Talk:Sarah Palin/Archive 44

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 40

←

Archive 42

→

editprotected

Done.

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

{{Editprotected}}

Please make the protection notice at the top of the page less conspicuous. Thanks. ♪Tempo Di Valse♪ 03:29, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Why? Is it embarassing? William M. Connolley (talk) 09:19, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

It's an eyesore. It defaces the article and could possibly ~~confuse/~~distract readers. Could it be at least made smaller?♪Tempo Di Valse♪ 14:20, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Just wondering, in what way could it possibly confuse a reader? A new name 2008 (talk) 16:07, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Not seeing any objections so

Done. - Rjd0060 (talk) 04:39, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Rape kit material

Should material about the cost of rape kits be included in this bio?
Refuse to dignify this subversion of the poll process with an answer. Consensus was reached, and you have provided no reason to change it. Poll is being used as an excuse to delete material. Anarchangel (talk) 20:05, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Qualify my definition of consensus as, 'what has passed for consensus in this Discussion, namely, a truce'. Anarchangel (talk) 20:57, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Can a wiki lawyer help out with my attempt at this RFC? Any thoughts on other types of mediation here? I am hoping that if enough nuetral eyes take a look, this will work out. Thanks in advance. --Tom 19:55, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Hopefully my 3rd attemp will work, but I doubt it :) --Tom 20:54, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm not a lawyer (and wholly agree with Shakespeare about the entire slimy breed), and frankly I can't be arsed to go through the archive that show whether or not a consensus was reached. Anyway consensus can be changed. I do think that the abbreviated version of the text in question is more appropriate as it bears directly on Saint Sarah. The long version that Tom or whoever it is tends to revert contains material re the police that does not; and also a cite to the effect that there's no conclusive evidence as to whether or not Saint Sarah was in the know. I've come round to favoring the cut. Incidentally I think the previous accusations of vandalism and WP:TAG are a bit strong. The vandalism one in particular is, ahem, outré. And de trop. Merci. — Writegeist (talk) 22:13, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

As I suggested above, I do not think the content at issue is relevant to Palin's biography. In any case, its inclusion focuses undue weight on a minor city policy issue she may or may not have been closely involved in administering. Leave it out. --Evb-wiki (talk) 02:44, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree. --Tom 13:06, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

I have removed this "material". --Tom 14:51, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

...With this http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sarah_Palin&diff=253828398&oldid=253827027 edit]. The summary of which states, " see talk page RFC. Please comment there, thank you." And the 3<3 edit above is his most recent after that, so I guess it is supposed to be a RFC now. Buahaha. Seriously, if you say, 'I deleted some stuff' as a reason for undoing prior consensus, you're going to have to expect some skepticism as to the propriety of your procedure. If you had one reason that hadn't been considered before, then fine. If you want comments from us about why we object to your reverts of that material, 3<3, just look at the archives of the previous handful of times you've done it. I personally find no reason to add any. If only this was like Chess, where if someone makes the same move over and over, it's a draw. Anarchangel (talk) 18:25, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) Hopefully others will comment here, not only folks involved in this content dispute. --Tom 18:31, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

You never did explain what you're trying to say, aside from mentioning a non-existent Fallon article and unexplained talk about "lies." If you ever want to explain what you're talking about, that might be the place to start.Jimmuldrow (talk) 23:50, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Previous discussions on this subject included dozens of editors. You plus a couple people revisiting the subject are not a substantial enough "consensus" to delete this. I'd like to add my impression that Writegeist "voted" to cut this merely because he was miffed that I deleted these comments in which he openly mocked the names of Palin's children, with no intent whatsoever to improve the article, just using the talk page to ridicule Palin. Sorry Write, but that one was over the line. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 18:39, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Actually no, Factchecker, it had nothing to do with your deletion — I didn't give a second thought. You should know from my post to your talk re. deletion of previous material, also of a totally frivolous, irreverent and irrelevant nature — that I don't bear malice. You are almost always, IMO, reasonable and fair. Oh dear I've gone all gooey. Give me a moment to compose myself. That's better. Anyway, my "vote" was, in fact, entirely to do with having a weak grasp of the subject and opening mouth, or rather tapping keys, before engaging brain. Now that I've labored through the squillions of words squandered on the issue at issue, I appreciate the nuances better. With the result that I have totally come around to your argument for inclusion. I just forgot to mention it. Sorry! And Threeafterthree's obdurate, autocratic editing doesn't help anyone in a collaborative endeavour. — Writegeist (talk) 05:56, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Deleting material out of spite is fine :) Just kidding :) Seriously, I/we/you should try to get more eyes involved or seek other types of mediation. --Tom 18:49, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Repeatedly deleting the material which you are seeking comment on tends to defeat the purpose for seeking a consensus to delete it in the first place. This is just an ongoing POV-pushing edit war for you. You have deleted this same sourced, relevant, notable material dozens of times, without seeking compromise at any point. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 18:56, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Repeating lies still doesn't make them true. --Tom 19:04, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Huh? Which "lies" would those be? Please elaborate. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 19:07, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

"Lies"? Well, there's a cogent argument. Minus a cogent argument, and plus an irrelevant cliche with personal attack overtones. Anarchangel (talk) 19:17, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Tom, due to your dozens of deletions and apparent unwillingness to discuss or compromise, I have sought to have you blocked from editing this article. Sorry it had to come to this. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 20:19, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) Why not seek some type of dispute resolution rather than seeking to block me? --Tom 20:25, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

At no time have you given any indication that you were amenable to discussion or compromise. You have simply deleted it over and over and over again. Even while "seeking comment" in an RFC you have just continued to delete the material. Frankly, I only have limited time to edit Wikipedia and cannot afford to waste time in arbitration with someone who is simply trying to toss out roadblocks with no intention of stopping the problematic behavior. Your conduct has warranted blocking multiple times, and I have let it slide -- and the result has just been more work for me, undoing your continued deletions. On top of that, we held discussion on this for weeks and all you really said was "this goes in the Fannon bio" while repeatedly deleting it. It's disingenuous to now claim that you seek discussion. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 20:41, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

I still think that others need to be involved here rather that just going back and forth with each other. --Tom 20:50, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

If "others" become involved, wouldn't they want to know what your reasons are? You talk about discussion but keep repeating the same stuff about a non-existent Fannon page and unspecified "lies." You should explain your reasons before more agitating.Jimmuldrow (talk) 23:56, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Others were involved when the material was added. They just haven't kept a constant watch on the article to prevent people from going in and deleting things. And the block request is not about the material itself, but rather your actions of repeatedly deleting it. Edit warring with the hope that the other party will simply give up and go away is not the correct method of attempting to build consensus for a change in the article. And so far, while "seeking comment", you have simply continued to delete the material. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 20:56, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

As I recall, we came to an agreement on a compromise that mentioned the police chief she hired and his opposition to the kits. The compromise was fair and balanced and agreed-on by all sides. Now if some enterprising person can just go to the archives and dig it out, it will be kindly appreciated. :-) GreekParadise (talk) 02:37, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I'll jump right on it. With only 43 archives, it shouldn't take more than a week or two :). --Tom 14:58, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Check the Archive Index. The rape kit matter is mentioned in only 13 thread titles. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 18:22, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Archive 40 at the bottom has alot about this "issue" it seems. Also see archive 20, 25, 29, 33, and 35. --Tom 18:34, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Greek, the compromise that was consensus, is what Tom deleted. Don't you get it? He just keeps coming along and deleting every once in a while to keep us busy. WP:CCC is for new people coming in, or new arguments. 3<3 is and has neither. Anarchangel (talk) 20:05, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

My handle is 3after3, not 3lessthan3. Anyways, no biggie. --Tom 20:48, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

It makes sense if you see the < sign as signifying the course, or direction, of events. 3 follows (after) < 3 Anarchangel (talk) 21:40, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I could have sworn you were just referring to him as "3" and using the emoticon <3 to indicate that you love him. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 21:52, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

So that's what that means. No, I didn't mean that. Anarchangel (talk) 15:15, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Hereis where we agreed to disagree and started hammering out a compromise version. The actual fashioning of the wording tends to begin under the headings "Fcreid's proffered language" and "was there a controversy?" It was an awful lot of discussion, awful lot of give-and-take, awful lot of work... and awfully annoying when Tom resumed his preferred method of simply deleting the entire thing repeatedly without discussion. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 20:45, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I note that I and others did not sign off on your personal consensus. Sorry to disillusion you. Collect (talk) 20:53, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Is fcreid still around? He was a saint working with folks on this. Anyways, --Tom 20:57, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

He was around a couple days ago. You could try dropping a note on his talk page, I just did exactly that. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 21:09, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Still alive and well, thanks. Been following the conversation daily but haven't seen the need to chime back in. As everyone knows, I've never been a fan of including the rape kit material in the first place. However, a compelling argument was made that Palin's apparent lack of knowledge in Fannon's practice was important (in that some felt she *should* have known what he was doing). The compromise we reached was to include the fact that the controversy existed, as evidenced by the Frontiersman May 2000 article, but to include the fact that there was no evidence Palin was aware of his practice (using the SPT article). Fcreid (talk) 22:26, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Your personal signature is not required, Collect. Nor was it "my personal consensus" – as the compromise was reached amongst several editors including quite a few who were "on your side", such as yourself, Fcreid, Evb-wiki, and Zsero. Everybody gave up something they wanted... that's what made it a compromise. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 21:02, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

(outdent from above) Jim, this issue boils down to two fundamental perspectives. There are those (myself included) who believe that Police Chief Fannon took this practice upon himself in an ad hoc manner and without Palin's implicit or explicit endorsement in order to conserve his "miscellaneous" budget. The evidence supports this assertion. (While totally irrelevant, Fannon probably felt that no "harm" was done in charging insurers for these kits when the victim had appropriate coverage and given that the procedure was administered in the hospital, but that's a different debate.) In contrast, there are also those who feel Palin was aware of and possibly even involved in Fannon's practice, despite that no evidence supports that position. The compromise was reached earlier because you, among others, contended that if Palin didn't know, she should have (given that she was mayor). That is a compelling argument, so it brought us to the current verbiage that describes Fannon's statements and also states that no evidence indicates Palin knew or endorsed the practice. Any attempt to insert more or less than this simply isn't supported by reliable sources. For example, citing the Huffington Post piece that the fiscal year 2000 budget for miscellaneous items was lower than prior years is purely speculative. For the record, we have an official statement from Wasilla that provides their fiscal year 2000 and beyond budgets and shows no victims or insurers were charged in 2000 or beyond. So, if Fannon amended his FY-2000 budget submission based on the money he saved by this practice in FY-1999, it's really irrelevant. Fcreid (talk) 00:08, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Never have believed Fannon acted alone. The budget proves it, you can barely get 2 rape kits out of that, let alone clearing the snow off of the runway and whatever other "Contractual Services" were the responsibility of the PD. Anarchangel (talk) 15:15, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

I strongly agree that it would be a mistake to "insert more or less" than the current version.Jimmuldrow (talk) 00:22, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Jim. It's worth mentioning that the current debate was precipitated by removal of the secondary fact that no evidence indicates Palin was aware of the practice. That triggered a spate of new debate on whether it belonged in the article whatsoever without a mention of Palin, and the onslaught of removals/reverts that followed. Essentially, if one removes either "leg" of the discussion as it is, both legs fails. Fcreid (talk) 00:27, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Absence of evidence is, in short, not notable. See Negative proof fallacy for the full details. The Palin statement, by contrast, is desirable, and its full context should be shown, i.e. the question was, extremely paraphrased, but accurately: as Fannon has been shown to charge, did you oversee Fannon's charging of victims? and she dodged both the charging implication and the question and answer that she never believed that people should be charged. 15:15, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Why is this even a discussion. The longer I am on Wikipedia, the more that I am surprised by how much truly extraneous, irrelevant, biased detail ends up in articles here. Is Wikipedia supposed to be a warehouse of all of the small but ultimately historically insignificant details that pass for news in the era of 500 cable TV channels with nothing on. I don't think the Rape kits should be in the article. That is not what is significant or relevant to Sarah Palin. Wikipedia should not be used as a weapon to perpetuate rumors and baseless insinuation about people or groups of people. In case it is relevant to someone reading this, I am not defending Sarah Palin. I did not vote for her and McCain, I just think that enough is enough.Elmmapleoakpine (talk) 01:52, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi Elmmapleoakpine, oh course this doesn't belong in the article. Unfortunately, articles like this is where wikipedia is very weak. Single purpose agenda pushing editors gravitate to articles like this where things aren't black and white unlike an artilce like say Iron ore. The only saving grace is Wikipedia's some what transparancy so troll like behavoir becomes evident after awhile and lies can be seen. Hopefully enough eyes that don't want to smear or puff up this article will take a look so some NPOV will rise. Anyways, --Tom 14:09, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

You are the one trying to POV push by pretending this wasn't a significant controversy and wasn't related to Palin. Oh well... just keep deleting it over and over, I guess. PS I wouldn't have started editing this article in the first place if it wasn't the agenda pushing nonsense and attempt to spread lies and one-sided accounts of reality such as having the article state that Palin was an anti-pork hero for canceling the bridge project. Wikipedia is not an outlet for PR, but I guess you'll never understand that. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 16:50, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Elmmapleoakpine, after you've been editing for a few months I think you'll come to terms with the fact that Wikipedia reflects published material on specific issues more or less in proportion to the attention paid to them in those publications. While you may feel that the news articles on this subject were baseless slander, it's not our position to judge that. Indeed, we cannot contradict, second-guess, or re-interpret the published thought that is reflected here, as that runs counter to the central goal of WP:Verifiability. We can't substitute our own judgment in place of the judgment of the sources we cite.

