Archive 40

Archive 41

Archive 42

Archive 43

Archive 44

Archive 45

→

Archive 50

This following is in the Wikipedia article for John F. Kennedy:

"Major issues included how to get the economy moving again, Kennedy's Roman Catholicism, Cuba, and whether the Soviet space and missile programs had surpassed those of the U.S. To address fears that his Roman Catholicism would impact his decision-making, he famously told the Greater Houston Ministerial Association on September 12, 1960, "I am not the Catholic candidate for President. I am the Democratic Party's candidate for President who also happens to be a Catholic. I do not speak for my Church on public matters — and the Church does not speak for me."[18] Kennedy also brought up the point of whether one-quarter of Americans were relegated to second-class citizenship just because they were Roman Catholic."

Wikipedia openly discusses political figures' faiths and the controversies they raise. Collect, Fcreid, and others are going against the precedents established within Wikipedia itself merely to keep readers from knowing that Palin belongs to a faith that is not considered "mainstream" in America, for reasons only they know. Why they do this, I do not know. The Assemblies of God is larger than the United Church of Christ in the United States. Pentecostalism is the fastest-growing movement within Christianity. In what way does this make Palin "fringe" and her beliefs a liability for Republicans? It's more valuable to explore the way Palin brought Pentecostalism to the fore of American politics in the same way that Wikipedia discusses how Kennedy brought Catholicism to the fore of American politics. Given the Wikipedia precedent, this debate should be considered over, with Collect and Fcreid having lost.--ManicBrit (talk) 21:00, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

The attempted section in SP goes far beyond the level of mention in the JFK article. Far far beyond. As for saying "someone lost" -- that is a puerile misstatement of how consensus works. If you wish to edit Pentacostalism or the like -- try. The issue is not relevant here. Thanks! Collect (talk) 22:12, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Untrue, Collect. I just love the way you make stuff up. The attempted section says that Palin's faith became an article of discussion in the media and internet. I can easily put thousands of supporting links to that effect. People were afraid that Palin held to apocalyptic beliefs and worried that she'd install others with Christian Nationalist beliefs into prominent positions - exactly the same sort of worries people had about Kennedy and his Catholicism. Kennedy tackled it head-on, and Palin tried to duck and cover, but the basic controversy is the same. Again, unless you plan to spend years sitting on top of this article and censoring it (and perhaps you do - at least until 2013), some intrepid soul is going to come along and add this info, because it's plainly relevant. Why not just face it head-on? People rose to Palin's defense and said that Pentecostal beliefs were not anything to fear, as was noted in the NYT article. Why not just cite them?--ManicBrit (talk) 17:09, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Try reading WP:AGF and WP:EQ. Also read about "Dinogate" and "Jesus ponies" in the archives here. Both were, for some odd reason, found completely irrelevant. And I suspect you will not be able to get a consensus otherwise. And stop the attacks in the edit summaries as well, please. Thank you most kindly. Collect (talk) 17:15, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

The issue isn't whether or not she WAS part of that church, the issue is whether or not she IS part of that church. Mentioning somewhere in the article that she WAS prominently tied to that church is very reasonable. Saying that she IS part of that church now isn't based on any observation that I can see. I have yet to see a source that indicates she now still goes to this church, anymore than I expect to say that Obama still attends Rev. Wrights church. 68.223.69.49 (talk) 21:49, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Palin actively attends Juneau Christian Center. Her claim that she's not "Pentecostal" is based on a highly-selective definition of "Pentecostal" that's sometimes used in rarefied academic discourse which distinguishes between "Pentecostal" and "Charismatic." In most contexts, the two terms are interchangeable; if you want to be technically precise, you can say that Palin attended a Pentecostal church for more than 20 years and now attends a Charismatic church. Most folks believe that her formal membership in an evangelical-fundamentalist church in Wasilla - while she actively attends church at a Charismatic fellowship in Juneau most of the time - was just a calculated political move. Frankly, a dispensationalist fundamentalist pastor would usually confront a parishioner about attending a Charismatic church and demand that she stop - unless, of course, that parishioner happened to be governor. Her close contacts with Pentecostalism were, indisputably, a subject of discussion in the 2008 campaign. Collect and others are just trying to keep it out because they don't want an active Republican politician tied to an apocalyptic religious group, fearing that it will alienate moderate voters. Seems funny that religion's a topic of discussion for JFK, Jimmy Carter, John Kerry, and Barack Obama, but not for Sarah Palin. Smacks of censorship, plain and simple.--ManicBrit (talk) 17:09, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

So your main point is that some Christians are wackos whose religion should be ridiculed in a Wikipedia biography of a living person? I think your religous group ia apoplectic <g>. Precedent in Wikipedia is not to make fun of religious groups, not to assign beliefs to a person unless they state them themselves, and not to stick irrelevant conjecture into a biography of a living person. Perhsps you would say Catholics believe in cannibalism because you can find a cite for that claim? Sorry -- there is a point where your apparent arguments become way too outre! Collect (talk) 17:21, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Collect, stop slandering me. I never "attacked" anyone. And I never posted anything that mocked anyone's religious faith in the article. I challenge you to produce a single sentence that does so. And calling your logic "faulty" or noting that you and your "consensus" pals have an open, stated Republican bias are not "attacks." I'm simply treating Palin the same way authors of other articles treated Kennedy. You can't articulate a single way in which Palin's issues with her faith were different than Kennedy's.--ManicBrit (talk) 19:11, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

What Wikipedia Says About Jimmy Carter Regarding His Faith and Media Flap

Wikipedia's article on Jimmy Carter contains this entry:

"Carter was interviewed by Robert Scheer of Playboy for its November 1976 issue, which hit the newsstands a couple of weeks before the election. It was here that in the course of a digression on his religion's view of pride, Carter admitted that "I've looked on a lot of women with lust. I've committed adultery in my heart many times."[35] He remains the only American president to be interviewed by this magazine."

Again, someone explain why this paragraph fits Wikipedia's rules, while the following one does not.

"Sarah Palin's religious background became a subject of intense discussion in the media and on Internet blogs after videos appeared on YouTube which showed Palin being anointed by New Apostolic Reformation preacher Thomas Muthee, and Palin attributing her victory in her governor's race to Muthee's prayer."

Last time I checked, IOIRDI (it's okay if republicans do it) was not part of Wikipedia's policy.--ManicBrit (talk) 19:54, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

First -- Carter made a big issue of it himself, deliberately having it appear during the election campaign. Having a Playboy interview is not low profile church attendance, which, you will note, is not part of Carter's bio. Second -- as for the claim that Palin said she won specifically because of Muthee -- find a solid cite for the claim. I didn't. Third -- YouTube videos, especially edited ones, are not considered RS for WP biographies. Fourth -- this is not a "republican" versus "democrat" issue. Fifth -- look at your "edit summaries" which make personal statements about editors. Sixth -- sayiong anyone "slandered" you is not going to get you any pooints when they have, if anything, been extraordinarily courteous to you. Thank you most kindly. Collect (talk) 20:05, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

[Off topic aside] I recently did some research on the editing practices of Playboy magazine, and read about the incredible amount of effort that they put into the famous Playboy interviews, including extensive review of the questions followed by as much as dozens of hours of interviewing. In the case of the Carter interview, the question about adultery wasn't part of the planned questions. It was asked at the end of the interview, on the spur of the moment, after the tape recorder had been turned off, as everyone was getting ready to go. (There were several witnesses, so there was no doubt about the accuracy of the quote.) So it wasn't planned by either the interviewer or Carter. It's interesting how a single utterance, given in an offhand manner, can gain such importance. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:05, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

You're right, it's not only Democrat vs. Republican. Check this out, from the Mitt Romney article:

"Religion played a major role in the 2008 presidential campaign, with polls indicating that a quarter of Republican voters were “less likely” to vote for a presidential candidate who was a Latter-day Saint.[105][106] However, some social conservatives and evangelicals criticized Romney for not being enough of a Latter-day Saint regarding social policy.[107][108] He avoided speaking publicly about specific church doctrines, and pointed out that the U.S. Constitution prohibits religious tests for public office.[105] Declining to discuss details about his religion also reduced the risk that doctrinal differences would alienate evangelical Christian voters.[107] Romney instead addressed religion in general, saying that as president he would have needed “the prayers of the people of all faiths” and that he would have served “no one religion, no one group, no one cause, and no one interest. A president must serve only the common cause of the people of the United States.”[105]"

I'm not aware of any rule that says videos can't be used as a source when they quote a person speaking in her own words. Rest assured, my supporting links would have plenty of text, and meticulous transcriptions. And frankly, I'm getting very tired of your turning this debate into a personal character attack, and then claiming that you're the one who has been maligned. I've called you out on specious logic, and noted that my ripostes to you are "rebuttals," and noted that you are a Republican and your edits seemingly reflect partisan purposes. And the personal attack is? You've posted numerous "kindly stop personal attacks" statements, which are essentially equivalent to saying, "Have you stopped beating your wife?" Perhaps in the current American climate, being called a Republican is an insult. How rude of me.--ManicBrit (talk) 21:08, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Why are you trying to turn this into a partisan debate, ManicBrit? How is anything that I've said in this topic relevant to one political party or another? I will admit you've got me a bit flabbergasted now, though. Based on your academic pursuits in religious doctrine, I really thought your goal for including this material was to highlight some aspect of Pentecostalism that you find interesting. What it now seems is that you're trying to label Palin to be an adherent to some religious sect ("NAR" and by your own definitions) *despite* that she has stated unequivocally she does not consider herself Pentecostal and stopped attending a Pentecostal church eight years ago. You hope to do this by injecting this spurious piece of undocumented evidence that allegedly shows her receiving a blessing from a visitor African cleric (of arguable worldwide notoriety) from some faith to which she does not adhere, and in a church where she doesn't attend! To bolster that position, you inject your own original research that claims she's still an adherent to Pentecostalism (only because you say so and despite what she herself states!) Can't you see how this fails miserably for inclusion here on every count? Fcreid (talk) 00:50, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm not turning this into a partisan debate. The fact that there's a gang of Palin fans that have hijacked this article has been noted by others - there's whole "Farewell from a Democrat" section on this talk page.(See [1]) Look, all I'm trying to do is note the historical importance of a candidate associated with Pentecostalism/Charismatic Christianity rising to national prominence, and the questions that were raised about her beliefs - in exactly the same way as Romney's Mormonism and Kennedy's Catholicism were broached in their articles. The fact that Palin said she "doesn't consider herself Pentecostal" doesn't mean the topic shouldn't be discussed. For starters, it doesn't settle the question of Palin's religious associations, since it appears to be an obvious lie given her ongoing association with Pentecostal/Charismatic churches - if she were ever pressed about it, her handlers would doubtless be forced to draw a highly-arcane distinction between "Pentecostal" and "Charismatic" (technically, "Pentecostals" are folks who started speaking in tongues right after Azusa, and "Charismatics" are those who took it up later) and concede that Palin is a Charismatic. In 99.8% of discourse, the words "Pentecostal" and "Charismatic" are interchangeable. Kennedy and Romney addressed concerns about their religions head-on, with verve and courage that Palin lacks. Palin tried to obfuscate and avoid the topic - but the topic remained an important one in the campaign, regardless. The reason why Palin never had a Kennedy/Romney moment, frankly, is because she's so fantastically vapid that she could never manage to deliver a nuanced speech about religion, even if it was written for her by others. Meanwhile, she's going on Christian Nationalist radio shows like Focus on the Family and delivering verbiage just shy of a Pentecostal testimony, talking about "prayer warriors" and "spiritual warfare," distinctly Pentecostal/Charismatic ideas. There isn't a single other political candidate in the world who gets to decide what the media does and doesn't say about her - this ridiculous Sarah-mania says that since Sarah's just a plain, ordinary folk, she should be given the same rights of privacy as Joe Blow living in Podunk, Texas. That's baloney. Sarah Palin ceased to be an ordinary Joe-Blow the second she accepted the VP offer. Look, Romney and Jindal are going to steam-roll Sarah Palin in 2012. Your boss doesn't stand a prayer. She probably won't even continue to have a future in Alaska, because her own party's made her a pariah. Why not just let her become a part of history, someone who can be discussed in all her various dimensions, so we can learn from who she was and what she accomplished? She ain't going to accomplish much more, sorry to tell you.--ManicBrit (talk) 13:38, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

ManicBrit, I'll ignore the your boss nonsense, but I will say you're starting to grate on my nerves like the end result of an unwanted knock at the door by someone holding The Watchtower. However, to summarize your edit recommendation, you want to tell the world that Palin believes in a different religion than she states, and that you can prove this by your video? Um... okay. On the academic side of things, do both of the religions in question believe in the same deity? In other words, will God be able to recognize heretics like Palin in the End of Days? For my own edification in the more near-term, while I'm walking down the street, how can I distinguish between heretical adherents to this religion and avoid them? Fcreid (talk) 12:22, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

OK, ManicBrit, you've just exposed yourself and your agenda. "Your boss"? Are you alleging that Fcreid is paid by Palin? Where do you get that from? Having made that statement you are no longer entitled to any assumption of good faith, or of any kind of honesty at all. I don't believe a word you've written about your motives. -- Zsero (talk) 13:52, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

