Talk:Sarah Palin/Archive 49

Archive 45

←

Archive 47

Archive 48

Archive 49

Archive 50

Archive 51

→

Archive 55

New RK section

RK being "sexual assault evidence kit", as I'm sure you've all surmised. I suggest Anarchangel, at least, state what his rationale for inclusion is here; that others politely state what specific objections they have to current verbiage; and you all try to work towards something acceptable, at least, to all. KillerChihuahua^?!? 17:23, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

-From above- "In addition to relevance in its own right, it has significance in the Stambaugh firing because of Stambaugh's assertion that he had proposed a line item in the budget to cover the cost of the kits. It is indispensable to an understanding of Palin's choice of subordinates, her handling of their policies, and her treatment of political rivals. I support the inclusion of any of Fannon's quotes, any and all material from the Legislature, the CNN article, and the source material on the budget from the Wasilla City Records department if links to that can be found, otherwise the HuffPo piece that links to that as a last resort, and anything I forgot. I specifically exclude support for inclusion of material from the SPT article as all of its material that doesn't rely for its notability on a negative proof can be found from other sources that reported earlier and with less editorializing. -Anarchangel 22:21, 28 Dec"

• When the connection to Palin is that she did not say she even knew of any policy about sexual evidence collection kits, what is the nexus to Palin in what is supposed to be a biography? I might as well have a section for U.S. Grant saying he did not know the Star Spangled Banner if "he did not know" is considered important (or unimportant - this seems like the trial of the Knave of Hearts). I asked my local mayor what the library late book fees were, and he had no idea. And he was on the board for the library. In his biography would that be an important fact to note? Collect (talk) 17:30, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Your analogy is missing many key elements. Anarchangel (talk) 21:25, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

• <sigh> Once again, and echoing the other 14 people who stated this in the straw poll above, the language should be completely eliminated from this article. This is her biography. I have no objection to the mention in Mayoralty of Sarah Palin (since apparently a member of her administration had some involvement, and that article is about her administration, not her personally) or in the campaign article, since her opponents attempted to make an issue of it. But to place it in her biography is a coatracking and undue weight issue, since she had no involvement or knowledge. Kelly ^hi! 17:32, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

We don't know the extent of her knowledge. It is incorrect to say that. We do know involvement (Municipal Code and budget), and so it is also incorrect to say she had no involvement. Anarchangel (talk) 21:25, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

At least two dozen editors, and perhaps as many as three, have supported inclusion. Wikipedia is supposed to be about reaching a consensus, not a simple vote in which one side "defeats" the other, but even in a strict numbers game, it's entirely unclear whether there is actually a majority in favor of exclusion.Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 19:18, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeah sorry, but Anarchangel clearly disagreed, as have a number of others in the past. It takes as long as it takes, and while I am all sympathy for those of you who feel this is well-trod ground, it is well-trod ground in which no clear consensus exists. So if you can respectfully work to clarify your view to your fellow editors, where that might help achieve said consensus, and leave the sighing and eye-rolling off the page, it would be most helpful. (Sighing and eye-rolling request is a blanket request to all who edit here, no one is being singled out.) KillerChihuahua^?!? 17:37, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

• I do cringe at the "not her personally" line. Kelly, take a look at Ulysses_S._Grant#Scandals; there is precedent for the reporting of administrative affairs not necessarily controlled by the article's subject in the article itself.--danielfolsom 17:45, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I get your point but the historical significance doesn't compare. I would instead make the comparison to Palin's political contemporaries, particularly Barack Obama in regards to his involvement with Bill Ayers or Rod Blagojevich. Kelly ^hi! 17:48, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Well those two are entirely different in themselves. One is a controversy over who Obama knew, the other is a controversy over what an Illinois governor did. the first one doesn't compare to the Palin situation at all ... because here we're talking about a policy, not a relationship. The latter does not, because Palin appointed the guy who billed people seeking rape kits. Had Obama appointed Blagojevich, that would certainly go on Obama's page.--danielfolsom 17:53, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm, I see. I guess a better example would be Obama's opposition to the Illinois version of BAIPA. Kelly ^hi! 18:04, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Wow - are you really just going to rip out examples, then say, "oh I take those back, here's another". I don't see how that relates at all, because that's something that Obama did, it's not something that someone he appointed did. Quite frankly I don't know why you would even think that the two scenarios are similar. So far, again, the best example is the corruption under Grant: which even though he was not aware of it as it happened, and even though he would be against it had he been aware of it, is mentioned in his article. I honestly don't see a problem with how it's handled right now - two sentences are dedicated to it, the second of which merely states that Palin was not aware of the charging.--danielfolsom 18:18, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Look, I've got no desire to get into a political argument. My point is that the historical notability of the scandals under the Grant administration simply don't compare to this rape kit stuff, which was a partisan campaign argument from start to finish, that's all. Kelly ^hi! 18:30, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh I agree that their notability isn't similar - which is why I think the Grant scandals would be grossly under-represented if there were only two (and, really one) sentence on them (the only reason I brought up the Grant scandals was to prove that someone didn't have to be personally involved in an action their administration did for the action to be included in their article). However, the rape kit charging was pretty notable, it did get quite a bit of media coverage, and they did not start out as a partisan campaign. They started out because someone Palin appointed charged for rape kits. Again, given the significant coverage, I strongly believe that what we have now is the best solution. We mention it, but we clearly state that Palin had no knowledge of it.--danielfolsom 18:40, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Understood - I still think it's undue weight in this article, guess we'll have to agree to disagree on that point. Kelly ^hi! 18:43, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

• Comment: Mention has been made that the phrasing is objectionable. I suggest it might be worthwhile to try to work out a compromise, wherein the controversy is mentioned, but rewritten and possibly trimmed. Note that this also is not set in stone: rewriting does not mean that later it cannot be removed. I've seen a number of controversial sections of articles which were rewritten several times and then finally removed (or moved to another article.) Again, not arguing for or against any of this, merely suggesting that it might be easier to negotiate rephrasing, and then when the content is less objectionable, to discuss inclusion/removal with less heated feeling about it. KillerChihuahua^?!? 19:11, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

That's exactly the point - the mention has been already pared down to the minimum, and a majority of current editors are still arguing for complete removal - 15 of them, as opposed to to 4 arguing for inclusion (6, if we include Anarchangel and you). Kelly ^hi! 19:32, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Kelly, I've already warned you on the BLP noticeboard - your sudden change to trying to paint me as "involved" and claiming I have a side" is total bullshit, and given your past[1] on this subject, I advise you cease with the attacks and harassment. You tried to paint me as some Cabal member on a vendetta before; that failed. I assure you, your attempt to paint me as "involved" - including your sneaky little "if we count you" above - will also fail. Enough already; focus on the article. KillerChihuahua^?!? 20:04, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I've only asked for uninvolved admins to look into this. I'm baffled at why this has provoked such an emotional reaction. If you want to block me for asking about your previous involvement as an editor in this topic, please post for review at WP:ANI, thanks. Kelly ^hi! 20:10, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

(Outdent) Kelly, calling me involved, emotional, whatever will not make it so, any more than your previous false accusations made them truth - and that you made them in response to my warning you about 6RR is a matter of record. Cease. I am done with this line of bullshit now. KillerChihuahua^?!? 20:18, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Reasonable people can probably differ about whether the word "bullshit" suggests some emotion, but I don't think there's any question about prior involvement.[2]Ferrylodge (talk) 20:23, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I have attempted to enforce CON before, yes indeed. I also removed the Hustler nonsense as a BLP violation, with no apologies. Does NOT make me "involved" as you (who have been blocked for harassing me) and Kelly (who first went ballistic when I warned, not blocked, him/her about 6RR on this very article) keep trying to portray. Really guys, this is lame. Stop with the Campaign to paint KC as Involved! and get on with working on the actual article. KillerChihuahua^?!? 20:28, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

So, are you going to bring up the ancient past every time we disagree? That sounds kind of like harassment, to me, and kind of diverts attention from the present article, doesn't it? Are all of our current disagreements now going to be attributed to your perceptions or misperceptions about what happened years ago? It seems to me like I was consistently editing this article when you showed up here, and not vice versa.[3]Ferrylodge (talk) 20:33, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Nope, just when one of you tries to smear me or impugn my character. KillerChihuahua^?!? 20:41, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, I don't think I've ever 6RR'd on this article. I do remember reverting BLP violations on Political positions of Sarah Palin - never was blocked for it, because they were BLP violations. Please don't mischaracterize. Kelly ^hi! 20:36, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Ah, you're correct - it was Political postions, not this article. My error. KillerChihuahua^?!? 20:40, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

No problem. Can you at least accept the fact that some editors on this article, justifiably or not, have the perception that you are an involved editor on the rape kit issue, and it would be better to have an admin that everyone accepts as "uninvolved" make the call? Others seemed satsified with User:SB Johnny, it was your override of his admin call that kicked off yet another crap-storm. Or are you dissatisfied with him making the call on this issue? Kelly ^hi! 20:45, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I for one am completely unsatisfied with Johnny's action. It does not appear to have any basis except for the impression of one admin that at one particularly short moment in time there were more people actively arguing against inclusion than for it. This was my central objection to this whole "straw poll" idea in the first place -- it appeared to be an attempt to "take a vote while others were out of the room". That's why I included the list of people's positions from earlier debates, which Johnny seems to have ignored. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 19:18, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Just some general comments on the discussion of the last 6 hours or so:

1. While KillerChihuahua has been borderline emotional in some of his responses, the attacks against him seem largely unwarranted. I don't see a problem in not removing the rape kit language from the article this second as we agreed early on that we'd take this slowly and leave the straw poll open for a long time and use it as a basis for consensus (not as a replacement, but as a basis). Let him patrol the article for uncivil behavior and make uncontroversial edits and don't drag him down to our level.