Realizing this, you may also come to be frustrated when you feel that newspapers or other sources are being too conservative, or not conservative enough, or expressing too much/too little detail on a subject. But I think over time you will appreciate the fact that Wikipedia is more or less a mirror of those publications whether you agree with them or not. That is the essence of its neutrality.

At the same time, you may have unwittingly given yourself a distorted picture of Wikipedia by diving right into charged political topics just a day or two after registering your account. Election politics can be quite a sensitive issue. Anyway, best wishes with your editing. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 02:45, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

(outdent)Factchecker, it is good that you want to fight people who are trying to push their agenda in here of puffing up this bio. Any material that does that should be removed and I will support that. Maybe you should also try to fight folks who want to smear and mudrack as well? Just a thought. Also, please do not move my comments on this page, thank you.--Tom 17:28, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

I was trying to preserve the chronological order. I believe Collect did that at one point for the same reason, and also accused me of "interpolating" a comment in order to deceive readers... still not sure what he meant by that since it was obvious where my comments were directed. Anyway as long as you're undoing that, could you at least put my comment back under yours, since it was replying to yours? Anyway, I do plenty to prevent smears from appearing here. Recall my successful effort to shut down the guy who insisted on coming here and making references to the Palin porno, among other things. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 19:31, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Factchecker, I tried to indent my comment beyond yours so folks could see I was replying to Elmmapleoakpine and people could see your reply as well. Nobody should move any comments around unless an ip puts a comment at the top of the page ect. It is good that you fought off the porno inclusion. Just to recap, this whole "rape kit" controversey domahigee first broke in earnest after Palin was announced as VP. Its been through the ringer and wash cycle so manny times and what has really come out? Seriously. She knew or she should have known or what? If there is any reliable source that concretely ties her to this "issue" (thats being kind), then fine, include it, but as it is, it really does not belong in her bio. It already has way to much coverage in the sub artilces, imho, but I have not even gone there.--Tom 19:42, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Tom, you surely know I'm not a fan of including the rape kit material in this article, for many of the reasons you stated above and for others I won't reiterate. I had also hoped it would whither on the vine after the election. All that said, I think it is wrong to "edit war" about its inclusion today as long as sincere editors still feel it belongs. Factchecker, Anarchangel and Jimmuldrow are among those. I recognize consensus can and often does change, but these editors still feel it warrants mention because it occurred "on Palin's watch" in Wasilla, if nothing more, and I have to agree. My caveat remains that we clearly convey there is no evidence Palin knew about the practice, and that aspect of the article was tampered with in recent days (replaced by "never commented about" or something). To maintain a friendly and cooperative atmosphere, and in the spirit of Thanksgiving, I suggest we revert to the version prior to Anarchangel's changes several days ago. Perhaps if no new information arises in a month or two, those other editors may be willing to reconsider its inclusion in the first place. Fcreid (talk) 20:32, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

(outdent)Oddly, Fcreid, it was Collect who changed the material to read "never commented on it at all". I thought that was a little strange because I thought the "no evidence" phrasing presented a much stronger defense. Anarchangel, meanwhile, wanted to remove that sentence entirely, and while there was substance to his argument, ultimately I did not agree with it. Anyway, back to responding to Tom,

Here, in a nutshell, is what has come out of the news coverage:

1) Palin fired the guy who had the city paying for the kits; 2) ...replaced him with the guy that started, or wanted to start, charging the victims' insurance; 3) ... cut the funding for the budget item that had been previously used by the city to pay for th exams; 4) a state law was proposed banning the practice of billing victim's insurance; 5) debate on this issue continued for months, with Fannon being a central opponent of the proposed law, and the controversy made it into the local papers at the time, with Fannon complaining it would have cost the city up to $14,000 a year to pay for the exams ; 6) at least one notable critic (a political opponent) has said on record that she probably knew; 7) a NYT opinion piece opined that if she didn't know, she should have known; 8) a Palin spokesperson specifically addressed the issue by saying Palin had never believed rape victims should ever have to pay for an evidence gathering test, but refused to answer a specific question as to whether Palin knew about the policy or not

I could go on, but that's the nutshell, and it's all been thoroughly discussed before.

Palin herself responded the same way to a direct question posed by the Outdoorsman, as above. Agree with all, including the qualification that there is more. Anarchangel (talk) 15:15, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Now, of course there are all kinds of ways in which all this information might be inappropriately woven together to produce an OR conclusion that Palin DID know, or was behind the policy, or any number of other conclusions that were never reached in any particular source -- all of which would be inappropriate. But none of the versions that's ever been put into the article, from my original attempt to reflect it in an NPOV fashion, to the more recent compromise version which you keep deleting, suffer from such weaknesses. In fact, I believe the central objection to my original version was that it was simply too long. Regardless, since a compromise was reached, and it's brief and conservatively worded, I think we should preserve it. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 20:42, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Um -- nope. You misstate facts multiple times. First -- the police department did not exist in Wasilla until 1993, and the official records show a trivial number of TOTAL sexual assaults. Cite already given. Second, per a cite you gave on the law, minors covered by Alaska Cares currently have that program pay for all rape exams (the new law applies only to those over 16). Thus Wasilla always did have "insurance" pay for rape exams. Third, the Police Department asked for budget monies, and there is no evidence Palin cut one cent from the budget asked for, Fourth, the state law does NOT stop the A;aska Cares insurance from paying for rape exams, Fifth, there is no evidence Fannon said anything about the proposed law until it was enacted, Sixth, there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that Palin knew anything at all about a policy which affected so few people (not a single case of a person being billed has shown up, and you know that the media would have reported if they found even a single case) Seventh an edtorial is only worth citing as an opinion, not as a fact per WP guidelines, Eighth, if a spokesperson does not know a "negative" how is the spokesperson supposed to handle the question other than saying she does not know and so can not answer? Ninth, this has been an editwar, and I would have hoped you had learned a lesson from being quite nearly blocked. Thank you most kindly. Collect (talk) 21:51, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

1a. How exactly does Palin starting the PD with Stein and Stambaugh in '93 prevent her from having done anything Factchecker said? It is only proof that she discards people once they have outlived their usefulness. 1b. The low number of sexual assaults proves that Fannon was either incompetent or lying when he said $4-15K cost to the PD. I will be keeping track of the times I say that and it isn't addressed, from now on.

2a. Currently, the law now is the law now. And the current discussion is the 1990s. First time I have had to say that, thank Frick. Earth to Collect, come in Collect.

2b."Second, per a cite you gave on the law, minors covered by Alaska Cares currently have that program pay for all rape exams (the new law applies only to those over 16). Thus Wasilla always did have "insurance" pay for rape exams." Wow. A new low for obfuscation.

2c.Insurance is an asset of the insurance buyer, and thus the charge and the bill are against the victim's assets. Insurance is irrelevant as an ameliorating distinction. I will be keeping track of the times I say that and it isn't addressed, from now on.

3. Incorrect. Follow the link. I will be keeping track of the times I say that and it isn't addressed, from now on.

4. Alaska Cares may or may not have paid in '96, and not relevant as per 2c. Hopefully I won't have to say that again.

5. Are you going for the record of most wrong things said in one reply? Fannon to the Frontiersman: May 22 2000, three days after the law was passed on the 19th, but before it was enacted. I will be keeping track of the times I say that and it isn't addressed, from now on.

6. This is the one and only point worth answering, really. There are multiple reasons why she should have known, most notably Fannon's conspicuous presence in the local paper, the empirically observable fact that she is his boss, the fact that she cut the budget, and should have known it wasn't sufficient, etc, and our task should be to delineate those, preferably less vaguely than the Alberto Gonzales page currently does. Alberto Gonzales was fired for much the same behaviour; evidence of impropriety he failed to convincingly explain, leaving investigators with no choice but to assume his incompetence. This is the first time I have answered this, so I'll let it sink in.

7. I can only speculate on what this refers to, so I won't. Please elucidate.

8. Interviewees, I should imagine, have exactly the difficulty you describe with questions for which there is no answer, which is why they would avoid asking them. I am going to take a stab at it even though I am only guessing which question you refer to. If you mean, 'During your tenure as mayor in 2000, then police chief Charlie Fannon commented in a May 23, 2000 Frontiersman article about legislation Gov. Tony Knowles signed protecting victims of sexual assault from being billed for rape kits collected by police as part of their investigations. Fannon revealed then that Knowles’ decision would cost Wasilla $5,000 to $14,000 a year, insinuating that the department’s policy was to bill victims for this testing. During your tenure as Mayor, what was the police department and city’s standard operating procedure in recovering costs of rape kits? Were any sexual assault victims ever charged for this testing while you were mayor?"...

...Then hopefully the answer would be, "Fannon didn't charge. The PD paid for them. No victims were ever charged."

Instead, Sarah Palin answered, "The entire notion of making a victim of a crime pay for anything is crazy. I do not believe, nor have I ever believed, that rape victims should have to pay for an evidence-gathering test. As governor, I worked in a variety of ways to tackle the problem of sexual assault and rape, including making domestic violence a priority of my administration."

This is a little like being asked, "Your employee put pressure on Justices and DAs to conform to a partisan agenda" and answering, "Putting pressure on Justices for a partisan agenda is bad". If Gonzales had said that, his hearings and subsequent firing would have been completed considerably sooner. Again, 1st time said.

9. The only lesson to learn from an edit war on this page is that if 3<3 doesn't start one, there won't be one, and that tagteaming works, until the arbitration. I am here for the long haul. Anarchangel (talk) 15:15, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

1a. Palin was not mayor in 1993. She did not appoint the police chief in 1993. 1b. Huh? Wasilla was a small town, and not having a large number of rapes is consistent with that. The big crime issues wers driving violations and petty theft.

2. The 2000 law is clear, and has been cited here as well. Guess some did not read it or the minutes of the legislative discussions. "Alaska Cares" is clearly discussed therein.

3. I have seen no cite that Palin cut the PD budget to remove rape exam monies. Nor has anyone I have seen discuss this claim that. Til you.

4. See supra about the cites given for the legislative discussion.

5. You are claimint that the law as "passed" before it was "enacted"??? Amazing! Most people would realize that one a law is PASSED, that it has been passed.

6. Gonzales?? A bit if a reach! There has been zero evidence to indicate that Palin knew, or should have known, of every single policy of every department in the city. For example, does you mayor know the exact criteria used to determine how to fill potholes in roads? How many fingerint points of identification are needed for a match? How many days off are allowed for teachers? Knowledge of every single possible policy is unreasonable, and not found anywhere I know of.

7. The cliam was made that a NYT opinion column is evidence that Palin should have known etc. See sura. An editorial opinion is, at best, an editorial opinion. The editor of the NYT probably does not know how many line inches are need for a lower ad rate on the NYT, though, by the exact stame standard of "should have known" he should know.

8. See above. Unless you, as a mayor, would know every bit of minutia about eery department???

All answered. Thank you most kindly. Collect (talk) 13:33, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

(outdent)This is more of the same nonsense as before. You haven't refuted a single thing I've said -- in fact you seem intent on refuting things I didn't say!! See below. I have put my quotations of you in italics. PS, I notice that most of your arguments not only don't refute mine, but are based on your own analysis of primary sources. My arguments, on the other hand, are based on already-published analysis made by reliable secondary sources. Please also note that I wasn't suggesting the 8 points I outlined above should go into the article itself... merely using those points to argue against your claim that this whole thing is somehow unrelated to Palin and that the published accounts don't even suggest any connection... a claim which I find patently false, and which I was raising those 8 points in an attempt to refute.

1a. Effectively unanswered. 1b. Effectively unanswered. 2. Alaska Cares relies on Medicaid, not insurance. 3. Not even looking at the cite provided, you claim you have not seen a cite. 4. See 2. 5. Yes, laws are passed, then enacted. 6. Far less of a reach than your potholes. 7. An answer! 8. See potholes. Anarchangel (talk) 18:09, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Um -- nope. You misstate facts multiple times. First -- the police department did not exist in Wasilla until 1993, and the official records show a trivial number of TOTAL sexual assaults.Cite already given.

Are we in the same universe? Did I say all of this occurred in 1989? Did I say anything at all about sexual assaults other than rapes? How would what you've said even begin to contradict or refute what I said?

Second, per a cite you gave on the law, minors covered by Alaska Cares currently have that program pay for all rape exams (the new law applies only to those over 16). Thus Wasilla always did have "insurance" pay for rape exams.