The Roman Catholic Church is officially "charismatic" see for example [2] [3] [4] [5] and a few more. Care to blast the Pope? Collect (talk) 15:26, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, the CoE is officially "catholic" (see the title of this page), which comes as a surprise to many a young Anglican. -- Zsero (talk) 16:53, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

But only the ignorami who don't care to learn the history of e.g. the Christian Catholic Church, the divergent Roman dogma and the difference between catholic and particular, etc., etc. — Writegeist (talk) 17:42, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

"Ignoramus" in Latin is a verb, not a noun. Its English usage therefore followes Englsih construction with its plural being "ignoramuses." [6] Collect (talk) 11:37, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Good catch! Thank you. (But I do so prefer the sound of "ignorami", even if it is a tad outré, don't you?) And--re. your link--I eschew the clunky plural of "penis" for the pithy plural of that wonderfully versatile word "prick". — Writegeist (talk) 23:18, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

cite 33 (news paper article on Pail dismissing key officials) is a jpg image being hosted on a pro-obama website....not very encyclopedic or NPOV —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.108.31.35 (talk) 22:33, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Just because it's being hosted by her opposition does not make it false... TheXenocide (talk) 01:17, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

you're right, but wikipedia is very clear about sources, and just because something is true doesn't mean it should be included in an article. Find a proper source or remove it Macutty (talk) 01:39, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

I was about to say "Be bold, just remove it", but then I saw this supposed "JPEG hosted on a pro-Obama website" is actually just a news clipping of an AP article. Rather than removing it, the more constructive approach is to just google the first 10 words of the article and then link a better rendition of it, as seen here in the Alaska Daily News.Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 01:52, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Actually, Macutty's premise is wrong. The citation is to the Daily Sitka Sentinel, which has not been suggested to be other than a reliable third-party source. No web confirmation is indeed required for references (though it certainly is handy to have it, there are thousands or tens of thousands of WP articles that cite only paper, not online, sources). So while it would be desirable to have a better web link, the citation was fine as it was (but is better now). Bongomatic 01:54, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

So, who's ready to tackle the avalanche of interviews that Palin has given recently? Anyone? *insane giggles* I put together a whole list of them, ready to post links here, and then my computer crashed. Sigh. Regards. FangedFaerie (Talk | Edits) 03:07, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

One other editor pointed out recentism, but I'd like to counter by saying that Palin herself is clearing up some things that were twisted and obfuscated in the MSM during the campaign. Just sayin. Regards. FangedFaerie (Talk | Edits) 05:35, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

You shouldn't use "obfuscated." I don't think she'll know what you mean. Also, a lot of the things she has said in these interviews have been her twisting facts, not the other way around.

Example: Katie Couric says, "what newspapers and magazines do you read?" Palin responds by saying something about how she reads everything that is put in front of her. In the interview she has with Matt Lauer, Palin described the interaction as far more demeaning than the way Couric said it, saying that Couric said, "Well what do you guys read up there in Alaska?" This has the connotation that she thought Palin was some outside-the-beltway moron. This is clearly not true in the context of the interview, and I hope these kinds are pointed out in the article soon.

I have created a new article, Eisenstadt hoax, that describes (briefly--hope people may expand it) the genesis of news reports that Palin was uncertain whether Africa was a continent or a country. In the post-election discussion, actual and fake leaks from the McCain camp are in fact notable. I hope people involved in this article, the McCain article, and the various campaign / election articles will incorporate and improve this information. Bongomatic 00:08, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Hoaxes do not belong in any BLP. Collect (talk) 00:34, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Obviously, this overgeneralization is false. For example, see Louis Leakey, Charles Dawson, Gerrit Smith Miller, which appropriately reference Piltdown Man.

Note my clarification below. Collect (talk) 12:30, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

If a hoax is relevant to the history of a person, then, so long as it is properly identified as such, it properly belongs in that person's biography. Bongomatic 01:44, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

To User:Collect: It debunks a hoax and does not further the hoax, so it does not violate WP:BLP. Rgrds. --Tombstone (talk) 11:07, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Please reread my post. Material from a hoax does not belong in a BLP as though it were fact. Clearly the fact that there WAS a hoax is relevant, and the facts about what was falsely stated should be mentioned. I suppose I should have said "Some editors took the fake stuff as real and actually placed much of it in the article." Better? Collect (talk) 11:10, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification, that makes more sense. Exposing the lies purported via a hoax (and clearing one's name) is appropriate content for this article. Although, in the long-run, it is relatively minor and probably does not demand much mention, much less its own article. Seems appropriate to merge the new article into a few sentences into the "2008 Vice-presidential campaign" section. Rgrds. --Tombstone (talk) 11:40, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

I am not sure -- as the hoaxers have been involved in multiple campaigns, it makes sense to have them as a separate article. IPOF, I would not be surprised to see their spoor covering many campaigns -- this is basically "dirty tricks" at its dirtiest. Collect (talk) 12:29, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

(Response to "Please reread my post".) Please reread the original paragraph and the new article to which it links. It is clearly identified as a hoax, and is not perpetuating the false information. It is bizarre to suggest that the incorporation of such an article or its contents would itself perpeutuate the false information. Bongomatic 13:30, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

How ironic, bongo, that these hoaxers have successfully created a situation where their hoax can so easily be conflated with what could be true info and now you, the supporter of the hoaxers, can't get their hoax into this article because of people who don't want the possibly true info in it. Anarchangel (talk) 13:08, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for starting this article - I just read about it elsewhere and was happy to see we had an article on it already. I don't think it should be merged into this article, as the hoax seems to have some degree of notability in its own right - but perhaps a link to it from somewhere in this article (the '2008 Vice-Presidential campaign' section?) would be appropriate? Terraxos (talk) 17:20, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Perhaops something like: "In November 2008, it was revealed that the Eisenstadt hoax creators were responsible for some of the more interesting charges about Palin during and after the campaign." " Collect (talk) 20:07, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

That's a new low, Collect. Anarchangel (talk) 13:08, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you most kindly for the aspersion. Collect (talk) 13:23, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

No, this is not an accurate conclusion from the reported article. See below. "Eisenstadt" didn't invent the claims, but only falsely took credit for them. Bongomatic 22:18, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

As yet, no other source has been found. That a hoaxer denies something is not really 100% credible, is it? Collect (talk) 13:23, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

If it's a hoax..... and it created some ripples - we can use it to debunk smears of Palin. Otherwise, it probably shouldn't be given too much space. I think Collect may be on the right track. Bruno23 (talk) 20:39, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

...And the new guy stoops lower. Great cabal, guys, enjoying it. Anarchangel (talk) 13:08, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

On behalf of Bruno23, thank you for your aspersion. Aspersions do not belong on any talk page in any of WP. Collect (talk) 13:23, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

If it is a hoax (seems quite likely - it's easier to believe this is a hoax than to believe a sitting governor could be so pathetically ignorant) then I assume we will need to see more documentation. Once this is found, I think this needs more than a short section, because it would address a serious attack on Sarah Palin's reputation, and many readers will otherwise be prompted to re-insert the attacks if they aren't thoroughly debunked. VictorC (talk) 21:10, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Please read the linked article and the NYT source article. Neither of them suggests that the underlying charges of Palin not knowing whether Africa is a country or a continent was invented by "Eisenstadt" or that the reports that a senior McCain official claimd this is false. Rather, the NYT reported that Eisenstadt falsely confirmed these allegations "on the record". So far, I have seen no retractions of the original unattributed statements from McCain advisors about any of the negative allegations (Africa, NAFTA, etc.). Bongomatic 22:18, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Nor has any other source been named. Collect (talk) 13:23, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

True enough, but Fox News hasn't issued a retraction of its initial story wich cited unnamed McCain advisors. The story so far:

1. Fox ran story stating that unnamed McCain advisor claimed that Palin was unable to identify Africa as a continent
2. "Eisenstadt" takes credit as such an advisor
3. MSNBC, etc. attribute statement from Fox to Eisenstadt
4. Eisenstadt revealed (in fact, "re-revealed") a hoax
5. MSNBC, etc. retract attribution to Eisenstadt

Until a "reliable source" reports that For's statement in (1) is false, any article that implies that no such claim was made by a McCain advisor specifically contradicts an uncontradicted, unretracted story from a "reliable source"—so until then, any inference (based Eisenstadt's credit-taking) that the original "advisor" is not an advisor is uncorroborated original research and doesn't belong in article space. Bongomatic 13:51, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Maybe. There is no evidence that the claims did come from anyone in the McCain camp. "Eisenstadt" took credit for them, and there's no way to know whether "he" was telling the truth about his lies, at least until Cameron comes clean. -- Zsero (talk) 22:22, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Clarification: it is quite obvious, and has been from the start, that the Africa claim was a hoax. The only question is whose. Many people's initial assumption was that the hoax came from someone genuinely inside the campaign. "Eisenstadt"'s claim of credit, if true, only clears up who's responsible for the hoax; if the claim is not true, then the hoaxer is someone else, but it doesn't make the original claim any truer. -- Zsero (talk) 22:24, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

That was a clarification? Don't suppose you'd care to clarify how it was obvious, like maybe with, ooh, I dunno, evidence? That was cited, maybe. Anarchangel (talk) 13:08, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Unanswered, a direct request for cited verifying evidence, One.

"Obvious" doesn't mean "true" and certainly doesnt mean "verifiable". Based on the published information to date, what must be said is that "news media have reported that an anonymous advisor to McCain alleged X", and that "'Eisenstadt', a fictional character, took credit for the allegations, and news media--without adhering to proper fact-checking procedures--erroneously reported Eisenstadt as the source."

. . . unless you have references to the contrary, which would be useful. Bongomatic 23:17, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Something that is obviously false does not belong on a WP article, whether we have a RS to prove it's false or not. RS are required to include a story, not to exclude it, when we know (because everybody with half a brain knows) that it's not true. We don't tell lies on WP, we just don't always tell the whole truth. -- Zsero (talk) 07:16, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Concur with Bongomatic's interpretation here. This story doesn't speak to the accuracy of the initial anonymously sourced claim, but rather to the claims of this clown who purported himself to be the source (and to the accuracy of the misguided RS who accepted that). For that reason, this story really has zero relevance to this article, in my opinion. Fcreid (talk) 00:35, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

I am dubious about the story that this is a hoax and especially that Mr. Eisenstadt perpetrated it. Remember, the Keating cousin story on the Eisenstadt blog was retracted within a day or two, and he freely admitted that he'd made a mistake on his blog. There has been ample time for him to retract this, and this story hasn't been retracted on his blog. In fact, he is reiterating the story. That said - as we well know - a blog doesn't meet the citation standard for a Wikipedia reliable source. If it were a hoax, it would seem that Eisenstadt would have retracted it much sooner than this. Yes, it's still an unbelievable story, but where's the evidence that it's a hoax? VictorC (talk) 05:01, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Um, "Eisenstadt" is a hoax. He doesn't exist. So what he says on his blog is irrelevant. And the Africa story is an obvious hoax, but the only question is whether "Eisenstadt" is indeed responsible for it, as he has claimed. It could be that in this particular instance he's telling the truth, that he's the source of the Africa story, in which case it's just another of his hoaxes. But he may be lying about that; perhaps the source is someone else, which doesn't make the story true, it just means that there are two hoaxers. -- Zsero (talk) 07:14, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Zsero, I fail to see any point in what you've just written. Please, if you can, clearly and succinctly make your point or points. You have thoroughly confused me. Please reread what you wrote and if you can clarify it. If not, please just ignore this. Thanks for your zeal in contributing to this Wikipedia article. VictorC (talk) 10:39, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

A blog can be used specifically as a reference for what has been written by the author of the blog, but not as a "fact" otherwise. As for trusting a hoaxer to tell the truth on anything factual, I would suggest that such would be an unwise course. What we can say is that material on the blog has been found to be false, and to state what the false claims were. I think Zsero is suggesting that the hoax may be the tip of an iceberg of other organized hoaxers, in which case this may end up a very major story. Collect (talk) 11:40, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

OK, here it is, in steps:

1. Carl Cameron reports that someone in the McCain campaign told him Palin didn't know Africa was a continent. This is obviously a hoax, but we don't know who the hoaxer is, and many people assume he is indeed a campaign insider. There is much speculation about who the traitor could be.
2. "Eisenstadt" goes public, claiming to be Cameron's source; Cameron does not confirm it.
3. "Eisenstadt" is exposed as a hoax. There is no such person, and "he" certainly has no inside knowledge of the McCain campaign.

This leaves two possibilities: 1) He really is Cameron's source, which leaves Cameron with real egg on his face. There is no traitor in the McCain campaign, and everything he told Cameron can be dismissed. 2) His claim to have been the liar who fed Cameron this cock-and-bull story is itself a lie. Cameron's source really is a campaign insider, who has yet to be discovered. This means rather less egg on Cameron's face, and it also means that some of what this source said might be true. We know which version Cameron would like us to believe, but I know of no way to tell which is true, unless and until Cameron comes clean. He knows where he got his story, and if it was "Eisenstadt" then he should admit it.