2. While I don't mind KillerChihuahua's decision not to remove the section yet, I disagree strongly with his statements which indicate that: a) consensus hasn't been reached; and b) consensus will only be achieved by keeping some mention of the rape kits in the article. Consensensus doesn't require unanimous agreement: "Every discussion should involve a good faith effort to hear and understand each other. But after people have had a chance to state their viewpoint, it may become necessary to ignore someone or afford them less weight in order to move forward with what the group feels is best." Everyone has more than enough opportunities to state their opinions, and the group clearly feels that inclusion is not for the best. As I've said before, though, I don't mind holding off on our declaration of consensus, but the argument that it doesn't exist is not persuasive to me.

Regarding Killer's statements indicating that consensus will include some mention of the rape kits: I feel this is a flawed way to view the process. The mere mention of rape kits in this article taints Palin unfairly. Even if we include a short statement about the issue and definitively state that Palin has had no involvement (which we can't do, but if...) the stink of the controversy would still be unfairly attached to her. This is not qhat wikipedia policy on consensus requires, nor does it conform to the policies on a BLP.LedRush (talk) 21:39, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Led, with all due respect, total omission of this issue is completely improper, and a "show of hands" is not supposed to trump policy.. once again, BLP policy specifically states that sourced and relevant criticism is supposed to go in. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 19:18, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

FYI, Puppy is a "she". Kelly ^hi! 21:43, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

LedRush, I said precisely the opposite, I'm not sure where the misunderstanding occurred, but I never said, nor meant to imply, that "consensus will include some mention of the rape kits" - would you paste the dif of the statement which led to this misunderstanding for me? Thanks. KillerChihuahua^?!? 02:03, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ASarah_Palin&diff=261917521&oldid=261917120 . I am sorry if I read that incorrectly, but your statement that "Consensus is actually everyone agreeing, more or less, that even if the content isn't the best, it at least is acceptable" led me to believe otherwise. Also, your interpretation of consensus made it seem like it couldn't occur on this page without some content on this issue being included. Again, I misunderstood your statements, I am sorry. However, I believe my arguments concerning consensus, BLP concerns, and process are still correct.LedRush (talk) 04:11, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I think KC was simply indicating that consensus is supposed to mean "agreement among parties" rather than "one party defeating another". Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 19:18, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

There's no evidence that the policy was enforced while she was mayor, there's no evidence that she knew about the policy and there's certainly no evidence she supported this. Other than creating an attack piece (which, I suppose, would make this bio consistent with Wikipedia's other bios of conservatives), what possible reason could there be for including it? --B (talk) 23:34, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

B- as said above, just because she doesn't know about it doesn't mean it's not notable. And there is some evidence that says it happened - and that evidence would be the reliable source(s).--danielfolsom 01:50, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

You are mistaken. Anarchangel (talk) 21:25, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm coming in late in the game; I was talking to KC last night about some Wikipedia issues, and briefly mentioned this article, so I think I should comment. Personally, I don't think that it's that relevant to an article. Mayoralty is an executive position, so Palin didn't make the law; that's the role of city legislature. I'm not sure whether it would be in Palin's remit to veto the rape kit policy; even if given the latitude to veto, it's controversial to veto a budget proposal. Analysing the source, I note that this is mainly a manufactured controversy used to mudsling Palin (much as Ayers was used to mudsling Obama); the policy was not controversial when in effect, and the source notes that not many people, if any, had to pay for the kits in Wasilla. As there is no evidence that she supported the policy, and that politicians must sometimes (seek to) pass laws they oppose or vice-versa, we should err on the side of caution and not include it. It may shock people to hear this, but Republicans aren't the blood-sucking vampires that people believe them to be :) Sceptre ^(talk) 12:40, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Well; (1) it wasn't a law, it was a municipal policy that was entirely under the control of the man (Fannon) whom she appointed, after firing the man who had the city paying for the kits. Without Palin's firing of Stambaugh, it's a decent bet that Wasilla never would have adopted this policy; (2) continuing, there was nothing for her to veto -- if she didn't like the policy, she could just order Fannon to change it, or fire him, as she had done to the predecessor who paid for rape kits using the city budget; (3) plenty of people would dispute your analysis ... and your analysis is also obviously original research which cannot influence a Wikipedia article; (4) the policy was at least controversial enough to prompt victim's advocates to press for legislation to make the policy illegal, and to have the state legislature pass such legislation; Wasilla is a tiny town -- if there are only one or two rapes a year, of course there would only be a few rape victims to have their insurance billed -- and it would also take some time before the policy could possibly affect many people -- yet the rape victims themselves would argue that their interests are not of less importance just because there weren't many of them; (5) there is also no evidence that she opposed the policy, and the fact that she appointed the man who introduced the policy to Wasilla establishes a connection, whether she supported it or not; (6) since Palin tended to fire everyone who didn't support her, it really wouldn't make much sense to claim that Fannon introduced a policy that she opposed; she never actually claimed that she opposed, or didn't support, the policy, and even when addressing the issue in the press she appeared to avoid the direct questions asking what the policy had been; (7) "erring on the side of caution" would be including the facts on this issue (including facts about opinions) and letting readers draw their own conclusions, instead of trying to form conclusions on behalf of the reader by omitting any mention of the issue in the first place.Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 19:18, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Would that she had opposed a law, this would be a slam dunk. Your position is based on faulty information Anarchangel (talk) 21:25, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Sort of to echo here, but I keep hearing that this was some large controversey which I believe to be totally untrue. It became a "story" after Palin's nomination along with about 100 other "stories" about the govenor. Who says this was a big deal at the time? The blogs? The talking heads on TV? This talk page? There were a FEW articles written about this at the time by the local papers and not much more before the mud started to fly. This might belong in one of the sub articles but not the main bio of a person who who was "connected" to this story how? She hired Fannon? She was running the ship? --Tom 14:44, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

This was an Alaskan story. It was reported in Alaska. It is in a section about her being mayor of an Alaskan town. Not sure what your point is exactly. As for the last two sentences, although they are intended to be rhetorical, I can equally answer: Correct. She was in a position of responsibility. Think Alberto Gonzalez. Despite denying that he was personally responsible, and in fact -everyone- denying that they were personally responsible, he was pressured to step down. And that's normal. It was the least that was expected. I have to wonder why responsibility of officials for the actions of their subordinates is being challenged here. WP doesn't even require that much for something to be just notable. And Fannon didn't deny it, he declared it to the local newspaper. The mayor wasn't reading the local newspaper? And yet the first we hear from her about it is in 2008, and she evades the question. Anarchangel (talk) 21:25, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I have to agree with Tom and Sceptre on this. This story was of minor importance before the campaign. It never even came up once during her campaign as Governor, (probably because here in Alaska we can see it for what it truely is). Should we devote an entire paragraph to every 'controversial' law that was in place during her term as Mayor? It makes no sense to include it just for inclusion's sake, and it is definitely not biographical material.Zaereth (talk) 19:15, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

No, because there was no such controversial law. Also, where do you get the idea that 'are we to include every -straw man- in every -type of article-?" is a valid argument? In your defense, you probably got that idea from this page. Anarchangel (talk) 21:25, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Let the personal attacks begin!! This is a two for one, getting both the editors of this page in general and Zaereth specifically.LedRush (talk) 22:09, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree with the three above. Until evidence is found that Palin knew about the law policy, had the power to change it, and then did nothing about it, this should not be included in her biography. Even then it would fit better in the Mayorality of Sarah Palin. Keeping this material here until there is a consensus to remove it, is basically saying Guilty until Proven Innocent, when it should be the other way around. JenWSU (talk) 19:34, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Again, what law? Anarchangel (talk) 21:25, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree with the other four above: I don't think the RK issue belongs in this article. Add me to the straw poll, if you like. Leotohill (talk) 19:50, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for all the new voices. My position remains pretty clear. Collect (talk) 20:15, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Please note that the straw poll above is still open, in case anyone would like to weigh in one way or the other.Ferrylodge (talk) 20:24, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

One step at a time... yes, rape kits again

Can we start with something very simple here? KC and I have a minor disagreement (not to be confused with a war among the powers that be) on whether the rape kit thing is a "BLP issue" or not a "BLP issue" (and to paraphrase Shakespeare, that is the question). It's very simple: does her action (or inaction) in the rape kit issue tell us something about her? If so, what does it say? (And if it does say something, can we demonstrate that verifiably using reliable sources?)

I'm just trying to get to the kernel of this as far as our policies go: is this a BLP issue, or is it not a BLP issue?