Is this supposed to contradict something I said? Please help me understand by showing me what I said that this contradicts. I said Stambaugh had the city paying for the rape kits... this is supported by one of the references; I said Palin fired Stambaugh... also supported; I said Fannon started charging, or wanted to start charging, victim's health insurance companies for the exams... also supported. Mounting arguments to refute things I never said is quite different from refuting the things I actually said!!

Third, the Police Department asked for budget monies, and there is no evidence Palin cut one cent from the budget asked for

One of the sources says "Before Palin came to City Hall, the Wasilla Police Department paid for rape kits out of a fund for miscellaneous costs, according to the police chief who preceded Fannon and was fired by Palin. That budget line was cut by more than half during Palin's tenure, but it did not specifically mention rape exams."

So, please explain how this is not evidence of exactly what it says, e.g. that the fund used to pay for the rape kits was cut by Palin? And don't go flying off the handle as though I'm trying to put the budget line item into the article itself. I never tried anything of the sort.

Fourth, the state law does NOT stop the A;aska Cares insurance from paying for rape exams,

That's wonderful, but I never said it did... I said the state law prohibited victim's insurance from being billed. A statewide program (is it even an insurance program?) that has nothing to do with any individual victim is not "the victim's health insurance". The law prohibited anyone from billing the victim's health insurance, as clearly stated in the Frontiersman article... "The new law makes it illegal for any law enforcement agency to bill victims or victims insurance companies for the costs of examinations that take place to collect evidence of a sexual assault or determine if a sexual assault did occur."

Fifth, there is no evidence Fannon said anything about the proposed law until it was enacted,

OK, sources are ambiguous on the timing. It doesn't matter all that much... the point is that he was a central opponent of the law while the debate went on. See also "I find it hard to believe that for six months a small town, a police chief, would lead the fight against a statewide piece of legislation receiving unanimous support and the mayor not know about it", attributed to Croft in the CNN article.

Sixth, there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that Palin knew anything at all about a policy which affected so few people (not a single case of a person being billed has shown up, and you know that the media would have reported if they found even a single case)

Yeah... and I'm pretty darn sure every revision I've ever put into the article explicitly stated there was no evidence she knew about it. So don't you think it's highly deceitful for you to suggest that I put something in the article saying there was evidence? And don't you think it's wrong of you to completely distort my point #6 above, which clearly states "at least one notable critic (a political opponent) has said on record that she probably knew", which is borne out by the quote above from Croft? Shall I reword it slightly? "At least one notable critic has stated his opinion that she probably knew" ? To me, it's clear that it's a fact about an opinion either way.

Seventh an edtorial is only worth citing as an opinion, not as a fact per WP guidelines,

I never tried to cite it as anything other than an opinion. This issue goes straight to your fundamental misunderstanding about policy. Facts about opinions are still facts. So if you say in the article that it's a fact so-and-so has an opinion, that's being presented as a fact about an opinion.

Eighth, if a spokesperson does not know a "negative" how is the spokesperson supposed to handle the question other than saying she does not know and so can not answer?

If the spokesperson didn't know, she could of course have said "I don't know the answer to that." The source doesn't say she answered the question by saying she didn't know... the source says the spokesperson didn't answer the question ...

Ninth, this has been an editwar, and I would have hoped you had learned a lesson from being quite nearly blocked.

The edit war was initiated by Tom every time, from the times he deleted it over and over again while the rest of us tried to reach a compromise, to the time where he began deleting it over and over again long after we reached the compromise. I came no closer to being blocked than Threeafterthree/Tom, who after all is the one who has deleted the whole section 25 times, even continuing his deletions after we reached a compromise.

So, while your edit summary says "8 errors out of 8 -- a record!" it would appear more like it was ~~ZERO~~ ONE error out of eight (a pretty minor one on timing... Fannon was still a central opponent even if it was only after the law was passed), but ~~EIGHT~~ SEVEN separate distortions of my words by you, plus a frankly deceitful implication that *I've* been edit warring this issue all by myself. This is plain abuse. You make me waste time refuting nonsense in an effort to make it look like there is some basis for what you are saying. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 22:46, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

When in doubt, call the other person's post "nonsense"? And assert you were not a guilty party in an editwar? Wow!

First, I use "secondary" sources, other than the facts about what was said in the official legislative minutes. As I was not the person who cited them here, I figured the person who did cite them would approve of using them in the Talk page. Seconf, I never said "1989"" about anything, so that aside is a "huh". Third, you have not found any support fot the city charging a single victim for any rape exam. Fifth, you still have no basis for asserting Palin cut any "rape exam" monies. Sixth, the police department grew under Palin's tenure as mayor, per crime reports. Sixth, crime had a drop in per 100K stats while she was mayor. Seventh, for minors "Alaska Cares" is an "insurance program." Eighth, there is no evidence Fannon said anything about the proposed law until after it was passed. Ninth, there is no evidence that Fannon led any fight against the law being passed. Tenth, You claimed supra that a NYT opinion piece said she "should have known" about every single policy of every department in a city. And I assert that such omniscience is found in few mayors. Eleventh, absent a transcript, you are relying on a claim that the question was not answered. Which does not mean diddly squat. Unless, of course, you think a spokesperson has omniscience as well. Twelfth, "blaming the other guy" is no excuse. I would have thought that was a kindergarten lesson, in fact. As for your snide attack that this is abuse -- I would point out to others that the editwarring post by me specifically included both editwarriors (listing Tom first, in fact) so your accusation is absurd on its face. Thank you most kindly. Collect (talk) 13:51, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

(outdent)When in doubt, call the other person's post "nonsense"?

No doubt whatsoever; your posts are nonsense. You are making no attempt to have an honest discussion.

And assert you were not a guilty party in an editwar? Wow!

Exhibit A of the above-mentioned nonsense. I clearly did not say I wasn't guilty of edit warring. I said I was no more guilty than Three, who initiated the edit warring at every step of the way.

First, I use "secondary" sources, other than the facts about what was said in the official legislative minutes. As I was not the person who cited them here, I figured the person who did cite them would approve of using them in the Talk page.

You repeatedly attempted to use your own original research analysis of primary sources to refute published analysis in an attempt to disqualify it from inclusion. You're not allowed to do that, as I have repeatedly stated and as you have repeatedly ignored On the other hand, I cited primary sources to refute your original research analysis -- an analysis which was also based on primary sources, and which was largely nonsense -- not to refute published analysis, which, again, is not allowed.

Seconf, I never said "1989"" about anything, so that aside is a "huh".

You stated that I misstated facts repeatedly. Then, as if to offer an example, you stated that Wasilla hadn't had a police dept before 1993. This did not refute, and did not even relate to, anything I had said. My question of "Did I say all of this occurred in 1989" was an attempt to get you to state any logical connection whatsoever between my comments, and your supposed "rebuttal". You have still not even suggested such a connection so I can only conclude the remark was a total non-sequitur bearing no relation to the discussion you were claiming to refute.

Third, you have not found any support fot the city charging a single victim for any rape exam.

I cited the CNN article and quotation by Croft, the bill sponsor, saying they could not get Wasilla to stop charging victims for rape exams. The only single mistake I ever made was inserting text directly from the CNN article without directly saying it was the CNN article. It should have included that text, along with a phrase like 'according to an article published by CNN'. But I did properly attribute the quotation directly to Croft.

Fifth, you still have no basis for asserting Palin cut any "rape exam" monies.

Let's take a look AGAIN at the quote "Before Palin came to City Hall, the Wasilla Police Department paid for rape kits out of a fund for miscellaneous costs, according to the police chief who preceded Fannon and was fired by Palin. That budget line was cut by more than half during Palin's tenure, but it did not specifically mention rape exams."

You appear to have deliberately ignored this citation, which I brought directly to your attention, which directly supports my assertion that Palin "cut the funding for the budget item that had been previously used by the city to pay for th exams", and which I repeat again without further comment. Perhaps it will sink in. Probably not.

Sixth, the police department grew under Palin's tenure as mayor, per crime reports. Sixth, crime had a drop in per 100K stats while she was mayor.

This would be interesting and relevant to our discussion if it refuted or contradicted anything I have ever said on the subject. This is like me saying "You're completely wrong, Collect, leafy green vegetables ARE an excellent source of B vitamins" as if this refuted something you had previously said. This is another good example of the kind of nonsense I am talking about when I say your posts are nonsense.

Seventh, for minors "Alaska Cares" is an "insurance program."

Great. This still does not support your claim that this somehow refutes or contradicts my claim that "a state law was proposed banning the practice of billing victim's insurance;", a claim which is directly supported by every single source on the subject, for example the Frontiersman article saying "The new law makes it illegal for any law enforcement agency to bill victims or victims insurance companies for the costs of examinations that take place to collect evidence of a sexual assault or determine if a sexual assault did occur."

Your total inability to follow a logical discussion is dumbfounding. If someone says X, and you retort by saying "not R", then say "look I just refuted your claim that X!", you have not only failed to refute the claim X, you have revealed to the reader that you have zero grasp of logic or rational discussion.

Eighth, there is no evidence Fannon said anything about the proposed law until after it was passed.

You seem to have conveniently ignored that I conceded that point above -- and observed that it's a minor quibbling, as my central point was simply that Fannon was a central opponent of the new law during a debate which went on for months, which is ALSO supported by the fact that the Frontiersman article CITES HIM, AND ONLY HIM, as an opponent of the bill, and also by the CNN article quoting Croft as saying "I find it hard to believe that for six months a small town, a police chief, would lead the fight against a statewide piece of legislation receiving unanimous support and the mayor not know about it,"

Ninth, there is no evidence that Fannon led any fight against the law being passed.

The bill sponsor, as repeatedly noted, stated that he did. And again, I'll remind you that facts about opinions are still facts, so if I had tried to insert material saying Croft claimed Fannon led the fight, and provided the cite, it would be a substantiated fact that Croft stated his opinion that Fannon led the fight. I'll also remind you, again, that he was the only person cited by the Frontiersman article as opposing the law.

Tenth, You claimed supra that a NYT opinion piece said she "should have known" about every single policy of every department in a city. And I assert that such omniscience is found in few mayors.

Great, get your opinion published by a reliable source and we'll use it here. Until then, your personal analysis does not go in the article and cannot be used to refute actual published analysis. See WP:Verifiability.

PS, in a town of Wasilla's size it would hardly be superhuman to know about a new policy implemented by her newly appointed police chief which was made illegal by a new statewide law, with that new police chief being quoted in the papers as opposing the new law. Hence the NYT opinion piece saying she should have known, especially if she expected to be elected Vice President.

Eleventh, absent a transcript, you are relying on a claim that the question was not answered.

I'm relying on the USA Today article which stated "Comella would not answer other questions, including when Palin learned of Wasilla's policy or whether she tried to change it. "

It doesn't say she couldn't answer the question, or didn't have enough information to answer the question, or didn't know the answer. It says she would not answer the question. When citing sources on Wikipedia, you don't reinterpret them to say something other than what they say -- you cite them at face value. On top of that, it was an email exchange, so if the Palin spokesperson wanted to answer the question, presumably the Palin spokesperson would have had access to Palin to ask it straight from the horse's mouth. On top of that, I never even attempted to say anything in the article about the spokesperson not answering that question... was just offering it to refute your OR assertion that this whole thing was unrelated to Palin.

Twelfth, "blaming the other guy" is no excuse. I would have thought that was a kindergarten lesson, in fact.

Ok, so, you have zero substantiation and zero logical basis for anything you've said, so you point out I was edit warring. Bravo. Tom was edit warring too, and he's the one that started the war. If I hadn't edit warred that would have meant letting him reap the benefits of edit warring completely unchallenged, and let his removal of our compromise text stand. Sue me for going tit for tat with Three in an edit war, since you couldn't get me blocked for it (despite trying).

As for your snide attack that this is abuse -- I would point out to others that the editwarring post by me specifically included both editwarriors (listing Tom first, in fact) so your accusation is absurd on its face. Thank you most kindly.

And I notice that you sit there and pretend that your own statements, such as this one quote above, are not snide attacks. The "thank you most kindly" is an especially nice touch.

Again, you make me waste my time refuting nonsense. When your nonsense is refuted, you ignore the refutation and pile on more nonsense. This pollutes the talk page and masquerades for honest discussion. It is abuse -- you are simply hoping I will get sick of wasting my time arguing, and go away. That's abuse. Thank you most kindly. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 21:18, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Your post verges on gross misuse of the Talk page. Your claims that I do not want an "honest discussion" is abusive. Note that the only use of "1989" was in your post. Pointing that out is wrong? The budget was for ALL sexual assaults. Rapes were and are rare in Wasilla, and the cites providesd are SECONDARY cources, as you ought to know by now. As there is NO evidence that Fannon charged ANYONE, your claim that your claim is supported -- fails. With a police department RISING over Palin's tenure, you say the "miscellaneous" line was cut -- but it was cut by Fannon, not Palin. And other lines in the budget could also apply, which you manage to elide. You also have not shown ONE WORD by Fannon about the law change before it was PASSED. Next, many mayors do not know every policy made by every department, the NYT opinion piece notwithsatanding. What is the policy of your local library for fines on a book overdue more than 5 years? Do you have any idea? Yet that is the same frequency as rape exams in Wasilla in all likelihood. Mext you confute "would not answer other questions" which does not say why shw would not -- and I submit I, for example, would not answer a question I did not know the answer to. Yet you would fault me for saying that? Amazing! And then you claim the fact I cited Tom FIRST in my post concerning editwarring here is a "snide attack" ON YOU!!! How can you manage meeting the White Queen's rules so often? Thanks! Collect (talk) 12:55, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

(outdent)Gross misuse of the talk page is what you are engaging in.. dodging every point, ignoring when your points are refuted, presenting irrelevancies and pretending that they refute anything at all. You just keep talking and don't address anything head-on. You are simply hoping I will get tired of this and give up. Instead, here's my point-by-point refutation:

Collect quote #1 "Note that the only use of "1989" was in your post. Pointing that out is wrong?"