Of course there are also some more possibilities: 3) Cameron's source was not "Eisenstadt", but also not a campaign insider. 4) Cameron made the whole thing up himself. These are less likely than the first two. Is that clearer? -- Zsero (talk) 13:40, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

But the comment on your item (1) that "this is obviously a hoax" is not supported by any sources. The statement attributed to a McCain advisor may be false (i.e., Palin may never have said something that could be interpreted as confusion on what Africa is), but Fox hasn't retracted the report that a McCain advisor made such a charge. You may think it was someone posing as a McCain advisor and not actually a McCain advisor, but that's original research until there's a source for it. Bongomatic 14:03, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Please reread step 1 above. That Palin didn't know Africa was a continent is obviously a hoax. That the hoaxer was a McCain insider is not obviously false, and indeed at that point "many people assume he is indeed a campaign insider". And indeed that may still be the case. The only obvious hoax is the underlying story itself, regardless of where it came from. -- Zsero (talk) 14:47, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

What is your point Zsero? Additionally, where do the words "traitor" and "obviously" come in? What are your sources? VictorC (talk) 15:04, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

His point is clear, and he traced his reasoning. The term "traitor" in common English means anyone acting contrary to what his interests were supposed to be. A Wal-Mart employee sending a customer to Target is a "traitor" to Wal-Mart. Is this usage in American English clear? Collect (talk) 15:11, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

"Obvious" comes from the fact that nobody in his right mind could possibly have actually believed that Palin didn't know Africa was a continent. It is obviously untrue, and needs no disproof. To claim to believe it is to expose oneself as either a moron or a liar. The only interesting question is where the story came from. -- Zsero (talk) 15:16, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

The statement "It is obviously untrue, and needs no disproof" is obviously unsupported and needs proof. An equally opinionated but highly intelligent and educated octogenarian told me yesterday that Americans are famously ignorant of world geography and it wouldn't surprise her in the least if one of their most witless compatriots, specifically one "who can't name a single newspaper, hasn't even the most elementary grasp of foreign affairs, and believes in Father Christmas [i.e. she's a biblical literalist]," should prove to have been "a little fuzzy about Africa, dear." I'm inclined to agree, dear. — Writegeist (talk) 20:13, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

It is just as obvious that she can name "a single newspaper" — we already know that she was a voracious reader as a child, so the claim makes no sense. And Father Christmas is not mentioned in the Bible (nor is anything at all about Christmas), so your octegenarian friend is the one who may be going a bit dotty, dear, or else just a tiny bit of a bigot. The "Africa" story is so absurd that only a moron could honestly believe it. -- Zsero (talk) 20:35, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

"It is just as obvious that she can name 'a single newspaper'" The Couric interview shows the absurdity of this statement. Sorry I didn't make it sufficiently clear to you, apparently, that "Father Christmas" is the elderly lady's term for the "God" of creationists and biblical literalists - it relegates such wishful thinking to its appropriate, infantile place. Sorry if, by omitting the word "friend", I led you to the erroneous belief that the lady is a friend. Perhaps if she lives long enough. As for your "moron" accusation, if she engaged la Palin in conversation it would quickly become apparent which one is the moron. Q.E. already D., anyway, by the Couric interview. — Writegeist (talk) 21:26, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Words and phrases one would expect, or at least hope, not to see in a Discussion page.

Collect
13 Nov
"spoor"

Zsero
14 Nov
"(because everybody with half a brain knows)"
"To claim to believe it is to expose oneself as either a moron or a liar."

It is no surprise to me that such accompanies a large number of assertions with no supporting evidence at all.

"Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent" - Isaac Asimov Anarchangel (talk) 02:42, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Eh? I used "spoor" in an absolutely correct sense. That you would take umbrage at it is outre. It is not an improper word at all, and the context in which it was used was precisely accurate. "a track or trail, esp. that of a wild animal pursued as game." Collect (talk) 13:43, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Noun, Singular, spoor. Plural spoor or spoors. spoor (plural spoor or spoors)

1. The track, trail or droppings of an animal

[wiktionary definition of spoor]

So are you going to bring some evidence to back your assertions, or just carry on with the colorful yet uncited metaphors? Anarchangel (talk) 15:13, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Note what I said -- that I would not be surprised to see their (the hoaxers') spoor covering many campaigns. What was not clear there? One had been an employee of a senator in the past - it is no great surmise that he had been involved in politics long before 2008, is it? And, last I checked, there is no requirement to "cite" metaphors here. BTW, I think the RHD is a better source as a dictionary than WP is. Do you really think the hoaxers have had no connections to any campaigns in the past? We already know they were at work during the GOP primaries, to be sure. Collect (talk) 17:01, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Quite right. No need to cite metaphors. I tried to put too much into one sentence with too few words. Uncited, or really I should have said, unsubstantiated arguments, then, and colorful metaphors. Anarchangel (talk) 15:53, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Aparrently from OE "spor" meaning "footprint." Nothing like looking up full etymologies. Collect (talk) 17:06, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Collect, if you have any reliable sources stating that any of what has been referred to is a hoax, and especially if you have any reliable sources stating that there is more than one hoax or hoaxer, then please contribute it. Otherwise, it is simply speculation.Facts707 (talk) 10:38, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't want to get in the middle of your arguments with editors discussing this topic, but I contend this factoid allegation fails on several counts described in WP:BLP, not the least of which is its attribution to an anonymous source (despite that the story found traction in Fox News). If the claim were accurate, someone would have surfaced to validate it by now. Instead, it's transparently obvious to most people that the claim was either completely fictitious or, if we are to presume journalistic integrity at Fox, taken out of context by someone within the McCain campaign hoping to make Palin a scapegoat for their failure. In either case, it is a sensational and titilating claim that requires more solid fact and non-anonymous attribution before we should include it here. Fcreid (talk) 11:04, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

The fact remains that Zsero is abusing contributors who point to a reliable source (Fox News) about Palin referring to Africa as a country (or otherwise getting the two mixed up). Zsero says, ""Obvious" comes from the fact that nobody in his right mind could possibly have actually believed that Palin didn't know Africa was a continent. It is obviously untrue, and needs no disproof. To claim to believe it is to expose oneself as either a moron or a liar."

Words like "moron", "liar", and "nobody in his right mind" are unacceptable in Wikipedia, especially to describe contributors referring to verified reliable sources.Facts707 (talk) 10:38, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

If you have a formal complaint, go to WP:ANI -- but it looks like he made no aspersions on any individual here, and so you would not get far. Anonymous sources are not worth the paper they are printed on. Collect (talk) 11:39, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I also disagree with the notion that Palin's alleged confusion over Africa is "obviously" false. To reach that conclusion, one would have to ignore the videotaped on-the-record comments of Sarah Palin herself to CNN's Gary Tuchman in her Anchorage office. Palin admits that there were discussions about Africa during her debate prep but that the anonymous sources took her comments out of context. Palin's comments to Tuchman (after the story had broken giving her a chance to prepare her response) betray a continuing confusion about Africa. Palin states, "So no, I think that if there are allegations based on questions or comments that I made in debate prep about NAFTA and about the continent versus the country, when we talk about Africa there, then those were taken out of context." In her own words, Sarah Palin is implying that there is both a continent called Africa and a country called Africa. Palin does sometimes use mangled syntax, so one could suggest that she did not actually mean what she said. But by the meaning of her words, Palin appears to be confused about Africa even after the allegations broke. Here's the link to the video: http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/politics/2008/11/08/tuchman.palin.fights.back.cnn?iref=videosearch --JamesAM (talk) 21:58, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Anyone else? — Writegeist (talk) 00:51, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

There is no evidence that the hoax was the soul source of the Cameron story so there's no reason to include the hoax. That's my two cents. Otherwise, anyone else hear the sound of crickets here? The contrast with pre-election is astounding. Somehow I think that this time when I post here, I WON'T get an Edit Conflict, as I did so many times before. :-) GreekParadise (talk) 05:25, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Ah, the sound of crickets! :) Fcreid (talk) 09:24, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

The hoax was definitely reported as "fact" and that is sufficient to warrant inclusion in the article. No other source has been identified, which is quite telling. Collect (talk) 11:13, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

In addition to Palin's own denial that it happened, I found this equally interesting excerpt from a Greta Van Susteren interview (I believe of the same network that originally reported the country versus continent thing), "One other criticism was this whole business about Africa. And I investigated it. I talked to someone who was in the room with you, whose name I can't reveal, who was there for all your preparation, talked to that person, grilled that person, cross-examined that person, said that Africa thing never happened. Never happened. And I grilled the person." If we were to include an anonymously-sourced allegation of the original smear, we would have an equivalent obligation to include an anonymous-sourced refutation of that claim. My sense is that none of this belongs in this biography. Fcreid (talk) 13:27, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

chirp, chirp...chirp...--Tom 14:18, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

There is not much about her since the election. She has been very active since. Moderate2008 (talk) 04:25, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

"A lifetime member of the National Rifle Association (NRA), she believes the right to bear arms includes handgun possession, and is against a ban on semi-automatic assault weapons.[197] She has supported gun safety education for youth.[199] She supports capital punishment.[200]"

The last portion of this paragraph deserves to be its own paragraph not only because it's a very important issue, but also because it has nothing to do with gun control. This whole paragraph is fraught with peril. Pygmypony (talk) 01:40, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Want to have a go at rewording it? I've combined it with the previous paragraph, because it looks a bit odd to have such a short paragraph all on its own, shorter than all the surrounding ones, but I haven't touched the wording yet. But simply joining the paragraphs should remove the implication that her positions on the 2nd amendment and capital punishment are somehow linked, just by being in the same paragraph. -- Zsero (talk) 03:06, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

No evidence is right. The St. Petersburg article has found less than we on the discussion page have found; it didn't find Palin hovering over the hospital to prevent abortions, it didn't find the budget allocations under Stambaugh slashed by Palin, and it relied for most of its article on the Wasilla City statistics page. That's not an investigation, that's cashing in. Not notable, removed. It's been up there weeks too long already. Here is the actual web address, since the person who inserted the material was too lazy or too interested in obfuscation to provide one. [http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2008/sep/22/palin-rape-kit-controversy/ Politifact Truth-ometer . And of course you gotta love that classy journalistic aesthetic of 'Politifact' and 'Truth-ometer'. Good grief. To say nothing of, how is no evidence ever notable? We here have found no evidence, should we include that, also? I have no evidence for the existence of God, I think I will start a new Wiki page. Anarchangel (talk) 14:51, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

The problem becomes, then, that we seem to imply Palin was involved in this practice (of charging for rape kits), but we've removed that tangential association. What's left might be relevant to an article on Fannon or perhaps even about Wasilla, but it's not clear why it's relevant here in Palin's biography (aside from the fact that Palin appointed Fannon). In addition, there were some arguments provided (in talk) that her apparent lack of knowledge on the practice was compelling. Finally, our discussions on the source (Politifact) concluded this was considered a reliable source, so I'm unsure what your comments above regarding that imply. We at least need to include the statement that Palin "does not believe, nor has she ever believed, that rape victims should have to pay for an evidence-gathering test"[7] or, even better, get rid of the whole nonsense on rape kits completely. Fcreid (talk) 15:17, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

'(aside from the fact that Palin appointed Fannon)' Yes. And fired him. And was sued by him. And cut the funding for the line item on the budget for the rape response team he formed. And that after going to aerobics class with him for a year or so while he and she and Stein build Wasilla from the ground up. But other than that, phah! nothing!

You're not sure? How can I be sure you're not sure? Assuming you aren't, which part are you not sure about, the part about a report about no evidence not being notable, or the part about a website with a Truth-ometer being cheesy and 50 feet from the trailer park?