This is up to you to decide, not to the "powers that be" to decide. Only difference between us and you is a couple of buttons, after all, and we're supposed to use those for your benefit. --SB_Johnny | ^talk 00:22, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it is a BLP issue, IMHO. There's no dispute that Palin is a living person, and that this is a biography of her. Per WP:BLP (emphasis added):

“ Editors must take particular care adding biographical material about a living person to any Wikipedia page. Such material requires a high degree of sensitivity, and must adhere strictly to all applicable laws in the United States and to all of our content policies, especially Neutral point of view....The possibility of harm to living subjects is one of the important factors to be considered when exercising editorial judgment....The burden of evidence for any edit on Wikipedia, but especially for edits about living persons, rests firmly on the shoulders of the person who adds or restores the material....Beware of claims that rely on guilt by association. Be on the lookout for biased or malicious content about living persons....Wikipedia articles should respect the basic human dignity of their subjects. Wikipedia aims to be a reputable encyclopedia, not a tabloid. Our articles must not serve primarily to mock or disparage their subjects, whether directly or indirectly. ”

A key aspect of NPOV is undue weight; while having this material in the sub-article may not be undue weight per WP:Summary style, having it in this main article is undue weight. WP:BLP specifically references WP:Coatrack, so calling this rape kit material coatracky is certainly relevant here.[4] The material now in the article also insinuates that there is something sinister about Palin's possible involvement in charging insurance companies of rape victims (rape victims' insurance companies are properly charged all the time, e.g. if the rapist inflicts injuries that need to be treated). The present material also employs guilt by association with Fannon and with Fannon's policy. Additionally, by omitting Palin's explicit denials that she would ever bill a rape victim, this material is harmful to Palin's human dignity, and is plain unfair, whereas including those denials would exacerbate the undue weight problem. Incidentally, even if this were not a BLP issue (which it clearly is), the overhwelming consensus is that the material should be removed and is improper in this article, whether it's a BLP or not.Ferrylodge (talk) 00:39, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

"WP:BLP specifically references WP:Coatrack, so calling this rape kit material coatracky is certainly relevant here." : BLP and other rules specifically reference imaginary examples of rule violations etc, does that mean they are also relevant here? Can you persuade me that this roughshod rampage over logic is a mistake rather than obfuscation? Anarchangel (talk) 06:52, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Anarchangel, are you making personal attacks and insults because you are uncivil, because you want to incite worse behavior in return, or because you don't know that it's not civil?LedRush (talk) 14:41, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Cool it with the sarcasm (both of you). --SB_Johnny | ^talk 14:58, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

While there was no sarcasm in my post, you are right, Johnny, that my questions was probably not helpful. It is just that Anarchangel repeatedly inserts insulting remarks into his post and makes constructive discussion that much more difficult. I don't want to bring this up on the Wikiquette board because this is , at its heart, a content dispute and because each of his remarks on its own is just boarderline uncivil...it is in the aggregate that they become truly exhausting and erode teh possibility of constructive discourse. Regardless, I will deal with this in a more straightforward and constructive way myself in the future and I am sorry that I did not do so above.LedRush (talk) 15:36, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I have to agree with Ferrylodge. All issues in a BLP are BLP issues; that policy applies to everything in the article. Coemgenus 00:47, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Well its a Biography, she's aLive and she's a Person. Of course the policy applies. Frankly I'm rather shocked this whole this is still going on. There will never be a unanimous view on this, but we do have a consensus and WP:BLP is quite clear. I think it was a mistake to revert the article back to inclusion of the material based on one unsatisfied, but vocal person resulting only in inflamed sensibilities, an article which violates WP:BLP and a controversy without end. At some point I hope that someone says enough is enough and I hope that happens before it goes to arbitration. I'll go back to lurking now Dman727 (talk) 01:23, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Let's try not to dwell on the length of the dispute: I just want to make sure we're all on the same page when it comes to the nature of the dispute. If it's a "BLP issue", it will be handled as such. If it's not, then we'll handle it differently. We're all here because we want it to be a good article, and you are voicing your opinions here because you disagree about how to make this a good article. My priority right now is to get some agreement about the nature of the dispute, so that we can handle it "by the book"... "the book" was written by those who have seen this sort of thing before, and came up with the best solution that they could think of. --SB_Johnny | ^talk 01:35, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

BLP issue? Conceded. Done. It's a BLP, KC made the error of saying it's not a BLP issue, ok? Let's not continue miscategorizing the issue. The issue is, and KC should have said, whether or not this is a breach of BLP guidelines. Discuss. Anarchangel (talk) 02:15, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

"It's very simple: does her action (or inaction) in the rape kit issue tell us something about her? If so, what does it say? (And if it does say something, can we demonstrate that verifiably using reliable sources?)" - SB Johnny It's very simple: it is not our job to say.
You have reframed the need to follow BLP as your preferred course of action.
My (subjective) analysis is that we'd be making judgements about the material that are effectively OR or SYNTH, inasmuch as they affect the material going in. If it meets WP:V and WP:NPOV and WP:BLP and WP:NOTE, and the rest, it's in, as far as I know. Furthermore, if you assert that there is a need to assess the material for evidence that "her action (or inaction) in the rape kit issue tell(s) us something about her", why? I can't see it being a BLP rule to do so. Let alone that this is an actionable reason to omit or include material. Anarchangel (talk) 02:15, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

So very sick of these subjective arguments. WEIGHT, RECENTISM, COATRACK, OR, NPOV, ad nauseum. All I have to do to find a list the size of your total contributions is look for your contributions in the archives. The security of arguments that can never be disproven.

Guilt by association is at least based on facts. I will add it to the Disputed section. This has been brought up too many times. Calling this 'guilt by association' ignores the fact that Fannon was her employeesubordinate, and that his actions do reflect on her. Anarchangel (talk) 02:15, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Fannon was an employee of the City of Wasilla, appointed pursuant to the City Council of Wasilla Alaska. He was not an "employee of Sarah Palin." Collect (talk) 02:39, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Conceded. Replaced all instances of 'employee' with 'subordinate'.

"Subordinate" implies direct control ("subject to the authority of another".) He, as Police Chief, operated substantially independently, and was "subordinate" as you phrase it, to the City Council at most. Now we have established that he had essentially no nexus with Palin other than being an employee of the city of which she was Mayor. Thanks! Collect (talk) 11:16, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

• No longer a BLP violation. At its core, this was a campaign misrepresentation of fact to (quite effectively) isolate the BLP subject from a specific voting bloc. Today, it would be more accurate (and fairer to the BLP subject) that we include an acknowledgment that the controversy occurred but that no evidence tied her to it (beyond that this police chief was her appointee). In other words, I recommend retaining the prior consensus language that Fannon stated in The Frontiersman article that the hospital billed insurers (not victims) for sexual assault evidence collection (not rape) kits in some ad hoc manner, but that Palin never commented on the practice contemporaneously, and reliable investigative sources subsequently found no evidence she supported or opposed it. Fcreid (talk) 12:34, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

A suggestion then

Looks like everyone agrees that it's "about Sarah Palin", thus it's clearly a BLP issue and the subject of contention, and so there's 2 separate questions now. First, does it belong in the article at all, and second, if it does belong, can it be rephrased or otherwise couched to make a definitive statement, rather than having the invisible "..." at the end of the sentence. The notability comes from the issue's use by notable bloggers (etc.), so should that be included? E.g., something like:

"Although she received criticism by x, y, and z that implied her support for the practice (ref, ref, ref), an investigation by the St. Petersburg Times found no evidence that Palin had explicitly supported or opposed this policy."

Would that sort of rewording satisfy those who oppose the passage? --SB_Johnny | ^talk 12:50, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Johnny, are you really this unfamiliar with the sources? Have you looked through the archives? This was carried my numerous mainstream news outlets. The most direct criticisms came from actual Alaskan politicians, including the sponsor of the bill which made this rape kit policy illegal. Chalking it all up to bloggers is completely inaccurate.Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 19:22, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

No, it still really, really isn't a BLP issue. The Huster nonsense was a BLP issue and I summarily removed it. This is arguably NN (coatrack, undue) but its not BLP - depending upon phrasing (be accurate.) But the actual Rape Kit Controversy is not BLP, any more than any other smear campaign tactic is BLP in an article about a political figure. It is arguably best in the Campaign article (too lazy to look for precise article name right now) but no matter how many malcontents or good-faith nervous nellies claim it is BLP, it is not. I will say one more time: "controversial" or "disputed" per BLP does not mean you can start an edit war, or have 99% of the editors say its wrong or false or negative or whatever, and then remove something "per BLP" - else all we'd have on Wikipedia is hagiographies. So sorry, but you are all simply wrong. Remove it if you wish, I honestly don't care - but it is not under any means a BLP violation just because it insults her and may not directly have anything to do with her - because it was tied to her and used as a campaign tactic. Label it Lies and False allegations if you wish, but its still not a BLP violation. It was a freaking campaign attack, people - just like the Bill Ayers presidential election controversy. Is Barack Obama a terrorist? Does he "pal around with terrorists"? Is it a BLP violation to report that this was said during the campaign? Do you see the difference??? Are you all obtuse? KillerChihuahua^?!? 18:03, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm not fond of doling out "kisses of death", and KC probably doesn't want me chiming in to agree with something she says, but she is absolutely correct. Facts are facts, and facts about opinions are still facts, and both are appropriate in a BLP, subject to the other qualifications about sourcing, relevance, and notability. What is not appropriate is using editors' opinions about facts and editors' opinions about opinions to influence the article -- that is original research in various forms. As I have said from the very beginning, this doesn't have to be phrased in an NPOV way. We can reflect this in the article yet clearly state that the criticisms were coming from political opponents in the middle of an election season. That is appopriate and NPOV and easily allows the reader to reach the conclusion the same conclusion many of you have reached -- that it was a baseless partisan attack. That is the appropriate course of action -- not completely removing the material based on a fear that readers might reach a conclusion that you disagree with. I have no direct objection to the bulk of this going into a sub-article as long as it is summarized here. What I do not want to see is a whitewash where the issue is either (1) not reflected anywhere, or (2) reflected in a sub article but effectively pigeonholed or "content forked" because it is not mentioned at all in the summary article.Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 19:22, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Calling other people "obtuse" is not helpful in the least. There are several questions: (1) Is this matter subject to BLP guidelines? (2) If so, do the BLP guidelines support removal of this material instead of allowing the material to stay? (3) Even if this matter is not subject to BLP guidelines, then do the normal Wikipedia guidelines support removal of this material instead of allowing the material to stay? I would answer as follows: (1) Yes (2) Yes and (3) Yes. Note that the Barack Obama article does not mention one word about Bill Ayers or about Jeremiah Wright, because BLP rules bar undue weight in a BLP. No one is arguing to keep the rape kit info out of the Palin sub-articles, only out of the main article.Ferrylodge (talk) 18:24, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Good thing I didn't call anyone obtuse, then. 1) The article, and therefore all content within it, is subject to BLP. 2) No. This is not a BLP violation. 3) CON applies, as do all other policies and guidelines, such as V, COATRACK, etc. So if the consensus is to remove, either simply as a content decision or due to no sourcing, etc, then of course any content may be removed. As regards the Obama article, I don't edit it at all - but if I did, I would oppose inclusion of that silly smear, but I would also have a Keep position on the article about the controversy, and IMO that article should be linked to from Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2008. However, and this is key: if it were in the Obama article, it would NOT be a BLP violation. Wrong article IMO, but not a BLP violation. KillerChihuahua^?!? 18:58, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Agree. Wrong article. Like the Obama-Ayers stuff was when it was in this article, up until election day. And yet we are hearing this comparison fairly regularly. And at length. The name 'Ayers' currently appears on this talk page 34 times. Anarchangel (talk) 03:01, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