You said that I misstated facts numerous times. Then your very first example was that Wasilla didn't have a police dept until 1993, implying that this somehow had any logical connection or was somehow a refutation of anything at all I said. As I just said above, and which you have deliberately ignored (which is really all you are doing in these discussions... ignoring what I say rather than addressing it directly, while I directly address everything you say) -- my question "Did I say all of this occurred in 1989?" was an attempt to get you to respond by saying anything at all that connected your supposed "refutation" with my own comments. Still no response on that. I said Palin fired the guy who had the city paying for the kits, you said WRONG -- Wasilla didn't have a police department until 1993. Notice the total lack of any logical connection between the two statements? Yet you present it as evidence I misstated facts...

Thus your comment that Wasilla didn't have a police dept until 1993 was entirely irrelevant to the discussion even though you were presenting it as some kind of evidence that I had misstated facts. Again, Collect, it's like me saying "You're wrong about Fannon -- leafy green vegetables ARE an excellent source of B vitamins" -- pretending to refute a point with a wildly irrelevant comment. This is not honest discussion... it's attempted sleight of hand.

Collect quote #2 '"The budget was for ALL sexual assaults. Rapes were and are rare in Wasilla, and the cites providesd are SECONDARY cources, as you ought to know by now. "

Fannon complained that the law prohibiting billing victims' insurance companies would have cost Wasilla $5000 to $14000 per year. See Frontiersman article: "According to Fannon, the new law will cost the Wasilla Police Department approximately $5,000 to $14,000 a year to collect evidence for sexual assault cases." You have made some comments, all original research, about total number of crimes, total number of sexual assaults, size of the police force, etc, none of which related to what I said. By making those comments, you pretended to show that I misstated facts, but you failed to show this because there was no logical connection between my comments and your "refutation". If you believe your comments have any relevance or logical connections to my own, or, indeed, refute them, and show that I misstated facts, please state HOW and draw a clear logical connection. Figures about total crimes or sexual assaults or the size of the police department have no relevance to Fannon's complaint that the new law would cost Wasilla up to $14000 per year.

Collect quote #3 "As there is NO evidence that Fannon charged ANYONE, your claim that your claim is supported -- fails. "

Well, for starters, it was Fannon who set the policy, but the HOSPITAL which did the billing. But ignoring that, my claim was that Fannon "started, or wanted to start, charging the victims' insurance". This is absolutely supported by every source on the subject. You are changing it into a straw man argument and knocking that down. But you're not refuting what I actually stated. Again, that is not honest discussion.

Fannon's new policy, or the new policy that he hoped to enact, was to charge rape exams to victim's insurance. This policy was then made illegal by the state law of which he was a central critic -- the only critic mentioned in the Frontiersman article, in fact. It's not really relevant whether anyone was raped and charged during the interim period -- after he took office, but before the new policy was made illegal -- because if the policy had not been declared illegal, someone would have eventually been raped while the policy was in effect and her insurance would have been charged. Please make some attempt to understand this. Also realize that victims actually were charged in other nearby areas that had the same policy, and their complaints were what prompted the law to be proposed and passed.

So really, this is just a straw man. If the policy had not been declared illegal, victims in Wasilla would have had their insurance charged for rape investigations. In making your supposed "refutation", you completely ignored my original claim which you supposedly refuted, which, once again, just to remind you, was that Fannon "started, or wanted to start, charging the victims' insurance", and which is supported by all the sources.

Collect quote #4 "With a police department RISING over Palin's tenure, you say the "miscellaneous" line was cut -- but it was cut by Fannon, not Palin. And other lines in the budget could also apply, which you manage to elide."

Pardon me, but I haven't been doing extensive original research into the Wasilla budget. What are you talking about? What other budget lines? What are your sources for this? Please link them and clearly state the connection to this discussion. And how have I "ellided" something that I haven't seen mentioned in any single source? And what relevance does a growing police force have to ANY of this? As an aside, why must you insist on using lawyerly-sounding words like "elide" and "supra" when simple, widely known words would do?

Collect quote #5 "You also have not shown ONE WORD by Fannon about the law change before it was PASSED."

I am not sure what to say when you ignore something I say and then respond to it anyway. Don't you think you should read what you are responding to? I have now conceded twice, and now this is the third time, that there is no evidence Fannon's opposition occurred before the law was passed. However, I'm sure your next screed will decry the fact that I *still* have not shown that Fannon's opposition occurred before the law was passed! As I pointed out, this is a minor detail to quibble over, as the central point is that Fannon was a central opponent of the new law, as supported by the sources.

Collect quote #6 "Next, many mayors do not know every policy made by every department, the NYT opinion piece notwithsatanding."

As I suggested, this claim would hold water if Wasilla wasn't a tiny blip on the map. It would hardly be superhuman to micromanage city affairs in such a small town. On top of that, it was a controversy which made it into the papers, and in Fannon was cited prominently as an opponent. And Palin was running for VPOTUS... so the point of the NYT opinion is that if Palin was running for VPOTUS, yet let a controversial policy in her tiny town slip completely past her radar, then she owed some sort of explanation of how that could happen, if she expected to have any credibility as a VPOTUS candidate." Also, see below the quotes by the bill sponsor saying she probably knew, and stating his reasons for thinking that.

Collect quote #7 "What is the policy of your local library for fines on a book overdue more than 5 years? Do you have any idea? "

The town I live in is nearly a hundred times larger than Wasilla, I'm not mayor, and library fines are a vastly more trivial issue than charging rape investigations to the victim's insurance. What an absolutely horrible straw-man example.

Collect quote #8 "Yet that is the same frequency as rape exams in Wasilla in all likelihood. "

So since Wasilla is a small town, and small towns have few crimes committed, policies billing victims' insurance for evidence collection are not only OK, they're no big deal? I realize that this is what you think; but your off-the-cuff opinion cannot be used to discount, refute, or eliminate news coverage and published opinions on a controversial issue.

Collect quote #9 "Mext you confute "would not answer other questions" which does not say why shw would not -- and I submit I, for example, would not answer a question I did not know the answer to. Yet you would fault me for saying that? Amazing! "

If you want to put this in the article, you need to track what the source says. The source says the spokesperson would not answer. It doesn't say she couldn't answer, or didn't have the answer to the question: it says she wouldn't answer. If you want to think this is somehow evidence that the issue is somehow unrelated to Palin, I can't stop you from thinking that is a logical or reasonable assumption. But let's take a look at another interview in which Palin was directly asked about the policy... found in the Frontiersman...

Question: "During your tenure as mayor in 2000, then police chief Charlie Fannon commented in a May 23, 2000 Frontiersman article about legislation Gov. Tony Knowles signed protecting victims of sexual assault from being billed for rape kits collected by police as part of their investigations. Fannon revealed then that Knowles’ decision would cost Wasilla $5,000 to $14,000 a year, insinuating that the department’s policy was to bill victims for this testing. During your tenure as Mayor, what was the police department and city’s standard operating procedure in recovering costs of rape kits? Were any sexual assault victims ever charged for this testing while you were mayor?

Response: 'The entire notion of making a victim of a crime pay for anything is crazy. I do not believe, nor have I ever believed, that rape victims should have to pay for an evidence-gathering test. As governor, I worked in a variety of ways to tackle the problem of sexual assault and rape, including making domestic violence a priority of my administration.'

There were two questions asked of her... (1) what was the policy? (2) were any victims charged? Notice how she completely dodged both questions, did not answer what the policy was, did not answer whether any victims were charged?

Collect quote #10 "And then you claim the fact I cited Tom FIRST in my post concerning editwarring here is a "snide attack" ON YOU!!! How can you manage meeting the White Queen's rules so often? Thanks! "

Your posts are full of snide attacks, and have been since I got here. Sarcasm, accusing people of being campaign operatives, accusing people of trying to insert lies into articles. Personal attacks against people for their comments or political views. Issuing warnings against people for the exact same behavior which you yourself engage in. Distorting people's words into a laughable straw man argument for you to knock down and then say you have proven them wrong, over and over, while ignoring any refutation made against you. The sentence quoted above includes a tasty tidbit of sarcasm about the "White Queen's rules". Meanwhile you sit and pretend that you are being so utterly polite and earnest. Thanks so very much for that! Thank you kindly.

*** ***

Getting back to the original topic of the discussion, Tom asked what has come out of the news coverage? (As if to imply nothing has come out of it.)

In response AGAIN, here, in a nutshell, is what has come out of the news coverage. I've made a few minor corrections and additions in response to our discussions:

(1) Palin fired the guy who had the city paying for the kits; (2) ...replaced him with the guy that started, or wanted to start, charging the victims' insurance; (3) ... whoever was in charge of the budget, presumably either Fannon or Palin, cut the funding for the budget item that had been previously used by the city to pay for th exams; (4) according to Palin's deupty mayor, Palin went through the budgets line by line and made changes to them; (5) a state law was proposed banning the practice of billing victim's insurance; (6) debate on this issue continued for months, with Fannon being a central critic of the new law, and the controversy made it into the local papers at the time, (7) Fannon complained it would have cost the city up to $14,000 a year to pay for the exams ; (8) at least one notable critic has stated his opinion on record that Palin probably knew; see the following quotes: "I can’t imagine any police chief, big city or small, who would take on the entire State Legislature on a bill that passed unanimously and not mention to their mayor that they’re doing this,” Mr. Croft said. Even if he didn’t inform her, the newspaper article would have been hard for her to miss." and also "I find it hard to believe that for six months a small town, a police chief, would lead the fight against a statewide piece of legislation receiving unanimous support and the mayor not know about it," and also "It's incomprehensible to me that this could be a rogue police chief and not a policy decision. It lasted too long and it was too high-profile," (9) a NYT opinion piece opined that even if she didn't know, she owed voters an answer on the issue, as she was asking to be elected VP and presenting her credentials as mayor of tiny Wasilla as evidence of her leadership experience; (10) a Palin spokesperson specifically addressed the issue by saying Palin had never believed rape victims should ever have to pay for an evidence gathering test, but would not answer a specific question as to whether Palin knew about the policy or not; (11) Palin herself was asked what the policy had been and whether any victims were charged, but did not answer either question; (12) another notable critic expressed his opinion on record that "If she was against charging for the rape kit, as mayor she could have made the decision not to charge for the rape kit,”

As mentioned long ago, there are all kinds of ways this could be pieced together to reach an inappropriate OR conclusion. No material I ever added to the article did anything of the sort. But, all told, the suggestion that this issue is "unrelated to Palin, goes in the Fannon bio" is quite ridiculous. And I will say again, you are simply plastering this talk page with nonsense in the hope that I will get tired of refuting it.