Fine. Include a statement. There was one, why did it get replaced by that verbal balloon signifying nothing from St Pete's? Anarchangel (talk) 15:41, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

On Fannon, I think you have him confused with Stambaugh. Palin fired (and was sued by) Stambaugh, and Fannon took his place as police chief. She didn't support Fannon in his run for Mayor of Wasilla (during her governorship), but that's a different story. As far as the Politifact commentary, the material it reports is directly from the St. Petersburg Times, which is clearly an RS (or at least as "reliable" as some of those we've given credence during the past three months! :) Fcreid (talk) 15:44, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Stambaugh was in the Fannon material. Stambaugh created the rape response team and paid for rape kits. Stein created the line item to fund the rape kits and response team, he ought to be in that paragraph also, although I am dignifying the two sentences that still remained by calling it that. Anarchangel (talk) 15:53, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

But you are correct, Fannon was in the material also. About 55% of it perhaps. And that I was speaking of Stambaugh's relevance to Palin when the original statement was about Fannon. So, as for Fannon's relevance, it would have to be, she hired him. And she was in a position of authority over him, for the 6 years she was mayor. And that for six months of that term he was getting a lot of press for opposing SB 270, to the extent that had she been reading the local paper regularly, she would have seen his photo and a big headline. And, well, I just am not convinced, and I make a prognostication: I never will be, that Fannon is not relevant to Palin as regards this material, nor that this material is not relevant to Palin. Anarchangel (talk) 16:02, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

that for six months of that term he was getting a lot of press for opposing SB 270... this has been one of the ongoing problems with this story, Anarchangel, as your statement is just not substantiated by the sources we have. In fact, the only contemporaneous account of the rape kit issue that's been presented here was the Frontiersman article of May 2000 that appeared *after* the law was enacted. With respect to that, and despite Fannon's grumbling about the law, there is no evidence Wasilla didn't comply with that law once passed. Moreover, from what we have in the Frontiersman article, all evidence indicates this was an internal police billing decision, and there's no mention of Palin whatsoever. Ironically, there is no direct evidence that insurance companies were ever actually billed, except Croft's September 2008 statement that he recalls that to be this case. All other press coverage of the rape kit issue has been post-Palin VP nomination... nothing has been provided during the state-level hearings regarding Wasilla, nothing in the Anchorage Daily News indicating Fannon's resistance, etc. In that USA Today article I cited above, they quote Croft as saying, ""In retrospect, I would have asked the female working-mother mayor of that town why her police chief was against this." That is an understatement, and it only causes more head-scratching on why Croft would make this an issue in the heat of Palin's 2008 VP campaign. All-in-all, the story has "campaign smear" written all over it. Fcreid (talk) 16:26, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Specifically speaking, the reference to the St. Petersburg Times article reporting that their investigation found no evidence is essential to properly reflecting the balance of published material on the subject. Please do not remove it.Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 19:26, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I have removed the material about Fannon since that possibly belongs in a bio about Fannon. --Tom 15:20, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Or you could discuss it first. Oh, too late. Restore the material, please, someone, I am saving my reverts for the St Petersburg rehash. Anarchangel (talk) 15:41, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi, the first four or five times you removed this entire section without discussion, completely ignoring the consensus hammered out of mountains of discussion, I was willing to chalk it up to a good faith mistake. Now it is WP:Vandalism. Do not do it again.Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 18:54, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

That is fine with me, but please restore the also agreed upon material regarding the St. Pete Times findings that Palin knew nothing of the practice. Fcreid (talk) 18:59, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Fcreid, could you please do it? I have not been following the discussion between you and Anarchangel. I really do not even have time to do this. You have my complete support in preserving the version that we hammered out weeks ago after repeated discussions.Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 19:06, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks and concur, Factchecker. I'm kind of a boob at undoing/reverting past several revisions, and I'm sure I'd screw something up. Anarchangel, could you please bring the rape kit section back to how it was this morning before the first parts were removed? Thanks. Fcreid (talk) 19:08, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I will remove this per mutliple Wiki policies. Thank you, --Tom 19:00, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

This is plain abuse. You have not participated in the voluminous discussion AT ANY POINT other than to say you're removing it. Do not do it again.Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 19:04, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

(outdent)Factchecker atyourservice, I have posted volumes under multiple sections about this non issue. I would say see above, but this talk page is pretty long, go figure :) --Tom 19:07, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

You are not attempting to engage in consensus but rather abusing your ability to revert. Good day to you.Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 19:11, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I will delete this material since it is not specifically about the subject of the article and also undue weight for a bio. This "material" might belong in the Fannon bio or maybe in the article about the Mayor of Wassilla, ect, and even then, that would have to be looked at.--Tom 19:17, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I will continue to revert your vandalism based on about 12 separate wikipedia policies including most of the 5 pillars. Please see again my warning on your talk page and do not delete that warning again. Consider this to be an additional warning that I will seek to have you blocked if you persist in deleting this material which was achieved by arduous consensus among numerous editors.Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 19:21, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi Factchecker, removing this "material" is not vandalism and what consensus? Even if there was one, it can change. Anyways, this isn't that big a deal. Also, I have read and noted your comments on my talk page. Maybe we should use a RFC or other resolution options? Thank you, --Tom 19:28, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it's vandalism, and "consensus can change" does not mean you come here and undo a major consensus all by your lonesome. In fact, it's just a continuation of your original contribution to the subject, which was to delete the material over and over again without consensus or even offering any substantive discussion other than "see talk", which was ironic because the consensus itself was achieved amidst mountains of talk. Initiate whatever procedure you like. I will most likely be initiating a request to block you. I can see that your abusive behavior has already gotten you blocked from the Obama article.Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 19:32, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

No, it's not vandalism to remove off-topic text. Even if the info was relevant to Palin's biography, the disputed content carries undue weight. --Evb-wiki (talk) 19:53, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

The norm on this article appeared to be that "policy is not enough all by itself, other editors must agree with you too". Anytime I added, removed, or modified material based on a plain-English reading of policy, I was told that I had to achieve "consensus", threats were issued, etc. It did not matter whether the people participating in the consensus paid proper attention to policy or interpreted policies correctly -- their opinion was enough (e.g., "This NYT article quotes a Democrat therefore it is not a reliable source"). Now that the shoe is on the other foot, it seems policy is enough all by itself, and any editor is entitled to delete article portions just based on his own reading of policy, even if it is incorrect? Are there two sets of editorial rules depending on who is doing the deletion?

At a substantive level, could you please explain your objection that it is off topic or "carries undue weight"? The material is sourced, notable, and relevant to the subject's notability. It was phrased in a way that did not impart undue weight to either side or to the incident itself. Using the logic you appear to be using, I simply should used BRRR (which is what Tom/ThreeAfterThree is going) on all important issues instead of wasting my time by engaging in countless hours of discussion and compromise.Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 20:23, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) relevant to the subject's notability....maybe to Fannon's but not to Palin's, that is the whole point. This "material" is a spec in the mayor's section, which is a small part of this bio. This "material" is covered in sub article's which is over the top imho, but I am sticking to the main bio page. --Tom 20:31, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

It's relevant to Palin. It didn't get covered widely by major news outlets because Fannon is some notable guy. It was covered in connection to Palin because the sources judged it was relevant to Palin -- which it is.Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 20:34, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Just a refresher in case people are comming in late. Who covered this "material" and how was it related to Palin? TIA --Tom 20:56, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Nobody has come in late. The extensive discussions, which you've diligently ignored, are all in the archives, going back weeks or months, as are the numerous sources.Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 21:34, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I checked the archives. They do not support your assertions. Indeed, you assert proof by assertion. There was no consensus on any major digression about Fannon, when the "punch line" is that Palin never commented on the "issue", nor did the "issue" get brought up in the Alaska legislature debates, that the law covered many different issues, and that there is absolutely no evidence that the "issue" existed with regard to anything Plain knew. Collect (talk) 13:57, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

It's great that you checked the archives. Then you can see the voluminous discussions we had on the subject, the numerous sources linking it to Palin, and the compromise we reached on how to word what was included. No further discussion was held on the subject until AFTER Tom simply deleted the whole section -- without discussion. "Proof by assertion"? You mean like, "I checked the archives and you're wrong, and even though I'm not referencing any of the discussions, or mentioning any of the sources you cited, my own research has shown you're wrong?" That's is what you're saying. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 19:34, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

I checked the archives. They do not support your assertions. Period. Saying something is so because you say it is so is "proof by assertion." Trying to show every word that has been said in order to prove a negative is asinine. It is up to the person making the assertion to show he is correct. Proving a NEGATIVE does not work. Is this actually clear? Collect (talk) 15:26, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Is there any point at which we can stop feeding this non issue? Just curious. Thanks, --Tom 15:42, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Is there any point at which you will read, understand, and start abiding by Wikipedia policies? Cheers.Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 21:16, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

(outdent)Everything I am saying about our discussions is substantiated by the actual discussions that sit in the archives for all to see. Everything I've put in the article is substantiated by reliable sources. You are just blowing smoke. What "negative" am I trying to prove? Where am I saying "this is so just because I say so"? I'm not. You're just blowing smoke. I'm not going to engage in vacuous rhetoric with you as it is a waste of time. If you have a policy based objection or found something in the article that isn't substantiated by a source, by all means, bring it up here.

Again, it's great that you checked the archives. Then you can see the voluminous discussions we had on the subject, the numerous sources linking it to Palin, and the compromise we reached on how to word what was included. No further discussion was held on the subject until AFTER Tom simply deleted the whole section -- without discussion. "Proof by assertion"? You mean like, "I checked the archives and you're wrong, and even though I'm not referencing any of the discussions, or mentioning any of the sources you cited, my own research has shown you're wrong?" That's is what you're saying. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 19:35, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

So you understand that your claims about the archives were incorrect? Tom is, like any other WP editor, allowed the presumption of good faith. As for your assertion as to what is in the archives, I read all the stuff you referred to and did not find what you claimed was in them. It is rather like you pointing to a box at the grocery store and saying there are apples in the box. I found no apples in the box, but now you expect me to prove that there were no apples in the apple-less boxes? Interesting concept, that. Collect (talk) 19:40, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Ah, so you're admitting you are wrong -- great. Massive discussion was held on the subject of the rape kits. Sources were laid out and discussed. Consensus was to include. There was debate on how to word it. Compromise was reached. A brief, conservative reflection of published analysis was included in the article. Discussion died down. Then 2-3 weeks later, Tom deleted it without discussion, completely ignoring the prior discussion, consensus, and compromise. If you look at a box of apples and say you see oranges, I can't make you stop saying you see oranges, but I can prove there were apples in the box and that what you were looking at was apples. Cheers.Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 19:54, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

What the heck are you reading? You made assertions which were not borne out by your "cites." Last I heard, that meant your assertions were not valid. Now you attack Tom who is acting in good faith, especially when your claims were shown to be invalid. His actions were and are made in good faith, and in conformance with how WP works. Your attempt to bully him, however, is improper under WP rules. Thanks! Collect (talk) 20:30, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Collect for expending the good faith effort to deal with this user, but at some point its time to stop feeding him. The thing I love about this project is the transparancy. Time to get more neutral eyes involved. Talking heads can say what ever they want, and repeat it over and over, but it does not make a lie true. --Tom 20:56, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm reading the mountain of discussion on the subject, the sources covering it, the compromise that was reached, and Tom's repeated anti-consensus, POV-pushing deletion of the whole section, while other people actually tried to reach a compromise between the two strongly opposing points of view. I wasn't thrilled with the wording, as I felt it omitted some plainly relevant details, and I imagine people on "the other side" didn't think it was perfect -- but the point was, we reach a compromise that was brief, conservative, and factual. Anyway, I'm also talking about how, weeks later, after the discussion died down, Tom assumed "the coast was clear" for him to come back and delete the whole section all over again, without discussion. You can call that good faith if you like, just like you are free to wrongly say "BLP policies prohibit sourced conjecture" all you like. I can't change your view of things, no matter how demonstrably wrong it is. And Tom, "neutral eyes" hammered out the compromise text which you deleted without discussion. Anyway, it seems to me there's no point in discussing this any further with the two of you, so let's be about our merry ways. Have a great weekend!Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 21:15, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

What Fact said. But seriously, I agree and there's not much to add. And now it's happened again. See Rape kit material. Anarchangel (talk) 19:17, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Anybody else think we should just lock this article down until people can play nicely? I've been dismayed to come back to see flippant, slanderous spam on the talk pages and the same sort of vandalism/edit warring that prompted the earlier lockdowns.

It seems people "on both sides of the issue" are having trouble behaving.

Relative to the total body of coverage that has been published to date, there is nothing ground-breaking coming out right now. And even when new stories, interviews, and opinion pieces DO come out, this is not intended to be a news ticker reflecting every single new article that comes out.

On top of that, it seems there are only a few substantive edits a day right about now. I don't think full protection would be a huge burden on the admins nor a detriment of any sort to the quality of this article.Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 19:37, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't really see enough reverting to justify full protection at this time. L'Aquatique[talk] 19:41, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

• Scientists design an experiment in which three people are asked if they have seen UFOs. Their hypothesis is that if none of these people have seen UFOs, then UFOs do not exist. All three say they haven't. The scientists report these findings, saying, "We found no evidence of UFOs. No one that we talked to has seen UFOs".