(EC) Killer, using all caps to say you're going to tell us the answer "ONE MORE TIME", repeating "No. No. No." and asking us if we're "obtuse" and calling us "simply wrong" makes constructive discussion here very hard. Ferry has outlined the correct (INHO) questions above, and we (or at least I) understand your points but disagree. That the Bill Ayers controversy was excluded from the Obama article as a BLP violation undercuts your entire argument on this issue. The mere inclusion of reporting on the controversy confers undue weight on an issue that you seem to agree doesn't have to do with her personally and is basically a campaign issue. It is designed to taint her by the very inclusion of the words "rape kit". Let it stay a campaign issue in the subarticle, where it belongs.LedRush (talk) 19:04, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

After ec(Ayers controversy) Was it? Heh, then they were wrong too. Although I do agree it shouldn't be in that article. Here in a nutshell is the issue: I support BLP. I helped write the darn thing. But it will not help wp a darn bit if we allow it to be misunderstood and misused. It will result in hagiographies and unbalanced articles, especially of controversial figures. I will abstain from expressing my opinion of Ferrylodge's views.

Undue may well apply; I have really tried assiduously not to express any opinion on content at all, as I am remaining neutral except as regards policies; therefore Undue, which article, whether to include, are things I am trying to avoid even giving the impression of having an opinion on. Y'all do what you want. But call it a BLP violation, and I will argue. You can remove it from the article without citing BLP, is what I am saying. And I have already made very clear that my opinion on the other subject is that it should be in the sub articles, but I am, again, refraining from voicing an opinion here on this. Is this any clearer to you, or are you going to keep arguing content with me (by yourself)? KillerChihuahua^?!? 19:19, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, it was clear already, as I said up above, and I haven't been arguing content with you, so that last insulting sentence wasn't really necessary, was it?LedRush (talk) 19:25, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Uh, yeah, you're acting more like a party to the dispute than a neutral party here, Puppy. Sorry, but it's true. --SB_Johnny | ^talk 20:31, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

No, I'm in a dispute, but not about content of the article - it is about a policy. Please reconsider your thinking, Johnny, it is flawed. I cannot assist with this page if I do not maintain policy, and there is a basic difference of opinion about how to interpret the policy. Your assertion implies that I should not explain policy, or else I am somehow involved. That is very poor logic indeed. KillerChihuahua^?!? 10:53, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Last I looked, it is up to every editor to maintain policy, including SB -- and his judgement, last I checked, is deemed equal to yours. Collect (talk) 11:48, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I know, but you were really getting into it :-). They know the policies too, so it's better to just let them do the arguing and just try to keep them on track (which admittedly is like herding cats, but herding cats gets even more difficult if you try to use a sheep dog!). --SB_Johnny | ^talk 11:25, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

What can I say? I'm a chihuahua with delusions of sheepdogism. Seriously, the whole thing has been about the tendency of some editors to conflate my statements about how BLP applies to this article with 1) whether this is a BLP article - which frankly I think must be trolling from some of the parties here, of course its a BLP article, duh; 2) making the illogical leap that because my very firm interpretation is that this content, while it has other issues, is not a BLP violation, that somehow (2+2=22) I'm arguing for inclusion of the damn content. I'm not; have not been, and will not. "Its not a BLP violation" does not = "You cannot take it out". It has been extremely weird and bizarre to me how that conclusion keeps getting put on this page. I am seriously distressed that your post reads as though you'd fallen to the same fallacious thinking. *sigh* Howsomever, perhaps we're done with that particular error now. KillerChihuahua^?!? 13:51, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm grateful that KC has acknowledged that "The article, and therefore all content within it, is subject to BLP." That's exactly correct. And BLP guidelines say that this content must comply with "all of our content policies." If there's something in this BLP that may not comply with "all of our content policies", then BLP guidelines say that "The burden of evidence for any edit on Wikipedia, but especially for edits about living persons, rests firmly on the shoulders of the person who adds or restores the material." If this were some other non-BLP article, then the burden would be different regarding NPOV, COATRACK, and all the rest.Ferrylodge (talk) 19:12, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

As stated for months, the burden of evidence is met... The burden of evidence refers to the burden of the editor to show that the edit is sourced.Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 19:22, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

1. Concur. This would be ideal, as it provides a basis for a reader/researcher to dismiss the controversy (or to do their own WP:OR elsewhere, if it's not the truth they hoped to find). Fcreid (talk) 12:53, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Disagree -- per notes above, the Police Chief was not her "employee." She had no day-to-day control of police actions or practices. She states she had no knowledge of any "rape kit" policies about billing, and that she opposes billing any victims. The budget was under the control of the City Council. There were no "rape kit" line items in any of the budgets (all available). (All of which appear to be accepted now as fact by the contending editors.) Ascribing support of a policy about which one has no knowledge, and would be unlikely to have knowledge, is speculation - no matter how many opinion sources are found. Wording of "Although xxx, yyy and zzz implied Jane Doe committed murder, the Times found no evidence to support or oppose their claims." runs afounl of the spirit of WP:WTA as well as WP:BLP. And per WP:RS, blogs are specifically found to not be RS unless under editorial control of an RS. Collect (talk) 13:17, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

We still haven't heard from KC since I personally conceded the 'isn't a BLP' position. KC may yet have something to say about that.

Most if not all of the sources and facts upon which the below assertions are based can be seen above in the Record section. I would appreciate being able to type this all once only.

• Collect's assertion that Palin "states she had no knowledge" is false. When presented with an opportunity to [answer that very question, she answered in another way.
• Collect's assertion that the budget was under the control of the city council is false. Municipal Code.
• Collect's assertion that "There were no rape kit line items in any of the budgets" is false. The '94 budget shows rape kits, and that line item disappears when Palin becomes mayor, which is consistent with a policy of charging or otherwise avoiding paying for them.
• "(freely available)" Great. We could use those. Right now all I have is the links from the HP article to the budgets. Knowing that the budget PDFs we were looking at were straight from the city of Wasilla would be very comforting. And a better link for the article. Would someone cite the links direct to the budgets, please? They have never been cited.
• Collect says the budgets are accepted as fact. Collect's assertions about the budgets are not.
• Agree with Collect's assertion that ascribing support would be speculation. Disagree with 'unlikely to have knowledge'; her duties and powers included supervision of the Police Department; had she requested that information, Fannon would have been compelled to provide it. There is another link to the Stambaugh case here, in addition to his assertion that he had ensured a kit budget line item when he was Police Chief, where the Seattle Times shows a very hands on approach to dealing with her subordinates.
• WTA is reaching. This whole sentence's reach exceeds its grasp. To call it speculation is quite adequate.
• Collect's assertion, "And per WP:RS, blogs are specifically found to not be RS unless under editorial control of an RS." is false. The word 'blog' is to be found nowhere on the WP:RS page.

I direct your attention to the first section on the page, where it is contended (and so far unrefuted) that the wording is a negative proof and therefore the basis for opposition to the wording of the final phrase is unaffected by the addition of cites. The wording of the final phrase has been opposed for a very long time. The statement "an investigation by the St. Petersburg Times found no evidence that Palin had explicitly supported or opposed this policy." relies for its notability on the assumption by the reader (and the editor inserting it) that this is proof towards Palin not explicitly supporting or opposing the policy. What was the SPT investigation? Did they scour the countryside? Did they ask passers-by? Did they hang out in bars? SPT relies on other publications for its information, such as the Frontiersman. Palin was given the opportunity to state that she had not known of the policy, or had, and if she had, that she supported the policy, when she was asked these questions in the afore-mentioned email interview with Frontiersman (so she had plenty of time to choose an answer); judge her answer for yourself. Anarchangel (talk) 02:11, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Of course Anarchangel's claim that the SPT wording (or the WP cite to it) is a negative proof fallacy is false. I have presented the arguments above and so far no logical challenge to them has been made. I suspect Anarchangel knows this because he doesn't even bother to try and argue the point here, instead attacking the means of the SPT investigation, which of course has no bearing on whether the negative proof fallacy is applicable here. My argument, repeated from above, is simple and provably true.