And I am tired. I'm taking a break from this ridiculous back and forth. I am assuming any reply you make will be no more comprehensible than your previous replies. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 19:10, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

As mentioned before, the above demonstrates the clear relevance to Palin despite her attempts to distance herself from the issue without confirming or denying that she had any knowledge of, or involvement in, this policy. Additionally, the current text in the article ought to be reverted to its previous state which was fashioned via a discussion among numerous editors on both "sides" of the issue. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 13:03, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

At least you admitt that you are on a "side" I guess that is some progress. --Tom 15:10, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

What an absolute no-AGF-attempting, finger-pointing tool. Everyone is on one "side" of the inclusion/exclusion issue or the other. You've made no attempt at any point to discuss anything, simply call everyone else an agenda-pusher. Good day to you, sir. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 01:51, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Reply to RFC Um, is this RFC still active? If so, I don't see that the entire episode has any relevancy whatsoever to Sarah Palin's biography. It was a peripheral policy to which she had no direct link, and upon questioning, opposed. Ray (talk) 03:36, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Oh course, but see the debate here...--Tom 21:33, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

It's debatable whether she said she opposed the policy. Her comments also do not discount the notable criticism, to which Palin has never directly responded. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 01:56, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Agree with RayAYang. As a threshold issue, whatever else one can say about it, the matter simply does not seem to have much importance to an encyclopedic biographical telling of Palin's life story. If it is included at all it should be cut back to a single sentence, and possibly described as a campaign issue in the 2008 election rather than as a policy act as mayor. Admittedly, I have not followed the flame fest above, or any evolving consensus on the matter, so you can discount my opinion accordingly. Wikidemon (talk) 03:46, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

BLPs are not biographical tellings of the subject's life stories.. the guidelines say this in a variety of ways. "Telling the life story" is what a specific type of published biographies are for. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 01:56, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

What is this article for then? The main article is for the broad arc of her life and career. It has child articles devoted to various subtopics. Wikidemon (talk) 06:03, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

My understanding is that it's a summary article which should largely summarize what is in the subarticles while also remaining the central repository for any material included that is simply "about her life". But the article itself is not supposed to be strictly "about her life", but rather about subjects relevant to her notability. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 20:34, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

yes, keep the kit cost in the article Brendan19 (talk) 05:57, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Seeing as a very small group of editors forced this info into the article despite the fact that it didn't belong, and that the old language was a compromise to basically get them to stop acting so petulently, I don't see the need to expand this language now. It should stay as it was after the compromise.LedRush (talk) 20:11, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Your description of events is inaccurate and frankly insulting. A very large number of editors have been in favor of inclusion. And most of the "petulant" behavior has been on the part of those who have contributed only accusations of "agenda-pushing" to the discussion. The text was compromised just as much in deference to those who wanted to omit or minimize any criticism, as it was to those who wanted to include this issue. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 20:42, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Your indignation is insulting. The compromise language discussions we had on this topic included only two people who really wanted the info included. Of course that doesn't cover the whole time of discussion, but that's where the compromise language came from. Of the two who pushed for it, despite a vast majority of people not wanting to include this info(including pro-Obama people who don't contribute to this article very much), guess which one did 95% of the arguing?LedRush (talk) 21:09, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Ledrush, don't even waste your time. This single purpose agenda pusher just keeps repeating the same old tired lies. Not much will change here it seems. --Tom 21:27, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Don't try to pretend that there aren't large numbers of people who felt this should be included based solely off the fact that I was doing most of the arguing. It's just that none of them had the stamina to combat the assiduous long-term shouting campaign mounted by those editors who have made it their 24-7 duty to polish this article as a campaign piece, to bully and abuse other editors who don't share their glowing vision of the article subject, since August 08. A large number of people asserting fiction does not make it reality. (Shall I point to the numerous non-existent policies that have been offered as a grounds for forcibly excluding this? Oh wait -- already did that twice.) Those "same tired lines" I keep repeating are policy. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 14:24, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Repeat lies over and over and over and over and over and eventually it becomes the "truth"?? Pretty sad. --Tom 14:40, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Hello, no-AGF-attempting, agenda-pushing troll. Calling someone a liar over and over and over again doesn't make them a liar, and doesn't make what they say false. PS, when condemning "lies" repeatedly, it would make sense just once to try to give an explanation of which statement you think are "lies", and to give some substantive basis for why you think that. It also helps if you have even a hint of a rebuttal to what the other person has said. On the other hand, if there is no substance or basis for what you are saying, your best bet is probably to stick with the vacuous rhetoric and insults, call the other guy a liar, etc. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 18:04, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

I am glad to see that you take your own advice if there is no substance or basis for what you are saying, your best bet is probably to stick with the vacuous rhetoric and insults...typical, sad, but typical...--Tom 18:17, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

There's plenty of substance and basis for what I'm saying. For example, see this very same thread. I just figured I would go tit for tat with you on insults since it seems to be the only language you speak. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 18:33, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Well it seems that there are about 3 editors who want expanded language and about 6 or 7 who want the old compromise language or the complete removal of the section. This is from a quick eyeballing, so excuse me if I've miscounted/misrepresented.LedRush (talk) 18:56, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Protection

"This protection is not an endorsement of the current version." Well, I guess the Emperor isn't not wearing any clothes, because their arse is covered. That would be the Royal 'their'. Anarchangel (talk) 02:07, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
3 minutes, it took Helpful, to make (edit)and revert(edit) two typos and decide that Sarah Palin was a disaster area of excessive edit-warring.
Requests for page protection
last edit and protection.Anarchangel (talk) 02:14, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
How ironic that an indirect analogy between the preservation of the deletion of material and denying the nakedness of the Emperor should be then covered up by deleting it. You don't see criticism of decisions made regarding the article as contributing to it, Halfshadow, but that isn't really news to me. I have seen many people say that criticism is not constructive, and I doubt that I shall be stopping any time soon. Anarchangel (talk) 03:57, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Please restore material that existed in the article for 12 days, and was reverted at the last minute. Is this not the intended outcome in extremis of WP:3RR? That the original remain? Should we ask less of a full page protection? I think not. Anarchangel (talk) 03:57, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like they protected the wrong version. See WP:WRONG. Dman727 (talk) 05:14, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Request denied. Protection is *not* to get your favourite version there. It is to make the edit warriors wake up and realise they need to talk sense William M. Connolley (talk) 09:18, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Edit protection got the edit warriors their favorite version up there. It got the contributors whose version had stood for weeks, their version deleted. My favorite version is entirely irrelevant to the subject of the good of the article, and I would ask you to assume good faith. Please restore. Anarchangel (talk) 15:27, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

More of the pot calling the kettle black? --Tom 15:35, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't think I will count the unfounded accusations. Busy busy. Anarchangel (talk) 21:40, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Yeah. Good luck with that. Seriously. --Evb-wiki (talk) 14:34, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

[outdent] Please see WP:SUMMARY. Where Charles Fannon is mentioned in this article, it links to Mayoralty of Sarah Palin#Police matters. The "rape kit" stuff is covered there in more than enough detail. It doesn't need to be repeated here. Not only is it really not relevant to Palin's biography, it carries undue weight here. --Evb-wiki (talk) 14:48, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. --Tom 15:22, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Subjective judgement of weight without evidence. The story was covered extensively, we have been through all this before. I will be counting the number of times I have to repeat that from now on. Anarchangel (talk) 15:32, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, and it's covered extensively at Mayoralty of Sarah Palin#Police matters. Again, please see WP:SUMMARY. --Evb-wiki (talk) 15:34, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Per WP:BLP "Content should be sourced to reliable sources and should be about the subject of the article specifically. Beware of claims that rely on guilt by association." The disputed paragraph can be abstracted as "Palin appointed Fannon and Fannon did X." There is no assertion that Palin did X, approved X or even knew about X at the time. I don't think that tenuous a connection meets the quoted standard no matter how widely reported. Note that under BLP the material must stay out of the article until there is an acceptable justification for its inclusion.--agr (talk) 16:06, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

I refer you to rebuttals 1-9 above. Anarchangel (talk) 21:40, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Also from BLP: "In the case of significant public figures, there will be a multitude of reliable, third-party published sources to take material from, and Wikipedia biographies should simply document what these sources say. If an allegation or incident is notable, relevant, and well-documented by reliable published sources, it belongs in the article — even if it's negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it. If it is not documented by reliable third-party sources, leave it out."

Like it or not, there are numerous sources and some notable critics on record connecting the issue to Palin, either by saying that she probably knew about the policy, or that she should have known. As noted in the sources, she signed the budget that cut funding paying for the rape kits, and that she reviewed these budget items line by line. This is on top of the fact that she fired the police chief who had the city pay for rape kits, and replaced him with a police chief who wanted to bill it to victims' insurance. Palin herself had the chance to deny knowledge of, or involvement in this incident, but did not. As noted in one source, her spokesperson would not answer whether she had known about the policy or not. Hiding from an issue rather than addressing it doesn't make it irrelevant.

Notice, no one is trying to say Palin "hates rape victims" or anything of the sort. My original edit on this subject gave prominent position to the Palin spokesperson's observation that this was primarily a budget dispute. But the whole idea that this could have somehow "flown under her radar", despite the fact that Wasilla is a tiny town, and despite the fact that this was a statewide debate that was featured in the local newspapers, is not only highly unlikely, but no one representing the governor has even suggested that she didn't know about it, even when specifically prompted to do so and put in a position where denying knowledge of it would have put the issue to rest.

The issue of WP:Weight only comes into play if we represent the critics' allegations or opinions as somehow being widely held or definitive. If the opinions are clearly attributed to the people who made them, and the presentation is brief, then there is no undue weight being imparted. And WP:Summary, meanwhile, would require that we summarize here any details from the sub articles. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 17:35, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

We should not include in the biography of a candidate every allegation published in a major newspaper during a hotly contested national political campaign. The disputed paragraph in its recent form does not even make an allegation, sourced or otherwise, that connects Palin with this matter. It does not meet the specificity test quoted above. --agr (talk) 18:53, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

You overstate your case. This is one story. And look in the History, so you have something relevant to speak of. The current inclusion is what I would delete, and what was deleted is what I would include. The deleted form was in the article since Nov 4th. Anarchangel (talk) 21:40, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Exclusion of the allegation was just a concession made as part of the compromise according to which some editors dropped their objections against inclusion. It has always been my opinion that the allegation was central to the issue and its relevance to Palin. Anyway, the rape kit controversy is not just any allegation; it was featured rather prominently. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 19:00, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

The "prominence" was campaign pamphleteering at its worst. Collect (talk) 23:26, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Could you explain what you mean in a bit more detail? I'm going to assume it's something along the lines of "it's untrue, it's all lies, she never knew and would have stopped it if she had". 72.91.198.209 (talk) 04:19, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

I am not one to iterate a few hundred lines, but my statements are clear, and generally succinct. As an example, try asking the mayor of your town what the public library policies are for books more than 5 years overdue. 10 to 1 he will not have the foggiest idea. Yet that sort of detailed policy knowledge is being asserted by people who are primarily interested in, among other things, referring to Palin as "Saint Sarah" or "Mother Sarah" in an effort to disparage her. Such a position is, in truth, "campaign pamphleteering." Collect (talk) 14:33, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Many of your statements are utter nonsense, as demonstrated above ("supra", as you seem to prefer). For example, your mentioning of Palin allegedly not knowing about the controversial new rape kit policy implemented by her newly appointed police chief, which was then made illegal by a state law, with the chief being prominently featured in a newspaper article expressing his opposition to the new law, and your attempt to equate that issue with the idea of any mayor in any size city not knowing about a policy on library fines, is patently ridiculous.

"Campaign pamphleteering", though it is vacuous rhetoric that serves no constructive purpose in this discussion, would be more truthfully applied to your own attempts to insist on excluding sourced material about the notable and relevant rape kit controversy. And as for "iterating" a few hundred lines (incorre it may only take a few lines for you to state some nonsense or distort or ignore what I've been saying, but it takes much more than that to exhaustively debunk what you've said. Being concise is only a virtue when you are saying pertinent, logical things. Being concise in stating nonsense is no virtue whatever. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 20:38, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Creationist?

I'm sure I read somewhere that she is a creationist, but I can't seem to find any links to back this up (and thus add to the 'Creationists' category). Can anyone clear this up?The flying pasty (talk) 15:58, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

She almost certainly is, but I have been too busy to get even a stable Fannon inclusion. And unfortunately the evidence comes from only one person, who writes one of those blog things that we cannot cite, quote, or paraphrase.Munger in LA Times Shame, because they can't all be wrong. Anarchangel (talk) 21:40, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Ascribing positions to people without a single reliable source is rumor-mongering and has no place in WP. And is contentious conjecture at its worst. Collect (talk) 23:24, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Writegeist was correct, Tom. My comments towards Anarchangel were out-of-line. I was frustrated. I don't recall I've ever dealt with someone so intent on maligning another person on the sparsest of evidence. I will address the issues directly rather than the editor in the future. Fcreid (talk) 23:07, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Saying that she is a creationist and therefore (for example, to illustrate the point) a moron would be to malign her. Merely saying she's a creationist is neutral and innocuous. You are not dealing with someone "intent on maligning another person". And claiming that you are is hardly "addressing the issues rather than the editor." (Well OK, to be fair you did say you were keeping that for some time in the future.) The flying pasty and Anarchangel make an interesting and relevant point. Several RSs, in fact, have referred to Mother Sarah of Wasilla as a creationist. Whether as a young-earth creationist I can't remember. When I have time I'll rummage through my files on Alaskan saints. — Writegeist (talk) 08:09, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Okay, on this issue, even if we are to believe Munger's account of his alleged one-on-one discussions with Palin, then she still is not a Young Earth Creationist. Apparently, few read to the end of the page. What's more interesting is that this revelation by Munger, a music teacher in Anchorage, comes on the heels of a widely circulated email hoax less than a week earlier. Is it possible Munger merely hoped to bask in the reflected glory of this hoaxer? More importantly, it utterly disregards multiple accounts (from friends and detractors) who state Palin simply doesn't wear her religious beliefs on her sleeve. And, yes, it is clearly an attempt to ridicule this person based on her religious beliefs and paint her as unsuitable for public service because of them. Frankly, it's an attack on anyone with Christian beliefs (or maybe any beliefs). Finally, for Anarchangel to drop in to this topic and state she almost certainly is without any thought behind that clearly indicates an agenda, and that presumption has been reinforced by his edit history here. Fcreid (talk) 10:06, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