The points:

• UFOs represents a degree of disbelief which one might expect facts to be received by someone who does not know and accept the scientific method. If you're thinking right now, of course UFOs don't exist, why would it matter, then you do not have the right attitude to the scientific method yet to be editing Wikipedia. Listen and learn. It matters because the data is wrong, the hypothesis is wrong, the conclusions are wrong. Your or my or the scientists' assumptions about the hypothesis do not matter; if someone proves through the scientific method that UFOs exist, then they do, as far as we know, until someone proves differently.
• Now if, on the other hand, you thought, but UFOs aren't likely to be seen, so it doesn't relate to the St Petersburg report, because the chance of them finding what they were seeking would be much higher, if it existed, well done. But the thing in question happened 10 years ago, pretty much within the walls of the City Council, or the Police Department, and the required evidence is of a pretty narrow focus for the purposes of verifiability, which would affect witnesses too (is anyone going to believe what I say, all I saw was X, and then it is my word against theirs anyway, and I don't need the hassle, and it isn't like anyone broke any laws or anything, so why bother, even). And even accepting that there is a great difference between the likelihood of UFOs and the likelihood of there being good evidence for the St Petersburg team, it is the difference between being hit by a meteorite and knowing that a meteorite was kept in the storage area of the local museum; if one didn't have access to the museum's inventory lists, one just wouldn't know, even if one worked at the museum.
• Furthermore, this is the only fault that UFOs as part of the hypothetical scenario has. For the sake of argument, let's change UFOs to a green 1997 Mercedes, any model you like. Looking for proof of the non-existence of a green '97 Mercedes doesn't change the above argument, because the hypothesis that Green Mercedes don't exist would still be possible, according to the scientific test for evidence. No good scientist would design an experiment to find out, there is too much good evidence that they do. But if they hypothesized that, then the scientific method, used properly, would always prove it if it was true, and show no evidence, or evidence to the contrary, if it was not.
• The survey sampling is not quantified. St Pete talked to 'people in Wasilla'. So, more than one. Other than that, we don't know.
• The survey sample is, one can only assume, seeing as the St Petersburg news team cannot reasonably be expected to have covered the entire Wa-Su Valley, at best insufficient to account for variability or even error, and at worst laughable. No, I take that back. It is laughable, at best.
• The hypothesis could never be borne out by the method of asking the people, even if the sample size was the entire planet. People lie. And as regards the thing in question, they wouldn't even have to. They don't even have to get out of town before the cops come to question them, because the St Petersburg press aren't cops. They don't have any significant clues to know who to ask, other than common sense, no one even has to answer them, and if they did answer, the great likelihood is that more bad things would happen to them than if they lied.
• Most importantly, even if the whole planet, not lying, testified, the hypothesis can still never be borne out. It is a negative. UFOs might not have come to this planet. They might be observing from somewhere in the Asteroid Belt. They could be too small to see. Doesn't matter, really. The point isn't the explanations of why, the point is that science always admits when it doesn't know. It never assumes. Scientific knowledge is tested very thoroughly and rigorously, and only if it never can be challenged by evidence does it even become a Theory. So, this information is rock solid, and yet it is called a Theory. That's because even that much evidence is still nothing to Science, it can be blown away tomorrow by new evidence. Scientists -never- assume. Apart from our bad scientists above. And you want to print them on Wikipedia? Not if I can help it. Anarchangel (talk) 22:59, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Effectively unanswered, two. Anarchangel (talk) 20:05, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Huh? Is anybody proposing adding a discussion of UFOs to this article? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:06, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Another joyfully irrelevant digression. Collect (talk) 23:08, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Another cocktail umbrella stuck at the base of a mountain of text,verifying that it's former owner points to as proof of having conquered the mountain. Anarchangel (talk) 23:20, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

The large above section is an illustration of what is known as the negative proof fallacy, apparently. Wish I had known that at the start, and saved myself some time. Anarchangel (talk) 02:59, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Also known as 'evidence of absence' as in the phrase ""absence of evidence is not evidence of absence". Anarchangel (talk) 03:02, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Clarification and additional points unanswered. Three. Anarchangel (talk) 20:05, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

There has never been consensus on this page. There has never been an attempt to try to start a consensus, other than Writegeist, Factchecker, Greekparadise, (among others) and my scrupulous addressing of issues that are brought up.

That's the start. Actually addressing the issues. Time and time again the primary focus of our arguments are just flat out ignored. I can't recall a single time I made more than one point and had them all answered.
This above is a perfect example. Anarchangel (talk) 13:50, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Eh? I suggest you look at the number of times I have proposed or accepted compromises, asked for comments, etc. Ditto many other editors whose names you elide here. Assertions that only your side wants consensus is absurd. Collect (talk) 14:00, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Collect. Please. Anarchangel took the trouble to include the words "among others" so that contributors who are closely associated in our minds with consensus — not to mention collaboration, courtesy, rationality, reasonableness, open-mindedness and endearingly idiosyncratic usage of français sans accents aigus — wouldn't feel left out. I assure you, whenever one of those attributes is implied or mentioned you spring instantly to mind. It's really not necessary for you to be named in every contribution. It would be outré, n'est-ce pas? Also and more importantly, the habit of dismissing other editors' contributions as "joyfully irrelevant", and without offering any explanation, tends to undermine the dismisser's efforts to project a persona that puts great emphasis on courtesy (not least to himself). Anarchangel effectively picks apart the St Petersburg report. Relevant, surely if not joyfully. — Writegeist (talk) 21:05, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Some examples, Collect? Perhaps I missed something. Anarchangel (talk) 03:29, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Unanswered, Four. Anarchangel (talk) 20:05, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

The conflict resolution section of Wiki is particularly badly organized; there is a flow chart of the order which processes in discussion should be followed, but nothing about how to conduct a discussion. Nevertheless, I think these three guidelines from WP:ETIQUETTE aka WP:EQ are so useful they should be on another page, in bold type:

• Work towards agreement.
• Do not ignore questions.

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

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

In other words, respond to responses.

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

And that doesn't mean, respond to some relatively unimportant aspect related to it, nor does it mean, respond with a new issue, it means, aid the process of definition of the consensus by defining the boundaries of your argument.
Faced with these guidelines being ignored, go to arbitration.
Additions? Anarchangel (talk) 13:50, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Effectively unanswered, five. Anarchangel (talk) 20:05, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I trust you will act by these rules. Collect (talk) 14:13, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Why, "when possible"? What's stopping him?
"In the past weve(sic) charged the cost of exams to the victims insurance company when possible. I just dont(sic) want to see any more burden put on the taxpayer, Fannon said." (unsigned)

Seems this is not aimed at improving this article (sigh). There is NO evidence that any great sums were spent on rapes as Wasilla had very few rapes (unless you think there was a huge downturn in 2000, the probability is under one rape per year, based on the official crime reports), By the way, using (sic) where the source is a transcript of some sort, is meaningless, People do not spell out words when they are speaking. Collect (talk) 14:12, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

There is evidence, in the same article that quote came from. Fannon stated HB 270 would cost the city $4000-15,000. However, because the budget for rape kits was only $1000 that year, shared between kits and heavy equipment to clear the airport runways of snow,budget html link he was obviously either foolishly mistaken or lying. However, that's not even close to what I meant. If you recall, I was the one who got you to actually cite an assertion, the one time I remember seeing you do it. I've seen the FBI crime stat page, remember? I will fill Writegeist in if I get a break from having to explain myself, consensus building procedure, and why very little of what you do adheres to it. If, as seems likely, I won't get a break from that, you'll have to explain yourself to Writegeist. Hint: try using a cite, maybe? The point is one I made the first week after I came to this page, which is, that he meant he charged victims, but was excusing himself by (lamely) asserting that he -tried- to charge the insurance company. You asserted then and repeatedly that there is no proof of that, and usually you paradoxically follow that by saying that it must be that he meant he only charged insurance companies, where there is no proof of that either. What I am saying now is, that there is evidence of it. He's the Police Chief, if he wants to charge to insurance, he can. Why wouldn't he be able to? Can you think of a reason? Because I can. This is important for you to answer. Think of a plausible reason why he couldn't. If you can't, it will lend credence to my reason as not only being the only plausible reason, but the only conceivable reason.

Here's a hint, and a proposal, which is after all the point. Remove 'insurance companies' from the article, it is an unfounded distinction. It still is, even if he billed them. The charge is to the victim, as I have said before. They pay for the insurance, it is their resource, they pay the deductible, and the charge still shows up on their statement. Receiving a bill as being a reminder of the rape was addressed in the Committee hearings on HB 270. Anarchangel (talk) 13:10, 23 November 2008 (UTC) Answer not on topic through misunderstanding or obtuseness or obfuscation, no count Anarchangel (talk) 20:05, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Huh? So far there is no evidence that any victim had to pay one cent, and you want to make it look like they were dunned for money? Making a POV bit MORE POV is unwise to say the least. Collect (talk) 13:34, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

It is called reasoning, c. And my explanation is apparently quite safe as being the only conceivable (at least by c) reason. So, Fannon must have meant that he charged victims if they didn't have insurance, because there is no other reason for him to not charge the insurance companies. When he said, 'when possible', he was admitting that the rest of the time, when they had no insurance, he charged them instead. So we can get rid of the insurance, then? Anarchangel (talk) 17:20, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

And from your minutes (which are, indeed, a "primary source" to WP) "MR. SMITH said he asked the Violent Crimes Compensation Board if they knew of anybody who had been billed directly. He has not been able to find a circumstance where the bill actually went to the victim. " As claimed. Collect (talk) 19:29, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

You neglect to mention the woman from Juneau, or specify that you mean Wasilla. Smith was lying, imo. He didn't know one way or the other, he is a bureaucrat in the Safety Dept., and knows bigger all about police work. CNN found some people, though. CNN has people who say Wasilla PD charged, for that matter. And since it would seem likely that not all the people who were charged by the hospitals were sent to the hospitals first, then the PD was sending them there to be charged. Anarchangel (talk) 20:05, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

You've repeatedly stated this claim that there were almost no rapes or that there was almost no cost. Obviously it's original research, but you've never even provided anything to substantiate it, so I'm not even sure it's original research, just speculation on your part. Fannon himself complained that if forced to pay for the investigations, the city would pick up a cost of $5000 to $14000 a year -- those sound like fairly significant sums to me. Since we're tossing out our personal opinions here, I'll just say that seems like a lot of money to bill to victims' health insurance companies for conducting police investigations. And since we're apparently going to debate the issue itself, instead of the coverage of it, is there some rationale explaining why we would expect a health insurance company to pay for police investigations? Do homeowner's insurance policies reimburse police departments for burglary investigations, or fire departments for arson investigations? Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 19:32, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

2 questions of 3 points unanswered. Admittedly, rhetorical ones, but the points were not addressed. Anarchangel (talk) 20:05, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Official crime reports are not "original research" as you well know. The FACT is that Wasilla was a small town. Rapes from 2000 to 2003 averaged circa one per year. Before that, Wasilla was smaller (not OR) and the 1999 crime reports did not show rapes in Wasilla either. ALL OF WHICH has been cited here before. At that point, someone said all assaults should be counted, which was outre. (accents aigus are not needed per online usage, I can give more cites if you like for that, but I do not try to be precisous on such matters - is like people being on (sic) patrol). Fannon is not a reliable source when all the official reports appear to belie his claims. Physical exams in a hospiotal generally fall under "medical insurance" while investigations of burglaries do not fall under "homeowner's insurance." Comparing apples and oranges is not sensible. Collect (talk) 12:54, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia allows you to cite bare facts and statistics from primary sources. However, any analysis you make of those facts and statistics is original research, and thus it can't be included in the article, and it especially can't be used to refute analysis that has actually been published by a reliable source. If you feel a piece of published analysis is wrong, unfortunately you will need to get your views published before they can be reflected on Wikipedia. Policy is crystal, crystal clear on that. Regards. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 20:29, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

You are confusing my mistaking the all sexual assaults category as a rape category, with demanding that all sexual assaults be included. Anarchangel (talk) 20:05, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Would it be fair to include that Palin spokesperson Maria Cornella did not answer USA Today's questions [8] as to "when Palin learned of Wasilla's policy or whether she tried to change it" ? (I.e. instead of the inconclusive St P Times "investigation") Plus, if not proscribed by WP:UNDUE, the subsequent USAT sentence: "The campaign cited the governor's record on domestic violence, including increasing funding for shelters." — Writegeist (talk) 01:21, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Not answering something when one does not know the answer is of no importance at all. Collect (talk) 12:54, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

You know that she didn't know the answer how, exactly? And it was important enough for, as you believe, someone to make a hoax about, wasn't it? Anarchangel (talk) 17:20, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Unanswered, six.

Collect, by saying Cornella "did not" answer I was offering you a neutral interpretation of the referenced text. But given your sniffy dismissal it's time to point out that in fact, according to USAT, she would not answer. I.e. refused to supply the requested information, rather than saying, for example, "I’ll try to find you some and I’ll bring ‘em to ya!" — Writegeist (talk) 19:10, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Since the spokesperson specifically addressed the issue by saying Palin didn't believe victims should have to pay for an evidence-gathering test, I think it's pretty relevant that the spokesperson also declined to answer questions about whether Palin actually knew about the policy or not. Just my opinion, though. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 20:35, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Incidentally although I don’t know the stats for rapes in Wasilla when in Saint Sarah's care, the same USAT article states: "In 2000, there were 497 rapes reported in Alaska, FBI statistics show. That's a rate of 79.3 per 100,000 residents, the highest in the nation." So one might think that Saint Sarah would have taken an interest in her city's responses to rape. — Writegeist (talk) 01:21, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

The stats for Wasilla for 2000 on and for 1999 have been posted here before. Amazingly enough, the largest number of rapes occurs in large cities. A town of 5,000 generally has a lower incidence of rape. Again -- all of the stats have been cited here before. Collect (talk) 12:54, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

TOTAL "sexual assaults" (including all sex crimes according to the WPD) averaged under 12 per year when Palin was Mayor, and are now under 10 per year average over five years. [ http://www.cityofwasilla.com/index.aspx?page=103] Since rapes do not make up a majority of "all associated sex crimes", the UCR figures seem accurate. For those who were upset that there were no separate Wasilla figures before 1993, Wasilla did not have a police department before then. Most of the WPD work is for motor vehicle accidents, DWI, larceny and shoplifting. Not really a criminal hot spot, to be sure. As this confirms the 1 or 2 rapes per year from the UCR, and covers the "missing years" of so much interest, I trust this lays the controversy to its final rest. Collect (talk) 15:37, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi, drawing your own conclusions from primary sources is original research. Only analysis that has already been published can go in Wikipedia. For example, if Fannon says the new law would cost $5000 to $14000 a year, and then you go look at city statistics and somehow come up with a conclusion that FANNON WAS WRONG, unfortunately your opinion cannot be reflected in any way on Wikipedia. That includes the following: your originally researched opinion cannot be used to contradict or disqualify published opinion that has appeared in reliable sources.

