up my summary, but this is not necessarily a suggestion for language or sources to add to the article. For now, this is meant only as an FYI. This may fall under TLDR for some of you, but I think it's worth a look.


 * Oct. 9 - The McCain campaign makes a statement that they believe the Branchflower report will reflect that Monegan's dismissal was unrelated to Trooper Wooten.
 * Oct. 10 - At a Pittsburgh fundraiser, Palin defends her actions, and gives a statement to the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review just before the report is released.


 * Oct. 10 - Branchflower report released


 * Oct. 10 - Bill Dyer posts his opinion of the Branchflower report. This is allegedly reprinted as an op-ed piece in the Kansas City Star, but there are no live links that I can find. It does not address Palin's statements, because she hasn't made any yet.
 * Oct. 10 - Bill McAllister says that the Branchflower report found that Palin "acted within her constitutional authority" to fire Monegan, and that he and others question the report's conclusions
 * Oct. 10 - Bill Dyer posts an addendum to his online piece, noting these (story) three (campaign's response) links (Governor's lawyers) as sources to back up his argument. He still could not address Palin's statements, which are made the next day.


 * Oct. 11 - When boarding the campaign bus, Palin answers a question about it with "...if you read the report you'll see that there was nothing unlawful or unethical about replacing a cabinet member. You gotta read the report, sir."
 * Oct. 11 - Later that day, Palin is interviewed by telephone by Alaska journalists, during which she repeatedly states that she was "cleared" of illegal activity, wrongdoing, etc. (The full transcript and audio are here on ADN.com, but the article is in the "blog" section and I wouldn't be surprised if it was challenged if quoted.)
 * Oct. 11 - In Altoona, Pennsylvania, Palin repeats that the inquiry discovered "no unlawful or unethical activity on my part" and says, "there was no abuse of authority at all in trying to get Officer Wooten fired."


 * Oct. 11 - From a Fox News blog, "Her denial of abuse of power puts her at odds with the findings of the report, which found her acting lawfully, but unethically."
 * Oct. 11 - The PolitiFact.com Truth-O-Meter rates Palin's interpretation as "Pants on Fire"
 * Oct. 11 - The Washington Post Fact Checker gives Palin "Four Pinocchios"
 * Oct. 13 - See also: Rick Davis quote, but when I re-read that, I found he did not actually address Palin's statements, though there is this:
 * DAVIS: ...The reality is there was absolutely no wrongdoing found in the report -- 1,000 pages, an enormous waste of time. And the best that they could come up with was no violations of any kind of laws or ethics rules, but...
 * WALLACE: Well, wait, wait, wait, no, it says she violated the state ethics board.
 * DAVIS: But that -- that she acted within her power and scope of authority as governor to do exactly what she did.
 * Oct. 15 - (scroll to the bottom) "Some Republicans [agree] with Palin it was a political circus" and "The report said Palin's removal of her commissioner, Walt Monegan, was not solely about his refusal to fire the state trooper but it was likely a contributing factor. Palin has the right to dismiss a commissioner for any reason she likes."
 * Oct. 20 - FactCheck.org analyzes the Anne Kilkenny e-mail, and the report, but it does not address Palin's statements.
 * Nov. 3 - Associated Press The second investigation clears Palin.
 * Another link - The ABCNews.com Political Punch blog lays out most of the sequence of events, but is probably not an appropriate source for a BLP.

Hope this helps. Regards. FangedFaerie ( Talk  |  Edits ) 02:20, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Looking through the sources. Regardless of anything else, I have to commend you on your awesome research. Kelly  hi! 02:24, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Aww, shucks. I'm working on an Ecology degree, so every bit of practice helps. :) Regards. FangedFaerie  ( Talk  |  Edits ) 03:15, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Fairie...that is an impressive list of research. So, we don't have any commentators who have agreed that Palin's interpretation of the report is accurate, but we have many (listed above by Factchecker) that says her interpretation is wrong. Does anyone (besides Collect, whose made his opinion known) disagree with included language that says many commentators have disagreed with Palin's interpretation? If so, could you please state why. Killer has clearly articulated the policy and using these descriptive terms is obviously ok. The only question remains if it is accurate. I have seen no commentators agree with Palin's interpretation of what the report, and the many above that disagree have been listed, so I can't imagine anyone disputing the accuracy without new evidence.LedRush (talk) 22:52, 17 January 2009 (UTC)