As an aside, don't you also find it telling that some people (and even some reliable sources) would takeaway from Munger's blog Palin's Christian beliefs to use as a basis for ridicule, but completely omit Munger's statement, "At that time, I remembered her, because she seemed to be the only person on the commission who had actually read our proposal." Instead, these same people and sources would later lunge upon Palin's every out-of-context verbal misstep during the VP campaign to paint her as an incompetent idiot on top of being a loony religious nut. So, no, I'm not impressed by the aspirations of neutrality in storytelling, either in this article or in the press. Fcreid (talk) 11:24, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

And also note that almost every Christian church uses the Apostles Creed and Nicene Creed. Which means every one attending any of those churches can be called a "creationist." Collect (talk) 12:40, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Dealing with a world apparently bent on ridiculing Palin for her religious beliefs has undoubtedly been the most frustrating aspect of the past few months for me. The beliefs she holds as integral to her faith (whether those complement or fly in the face of science) are irrelevant to her qualifications for public office, any more than her gender, skin color or sexual orientation. What frustrates me most is that this ridicule is coming from many individuals whom I suspect would never judge a person based on such attributes, yet they throw all of those principles overboard to attack her religious beliefs for political gain. The entire concept runs contrary to the principles of democracy (and the fundamental reasons we founded this nation in the first place!) Fcreid (talk) 13:02, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

The religious beliefs of presidents and presidential candidates have always been important. There is no principle of democracy that says the religion of a politician is immaterial. Religious beliefs are certainly relevant to a biography. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:48, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

And don't we cover that adequately with her own words that she is a "Bible-believing Christian"? Or do we need to define exactly what that means? Fcreid (talk) 20:54, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

The weight and detail we give to the topic should be more or less depedendent on the weight which she gives to it, which the media or other sources give to it, and which is required to properly explain it. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:02, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

If I understand your position correctly, then it's of little interest to this article as we have evidence from multiple sources that she doesn't openly discuss religious topics (outside of church), and she's apparently not proselytizing anyone. In addition, and more importantly, her governance don't reflect out-of-mainstream religious beliefs, e.g. she advocates teaching contraception in school, suggested creationism only be discussed incidentally and not be a requirement of school curricula, etc. In other words, a "Bible-believing Christian" seems to cover that well. The problem I've had for weeks is that many people associate (and confuse) conservative principles with religious philosophy, and that just doesn't scale to measure an individual. Fcreid (talk) 21:15, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

So far as I'm aware, Pope Benedict only discusses religion in church, but that doesn't mean his views are unimportant to his biography. If I'm not mistaken, Palin has made comments about political issues in church, so the line is blurred. I have no idea what "Bible-believing Christian" means exactly, or how it would differentiate a Baptist from a Mormon. I don't think that, by itself, it's a very informative phrase. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:26, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't believe it's the job of this article to recapitulate the Bible or to differentiate among the various adherents. It is also already in the article that she was raised Catholic, attended the Pentacostal Wasilla Assembly of God church and, most recently, shifted to a non-denominational Wasilla church (and, I believe, all are Wiki-linked). I think we've covered religion quite enough here that if someone is interested in the discrete beliefs of any, they'll find their way there. Fcreid (talk) 21:31, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

"Catholic" and "Pentecostal" refer to speciic beliefs. "Non-denomination" doesn't, and so may require more explication. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:44, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Given that, you would also then support that the Obama article describe, in detail, what beliefs are espoused within his church? Fcreid (talk) 22:19, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Huh? What does Obama's article have to do with thi article? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:23, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Nothing directly, other than the two are comparable public figures in national political roles, and I think the editors at Obama have done an admirable job of keeping out the never-ending attempts to place undue weight on his religious affiliation. It brings us full circle to what I said before you joined, in that several editors here have attempted to define Palin by her religion(s) rather than illustrate how they impact her personally or in governance. This topic on creationism is par for that course. Some editors deride the concept of creationism, and they are therefore intent on including it (in order to elicit a desired effect in the reader). Personally, other people's religious beliefs are like their children--far more attractive to them than the world--and there's no reason why either needs to be a main focus of their WP biography. Fcreid (talk) 22:37, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Governor of Alaska and President-elect of the U.S. are very different political roles. Let's just focus on this article, and leave the discussion of the Obama article to that talk page. I don't think that Palin's religious beliefs should be the main focus of this article, but I don't think they ever have been so that's a straw man. This thread appears to concern whether Palin has ever proposed introducing a religious concept, creationism, into public education. Since that doesn't appear to have been a major issue, it can be covered briefly. However since it has been an issue it should be mentioned, at least briefly. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:46, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely agree, and that is exactly what is already in the article. In a 2006 gubernatorial debate, responding to a question asking the candidates whether they would support teaching creationism in public schools, Palin stated that she supported teaching both creationism and evolution. Shortly after that debate, however, Palin said in an interview that she had only meant to say she supports allowing the discussion of creationism in public schools, but says it does not have to be part of the curriculum.[178] Fcreid (talk) 22:49, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

FWIW, not only did she make that statement on creationism in schools, she also supported the Republican platform that said, "We support giving Creation Science equal representation with other theories of the origin of life. If evolution is taught, it should be presented as only a theory." The issue was relevant to the race because the governor appoints members of the state school board. This is at least one area where a religious issue was dealt with outside of church, not just by Palin but by the entire state party. (Though I suppose some might argue that creationism has nothing to do with religion). ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:50, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Acknowledged, although I haven't researched the source or background on that. Given that we have her own words (versus those of the Alaskan Republican Party) on how she views teaching of creationism in school, I'd suggest it would be inappropriate to reinterpret those and ascribe specific platforms from the state party in which she is a member. (I'm not familiar enough with that party's platform to know whether it's significant to an article on them or not.) Fcreid (talk) 01:04, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

<-- She's not just a "member" of the Alaskan Republican Party - she was (and is) their top politician who ran for governor on their platform which she specifically endorsed. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:47, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Do you have quotes from Palin that describe her position on creationism in a different way than those quotes we already have in the article or, again, is it the party's platform? (In a two-party world, it's no surprise she would embrace one side or the other.) Perhaps there are examples during her governorship where she's attempted to inject either individuals or legislation that would have steered education towards that end? Fcreid (talk) 01:56, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

The source I'm looking at is the source of the quotations now in the article. I do't see anything more in it that we need to add on the matter, but I don't think we should delete anything already in the article either. The long quote fom the debate is:

"Teach both. You know, don't be afraid of information. "Healthy debate is so important and it's so valuable in our schools. I am a proponent of teaching both. And you know, I say this too as the daughter of a science teacher. Growing up with being so privileged and blessed to be given a lot of information on, on both sides of the subject -- creationism and evolution. It's been a healthy foundation for me. But don't be afraid of information and let kids debate both sides."

I'm not sure where she backtracked from this statement. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 02:32, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't have the link handy, but the day after that debate, Palin gave an interview in which she said she had only meant that discussion should be allowed, but that she didn't think creationism had to be part of the curriculum. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 04:44, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Here's what the Christian Science Monitor wrote on the occasion of her election:

She is a self-described "hard-core conservative" who opposes abortion and gay marriage, looks favorably on teaching creationism in public schools, and considers the Republican platform "the right agenda for Alaska."

That's where she specifically endorses the Republican Party platform. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 02:43, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Most of that exact quote is already in the article. As an aside, wouldn't you find it odd if she didn't consider the Republican platform the "right agenda"? :) Fcreid (talk) 02:55, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Be that as it may, if a politician says in different ways that they support a certain policy then it becomes increasingly hard for us to say that they don't support it. Palin both said directly that she supported the teaching of creationism in school, and did so indirectly by endorsing the Republican Party platform which called for the same thing. So those are sufficient to support the inclusion of that material here. Whether she does so for a religious or scientific reason ultimately doesn't matter, and we can't say that if it's religious it's off-limits. Likewise with similar topics like abortion, school prayer, tax exemptions for churches or any other matter that affects public policy. She may only speak about religion in church, but she talks about these issues in public. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:57, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

We may be off on different tangents on this topic, Will. No one is suggesting that any of the current, reliably sourced material be removed from the article. This includes summaries of her known positions with respect to teaching creationism, abortion and other areas (and, where known, where she has based such positions on religious beliefs). If you feel those aren't inclusive enough for this summary article, all contributions are welcome. On the other hand, and I believe this was the genesis for this topic, Palin's position on Young Earth Creationism, dinosaurs being Jesus Ponies and the like have no sound source that we've found. That is the only material I and others feel is inadequately sourced to include here. Fcreid (talk) 12:15, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

I've heard that she wasn't in favor of pushing creationism in public schools. Andjam (talk) 14:35, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, she did suggest in a debate that creationism should be taught in public schools. She quickly backpedaled from this the next day, and said creationism should be allowed to be discussed in schools. It's a fair argument that no non-creationists think creationism should be taught or discussed in public schools, since nobody outside the religious sphere that believes in creationism takes it seriously as either a philosophy or a science that should be taught at all. Furthermore, it's a fair argument that allowing creationism to be discussed in a science class would be a completely unacceptable mingling of science and religion.

However, the only facts or analyses that we have a sources on, and the only things that should ever go into this article, if at all, were the comment in the debate saying creationism should be taught in schools, and then the revision/caveat that she only meant it should be allowed to be discussed. It's clear to me that she's a creationist, but I've seen no source on this whatsoever. Oh, except Munger. And I'm inclined to believe him, but he's absolutely radioactive as a source so I wouldn't recommend citing that LA times article, especially as it is not further supported by any other source. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 19:22, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Not sure why you would assume she's a creationist and go on to state you know of no source for that. For what it's worth, Munger's account (the only one in existence that even addresses this topic) differs with you. You'll note in his blog entry that as of 2003, She was no longer "necessarily" a young earth creationist, she told me. As far as her possibly believing in creation on any scale, my gut personally tells me it's actually the only logical scientific explanation for the existence of time, space and matter as I understand them, but we digress. Fcreid (talk) 22:16, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, if anyone running for Governor was at a debate and suggested that "The Watchtower" should be taught in public schools, I would assume that person is a Jehovah's Witness even if they have never been quoted as saying so. Same for expecting that a person who suggests teaching creationism, is actually a creationist. It's not exactly a huge leap to a conclusion, and seems like a pretty reasonable assumption to me. Would you grant me that? But again, it doesn't go anywhere in Wikipedia without a good source, and even with a source it would have to be appropriately contextualized. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 22:35, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Granted. I think it's fair to speculate the vast majority of Christians (and quite a few non-Christians) believe in some form of creationism. I think this topic was really dealing with the Young Earth Creationism concept though. Really, I suspect the whole question is how literally does Palin take the Bible, and beyond that she hasn't given us any clear insight into that, I just sense it really isn't our business to define here. Fcreid (talk) 22:45, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Ron Numbers, widely respected in the groves of Academe for his, er, numerous forays into the history and beliefs of creationism (they actually make quite fun reading if you don’t live in an area where the contagion has taken hold), has this to say on the legitimacy of concern about SP’s beliefs, given the context of her limitless political ambitions:

"But we have every right as voters to express concern about a Pentecostal being in charge of protecting the environment (think James Watt, President Reagan’s Secretary of the Interior) who believes that we are living in the Last Days before the total destruction of that environment; or, say, a Christian Scientist, who denies the efficacy of modern medicine, being appointed Secretary of Health and Human Services. In such instances, examining the religious beliefs of political candidates is not bigotry." [1]

Equally succinct is his differentiation between creationism of the common-or-garden, mildly batty ID variety and the more extreme, bull-goose loony strain peddled by the ~~flat~~ young-earthers:

"During her campaign for governor, Palin endorsed the teaching of intelligent design (ID), a more recent variant of anti-evolutionism. It’s unclear from her public statements just what she knows about ID except that it’s not evolution. Most of the leading advocates of ID have little use for Bible-based arguments such as those associated with young-earth creationism; their primary goal is to overthrow the centuries-old ban on supernatural explanations in science and to "reclaim science in the name of God" [2] by allowing appeals to the supernatural to count as legitimate science." — Writegeist (talk) 01:13, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Palin has stated she doesn't consider herself Pentecostal (probably "any longer consider" would have been an accurate caveat), so Numbers' concerns may be misplaced on the "Last Days" stuff. It's not clear why she parted ways with the WAoG eight years ago, and I just don't know enough about the Pentecostal belief system (or hers) to speculate. I applaud his well-stated distinction between ID and YEC, as it reflects the reality that many (most?) religions tend not to evolve to embrace science, but recognizes that science can never explain everything (and, in fact, creation may be the most convenient means of explaining our origin without negating virtually every other scientific principle hold true!) Anyway, that type of philosophical discussion certainly does no harm to a school curriculum by the critical thought it elicits. Fcreid (talk) 01:35, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

My personal feeling is that it's a subject that's a little too sophisticated for the average teenager who's still learning the RRR's and the basic underpinnings of science. Same with most philosophy (again, in my opinion). Overall, the central problem is the danger that kids will be taught (or will get the idea on their own) that creationist or ID ideas would somehow contradict or trump the observable sciences that we've come up with. It's important to understand that ID/creationism are altogether different from sciences, even if both seek to explain our observations. I just think that's beyond the average teenager, and that it's better to err on the side of postponing the discussion until they're a little more mature rather than risking a curriculum that engenders confusion and misconception. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 04:44, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