Again, you've repeatedly tried to claim that the cost would be negligible and that based on that, the whole thing is irrelevant, and based on that, we should suppress all the media accounts on this issue. This is OR on so many different levels -- using OR analysis as the foundation for further OR analysis which is then used as the foundation for claiming that ACTUAL, PUBLISHED ANALYSIS is false. Kind regards. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 19:42, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

2 points unanswered. No admissions by Collect or Tom of being wrong as per WP:EQ anywhere on this page. The correct form is, address points logically, or concede the position, as noted above.

Simply un-possible. You will be met with silence whenever you successfully make a point that goes unrefuted.Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 20:40, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I was concerned, Collect, that there weren't FBI stats on the page you cited a couple of weeks ago, that had no figures for before 1999 2000 (I was thinking 2000, but as usual I second-guessed myself) on them. I was the one using the Wasilla city stats, and as you quite rightly pointed out, they only show sexual assaults. I guess it goes to show how malleable your judgement is, depending on your perception of what your interest is. Both the FBI and the Wasilla stats were, at different times, information you relied upon for your arguments, and you have backed one against the other, and now backed that other. Anarchangel (talk) 03:35, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Nothing. Seven Anarchangel (talk) 20:05, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

(Begin excerpt from Archive 36)

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

Uniform Crime Reports and Index of Crime in Wasilla in the State of Alaska enforced by Wasilla Police from 1985 to 2005

Enforced by. That's prosecution. Bottom of the page: "National Criminal Victimization Survey, 1996 estimate that only 37% of rapes are reported to police". The remaining 2/3 would not have been charged for rape kits, but they might explain the discrepancy with the city reports.
It fails to list '96, '97, '98, and '99.
The city stats show no less than 10 sexual assaults (not rapes specifically, rapes included) for the years '96-2000. ^[1] Anarchangel (talk) 04:47, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

So we have a maximum of 2 rapes per annum if all sexual assaults were rapes? Um -- rape kits are used for rapes, not general sexual assaults, so it looks like you concede a maximum of about 1 rape per year then? Collect (talk) 13:00, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) I have removed this material as there is no consensus to include it. Again, maybe flesh this out in a sub article, as it is now, if at all. --Tom 13:31, 15 October 2008 (UTC) (End excerpt from Archive 36) Anarchangel (talk) 05:28, 25 November 2008 (UTC) The above revert of all Fannon material by 3<3 above is not just the second time. There is at least one other instance of this in the archives. Anarchangel (talk) 05:28, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Actually, as of yesterday, Tom has deleted the entire rape kit section at least 22 separate times, without much discussion other than "this is irrelevant" or "this goes in the Fannon bio". Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 20:39, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Nothing. Eight. Anarchangel (talk) 20:05, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Who knows where the 'crime stats already cited' are, although it is likely they are the FBI material that Collect cited at one point. Note my objection to the FBI stats; the title of the FBI page uses the word 'enforced' to describe the stats. It could just be law enforcement jargon for 'reported and occurring in their jurisdiction' or it could be even more inclusive, or it could be as I stated with what seems now to be unsuitable conviction, cases brought to trial only. I don't really care anymore, but, full disclosure and all that. It isn't part of my current assessment of this issue anymore, or rather, the higher the stats are, the weaker my current argument, which is, that Fannon seriously misspoke when he estimated $4,000 - $15,000, as the budget only allowed $1000. Therefore, he had been sending victims to the hospital, to be charged there, as is confirmed by the Committee Hearings, and understandably upset by the thought of having to come up with the money himself, as Palin had slashed his budget for it so severely. Remember, he had to pay for getting snow off of the airport runway and other "Contractual Services" out of that $1000. Palin jetting off to become Governor halfway through that fiscal year must have been a relief. Anarchangel (talk) 05:28, 25 November 2008 (UTC) Nothing. Nine Anarchangel (talk) 20:05, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Palin's pressure on the hospital to prohibit abortions is verifiable. It was claimed that the hospital's funding status allowed this, but that was discredited, as the hospital did not receive sufficient funding for them to fall under such restrictions. And before anyone start about how it wasn't given much press, the repeated characterization of these and other stories as smears has categorized exposure as being a reason -not- to include; this story was not used against the Rep. campaign Anarchangel (talk) 13:50, 22 November 2008 (UTC) No request for cite, just an accusation of no cite. Apparently no memory of the prior discussion on this topic. No count. Anarchangel (talk) 20:05, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Cite? Absent a solid cite, this is not apparently intended to improve the article. And considering the smears actually pushed here, the added category of smear that "there is proof but I won't give it" is pretty far down the list. Collect (talk) 14:03, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Please explain. I truly have no idea what you just said. Other than the bit about not being intended to improve the article, which of course would require a mental power you can't possibly ever hope to possess. Anarchangel (talk) 17:20, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

I really do not see how you could have forgotten about this. You can find the sourcing within the extensive conversations that you and I already had on this subject. For your convenience, I'll provide links to the discussions ("Involvement in 1997 abortion ban" here) and ("Separation of church and state" here.) Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 19:31, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

I found NO cite for her exerting "pressure on the hospital." None. Congrats on making unsupported claims again. In your first cite, the closest I can find to a claim of "pressure" is your statement "Personally, if I have to drive 100 miles to the next town to get an abortion because a bunch of religious nuts started telling doctors what they could or couldn't do." But you gave no cite for Palin being one who was exerting that pressure, even if we posit that you consider her a "religious nut." In the second, you state "She used her political office to oust members of a hospital board that supported abortion rights and to influence that hospital's application of abortion laws during a controversial period where those very laws were under immediate challenge in the state's supreme court. She gave tainted donation money to a "charity" aimed at "sharing God's love" to dissuade young women from having abortions.. translation: religion-neutral taxpayer money used to pay a religious pro-lifer to try and convince a pregnant teenager to bring the pregnancy to term instead of having an abortion.. at what cost to the state and society " Again no cite for her forcing people off the board. And lots of anger at a person giving money to a religious charity. In no case do you give a single cite for your claims at all. Thank you most kindly -- but you still have given no cite for her doing any of what you claim about exerting pressure on anyone. Try checking FACTS someday. Collect (talk) 13:01, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Cites below as 'requested'. We have the AP press people's assertion, with whatever evidence they have for that, that she put pressure on the hospital. The AP is a reliable source, as far as I know. Anarchangel (talk) 20:05, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi, you asked for a cite for Palin's efforts to keep the hospital from performing abortions. I provided the cite and pointed out that you already knew about it. There's two facts for you. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 19:38, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Do you have the original web addresses or other citation material, Factchecker? The second quote looked very solid on the matter of funding, but we need the actual pressure. I didn't see any links on the archive page. Anything, what the site was called, words from the article to search? Anarchangel (talk) 17:20, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Found it. Church and State Anarchangel (talk) 18:03, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

The cite does not even try to claim Palin ousted anyone, nor that she undertook anything more controversial than attending "faith based" events. " The state ensures all faith-based groups keep a strict separation between their work in the community and their prayer services to ensure recipients don't feel coerced, said Tara Horton, a special assistant to the Alaska Department of Health and Social Services." So on the claim made -- that Palin ousted hospital board members -- there is no cite. None. Zero. And as for her using religion as deterining her political positions -- isn't it odd that she did NOT back the church in reducing hours for bars? Claims which are not borne out by cites, fail. Collect (talk) 18:35, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Concede that the actions taken by the groups Palin belong to cannot be directly attributed to her by -that- document. However, it definitely shows a pattern of support for a pattern of action. I also have another document, showing an Alaska Supreme Court decision relevant to the article, and a document that I believe relates to legislation relevant to that decision; I hope to find more.

Hi, you asked for a cite for Palin's efforts to keep the hospital from performing abortions. I provided the cite and pointed out that you already knew about it. When I get around to it, I will put a reference to Palin's involvement in the 1997 abortion ban in this article, or put it in the Political Positions and add a summary reference here. For reference, the consensus from our earlier discussions was to include although I don't believe we discussed which article it should go in. Have a great day.Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 19:39, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I knew I should have separated those two entries. See above. I found a cite already. Church and State

Oh? The Burking of Palin article? It says she joined an (unnamed) "grass roots faith-based movement" without any other basis for the claim. And it is the only article to make that claim. Also, in the 25 horrid religious events she attended, Burke includes -- FUNERALS!! Lastly, your claim that she ousted anyone on the hospital board, not even Burke backs you up. Sorry, your claim that she ousted anyone is busted. And your claim that she pressured the hospital is weird if she were only a member of an unnamed "movement" -- Burke does not claim she put pressure on the hospital as a person at all. And you have no consensus for "include" as you well know. Collect (talk) 11:55, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Burke? Pritchard and Sutton are the names of the AP journalists on the Church and State story. Please explain 'Burke'. I ask that you cease waving bits of info that you decline to explain, let alone cite, in front of us as though they meant something to us, when we are not privy to them. Anarchangel (talk) 20:05, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I think he is referring to the AP article by Garance Burke, also featuring contributions from Justin Pritchard in Anchorage and Anne Sutton in Juneau. That article clearly quotes Karen Lewis, the director of Alaska Right to Life, as saying that Palin joined the hospital board in 1997 in order to ensure the hospital enforced its abortion ban while the courts considered whether it was legal. The story was carried in multiple outlets, since it's from the AP. Here is an example from USA Today.

Anyway, it's clearly relevant to her political positions, specifically her pro-life stance, so it ought to go in that sub-article and then have a brief summary reflected here. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 20:22, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

So having been moved from the article, to the notes, to the discussion, where it was deemed "irrelevant" to Sarah Palin, Tina Fey's spoof is, as of 2008 November 22, back in the article on Palin. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarah_Palin#2008_vice-presidential_campaign and related notes.

Intimations that the spoof was "irrelevant" are archived at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Sarah_Palin/Archive_31#Tina_Fey, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Sarah_Palin/Archive_31#Irrelevant_to_mention_Tina_Fey.27s_SNL_parody.3F, and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Sarah_Palin/Archive_22#Saturday_Night_Live.2FFey_parody. The viewpoint that the spoof deserves mention in the Palin article has won out.

Claiming that Tina Fey's spoof is "irrelevant" to Sarah Palin was like claiming that John Wilkes Booth's bullet was irrelevant to Abraham Lincoln. Rammer (talk) 22:13, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Also, there was a lot of published commentary on the impact that Fey was having on Palin's election bid. See [9] for an official RS, and there are many major media blogs I found that say similar things.Mattnad (talk) 10:40, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

The spoof is not relevant to a BLP, but may be relevant in a campaign article. Collect (talk) 13:02, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree that it's less relevant to BLP than other material, but Fey shaped some people's opinion of Palin (per the Washington Post article). So it might help if you elaborate on why you don't think it's relevant. Just saying "no" does not make a case. Futhermore, Palin personally appeared in a couple of SNL skits related to this. We certainly don't need to dwell on this so probably a passing mention of the impersonation is all we need, and then link to the meat of it is in the campaign article.Mattnad (talk) 20:23, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm not taking a position on this material, but your request for detailed, on-topic, honest discussion will not be fulfilled. What you are about to experience is an onslaught of abuse and repeated misstatements of policy in an effort to wear you down until you get so tired of arguing the issue, and pointing out policies to deaf ears, that you simply give up. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 21:18, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

WP:AGF. Frankly your last comment is removable as it contributes absolutely nothing to discussion about improving the article at hand. Collect (talk) 22:43, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

The proof of the pudding is in the eating, and s/he who laughs last laughs best. The discussion of whether Tina Fey's spoof is "irrelevant" has itself been rendered "irrelevant" by the fact that it IS, as of 2008 November 23, in the article on Palin. That settled, 'tis time to return to the other earth-shaking controversy—whether seekers after "Palin" should be sent to a disambiguation page. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Palin#A_Modest_Proposal et passim. Rammer (talk) 02:15, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

I have to agree that this article should mention the Fey impersonations on SNL. First off, Palin herself commented on them. Second, she herself appeared on SNL. Third and probably most important, the caricatures had a strong effect on the public image of Palin as reflected by numerous discussions of the skits in the mainstream media. However, details of the skits belong in one of the SNL articles or the Fey article. Most important here are the effect of the skits to Palin's image and her reactions to them. The two sentences in there now are probably enough. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 02:07, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

This is interesting [10] Sarah was interviewed in front of a turkey slaughter and declined to move on. How should we include this in her biography?Mattnad (talk) 23:14, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Nope. Collect (talk) 23:40, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Why would we include that in the biography? "In later November, Palin was interviewed while turkeys were being slaughtered"? What conceivable purpose would that serve? Some years back, AG Ashcroft gave a press conference in front of a bare-breasted statue, and at the next event the statue was hidden by curtains. That event is included in his biography because it became a controversy when it was found that the curtains had cost $8,000. I just don't see how being interviewed at a turkey farm is notable. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:42, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

I guess you are new to this talk page? Turkey farm and Palin? Definately include. Not! --Tom 00:24, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

No, he is not new. Neither of you are exactly regulars, despite your pose of being an old hand, 3>3. Or was your point, he should have known of the cabal? BTW, I will reinsert the foreleg bounty material whenever it is deleted, and if it shows signs of becoming an edit war, I will take it to arbitration. You should probably consider using edit summaries in the future; it shows good intent.Anarchangel (talk) 15:17, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

I did not delete your forelegs, but I will not back you in any editwar. I consider such a threat to be inimical to seeking consensus. The bounty, by the way, was not created by Palin. Collect (talk) 16:01, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