The negative proof fallacy is when the lack of evidence that something is true is used to definitively state that that thing is true. The SPT has a statement about their investigation: "We can’t find that Palin ever commented on the policy, pro or con." This is not a statement about the underlying truth of whether or not Palin commented on the policy and is not an example of the negative proof fallacy. It is merely a statement about the results of an SPT investigation: they didn't find anything. The WP article says: "An investigation by the St. Petersburg Times found no evidence that Palin had explicitly supported or opposed this policy." This is also a statement of provable fact (that the SPT did an investigation and found no evidence of Palin supporting or opposing the policy) and not about the whether Palin did or didn't do anything. Therefore, neither the WP article nor the SPT report relies on the negative proof fallacy.LedRush (talk) 03:00, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

And per Anarchangel's points above -- her job as Mayor was to "follow the directives of the city council." Seems to rather undermine the whole RK bit, no? And the budget claim now rests on a 1994 budget -- which was, if I am not in error, before Palin became Mayor. Seems to stretch OR, SYN, and a bunch of other precpts to the breaking point. Collect (talk) 14:35, 6 January 2009 (UTC) Not really. Palin being responsible for following the directives of the city council does not discharge her from her other responsibilities, as noted in the same list. Anarchangel (talk) 02:11, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

<sarcasim>I think the best suggestion was that we add that she is NOT pro-rape. Wouldn't that be great. Maybe also include that she doesn't beat her husband.</sacasim> Of course not! We don't introduce garbage and then let the reader "dismiss it". This would be the equivalent of the Obama article mentioning that people think he wasn't born in Hawai, and then disproving it. This garbage has no place in this article as the 20 or so editors have now commented. --Tom 14:42, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I've agreed in the past to compromise language like this, and it seems to lead only to more fighting about what else can be inserted into the language about the issue. I have always believed that the best way to address this is the same way we address similar claims on other BLPs: we omit them entirely.LedRush (talk) 15:39, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Not wanting to wade into what's obviously been a long and complicated debate, but I visited Palin's page today explicitly because I wanted to find out about the rape kit controversy. In my mind one part of what Wikipedia's for is to provide information that people want to be able to access - and this is an issue I wanted to find out about. 135.196.2.145 (talk) 16:11, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

See Mayoralty of Sarah Palin JenWSU (talk) 18:24, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I am very much opposed to the suggestion that we come up with some new version, or revert to some old version. We should either get this out of the BLP (as a vast majority of editors has consistently urged) while keeping it in the sub-article, or else we should keep what's in this article now: "Palin appointed[29] Charles Fannon to replace Stambaugh as police chief. Fannon and his department sometimes billed rape victims' health insurance for evidence collection kits.[46] An investigation by the St. Petersburg Times found no evidence that Palin had explicitly supported or opposed this policy.[47]"

These are two clear choices, and I do not support muddying the waters by introducing further choices. This is not complicated. This is a BLP. There is controversial material here that a majority of editors have consistently opposed in the BLP, based on a variety of Wikipedia policies including undue weight. "The burden of evidence for any edit on Wikipedia, but especially for edits about living persons, rests firmly on the shoulders of the person who adds or restores the material." This whole process is becoming a joke, I'm sad to say. If a minority of editors does insist on coming up with a new version, then how about this: "Journalists have investigated whether Palin has been mean to rape victims or not, but could find no definitive statement from her explicitly denying that she has been 'mean to rape victims.'" Is that what the admins at this article are aiming for?Ferrylodge (talk) 18:17, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

One of the ironies here is that paying for these out of city budgets is actually what costs rape victims. According to Fannon, Wasilla (a town of 5,000) spends $15K/year on these kits. That's $3/year from every Wasilla taxpayer, including rape victims, to pay for them. (It's actually higher than that, given the breakdown of adult, employed, etc.) In contrast, when billed to the health insurer under services already purchased (individual health insurance), the cost is borne by the aggregate of the healthcare industry's insured. The irony above all is that universal healthcare will ultimately mandate that as the only model for how they're purchased... it's just a wash whether it's a taxpayer line item on a city budget or a federal one. However, like most everything else with this non-issue, it's not the facts that count, but instead how mean and insensitive someone can be painted. Fcreid (talk) 20:04, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Obviously taxpayers will have lower taxes if police departments require insurance companies to pay for costs of investigations. Taxes could be lowered further if they billed fire insurance for arson investigations, homeowners' insurance for burglary investigations, auto insurance for auto theft investigations. Taxes would go down, and insurance premiums would go up. The net effect would be to place more of the burden of crime on people who purchase insurance, and less of it on people who don't purchase insurance. And all of it would be wildly inappropriate because government services are supposed to be paid for by all taxpayers, not just the responsible ones who purchase insurance for themselves.Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 19:22, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Wasilla can not have spent $15K / year on the kits, according to the report Wasilla gave the FBI. Anarchangel (talk) 06:52, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

It's OK to be snarky with me, Ferrylodge :-). I'm probably not the kind of "admin" you're used to (I serve in that capacity on a few other projects as well, where comparing an admin to a WP admin is fightin' words). I just want to be absolutely clear on the status of this issue before deciding whether or not to remove the passage.

Do not, on the other hand, get snarky with your fellow editors... that's not going to help you reach a peaceful solution. --SB_Johnny | ^talk 19:29, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Will do. But I'll keep it striked out.  :-)Ferrylodge (talk) 19:44, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

The grim truth here is that this was never, ever an issue for Palin before the Presidential campaign. It was thrown out there as a smear simply because it contained the words rape victim. Really, who would pay for something when an insurance company will pay for it instead. Is this notable? I guess the question to ask is who was really hurt by this action? Were the rape victims any more tramatized? Were the insurance companies? Did the actions have signifigant consequences to make them noteworthy? If so, wouldn't they belong in Fannon's article more than Palin's. I highly doubt this is even notable enough for her Mayorality article, but definitely not for her BLP.Zaereth (talk) 20:33, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

If you have questions, and time on your hands, you might want to look through the archives. All those have been answered there, I assure you. In answer to your question, "Were the rape victims any more tramatized?", the answer is yes.
"Ms. Hugonin testified on the actual exam process that a person must go through after the assault. She urged the Committee to seriously consider passing the legislation so that the victim does not have to go through the pain of the ordeal again." "TRISHA GENTLE, DIRECTOR, COUNCIL ON DOMESTIC VIOLENCE AND SEXAUL ASSAULT (CDVSA), JUNEAU, voiced support for the legislation. She reiterated that the actual "receiving of the bill" again reminds the victim of the trauma that they experienced." -Finance Committee HB 270Anarchangel (talk) 02:11, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

No direct billing of victims has been reported in Wasilla. You know that.Ferrylodge (talk) 02:25, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

If Fannon talked to the Frontiersman outside the city limits, you mean? Quite apart from the fact that the policy was wrong whether or not people actually fell foul of its deficiencies, the rape victims cited by Fannon would get an itemized insurance bill. If he didn't mean, ...and some we charged..., by his statement. Anarchangel (talk) 03:01, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

The victim and every other taxpayer could also have received an itemized city tax expenditure. In fact, the tax expenditures listing would have reflected "sexual assault evidence collection kit" rather than a nebulous ICD medical billing code used by the insurers. In addition, the victim will still get a hospital bill for the visit on their individual insurance. The taxpayer doesn't pay for everything incident to this or any other criminal incident that requires medical treatment... the issue here (and the subject of the state bill) was solely for evidence collection kits and not incidental medical treatment. Again, you're spouting more half-truths and distortions of reality that were intended to turn this into a red herring for women's activists to be used by one campaign in order to isolate another campaign from a specific voting bloc during the election. There is no substance to it. I wish you could see that. Fcreid (talk) 11:21, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

It would be good for cities to not list rape kit expenditures on their tax lists and then send them out to rape victims. Hopefully they already don't. A direct quote from an expert witness of the Finance Committee hearings on HB 270 is not 'spouting more half-truths and distortions of reality'. It was 'intended' to give evidence. The rest is in your imagination. Anarchangel (talk) 18:37, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I have no idea what you mean in reference to city limits. This was a blog-generated controversy designed to confuse people, according to the St. Petersburg Times: "Bloggers have portrayed it as a heartless rule seeking money from rape victims, but they have neglected to mention that the policy seems to have been aimed more at getting money from insurance companies than from victims."[5] You continue to try to confuse the issue. Fannon told the Frontiersman: "In the past weve charged the cost of exams to the victims insurance company when possible."[6] Not a scintilla of that sentence suggests that he charged victims directly, as happened in Juneau.Ferrylodge (talk) 03:21, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

(undent)FYI, I've made a suggestion for improvement at WP:BLP. See here.Ferrylodge (talk) 17:58, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Well all-righty then

It looks to me that the issue here is whether or not this is notable (in the sense that it tells the reader something about Sarah Palin... the relevant acronym is probably WP:UNDUE). Is it? --SB_Johnny | ^talk 21:51, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Undue weight only comes into play if the issue is actually given undue weight in the article. If it's reflected in an NPOV fashion that makes it clear who the sources of the criticisms were, as well as the lack of any currently known evidence that Palin specifically approved the policy, that doesn't impart undue weight. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 19:22, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

That acronym applies, and so does WP:SS: "The parent article should have general summary information and the more detailed summaries of each subtopic should be in daughter articles and in articles on specific subjects."