You're right for both science and philosophy, although there is a school of thought that maintains we don't challenge our kids enough to think critically in school. We should expect science teachers to explain that, while the fossil record lacks absolute cohesiveness to demonstrate macro-evolution of every extant species, the evidence supporting evolutionary theory is sound, demonstrable and irrefutable. If that runs counter to what the child learns in Sunday School, so be it. Private schools are an option for parents who feel they must shield a child from science. In the non-science academic environs, we could introduce philosophical discussions on how religions treat such voids in science, today and throughout history. We could also introduce kids to the diversity in world religions through a comparative religions course. Religious intolerance is born of ignorance, and religions aren't going anywhere soon, so we should therefore educate our kids on the customs, rites and unique beliefs to each. The tough nut (whether in science or philosophy) is the how did it all begin? question. Even adolescent curiosity and imagination can generate significant introspection on that topic, and that becomes even more critical as one learns more through life. Anyway, above all, the key is that no child will be proselytized in our public education system by being taught to acknowledge the existence of a specific "Christian" or other god. In contrast, I would not object to teaching some agreed upon curriculum of abstract and concrete concepts of human interaction and acceptable behaviors. Judging by the state of affairs, our kids could use a little guidance to augment what's lacking in the home. Fcreid (talk) 05:21, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

I strongly feel that Obama was correct in declaring Palin's religious opinions to be off-limits.Jimmuldrow (talk) 06:25, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

In the context of allegations that he supported his preacher. Palin has not, to my knowledge, made such strenuous efforts to disassociate herself from her witch doctor. It is perhaps the nature of their associations with their religious figures that there is a great deal of evidence that Obama's rabble rousing days are over, whereas we can't tell if Palin's faith in spirits was genuine to begin with, let alone whether it has lapsed. Her stated opinions, however, are very much an issue, as they are for Mitt Romney. Anarchangel (talk) 16:10, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Above "Palin both said directly that she supported the teaching of creationism in school, and did so indirectly by endorsing the Republican Party platform which called for the same thing." is absolutely wrong. It asserts that something is in the GOP Platform which is not there, and asserts that Palin backed what was not even in the platform! <g> It is bad enough to ascribe beliefs which are not stated by a person, but to ascribe support for something which does not exist is quite unfair. Meanwhile, every church which uses the Nicene Creed or Apostles Creed is "creationist" if you wish to parse language. Makes that a bit over 95% of all Christians. Collect (talk) 14:43, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

'Maker of heaven and earth' does not require of God a seven day work schedule, molding pairs of species from scratch, etc. Many (and I am not one of them, I hasten to add), believe that God created the Universe, thereby avoiding much fiddly micromanagement; an infinite supply of materials well suited to the task, not an infinity of building projects. I can only speculate, but potentially there is one variation of Creation for each person that believes in it. All are ultimately separate from the blanket term 'Creationist', but some definitely more than others. Source for the 95%? Anarchangel (talk) 16:43, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

The rationale is exactly that of those who say Palin must believe in every tenet of the pentacostal churches. Clarely there are borad ranges of opinion, and to assert that Palin has an opinion which she has not stated is clearly wrong. Collect (talk) 22:40, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

You missed my point. 'Maker of Heaven and Earth" is from the Nicene Creed. Still waiting for the 95% cite.Anarchangel (talk) 17:56, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

I think it's a little silly to imply that anyone who attends a church that uses the Nicene Creed in services actually believes in creationism. This is a bit like saying anyone who attends Catholic mass believes in transsubstantiation. Also, you said that the Republican party platform doesn't include support for teaching creationism, but in making that statement, it seems you are completely ignoring the reference by Fcreid that the Republicans' "2008 Alaska GOP Platform" specifically says, "We support teaching various models and theories for the origins of life and our universe, including Creation Science or Intelligent Design. If evolution outside a species (macro-evolution) is taught, evidence disputing the theory should also be presented. " Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 21:00, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

As you ought to have noted above where I dealt with the "Alaska platform", I count "Republican Party Platform" as indicating thr national platform, not fifty-off platforms. And since I have no source saying Palin had anything directly to do with the Alaska platform, I have no idea about her positions on its wording. And I suggest you tell your parish priest that Catholics do not believe in transsubstantiation. Collect (talk) 22:45, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Will was talking about the Alaska GOP platform, and mentioned that it supports teaching of creationism. You made a comment about that you don't think the national GOP platform includes support for teaching creationism, and then claimed on that basis that Will was wrong. But he wasn't. He was talking about the Alaskan GOP platform, which does include support for teaching creationism. Just because you weren't talking about the Alaska GOP doesn't mean nobody else was. And, for whatever it may be worth to you (probably nothing) there are plenty of people who take Palin's original words at the debate -- directly supporting the teaching of creationism -- at face value, and see her "clarification" the next day as plain old backpedaling and political equivocation after realizing she had taken a firm stand on a completely radioactive issue.

And what the heck kind of arrogant comment is "read the posts, and do not comment on editors in edit summaries"?? I did read the posts, and I was commenting on your comment, not YOU. My edit summary was a summary of my edit -- exactly the purpose of edit summaries. Please do not bark presumptuous orders at me, especially when you have no basis or authority to do so. And if there is some rule saying an editor's name may not appear in an edit summary, please point that out to me. I suspect no such rule exists or is even hinted at. Anyway, we've had this discussion before in situations where you have attempted to convince or force other editors to abide by your distorted versions of policies.

And finally, in response to your last comment, I'll advise you to go find a Catholic who doesn't believe in transsubstantiation and tell him that he really believes in transsubstantiation just because he attends mass and reads along with the service. I bet he will be surprised that someone else knows better that he does about his own beliefs! Anyway, I never said "Catholics don't believe in transubstantiation", anyway, I said not all Catholics believe in transubstantiation just because they attend mass. The original point I was making is that it's ridiculous to suggest that everyone who goes to church takes a literal belief in every word that appears in the service. And it is ridiculous. In your wonderfully peculiar way, you have once again ignored the actual point and come up with a ludicrously flawed counterexample, all in one fell swoop. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 00:42, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Dear unsigned. My post supra was addressed to a person who wrote of the "Republican PArty Platform. Did that elide your notice? As for edit summaries -- putting names in an edit summary would indicate to most people that that person was the target of the summary. Did you not notice that possibility? Try WP:AGF, WP:Edit Summaries ("Avoid using edit summaries to carry on debates or negotiation over the content or to express opinions of the other users involved. This creates an atmosphere where the only way to carry on discussion is to revert other editors! Instead, place such comments, if required, on the talk page. This keeps discussions and debates away from the article page itself.") Edit summaries have been found important in arbitration rulings. See also WP:CIVIL "This policy applies to all editing on Wikipedia, including user pages, talk pages, edit summaries, and any other discussion with or about fellow Wikipedians."

and so on. And if "not all" catholics believe something which is a dogma of their religion, why should a formet pentacostalist be ascribed all the beliefs of that religion? Seems that your precise argument is that she should NOT be ascribed all those beliefs. Thank you most kindly. Collect (talk) 23:35, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

No, thank you, for the succinct disproving of your own argument, in the second to last sentence. It was your contention that because "every church which uses the Nicene Creed or Apostles Creed is "creationist"(sic, use of double quotes)" 'in that sense'. Then you say, "And if "not all" catholics believe something which is a dogma of their religion, why should a formet(sic) pentacostalist be ascribed all the beliefs of that religion?", whereupon your argument concerning the Nicene creed dissolves; the Nicene Creed is there because not all members of a religion ascribe to themselves all elements of their religion. We have never required of her that she have all the beliefs in order for her beliefs to be discussed in the article. Since both of your arguments have now vanished in a puff of logic, I suggest whoever it was get on with including whatever it was. Anarchangel (talk) 17:56, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

(outdent)I am absolutely awestruck that you can sit there with a straight face and pretend, just because I forgot to sign my comment, that you did not know it was me, despite that I was responding directly to you in several specific ways, including the comment in the edit summary directed directly at me. Your post "supra" completely ignored the fact that Will was talking about the Alaska GOP platform, made a mistaken assumption that he was talking about something else, and then made a mistaken conclusion based what he would have meant if he had been referring to what YOU were referring to. As I pointed out, he was talking about the Alaska GOP platform, which expressly supports teaching creationism, and you then turned around and said Noooo, the nationwide GOP platform says no such thing! As I have repeatedly documented in our "discussion" above, you seem to enjoy taking somebody's words, twisting them around or substituting different meanings than the ones the speaker obviously and correctly intended, then refute the resulting bit of nonsense that nobody ever said, and pretend that it was what the original person said and that you have thereby refuted them. This is ridiculous, abusive, and is no attempt at honest discussion.

Saying you were the "target" of the edit summary is just a ridiculous attempt to make yourself out as the victim of some "personal attack" -- exactly the impression you were trying to give by saying "do not comment on editors in edit summaries". It was obviously not a personal attack, was obviously a reference to your comment, not your person, and was obviously a response to your comment -- yet you try to make it looks like I was breaking some cardinal rule that everybody knows about. And you then turn around saying "Try WP:AGF!" How absolutely preposterous! Thanks for actually citing the rule that "I broke"... I'll add that you yourself routinely make comments about the discussion in the edit summaries, so it's pot/kettle to suddenly jump on me for doing so. On top of that, I am perpetually amazed how you are willing to ignore or distort core policies, but make every effort to find quibbling little details, which are completely unrelated to the discussion, with which to assail your "debate opponents", meanwhile completely ignoring the substance of what they are saying. Your motto seems to be "If the facts are on your side, you argue the facts. If the law is on your side, you argue the law. If neither is on your side, you attack your opponent's character and credibility."

I'll now quote you directly to give yet another example of the way you deliberately twist and distort discussion:

"And if "not all" catholics believe something which is a dogma of their religion, why should a formet pentacostalist be ascribed all the beliefs of that religion? Seems that your precise argument is that she should NOT be ascribed all those beliefs. "

I never said that a former pentecostalist should be ascribed all the beliefs of that religion. So, it seems clear to me, you have once again deliberately mounted a complete nonsense argument -- that all Catholics believe in transsubstantiation, which you now seem to admit is nonsense -- in order to refute somebody else's position other than mine. You say "thank you most kindly" in almost every post yet you make every effort and take every opportunity to behave in the most insulting and intellectually dishonest manner possible. Now scurry away and find an admin to ban me for making comments in edit summaries, because you sure as heck can't make a coherent argument, or hold an honest discussion, or at any rate you make no attempt to. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 00:42, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

First you are right. Length alone distinguishes your posts. Second, someone asserted that Palin had toi be a "creationist" because she had been a {entacostalist. I pointed out that ascribing all the beliefs of a group to a member of the group is wrong, as you kindly agreed. BTW, there is a difference between making personal comments about an editor in an edit summary and SUMMARIZING the nature of your edits. :ast I looked, that was the reason why edit summaries exist. Collect (talk) 11:30, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Your absolute lack of intellectual honesty is shameless. You simply don't know when to quit. I didn't say length alone distinguishes my posts; I said my posts have to be long because it takes more space to exhaustively debunk the nonsense you post, than it does for you to post the nonsense. And as directly noted above, and as was obvious in the first place, my edit summary was not a personal comment about you -- it was a summary of my edit, which was a refutation of your own comment, and included your name only to refer to the editor whose comment was refuted. And on top of that, you routinely and regularly post comments, even comments directed at other editors, in your edit summaries, so it's profoundly dishonest for you to jump on me and self-righteously criticize me for doing the same just because I'm showing your arguments to be nonsense and that ticks you off. And all of your discussion leading up to the point where I "kindly agreed" about Pentecostalists not all believing the same things was utterly ridiculous... saying Will was wrong about the GOP platform, saying all people who recite the Nicene creed are creationists, saying all Catholics believe in transsubstantiation, etc. You seem to have a penchant for making ridiculous, nonsensical arguments, then attacking your opponent once he exposes this total lack of sense or logic in what you post. For about the twentieth time, that is not honest discussion -- it's abuse of your talk page posting priveleges. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 15:48, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

The Alaskan Republican Party specifically mentions in their credo, "We support teaching various models and theories for the origins of life and our universe, including Creation Science or Intelligent Design. If evolution outside a species (macro-evolution) is taught, evidence disputing the theory should also be presented." Again, I don't believe that's necessarily unhealthy debate in any school. Fcreid (talk) 14:48, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Which is still not the "Republican Party Platform" as most people would use the term. Nor does it make the Alaska party stance into what was claimed. Schools currently teach directly or indirectly a great deal about world religions. Collect (talk) 15:12, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand your point, Collect. Are you saying that Palin didn't support the Alaskan Republican Party platform, that the platform doesn't mention Creationism, or what? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:42, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

I have no idea whether she was involved in any way eith the Alaska platform. And I have seen nothing to indicate she had anything to do with it, so I would not ascribe any position on it to her. The comment I made was about what people call the "Republican PArty Platform" which generally refers to the national platform, and not to fifty-odd state platforms. Collect (talk) 22:40, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

When Palin ran for governor it was on the Alaska Republican Party platform. She is quoted as having specifically endorsed that platform, which called for discussing creationism in schools. You said my sentence above was "absolutely wrong", but I don't see what was wrong about it. Was it your mistake or mine? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:57, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

The Alaska party platform is rewritten at each state convention. Do you have a copy of the older Alaska platform, or just the latest one from 2008, which I have found no cite indicating she had any involvement in. And againmwhen someone refers to the "Republican Party Platform, it is generally understood to mean the national platform, and not the concatenation of fifty-off platforms. Collect (talk) 23:03, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, it'd be more helpful to ask before saying that something is "absolutely wrong". I wasn't referring to a "concatenation of fifty-off platforms", I was referring to the platform she ran on, and endorsed, in 2006. That platform can be found here: [3] It says, "We support giving Creation Science equal representation with other theories of the origin of life. If evolution is taught, it should be presented as only a theory." Do you still assert that what I wrote was "absolutely wrong"? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:16, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Try as I might, I can not find any Palin on the committee list (the writers of the platform). Seems to me that she had quite marginal contact with the platform at most. Collect (talk) 23:40, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

No one has asserted that Palin was on the platform committee, so far as I'm aware. The assertion, by the Christian Science Monitor, was that she specifically endorsed the platform. You said that I was "absolutely wrong". Please tell me what I wrote that was wrong. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:57, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

I already addressed the difference between the NATIONAL platform, on which OPalin ran this year, and the ALASKA platform, and my reading of a post referring to the "Pepublican Platform as (in normal usage) referring to the national one. After the last few hundred lines, is this not sufficiently clear? Collect (talk) 11:30, 1 December 2008 (UTC).