The bounty was Palin's. The cite still remains in a different section of Palin page. The agency you are referring to never offered a bounty as such, they allowed hunters to sell the pelts, information that was deleted by 3<3. Anarchangel (talk) 20:05, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Amongst both hardcore meat advocates and hardcore vegetarians some variation may be found the opinion that it is hypocritical to eat meat if you don't like the sight of blood. Perhaps that's why she declined. However, I agree with Will, Mattnad, that it would be hard to include. I wouldn't waste my time on it, but if you want, work something, and we'll see. Anarchangel (talk) 15:17, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Not sure it's worth the effort. If Tina Fey is considered too far afield by an editor, Palin's turkey concentration camp interview will probably cause great consternation. In retrospect, it's amusing, and probably one for a list of Palin gaffs somewhere else.Mattnad (talk) 17:44, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Under 'Unclear on the Concept'. Anarchangel (talk) 18:09, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

The turkey thing was a funny incident but definitely not important enough to be worthy of a biography.GreekParadise (talk) 02:39, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

"Gobble....Gobble" (Happy Turkey Day to all).......--Buster7 (talk) 02:55, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm looking forward to eating some delicious animals this Thursday! I'm no fan of factory farming, though, so I'm morally at odds with my choice of diet. Cranberry sauce helps me forget the hypocrisy inherent in it all. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 20:50, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Gravy equally shields the brutal reality. Enjoy Thanksgiving! Fcreid (talk) 22:27, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

By a curious coincidence our neighbours' turkey was called Sarah. (Now she's called Dinner.) And goshdarnit, to compound the coïnkidink, the turkey Sarah would have made a hopeless VPOTUS. Shouldn't this highly notable coïnkidink go in the SP article? — Writegeist (talk) 01:20, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

If the image of Palin standing in front of the podium wearing a red jacket is not copyrighted, let's stick with that. The one of her wearing the turquoise fleece is not especially flattering or statesmanlike, even if it has higher resolution. The current one just looks better. Actually the best one is the "official" studio-quality photo. If that's copyrighted, couldn't someone write the gov's office and obtain permission? Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 23:43, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Concur. I never really liked the green GORE-TEX(?) jacket one either. Fcreid (talk) 23:46, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

We have permission to use the original photo, and it does look better on her, despite the nitpicky complaints. Besides, as someone pointed out, the consensus was to switch back to the original. If we can obtain a professional-quality image that makes her look more "stateswoman-like," by all means, get permission and upload it. Otherwise, stop being, in your words, "silly" and let's just keep the professional-quality photo we got. SchutteGod (talk) 00:18, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Besides, as someone pointed out, the consensus was to switch back to the original.

Actually I was kinda wrong or not so right at least as I just pointed out here [11]. So unless there will be a real good image available we have to find consensus about what to stick with for now. I prefer the 2nd image but the quality is very unpleasant compared to the original one. So here you have my preference but I'm basically fine with either of them. No real "vote" from my side.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 00:29, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Actually, the last time the infobox image was discussed, the "original" (winter-coat) picture was no longer even being considered as an option. The Carson City picture had won consensus prior to that. --Evb-wiki (talk) 00:54, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't think this should be belabored, but the section "Public image" is mostly off target, particularly the third paragraph; the section doesn't display Palin's public image in the least. Essentially, the first paragraph notes people who found her unqualified (although, oddly, everyone listed is a conservative), and the second paragraph represents her conservative support as the image of a strong working woman comfortable and confident in both the public and private spheres. But again, we have a political figure speaking - which by its nature will be a step from the public. The third paragraph is entirely policy disputes, just as much relevant to this section of the article as (actually, less than), say, the bridge to nowhere t-shirt image.

The fact is, a central part of Palin's image is as a buffoon, entirely out of her depth (such as this, which was written before even the Couric interview), a dolt unable to name a newspaper she reads, claiming that as governor she had responsibilities about Putin "rearing his head," even possibly not knowing that Africa was a continent and not a country. The Tina Fey and other parodies are central to this image - notably, by even parodying her by saying nearly the exact same words as Palin had said - and only mentioned in the campaign section of the article. The other side of this image is a pitbull with lipstick, one unjustly attacked and smeared by the liberal media, an strong honorable woman with a good public presence, one who revitalized the social conservative base and brought a boatload of energy to the campaign.

I'm not supporting either side - not at all. I just think that the current section on her image is entirely lacking, from both points of view; and, further, that for a person notable almost entirely for her vice-presidential nomination, that the pre-nomination extent of the article is more than twice the size of the the rest of the article is off-balanced. (And, in addition, but not very importantly, I think the "Personal life" section should be moved below the "Political positions" section. Or, conceivably, but probably not, up with her "Early life and background" section, to unite her non-political details.) zafiroblue05 | Talk 06:35, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Fully half or more of the entire BLP is irrelevant in point of fact. Duye primarily to those who viewed a BLP as a political campaign tool. Were it up to me, it would become, of all things, a biography of a living person sans inanities. Collect (talk) 14:26, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Unless we climb in a time machine Collect and go back 12 months, little chance of that happening here. I love to use the history tool and compare versions of articles from a year or two back to their current state. Many articles are much improved and many have become quite contentious. I sort of compare Wikipedia to the Grateful Dead. They aren't the best at what they do, but they are the only ones who do what they do :) --Tom 14:44, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like your complaints date back to the arrival of YoungTrigg and the subsequent polishing of this article as campaign PR. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 18:18, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Factchecker, yes, if Palin operatives or supporters added material that puffs the piece up, that is a problem and should be removed. Like wise, if Palin detractors want to add smear and muckracking, that to should be addressed and delt with in like turn. Anyways, --Tom 19:17, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I just sensed a bit of one-sidedness in your indignance. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 19:34, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) Maybe that is because the number of smear merchant muckracker editors to neutral editors has been running about 5-1 in here lately. Again, if you point out any puffery or unsourced material that you believe is questionable or unduely favorable to this bio, I would be happy to review and remove it if neccessary. --Tom 14:33, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

You support the content of a person's argument over a count of the number of people who support that argument, for the purposes of consensus? Anarchangel (talk) 16:10, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Like I said; your indignance is quite one-sided.. and repeatedly deleting the rape kits paragraph is unduly favorable puffery. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 17:44, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Campaign pamphleteering is not relevant for a BLP. Collect (talk) 23:27, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Apology accepted. I offer my sincere and heartfelt congratulations and thanks to you for taking that brave step to reach across the aisle and do the right thing. Might as well start at the beginning, I suppose. Any suggestions for the lede? Anarchangel (talk) 16:10, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

If your position isn't supported by policy, I suppose resorting to vacuous rhetoric is the next best option. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 00:49, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Wait, he wasn't apologizing? Well, that's lame. What is that supposed to mean, anyway? Anarchangel (talk) 16:10, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Sarah Palin continues to be one of the most-googled topics in Wikipedia, and the article on her is surely the intended target of ≥90 percent of "Palin" searches. Isn't it time now to send seekers for "Palin" directly to the "Sarah Palin" article and, compensatingly, to head that article with a link to "Palin (disambiguation)" for wikers who are looking for "Michael Palin" or other Palins? For some background on this tempest, see

- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Palin (especially http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Palin#A_Modest_Proposal)

- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Palin/Archive_1

- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Sarah_Palin/Archive_1#Should_.27Palin.27_redirect_here_or_to_the_disambiguation_page.3F

- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Biden

- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Sarah_Palin/Archive_25#Redirect

- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Michael_Palin#Palin

Rammer (talk) 19:52, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Wait a while. We in the US are still not recovered from the billion dollar campaign season. Collect (talk) 21:53, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Understood, and in the meantime, as of 2008 November 28 and for that month alone, the Sarah Palin article was seventh for hits in the English Wikipedia Page Statistics (http://stats.grok.se/en/) and was Number 1 for hits on an article about an individual. The article on Michael Palin was in 7472nd place. Rammer (talk) 22:12, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't think a redirect is necesary. But the question isn't the relative popularity of each page, it's how popular it is from the redirect page. If 99.99% of all clicks on the redirect page go to Sarah Palin, then I think it's appropritae. If only 90% of them go to Sarah Palin, then I think it should redirect here. People who wind up on the Palin page may not be sure which Palin they are looking for. Those looking for Sarah Palin probably started their search with "Sarah Palin". Aprock (talk) 22:03, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

As I said in edit summary, the cited sources say zilch about permitting weapons in banks, bars, colleges. This is also synthesis, picking through primary sources. And, the cited "AS 11.71.900 Definitions" does not even mention SB177. We should just stick to the cited secondary sources regarding Stambaugh's lawsuit against Palin.Ferrylodge (talk) 23:26, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I looked through the sources and found the same thing. Kelly ^hi! 23:30, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Synthesis indeed. Also SB177 seems to actually specifically forbid carrying in financial institutions, i.e. banks. --skew-t (talk) 03:23, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

WP:SYNTH is more complicated 'picking through primary sources', Ferrylodge. What you describe is cherry picking, which is completely separate from synth, has nothing whatsoever to do with my process, and would require of a conscientious editor who claimed it, a good deal of evidence, whereas you provide none at all. AS 11.71.900 is the law that SB177 modified, as the cite itself notes, and therefore, as a preexisting law, could not possibly mention SB177. Kelly was even more mistaken, claiming that the definitions did not mention schools. SB177 used the definition from the existing law, so the absence of said definition would have been a serious oversight by the lawmakers.

"The bill, SB 177, would have permitted concealed weapons in banks, bars, colleges, and other public places.-Alaska Statute 11.71.900 as it was to be amended by SB 177- -AS 11.71.900 Definitions Includes definition of 'school grounds' used by SB 177- Governor Tony Knowles' Senate Journal entry announcing his veto of SB 177 mentioned the opposition of, among other parties, the City of Wasilla.-Alaska Senate Journal Notes veto of SB 177-

"If the sources cited do not explicitly reach the same conclusion, or if the sources cited are not directly related to the article subject, then the editor is engaged in original research." -WP:SYNTH Since there is material that can be cited that does not come to conclusions, and paraphrasing is common, not all sources cited 'explicitly reach the same conclusion' as their use in wiki. This is not synth, this is the reason for the second part of the sentence. There are few things more directly related to a law than what it permits and what it bans.

Where I do agree with you is that SB 177 prohibited guns in schools. The section is about Stambaugh's reference to his objections to the law as a reason why he was fired, so I originally felt that only what he objected to should be stated. To be scrupulously inclusive, the facts that SB 177 allowed guns in colleges and bars and public places should be added to by the fact that it also prohibited guns in primary and secondary schools. Anarchangel (talk) 03:57, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

I have consistently objected to turning the section on the Stambaugh firing into a Second Amendment debate, Anarchangel. It's not the place, and it wasn't even cited during Stambaugh's own filing of the lawsuit. (The lawsuit was based on gender discrimination.) The significance of this gun nonsense (and particularly anything to do with schools) is a Campaign 2008 afterthought. Its significance in his firing pales in comparison to many other obvious factors--notably, his public insubordination and disrespect for Palin. As before, I suggest we curtail that into a simple statement of "policy differences" (as there were others). Based on the contemporaneous reliable sources, I'd have more choice words to describe Stambaugh, but I've already been cautioned once here to be conservative in my language! Fcreid (talk) 10:37, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

"I object to you turning the article into / letting the article become a <use of Straw Man argument>." Heard it all before. I have refuted every single one of your arguments, and Collect's, and Ferrylodge's; half of my arguments you won't answer. No prob. Not all admins won't listen. And I have 10 archives' worth of your bad editing practice and lack of consensus performance. Told you, I am here for the long haul.

SB 177 was a terrible law and he was quite right to oppose it. For no other reason than not opposing it, Palin is deficient. You're wrong about the lawsuit. It covered breach of contract, and if Stambaugh believed that she fired him for partisan revenge reasons, his opinion is notable and verifiable, no matter what the case was about. Not aware of any insubordination that has hard evidence to back it. The Stambaugh firing was in 1996. It will forever be part of Palin's past; the day she cut ties to the last of the two men that had helped her build Wasilla, once she had the political power to do without him.Anarchangel (talk) 21:40, 27 November 2008 (UTC) You've probably heard me refer to the aerobics class she took with Stein and Stambaugh while they planned to build up the city infrastructure, when she still needed them. It's from Time

No, you're wrong again, Anarchangel. Stambaugh thought he had such a deal with Stein, whom Palin ousted, where he could not be fired without cause. The judge disagreed without qualification and concluded Palin had every right to fire him for whatever damn reason she wanted. You seem to have missed the witness testimony who overheard Stambaugh say to Palin, in public, "Little lady, if you think you have our respect, you're mistaken." Fcreid (talk) 23:21, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

I never once mentioned his contract. Again? You've never proven me wrong. Collect has, about the sexual assaults on the city list not being rapes, and that is the only mistake I have ever made in discussion that anyone has ever brought up, let alone proved.