If there is any doubt about how Wikipedia's content policies apply here (and I don't think there is), when in doubt leave it out. In other words, the burden of evidence is on those who want to include.Ferrylodge (talk) 22:59, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

The information in the rape kit budget passage currently in the article is entirely factual. These facts are not held to be true by a 'tiny minority'. It is not even close to the examples given, of belief in the Flat Earth or other such Fringe Theories. For these 3 reasons alone, WP:UNDUE is not relevant to this material. Anarchangel (talk) 02:11, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

"Undue weight applies to more than just viewpoints. Just as giving undue weight to a viewpoint is not neutral, so is giving undue weight to other verifiable and sourced statements." Even if there were no policy about undue weight, WP:Summary style would apply to this matter.Ferrylodge (talk) 02:44, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

At what point does something become so extreme in behavior that it warrants comment within someone's biography? This is not, in the opinion of those to whom it matters, 'undue weight'. It is valid. It is real. It is purposeful. And numerous amounts of evidence have been given to justify its inclusion. 66.156.62.234 (talk) 04:16, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

There is no consensus that Palin did anything extreme here.[7]Ferrylodge (talk) 04:21, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I guess its the lack of consensus that I'm seeing on the Rape Kit. 66.156.62.234 (talk) 04:59, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Edit request 2

{{editprotected}} To get the ball rolling, I'd like to request removal of the following material from the article: "Palin appointed[29] Charles Fannon to replace Stambaugh as police chief. Fannon and his department sometimes billed rape victims' health insurance for evidence collection kits.[46] An investigation by the St. Petersburg Times found no evidence that Palin had explicitly supported or opposed this policy.[47]"

There's been lots of discussion about it, and also a poll which indicated substantial support for removal.[8]

The material would remain in the sub-article, with proper context, per WP:Summary style. Sufficient context would take up too much room in this main article, and would be undue weight here. Please note that "The burden of evidence for any edit on Wikipedia, but especially for edits about living persons, rests firmly on the shoulders of the person who adds or restores the material."Ferrylodge (talk) 02:37, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the edit.Ferrylodge (talk) 17:18, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

From which WP rule page is your quote? I was unable to find that text in a search for it. Anarchangel (talk)

WP:BLP. KillerChihuahua said above, "You can remove it from the article without citing BLP, is what I am saying."[9] So I didn't cite BLP.Ferrylodge (talk) 03:06, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

NM, I found it. It is talking about citations. We have those. See anywhere you said 'burden of evidence'. Not my fault you're repetitive. Anarchangel (talk) 06:52, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

To see a refutation of the idea that the quote was talking about citations, see below. In a nutshell, poorly sourced material is to be removed immediately, while the burden of evidence rests on editors adding/restoring material for everything.LedRush (talk) 15:52, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Which is quite correct. No policy is needed to decide an edit is desirable. SBJohnny: It appears to me that we're not getting a calm consensus discussion anytime soon. Both sides appear to be arguing to the death to keep/remove. My guage is that the majority view is to the Remove, you concur? KillerChihuahua^?!? 11:01, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Concur on both counts... I was actually scribbling something up about that this morning, will add as a section below when I'm done. --SB_Johnny | ^talk 11:31, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I assume that "NM" means "never mind". I assume that "you" refers to me. I have no idea what "repetitiveness" you are referring to. I assume that "it" refers to the "burden of evidence." I have no idea why you assume that "it" is talking about citations. "It" refers to the "burden of proof" regarding whether something belongs in a Wikipedia article.Ferrylodge (talk) 17:04, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Burden of proof is from Law. Not WP rules. Misleading.Anarchangel (talk) 19:02, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

The wikilink to burden of evidence has been in BLP for many months. The wikilinked article covers the subject generally, not just legally, and has a section on "Science and other uses". There was nothing remotely misleading about my previous comment above.Ferrylodge (talk) 05:28, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

-previously entered in discussion- "In addition to relevance in its own right, it has significance in the Stambaugh firing because of Stambaugh's assertion that he had proposed a line item in the budget to cover the cost of the kits. It is indispensable to an understanding of Palin's choice of subordinates, her handlingoversight of their policies, and her treatment of political rivals. I support the inclusion of any of Fannon's quotes, any and all material from the Legislature, the CNN article, and the source material on the budget from the Wasilla City Records department if links to that can be found, otherwise the HuffPo piece that links to that as a last resort, and anything I forgot. I specifically exclude support for inclusion of material from the SPT article as all of its material that doesn't rely for its notability on a negative proof can be found from other sources that reported earlier and with less editorializing. Anarchangel 22:21, 28 Dec Anarchangel (talk) 03:01, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, I feel I need to yet again address Anarchangel's assertion that the SPT language relies on the negative proof fallacy. Here it is again:

The negative proof fallacy is when the lack of evidence that something is true is used to definitively state that that thing is true. The SPT has a statement about their investigation: "We can’t find that Palin ever commented on the policy, pro or con." This is not a statement about the underlying truth of whether or not Palin commented on the policy and is not an example of the negative proof fallacy. It is merely a statement about the results of an SPT investigation: they didn't find anything. The WP article says: "An investigation by the St. Petersburg Times found no evidence that Palin had explicitly supported or opposed this policy." This is also a statement of provable fact (that the SPT did an investigation and found no evidence of Palin supporting or opposing the policy) and not about the whether Palin did or didn't do anything. Therefore, neither the WP article nor the SPT report relies on the negative proof fallacy.LedRush (talk) 03:18, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

(EC) I feel we've had this discussion many times and so I'll give a very brief summary of why this should be removed. Firstly, the vast majority of editors who have weighed in on this issue in the last 3 weeks feel the language should be removed. WP standards clearly indicate that in a BLP that the burden of evidence relies on people who want to add the language. All of the arguments against inclusion mentioned above (undue weight, coatrack, etc.) are enough to win if the burden of proof were neutral, but the editors arguing for inclusion have offered almost no proof that would overcome the burden of evidence required by a BLP.LedRush (talk) 03:08, 7 January 2009 (UTC) Aw, geez, now Led's doing it.
All the statements that have been presented for inclusion on this issue have been cited. The burden of evidence has been met already. Anarchangel (talk) 06:52, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

The vast majority of the editors in the last three seconds feel that it should be included. As for burden of proof...the language is already there about including it. You're arguing for REMOVAL. 66.156.62.234 (talk) 04:21, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Please. Stop joking around.Ferrylodge (talk) 04:26, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

The vast majority of the editors in the last three seconds feel that it should be included. As for burden of proof...the language is already there about including it. You're arguing for REMOVAL. 66.156.62.234 (talk) 04:21, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

(EC) Three seconds is not enough for consensus to change. A three or four week discussion is. Please try not to be insulting. Also, I think you are misunderstanding the argument...the BLP language says "The burden of evidence for any edit on Wikipedia, but especially for edits about living persons, rests firmly on the shoulders of the person who adds or restores the material." "Adds" or "restores" (which means adds it after it has been removed).LedRush (talk) 04:28, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeh, could you like, stop repeating that 'burden of evidence' line, please? I know it wasn't you that started it, but that's 6 times between you and Ferrylodge. -Dramamine- for the Ad Nauseum.

All the statements that have been presented for inclusion on this issue have been cited. The burden of evidence has been met already. Anarchangel (talk) 06:52, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

The "burden of evidence" line is from WP:BLP, and it refers to the burden of proof that something is suitable to be included in a Wikipedia article. The fact that something is TRUE is not enough to satisfy the burden of proof. It must meet all of Wikipedia’s core content policies, and you have the burden of proving that it meets the content policies in order to include or restore material.Ferrylodge (talk) 17:18, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I will not have readers of this page misled in this manner. You will check your facts before inserting misleading material. The burden of proof you linked to is from Law, not WP rules. You have presented no evidence that the 'burden of evidence', which I knew was from BLP, thanks, is referring to a Law. WTF. Someone do something about this. I think the word you are looking for is Verifiability, WP:V, and I already addressed that. To reiterate: the material is cited. Anarchangel (talk) 18:57, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

The words "burden of evidence" in WP:BLP is linked to the burden of proof article. Regardless, my reading of WP:BLP doesn't seem to indicate that adding a cite is automatically enough to meet this burden. Could you show me from where you got this notion?LedRush (talk) 19:10, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Amazingly, 'burden of evidence' is indeed linked to the Law page 'Burden of proof'. I have asked on its Discussion page for that link to be removed.
And as for my "notion", see the section immediately preceding the "burden of proof" link : "Editors must take particular care adding biographical material about a living person to any Wikipedia page. Such material requires a high degree of sensitivity, and must adhere strictly to all applicable laws in the United States and to all of our content policies, especially

• Neutral point of view (NPOV)
• Verifiability
• No original research

We must get the article right.[1] Be very firm about the use of high quality references. Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons—whether the material is negative, positive, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion.[2]"
Notice that the final sentence does not say, "Material that isn't proven, on the relevant Discussion page, to the satisfaction of a jury of editors who have stated, on that Discussion page, that they are opposed to the material's inclusion should be removed immediately"? It says 'Unsourced or poorly sourced'. The kit budget material is neither. Anarchangel (talk) 20:55, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

That language, to me, is clearly articulating a different policy for unsourced or poorly sourced info: it must be removed immediately. The burden of evidence in general, however, is just as we've described above. It places the burden of evidence on putting things into the article (either originally or through restoring deletes) on the editor who wants to put the language in. The former is basically analogous to getting your case thrown out of court, while the latter is just a burden of evidence that one side (editors arguing for inclusion) need to overcome. Apples and oranges. I am quite certain that there is no consesnsus that you (or others) have overcome that burden and therefore that the language must not be allowed into the article.LedRush (talk) 21:22, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry. I was not attempting to be insulting. However, I must say I'm slightly insulted that you said I was insulting you. I was making an ironic statement about the ARTICLE, not about you. And I thought the straw poll was non official and non binding? How then can it be used as 'most editors'? And if the number or persistence of editors is not the question, then perhaps it is the fact that there is still a significant number who are in favor of some form of inclusion. This is hardly what I'd call consensus. 66.156.62.234 (talk) 04:57, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

The timing of the straw poll was not arbitrary. It was meant to see how many editors who had opined on the subject had stuck around after the end of the campaign season, and the result (now that the campaign partisans have moved on) was a nearly 4 to 1 ratio in favor of removing the material from the article. That would seem to constitute a strong majority. »S0CO^{(talk|contribs)} 06:56, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I concur with removal. And I would consider a comment by an IP sock to not count for very much (four edits in 43 minutes on only one talk page as the entire contribution history does seem to warrant "sock" IMHO). Collect (talk) 11:13, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Outrage

Recently, an administrator removed the material in question, but was reverted by another administrator, whose edit summary said: "No consensus for removal of rape kit budget, as is clear by the outrage on the talk page." Does this mean that one outraged editor can demand inclusion of whatever material the editor wishes, regardless of how many editors oppose inclusion? And in a BLP?