What's clear is that Will was pointing out that the Alaskan Republican Party platform expressly supports teaching creationism, you turned around and said he's "absolutely wrong" because the nationwide GOP platform doesn't include similar language, Will clarified that he was talking about the Alaska GOP platform and asked why you insisted that he was "absolutely wrong", and now you are dodging the issue because you have been shown to be wrong and refuse to admit it. Is this sufficiently clear after the last few hundred lines? Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 16:05, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

What is clear is that the exact quote "Palin both said directly that she supported the teaching of creationism in school, and did so indirectly by endorsing the Republican Party platform which called for the same thing" appears to refer to the "Republican Party platform" and not to the Alaska party platform. Have you forgotten that my post included the exact quote I demurred on? And as soon as Will noted that he was writing only about the Alaska platform, I just pointed out that his language had been unclear. Unless, of course, you wish to claim my exact quote was a lie of some sort, I stand by the quote. Done yet? Collect (talk) 16:39, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Since discussion had already previously focused on the Alaska GOP platform, I'd say you're the only person in the room who thought Will was talking about the national platform (he wasn't). And since Will was talking about the Alaska GOP platform, and you claimed he was absolutely wrong based on a reading of the national platform, you were wrong. Instead of just cordially admitting this and moving on, you kept arguing. And arguing. And adding additional nonsense like "And I suggest you tell your parish priest that Catholics do not believe in transsubstantiation.", which was itself a distortion of what I actually said, which was that not all Catholics believe in transsubstantiation just because they attend mass, which was an example to point out the fallacy of your own ridiculous claim that 95% of all Christians are creationists just because they recite the Nicene Creed in church. And once I pointed out how ludicrous those arguments of yours were, you started ranting about comments in edit summaries, when my edit summary was just a summary of my edit, as intended, and when you also routinely put comments in your edit summaries. Then you snarkily replied to one of my comments addressing me as "unsigned" simply because I forgot to sign a post, even though it was clear and obvious that it was me since I was directly continuing a discussion that involved only you and me -- in particular, responding to your accusation about "targeting" you in my edit summary. Then you snarkily complained about my posts being long, even though you yourself necessitate long-winded responses by distorting my words, changing the subject, dodging issues, and generally refusing to admit when you are wrong. You also repeated your ridiculously false claim that I was making a personal comment about you in the edit summary, which I obviously and provably was not. Everything you have said suggests that your primary purpose is to inflame and argue, while making little or no attempt to have an honest discussion on the article.Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 17:07, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Despite all this (equally healthy) debate, Palin's position on covering creationism in schools is clear in both her spoken words and in this article. Given that unambiguity, there is no need to ascribe any other positions to her or to elaborate further in the article. Frankly, it's largely a moot debate anyway, as even in Alaska (where sparse population centers make private schools less financially viable), there's no public appetite for introducing religious curricula into the schools, and there are any number of watchdogs that will ensure those lines of separation remain distinct. That's one of the great things about democracy... we don't have government endorsing a specific brand of religion and shoving that down our collective throats! Fcreid (talk) 15:44, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Whether or not to move the material stating her religious beliefs, currently to be found in the Political Positions section and elsewhere, into an appropriately named section, is for me, the issue, not whether they are represented. Not sure I care either way, but see my comment above about Mitt Romney's page. Anarchangel (talk) 16:43, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Teaching Creationism or Intelligent Design in a US public school is illegal (Kitzmiller v. Dover). If Palin is going to allow it, she'll have to either defy the law or change the Constitution. Either is politically significant, not merely a personal religious view. Don't Be Evil (talk) 21:14, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Don, but I don't think anyone is suggesting that she is going to allow it, merely, in short, that she would like to :o) Inevitably there is less than hard evidence for that, hence the Discussion. Anarchangel (talk) 22:40, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Consensus

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) 18:01, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

One should also "assume good faith" instead of say (as a hypothetical example) "My deletion of material from the page is not responsible for Timmy's deletion of material even if it caused that reaction in him. I will not do only things that Timmy and Jimmy approve of because they hold material we favor hostage." Which does seem to rather contradict the preaching supra. Collect (talk) 18:31, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

You attempt to use a hypothetical as proof of contradiction. Have you considered the possibility that you might in fact be in error along the lines of WP:EQ? A sermon to amend someone's ways whose ways need amending, is not preaching, in the way that you use the word. Anarchangel (talk) 20:04, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Just a couple of observations: Collect's earlier "people who are primarily interested in, among other things, referring to Palin as 'Saint Sarah' or 'Mother Sarah' in an effort to disparage her" does seem to rather contradict the preaching ("one should also 'assume good faith'") above. Sorry, "supra." And my erstwhile personal attacks above — dammit, "supra"; note to self: work on getting the hang of these pesky old Toyota references — do seem to rather contradict my preaching against them when they're made by people I don't want to see thrown in the brig. Come to think of it, there are examples not only supra but also prius, yaris and corolla. Jeez.

Anarchangel's mention of WP:EQ is indeed timely.

John Gabriel's Greater Internet Fuckwad Theory is also worth reading; as are WP:DICK and WP:Tendentious editing — Writegeist (talk) 19:48, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

I'll admit there is no 'reply' to my quoting of WP:EQ, despite attempts to do so. I was not hoping for a reply. What I am concerned with is the many occasions that there is no reply, when there should be. I was hoping that this would change. So far, it has not. I have tried bringing it up specifically, numbering occasions of non-response (numbered up to eight, in Archive 43; there may be a ninth and 10th somewhere that didn't make it into the same Archive). This was ignored completely, and the practice left a bad taste in my mouth for some reason anyway. What we really need is outside intervention. Anarchangel (talk) 22:40, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Page protection status?

The article sports the small icon for full protection, but I notice a number of IPs in the edit history and some revision of vandalism. What is the article protection status supposed to be? I haven't been here for a while so I'm not up on what the dispute was which led to protection, but I will remove the icon from the article if the issue has been resolved. »S0CO^{(talk|contribs)} 00:52, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

All articles are "supposed to be" unprotected. Unfortunately, they sometimes have to be protected due to vandalism or edit warring. While protection can be set to expire after a period of time, templates have to be removed manually. This article was last protected from 11/26 to 12/1. Since then there has been a spate of vandalism, but not so much that re-protection is necessary (seven or eight incidents in 48 hours). I'll remove the template. If the vandalism gets worse please notify myself or another admin, or make a request at WP:RFPP. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:05, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Parodies of Sarah Palin

There are now three links in the article to Parodies of Sarah Palin, one in the body of the text and two see alsos in two different sections. Does anyone else think this is overkill?WTucker (talk) 21:41, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes. Collect (talk) 23:24, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

It rather depends on such questions as what "now" means. A few seconds ago, I looked for "parodies" and found the word twice, neither time linked to Parodies of Sarah Palin. The most recent edit had been this one, in which User:SCZenz removed "{{seealso|Parodies of Sarah Palin}}" with the comment as WTucker said, this is already linked where refererenced in the body of the prose -- maybe it was already linked, but a few seconds ago it didn't seem to be. ¶ It's clear that parodies were of some importance and that this article on Palin can't deal with them in any detail; ergo, a link to the "Parodies" article should be provided at the most suitable point in this article, presumably within the "public image" section. -- Hoary (talk) 00:38, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree. The prose link it rather obscure. The "{{seealso|Parodies of Sarah Palin}}" link was easier to find. Since it's an article about Palin, it makes sense to make it more prominent. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:48, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

It is currently linked and has been before, during and after my edit and the edit by SCZenz with a source in the vice-presidential campaign section. Here is the text in nowiki form: Palin appeared on the television show ''[[Saturday Night Live]]'' on October 18. Prior to her appearance on the show, [[Saturday Night Live parodies of Sarah Palin|she had been parodied]] several times by [[Tina Fey]], who was noted for her physical resemblance to the candidate.<ref>{{cite web|title=Palin drops in on "Saturday Night Live"|work=Reuters at YahooNews.com|author=Michaud, Chris|url=http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20081019/pl_nm/us_usa_politics_comedy;_ylt=AmMEqOFBEZrbupN2oU_C1spZ.3QA|accessdate=2008-10-19}}</ref> In the weeks leading up to the election, Palin had also been the subject of numerous [[Parodies of Sarah Palin|other parodies]].<ref name=WashingtonTimes_Chapman_20080918>{{cite web |title=Palin parodies flood the Web |first=Glenn |last=Chapman |work=The Washington Times |url=http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/sep/18/palin-parodies-flood-the-web/ |accessdate=October 17, 2008}}</ref> This seems well handled. Would it be better in the public image section?WTucker (talk) 14:05, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

VP campaign - NPOV question

New member here.

The line "In a series of campaign rallies, Palin returned to the vice presidential candidate's traditional role of attack dog, lashing out at and criticizing the Democratic ticket" under 2008 VP Campaign strikes me as out of keeping with NPOV. I'd suggest removing "lashing out at" and replacing "attack dog" with something with less pejorative connotations (it's not that the metaphor is technically inaccurate, IMO, but that there's likely a more neutral term that's applicable). However, I'd like a second opinion before making changes. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Venquaen (talk • contribs) 18:56, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that does sound like a little much. Is it a direct quote from somewhere? Fcreid (talk) 21:55, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

I think I remember checking that out and it did match up to the cited source for what its worth, not that that justifies inclusion but thats only me and I don't count :) --Tom 16:48, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

It's so close to a source that it's almost plagiarism unless we put it in quotation marks: "Republican Sarah Palin returned to the campaign trail with her 'gloves off,' taking on the vice presidential candidate's traditional role of attack dog and lashing out at Barack Obama. "[4] I don't doubt that there are other sources that say the same thing is slightly different words, too. Even so, we should at least attribute it "observers" or something like that. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 17:28, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the language is too strong, not because she didn't do it but because it is not encyclopedic to use colorful metaphors like "gloves off" and "attack dog." This was widely reported, and the exact language used by this source does not add much, so I see no reason to quote it exactly.Wikidemon (talk) 20:02, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, with "gloves off" that's a direct quote from Sarah Palin herself (see, e.g. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/10/06/AR2008100602935.html), so I do that phrase is okay to use. During the campaign, Palin said the gloves were off, likened herself to a pitbull, started attacks on Bill Ayers, and noted that she thought Rev. Wright should be discussed on the campaign trail (in contrast to McCain's position). Therefore, I do think it's okay to note her stances regarding attacks as long as it's properly cited, reasonable in its language, and avoids colloquialisms (except in the case of directs quotes from the people considered - e.g. Palin's direct "gloves off" quote). -JamesAM (talk) 21:42, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, it's not controversial to cover her more aggressive approach provided it's well cited and avoids weasel words etc. My view is "gloves off" is colorful, but not derogatory to her or anyone else. It can probably fall within encyclopedic language. Bruno23 (talk) 16:44, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Agree that it is too close to the language of the article. Newbie, or possibly perma-newbie mistake, to seek verifiability support by using the language of the source, rather than paraphrase or direct quote. 'Attack dog' et al replaced the Obama-Ayers material late on election day, so you gotta give the person credit for that at least; if only that user had certain people's nerve and they had his perspicacity and integrity. If "gloves off" is included, then so should be "Rogue" and "Africa", as they are similar levels of detail. Which of course brings us to "How's the city doing?", currently in the Mayoralty section, which is a standard of detail that, if matched, would allow everything to be included. Anarchangel (talk) 21:49, 21 December 2008 (UTC)