I hadn't missed the testimony. I don't suppose you have missed the fact that it was one of her campaign staff who purportedly overheard this.
Stambaugh gives evidence of what I believe to be a similar mischaracterization of his behaviour, when Palin 'accused' him, whatever possible reason she could have for finding it to be an accusation anyway, of, together with the librarian 'looking sad' on an occasion soon before he was fired. He told the newspaper that he had in fact been joking with the librarian. Me, I see a Palin MO here, not gender bias. But neither my speculation about Palins motives and character, nor yours about Stambaugh's, are at issue here. The point is, SB 177 is part of the media record of the issue of his firing.
May I remind you of something? Before I amended that section, it contained serious errors on the law, which contradicted Stambaugh's version of events, and you saw fit to include it. Now that it backs up his story, you want to delete it. I think the truth should stay in twice the time that the lie was in, as a sort of retraction; I am fine with it being removed after that time. Anarchangel (talk) 16:10, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

As usual, once we prove our point, and there is no possible reply, instead of conceding the point, it proves more convenient to move onto new topics. This is against WP:EQ. Anarchangel (talk) 18:13, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

In lieu of a response, I have reinserted the deleted material. Anarchangel (talk) 21:10, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

...Which Ferrylodge has summarily deleted on the specious grounds of "consensus" in this discussion. Force of numbers is not a consensus. None of Anarchangel's arguments for inclusion have been rebutted. Anarchangel has rebutted every argument for exclusion. Deletion under this circumstance is WP:TE. I shall revert Ferrylodge and restore Anarchangel's information. — Writegeist (talk) 01:34, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

The reason for not including it (at least in its current form) is WP:UNDUE, particularly for a summary article. The paragraph as presently written provides far too much weight to the difference in policy between Stambaugh and Palin on this singular issue and in a manner that is completely disproportionate to the other dimensions of the Stambaugh termination. If we were to provide equivalent weight to gender discrimination (the primary cited reason for Stambaugh's lawsuit) along with their other policy differences outlined in that suit, e.g. bar hours, local policy disputes, etc., this paragraph alone would consume the majority of the article. As it stands, the paragraph now pushes a particular POV that Stambaugh's firing was based on this issue, which is not entirely reflective of the truth. Therefore, it needs to be trimmed down to a single clause in the single sentence that covers the firing, along with the other listed reasons, e.g. "and due to policy differences on a proposed state law regarding concealed weapons" or some such. Further detail can be provided in the appropriate subarticles. Fcreid (talk) 01:53, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Whoooosh! There go the goalposts again. An argument fails, just put up another one. That one fails, put up another one. And so on, ad nauseam. This is not collegiate editing. It's editing by attrition, and has nothing to do with creating consensus. It's also a pattern, and one that has repeatedly been pointed out. And yet it's, well, repeated. Bummer. But I trust each example is logged in Anarchangel's archive. — Writegeist (talk) 08:01, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Are you suggesting discussion and counter argument aren't welcome? The record (archives) will show I have been consistently opposed to the inclusion of this based on WP:UNDUE weight long before Anarchangel joined us in ediiting here, and I had spirited discussions with User:JamesMLane on exactly this issue. For what it's worth, my objections have nothing whatsoever to do with discussing SB177 (although I feel far too much primary research has gone into that), but rather that the current weight of that section improperly leads the reader to believe Stambaugh's dismissal was based largely or even entirely on ideological differences in gun control. That simply isn't the truth. Fcreid (talk) 09:52, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

(undent)It's very clear that there is no consensus to include this material in the BLP. Ferrylodge, Skew-t, Kelly and Fcreid have been opposed, while Anarchangel and Writegiest have supported inclusion. Accordingly, it is tendentious to keep reinserting it.

If you're going to keep defying consensus, then you may as well say the bill also would have allowed concealed weapons in day care centers, nursing homes, and playgrounds. Seriously, if you want to describe Palin's views on gun control, please do it in the political positions section, instead of using the Stambaugh firing as a coatrack. None of the secondary sources that describe Stambaugh's lawsuit say anything about colleges or bars, the judge in the case did not consider anything about colleges and bars, and none of the primary sources explicitly mention anything about colleges and bars.

Additionally, Anarchangel said: " I think the truth should stay in twice the time that the lie was in, as a sort of retraction; I am fine with it being removed after that time." Please see WP:Point. Ferrylodge (talk) 16:27, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

I also don't think this material is needed in the bio, but I probably don't count at this point, so whatever. --Tom 17:44, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Gosh. So Ferrylodge is still bent on shielding Palin's artfully enhanced yet evidently fragile reputation with that tired old misrepresentation of "consensus". I really thought that it had been sufficiently mangled, and on so many occasions, as to preclude its redeployment. Yet here it is again, the scabby old shield, wielded without so much as a blush of shame: the contention that "consensus" is the rightful imposition of one group’s will on that of a numerically smaller group, simply by virtue of numerical superiority and regardless of the substantive superiority of the minority’s arguments.

Yet the great Wikijimbo himself has thundered: "Consensus is a partnership between interested parties working positively for a common goal."

Also when an edit is arrived at by consensus/partnership, the consensus is not immutable and it does not preclude further discussion or alteration.

To persist in trying to promulgate a definition of consensus that effectively amounts to nothing more than a straw poll, particularly when other editors have repeatedly exposed it as counterfeit, puts quite a strain on AGF. And if Ferrylodge has any interest in working towards a genuine consensus, it might be a good idea to refrain from personal attacks on other editors for "defying" his fictional version of consensus and for "trying to smear Palin" etc. — Writegeist (talk) 18:37, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Ferrylodge is, in point of fact, correct. Your post is, in point of fact, errant on the issue of consensus. As for the definition of "personal attack" - FL's posts do not come close. Collect (talk) 20:45, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

In what way? I won't be bothering to state this very many more times; bald assertions without reasons, are not worthy of consideration, for the same reason that assertions in an article without a cite are OR; there is no verification that they are true. Additionally, they contain no logical argument that can be examined, considered, refuted, etc. This is basic stuff, which I shouldn't have to be telling you. I may decline to respond to such unexplained assertions in the future. Anarchangel (talk) 02:39, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Black. — Writegeist (talk) 20:49, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Going to answer Ferrylodge's last assertion first, as it is an assertion that threatens my credibility. Doing anything that would violate WP:POINT was not something I would ever consider doing.

The full text of my comment: "May I remind you of something? Before I amended that section, it contained serious errors on the law, which contradicted Stambaugh's version of events, and you saw fit to include it. Now that it backs up his story, you want to delete it. I think the truth should stay in twice the time that the lie was in, as a sort of retraction; I am fine with it being removed after that time."

As you can see, this is in the nature of a proposal, or at least, it was meant to be, hence, 'I think the truth should stay in' rather than 'The truth should stay in'. It also followed and was part of a reproach, but that isn't against any WP rule I can even imagine.

Editing to make a point is in fact, somewhat inexplicably, not mentioned in WP:POINT. Which fact I find a shame, as I can easily categorize Ferrylodge's edits as such. Edit of 6:39 23 Oct (Summary: Reverting my previous edit. Rape-kit material was conditional on tag removal, per talk.) and Edit of 21:40 22 Oct (Summary: Strikerforce has reinserted POV tag without explaining what he believes is POV. So, I'm removing rape kit material that I recently inserted in attempt to address vague concerns.)

Note that I made my comments in the discussion, and although not as diplomatic as I would have preferred, in context my comments can be seen to be quite dissimilar from what Ferrylodge has described. I can see how it could be misconstrued, but I was stating my preference for the record. My intention was not to edit as an illustration or commencement of my preference. I felt I had quite sufficient reasons to include without it; my stated preference was therefore a peace offering rather than a show of force.

Kelly and Skew have not entered into this discussion as far as I know; the discussion is therefore a 'tie' at this point. However, I expect Collect would object as well, so I will assume that my material must stand the test of its merits without consensus.

The fact that gun control can be seen as relevant to this issue is not the fault of the material, it is the fault of Palin for bringing gun control into her decision to fire Stambaugh, or if you prefer, the fault of Stambaugh for bringing gun control into his suit against Palin. Either way, the material is about the firing.

Newsweek: "One big issue, Stambaugh said, was that he and other police chiefs had opposed a state-legislature bill to permit concealed weapons in schools and bars, which Stambaugh called "craziness." But Palin, elected with backing from the National Rifle Association, which lobbied for the bill, told him she was "not happy" with his position, and that the NRA wanted him fired, says Stambaugh. Palin told him he "shouldn't have done that," Stambaugh told NEWSWEEK. (Palin denied in a deposition that the NRA contacted her about the weapons bill.)" -from the cited source currently in the article, been there 'forever', not my material. Because the source doesn't directly quote Stambaugh, we don't know whether he said schools, or he said colleges and the reporter wrote schools, or whether Stambaugh was told schools by someone who ought to have known better, etc. Technically, if we skirt the Dark Side a bit, colleges are schools. It is misleading, of course, but we don't know who was misleading whom. That's the 'Stambaugh credibility' part; we know he was right about bars, we know whoever said it, was essentially wrong about schools, but we can rectify that mistake by writing colleges.

The evidence that Palin was involved in the NRA is pretty compelling; I don't have it at my fingertips, but there is more than just what's in the source. We don't have to bring that into it. In fact, it would be wrong to bring such info that really belongs elsewhere in the article to back this one case. But it can be seen from the Newsweek story alone that Stambaugh's opposition to SB 177 was more than just the straw that broke the camel's back; this was a big issue for Palin. Note that her deposition does not refute Stambaugh's testimony that she said the NRA wanted him fired, nor that she said she was "not happy" and he "shouldn't have done that". Nor does the issue become non-notable because of the judge's decision in Stambaugh's suit, which Fcreid has argued on numerous occasions.

Sometimes I think I ought to only make one point at a time, in order to increase the probability of it being answered. My point about the material that countered Stambaugh's assertion remaining in the article for a good month, while mine that supported his assertion was deleted instantly, remains unanswered.

Ferrylodge has a long-standing concern that AS 11.71.900 has nothing to do with SB 177]. It just seems obvious to me that one cannot read through what I have said, and the relevant passages in that law, and not know that I am right in my usage of the citations. But I will give it one more try. SB 177 says,

• "Sec. 9. AS 18.65.755(a) is amended to read:
• 26 (a) A permittee may not carry a concealed handgun into
• 27 (1) a law enforcement or correctional facility;
• 28 (2) or on school grounds or a school bus; in this paragraph, "school
• 29 grounds" has the meaning given in AS 11.71.900;"
  

Therefore, a permittee may not carry a concealed handgun onto school grounds. If AS 11.71.900 were to define a school as the drive-through area of a Big Boy restaurant, then that's where guns would be excluded by SB 177. Of course the definition is much more what you'd expect. My point is, AS 11.71.900 definition of a school, defines and limits what SB 177 excludes. The AS 11.71.900 definition of a school is, ""school grounds" means a building, structure, athletic playing field, playground, parking area, or land contained within the real property boundary line of a public or private preschool, elementary, or secondary school." Not colleges. Therefore, SB 177 does not restrict handguns in colleges. If some other part of SB 177 forbade the carrying of guns in colleges, then this wouldn't apply. But can you see a law that banned guns in colleges, but permitted them in grade schools? I will be very disappointed if we have to discuss that point. Guns in bars are shown to have remained permissible allowed by exactly the same argument: they aren't prohibited by SB 177, and the existing law would indeed have had to have been 'crazy' to have prohibited guns in bars before banning them in schools.

I apologize for not checking the inclusion of 'banks'. Skew-t is quite correct, financial institutions are excluded by the law. As I recall, I did not have banks in my original draft, so someone else must have added banks; I did notice the new inclusion of 'banks' when I re-inserted the most recent version, but I did not check. Anarchangel (talk) 02:39, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Anarchangel, you say: "Sometimes I think I ought to only make one point at a time, in order to increase the probability of it being answered." It's up to you how long and detailed you want your comments to be, but you shouldn't disregard the comments of other editors merely because they are short and to the point. You say, "Kelly and Skew have not entered into this discussion as far as I know; the discussion is therefore a 'tie' at this point." If you look toward the beginning of this talk page section, you'll see their brief and concise comments, and their comments should not be excluded from determining whatever the consensus is. No one gets extra points for being wordy.

'Brief' yes. Lacking substance, they cannot be 'concise'. I can see now why I was in error about Kelly and Skew's contributions; they weren't contributions. Bald assertions that do not even bother with a full sentence, eg Kelly's "Synthesis indeed."

As far as Palin's position about concealed weapons, why not include it in the section on her political positions? And surely you can find a reliable secondary source, instead of piecing together bits and pieces of different statutes. You acknowledge that Stambaugh's characterization of Palin's position about concealed weapons "is misleading." Well, that's not a big surprise, considering that Stambaugh's a disgruntled fired employee. Why not find a neutral source that characterizes Palin's position?Ferrylodge (talk) 03:01, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Gave you an inch, you cherrypicked your mile.

'disgruntled fired employee' is a rehash of an erroneous argument that you have repeated ad nauseum, and lays bare your cynical heart. Just as your opinion and mine about issues outside of WP is no one's business if we don't make it their business, Stambaugh's motivations are for us to speculate upon. Similarly, Stambaugh's firing, Stein's loss of the mayoralty, Knowles' loss of the governorship; none of these are even slightly relevant to the Palin article, and they most certainly are not relevant to the discussion of it. I don't use my opinion of Palin as a backstabbing powerhungry egotist with only enough low animal cunning to carve her way to the top as my primary argument, ever, and I will thank you to not present identically biased BS about how obvious it is that so-and-so was only doing this out of revenge, as an argument worthy of consideration. Anarchangel (talk) 03:47, 5 December 2008 (UTC)