If the degree of "outrage" really makes any difference, I'd like to make crystal clear that I am outraged. Go look at the Barack Obama article. You won't find one word about his statement to "Joe the Plumber" that we need to "redistribute the wealth", nor one word about his statement in San Francisco about bitter small-town folk who "cling" to their guns and religion, nor one word about Bill Ayres or about Jeremiah Wright. And that's just fine and appropriate for a BLP. But when a small minority of editors wants to jam something nasty into this Sarah Palin article, then all rules are off. WP:BLP doesn't apply. WP:Consensus doesn't apply. WP:Summary style, WP:Undue weight, and all the rest fall by the wayside.

Maybe we could more thoroughly insinuate that Palin is somehow mean to rape victims, by putting all this rape kit material in the lead.Ferrylodge (talk) 18:06, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Completely agree. By the standards used for the rape kit stuff, the Trig/Tripp Trutherism would also be in the article - it's received the same, if not more, press coverage. Kelly ^hi! 01:29, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Not to mention the YEC-Dino debacle. I shudder to think of what this article will turn into if outrage is to be our key metric for inclusion. »S0CO^{(talk|contribs)} 04:20, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Palin talking about the media bias during the election - though since it's just a preview on YouTube at this point, we can't use it as a source in the article until the documentary this previews is actually released. But the bias this discusses has actually found its way into this article via "reliable sources". Kelly ^hi! 04:30, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

The journalistic standards did drop a bit this election cycle, didn't they? I must admit, since journalists started holding standing ovations at Obama press conferences, I began to question which could be considered reliable sources at all. Then again, I suppose that's part of why we're still here debating this. »S0CO^{(talk|contribs)} 05:02, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, the LA Times is bankrupt.[10] I guess it's understandable they'd reach for tabloid territory to try to save themselves. The NYT is doing the same thing, but they'll likely be bankrupt anyway this May.[11] Kelly ^hi! 05:17, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

$400 million in the hole? Ouch. »S0CO^{(talk|contribs)} 06:18, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Let's stay on topic, please :-). --SB_Johnny | ^talk 10:50, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Trig Trutherism

Resolved

 – Conspiracy theory, fringe. Kelly ^hi! 00:46, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Every newspaper report about Bristol giving birth in December is based on just one event: a statement by Sarah Palin's aunt (Bristol's great aunt) on the phone to a tabloid. This is shoddy reporting for the other rags that ran with it, since there are no hospital reports or any evidence of any kind, and even Sarah initially distanced herself from it. She only made an oblique comment after it had been "established fact" -- perhaps because then she could say that she was herself fooled by the media. Wikipedia should not run with it. In any case, running two footnoes with it is not proper, because the WP article cites the People article as its sole source.AtomAnt (talk) 18:29, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I could be wrong, but I doubt there's be major media sources about this, so those are probably the only sources that we have to refer to. What change to the article are you suggesting, AtomAnt? (Love the username, btw... yes, I'm old enough to get the joke). --SB_Johnny | ^talk 19:37, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi SB_Johnny, and thanks for your considerate and thoughtful response. The change I would suggest is a simple one -- in fact it is the same thing all the newspapers who ran with People magazine's story have been doing. Simply tack on the front of the info, "According to Sarah Palin's aunt, speaking by phone to People magazine..." AtomAnt (talk) 11:19, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Howdy, AA - actually I linked this below, but the information was confirmed by a press release from Governor Palin's office. I just changed the reference in the article. Kelly ^hi! 21:47, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

As incomprehensible as it sounds, there is still a crowd that believes the birth of Palin's youngest child, Trig, was an arrangement of conspiracy to mask the pregnancy of Palin's daughter. Thus, the pregnancy and recent birth of the daughter's child (Tripp?) must have been fictitious in order for the conspiracy theory to work. Amazing, I know. Fcreid (talk) 23:02, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Huh. Learn something new everyday, I guess. --SB_Johnny | ^talk 00:05, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Well you just learned something about this article!--Paul (talk) 01:20, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

The governor's office issued a press release[12] a few days after the birth. Kelly ^hi! 22:30, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

There was an interesting press release later from the governor's office on the tangential matter of press credibility, in general. It mentions the embarrassing spectacle that Palin had to endure when the press questioned the birth of her youngest son, Trig. It specifically mentions The Atlantic as perpetuating that story even today. As I've mentioned, I'm not a newshound, but my participation in this article during the past several months has taught me to doubt many news outlets I formerly held as reputable. It is a shame that people and entire press outfits could become embedded stakeholders in such muck that they feel compelled to perpetuate it in spite of facts rather than simply admitting they were wrong because they were overly salacious in their reporting. Fcreid (talk) 11:47, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

OK Kelly, so where is the press release? And what exactly did it say? Something about Bristol and her husband-to-be's not being high-school dropouts, right? Sarah at first refused to comment, and only did so obliquely once "the waters were tested" and she was sure that it was established fact. Maybe she even figured if worst came to worst, she could say that she too was deceived by the media. No hospital reports, no other evidence of any kind — just one phone call by Palin's aunt. Is this the nail the family wished to drive into the coffin of the Sarah-Bristol-Trig triangle hoax? Why did it fall to the aunt to do it?201.87.105.107 (talk) 10:46, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

SB Johnny - yeah, the "Trig isn't hers" conspiracy theory got its start at Daily Kos, I think a day or two following Palin's VP nomination. It periodically rears its head at this article. The current main proponents are Andrew Sullivan at The Atlantic and a website called "Palin's Deceptions". Even the Anchorage Daily News had dabbled in it - just this past week the executive editor there replied to criticism from Palin's office because one of their reporters had been pressuring Palin's physician to violate HIPAA, and calling state offices and her children's school district.[13] At one point I considered writing an article on the theory itself, but it's so fringy and such a blatant BLP violation it's probably impossible to write about neutrally. Kelly ^hi! 14:00, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Kelly, you sound off like an expert on the Trig-triangle hypothesis, saying you were considering writing an article about it, and you even use demeaning words like "finge" -- but just a little research, the slightest background check, would have been more than enough for you not to state erroneously that the rumors were begun in August, by an article in the Daily Kos. These rumors were all over Alaska, including in print, long before August, even before April. If you had even read the Daily Kos article you would know that.201.87.105.107 (talk) 00:58, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, that sounds like a "notable fringe theory" then (assuming that's not an oxymoron), so perhaps it should have an article. I'm confident that a bunch of average Wikipedians will be able to keep it NPOV :-). --SB_Johnny | ^talk 14:52, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

When I looked into it, the sourcing just isn't there. It's all either rumors on partisan blogs or opinion columnists talking about the rumors on the blogs. When mention has appeared in reliable sources, it's only brief statements that "bloggers said such-and-such". Even Sullivan has kept his speculation to his blog, and out of the pages of the dead-tree version of The Atlantic. As a comparison, I looked at the sourcing on Barack Obama citizenship fringe theories - there's way more sourcing there and even that article had to fight to survive. Also, based on my earlier work with John Edwards extramarital affair, I don't think a putative article on this conspiracy theory would survive an AfD unless she came out and said the rumors were true, as happened in the Edwards case. Kelly ^hi! 15:21, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure how that could even be placed into any WP article without serious BLP concerns! Imagine the Palin family having to endure a conspicuous conspiracy that held their mother faked her pregnancy to hide their sister's pregnancy, and that their baby brother (who suffers from Downs syndrome) is really their nephew! It's borderline to discuss even here on the talk page! It's not like faking a moon landing or something... these are people with real lives that are really impacted by that crap. Hell, it doesn't even meet the paparazzi standards for the daily Britney Spears Report! Imagine the outrage if someone from the press demanded private medical records of a Hollywood star under the Freedom of Information Act! In contrast, I'd love to see the quote from the governor's office press release in this article: As a public official, I expect criticism and I expect to be held accountable for how I govern,” Gov. Palin said. “But the personal, salacious nature of recent reporting, and often the refusal of the media to correct obvious mistakes, unfortunately discredits too many in journalism today, making it difficult for many Americans to believe what they see in the media. I don't think it could be better stated. Fcreid (talk) 22:38, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree. There were tons of people trying to insert this info here last Sept, but they mostly seem to have left. Kelly ^hi! 23:15, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

In the pure for what it's worth category, this specific story is what catalyzed my involvement as a contributor (to use the term loosely) to this article. I came here in late August like a zillion others to learn about this person of whom I'd never heard, but I was so shocked and embarrassed to read what supposedly legitimate contributors (and press outfits) were trying to put in the article about this mother's ordeal that I created an account to participate. As everyone who's been around since then knows, I confined myself almost exclusively here in talk where I hoped to bring some semblance of decorum, decency and reason to this despicable story. For the most part, I declined commenting on topics of clearly political bile (which one would expect in any presidential race), but this one clearly crossed that boundary. I only took up the rape kit issue because it represented the pinnacle of hypocrisy to me that editors pushing this nonsense would then accuse the woman of being insensitive on another woman's issue (rape). While I've been criticized as a WP:SPA Single Purpose Account, that really doesn't bother me, as keeping this trash out of the top Internet search spot was my sole goal. Fcreid (talk) 23:36, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I really must agree with that as well. Some of the ridiculous statements just blew me away. (Like the Africa thing, dinosaurs, and such.) I heard an interesting interview with Palin, which was played on local talk radio the other day, where she addressed many of these rumors, and her treatment by the press in general, but I was still asleep when it started, and so am not sure who she was talking to. Hopefully, they'll post the interview on their website soon. Zaereth (talk) 23:28, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

It may have been the Eddie Burke show...she was doing an interview there the other day talking about allegedly unethical behavior by the Anchorage Daily News regarding the Trig thing, and about some other actions by the national press. Kelly ^hi! 23:42, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Could be. It seems to me it was with an author who is writing an upcoming book on the topic of the media and this election, but I was half asleep at the time. I'll see if I can dig up more info tomorrow. Zaereth (talk) 00:48, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

It was with the director of an upcoming documentary called "Media Malpractice: How Obama Got Elected". »S0CO^{(talk|contribs)} 00:54, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeah. That's the one. Zaereth (talk) 01:03, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

(ec)Oh yeah, the John Ziegler interview. That did get a lot of national play - not surprised to hear they were playing excerpts on the radio. Kelly ^hi! 01:05, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

For what it's worth, Ziegler mentioned seeing Bristol Palin with her son in his column discussing the interview. I'm sure, however, that some people may think that this makes him part of the conspiracy. :) Kelly ^hi! 01:16, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I find this list to be very instructive when dealing with such people. »S0CO^{(talk|contribs)} 01:19, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Wow, awesome list - I bookmarked it. I think every single characteristic fits the Trig Truther narrative. Kelly ^hi! 01:25, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Hey! That is handy! :-D Thanks!Zaereth (talk) 01:48, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Dunno where this is right now, don't have time to catch up, so sorry, but here is my statement: If this is added to the article, I will remove it per BLP if I see it, and I will support anyone who removes it per BLP. This is nonsense. This is extremely private, and there is nothing beyond speculation to post - the very essence of a BLP issue. This, unlike for example, the rape kit issue, was never used as a campaign attack nor has it gained any traction with any RS; it is about private life and not about her public life or reason for notability. There is no "judgment" co-argument. It is, simply put, speculation about very personal matters with zero serious rationale or coverage. Edit war over adding it and you'll get a fast result from myself or Johnny. I remind all editors this is a BLP under probation. Puppy has spoken, puppy is done. I suggest you all be done too. KillerChihuahua^?!? 14:24, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

For those interested, see also this Media Matters article, dated Jan. 13, 2009, dealing with the subject. I'm leaning toward the "notable rumor" side of things, but I'm one voice very much outweighed, and now is probably not a good time to start new info about it. :) Regards. FangedFaerie (Talk | Edits) 16:35, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

I had read that blog - unfortunately I don't think Media Matters for America can be regarded as a reliable or neutral source. Kelly ^hi! 16:38, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

I didn't realize it counted as a blog, though I see from "correcting conservative misinformation in the U.S. media" on the About Us page that it is undoubtedly biased. Ah, well. Regards. FangedFaerie (Talk | Edits) 19:08, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Personal Life Question

Sorry if this issue has been addressed elsewhere on this discussion page, but most of the sections contain too much information for me to go over at this moment. Shouldn't the fact that her daughter is pregnant be included in her personal life section, as the birth of her first grandchild, especially in the case of her daughter who is fairly young if I recall correctly, is a major event. Also, there has been huge amounts of press coverage on this, meaning that it is fairly notable. Can anyone clear this up for me? Xenocide^{Talk|Contributions} 01:49, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

You might wish to read the archives linled to at the top of this page. I am sure you will find there has been quite sufficient discussion on such issues. Thanks! Collect (talk) 02:13, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

49 archives are a little much to read, could you provide a quick summary? Xenocide^{Talk|Contributions} 02:28, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I think a better organization of the archives might be helpful for people who are interested in getting involved but don't want to spend a day or two fishin' :-). Any volunteers?

Xenocide: what did you expect to find in the article that wasn't there? --SB_Johnny | ^talk 22:59, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

To summarize: If something you have heard about Palin is not here, it is because the editors did not reach a consensus that it belongs in the article. And you may be sure it has been discussed, likely at some length. Collect (talk) 02:34, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

We've created a situation with biographies where it is trivially easy to remove content, regardless of sourcing, but a great challenge to add any. It's a codified preference for mud in the eye of the reader over full disclosure. While it's seen as a good thing by some, I see it as a particularly awful degradation of what this project is supposed to be. --SSBohio 21:59, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Career, post-VP candidacy

In the article, the structure of her career follows a semi-chronological, semi-topical structure - city councilwoman, mayor, commissioner, governor, VP nominee. However, now she is back to being governor and developments are continuing to occur. She's also engaging in political activities outside her role as Governor, like her campaigning for Saxby Chambliss or her appearance next month at CPAC. Should we place these things in the "Governor" section, or should we do some kind of a split - her gubernatorial career 2006-8, then her VP run, then her gubernatorial career post-2008? Kelly ^hi! 23:14, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Seems reasonable to create a "Post VP Campaign" section that includes new stuff from her continuing governorship and whatever else follows. Fcreid (talk) 23:19, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree.--King Bedford I ^{Seek his grace} 16:57, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Alaska energy plan

Palin has announced her energy plan for Alaska - reportedly the most ambitious in the nation in terms of renewable energy. (Here is a link to the actual plan.) What section should this be placed in? Kelly ^hi! 04:58, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Request

I've been busier than I had thought I would be recently, and have not been able to keep the close eye I would like on discussions on the Palin family of articles. PLEASE do leave me or Johnny a note on our talk pages if something comes up which appears to fall under the probation restrictions. I would rather have you spam us than have something spin out of control because it wasn't noticed in time. Note: Personal attacks will not be tolerated, confine yourself to policy issues and frame your concerns with an eye to AGF. I will not rule on content disputes. Thanks, KillerChihuahua^?!? 00:28, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Second that! --SB_Johnny | ^talk 00:30, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeah you saw how I said to spam you, too. Its clear we both got swamped at the same time. KillerChihuahua^?!? 00:33, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

• comment - I've been trying to keep abreast - y'all have been amazing, no edit wars and no nastiness, yea you! - don't forget if something flares up to ping me or Johnny (or both) before things get out of hand! We are always available for policy questions also. KillerChihuahua^?!? 16:27, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Interesting link regarding alleged media bias

Sorry for this - I ran across this article from the Anchorage Press that contains some quotes and material I haven't seen elsewhere, regarding Palin's disagreements with some of the media coverage. Also some quotes from her press spokesman about the volume of media requests she's still getting. The article doesn't address this that I know of (nor do the sub-articles) but it may be a topic that we should address someday. I'm mainly making this entry so the link will be here should I or someone else tackle this in the future. Another place that addresses some of the recent brouhaha between Palin and the press is the ADN Editor's Blog. Cheers - Kelly ^hi! 06:41, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Seema Mehta

Reference #183. I very much doubt Mehta's article is the most reliable source available. Here, she suggests that teachers in Texas assume the majority of their students are Christian. I realise that it's not a really in-depth look at the Bible literacy movement, but her dismissive view is clearly unfair. I think we can find someone better, maybe even a foreign journalist who investigated the matter. Ottre 06:09, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't see the mention of the issue (Texas and Bible literacy) in the referenced article, but maybe I missed it. Was it some other piece the same author wrote about that? Regardless, the LA Times is a reliable source in accordance with WP:RS, although they certainly seemed to take partisan positions on many stories during the presidential campaign. The current article calls this particular story as a citation for Palin's position that contraception should be taught in schools alongside abstinence. Do you feel her position on this issue is being misstated in the article? Fcreid (talk) 10:51, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

The statement the OP is complaining about is in the article he cites, but it is a direct quote from someone interviewed for the article, not Mehta's own verbiage. There is nothing wrong with either the link he is complaining about, or from the piece which is referenced in our article. Horologium (talk) 11:21, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I assumed the link provided was to #183, and I linked that directly from the article, thus my confusion on the Texas stuff. Fcreid (talk) 11:33, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Sources as to income, assets, and net worth

• Pilon, Mary (2008-10-03). "Sarah Palin: Millionaire?". The Wallet: The Wall Street Journal. Washington, DC: Dow Jones & Company. Retrieved 2009-01-13. Gov. Palin, who's hinged much of her reputation on being a homespun candidate has total assets worth $1.2 million dollars.

• Sharon Theimer and Brett J. Blackledge (2008-10-01). "Estimates Show Palin Assets Top $1 Million". ABCNews.com. Associated Press. Retrieved 2009-01-15. Sarah Palin and her husband have pieced together a uniquely Alaskan income that reached comfortably into six figures even before she became governor, capitalizing on valuable fishing rights, a series of land deals and a patchwork of other ventures to build an above-average lifestyle. … [T]hey appear to be worth at least $1.2 million. … While there is a home loan, Palin reported no personal credit card debt on her most recent financial report as Alaska governor. That compares to average household credit card debt among Americans of $9,840 last year. … Sarah Palin's salary as governor was $125,000; Todd Palin took in $46,790 as a part-time oil production operator for BP Alaska in Prudhoe Bay, plus $46,265 in commercial fishing income and $10,500 in Iron Dog snowmachine race winnings. These figures do not include nearly $17,000 in per diem payments Palin received for 312 nights spent in her own home since she was elected governor; she also has received $43,490 to cover travel costs for her husband and children. In addition, each member of the Palin family received $1,654 in state oil royalties paid to all Alaskans. The Palins' assets seem enviable: a half-million-dollar home on a lake with a float-plane at the dock, two vacation retreats, commercial-fishing rights worth an estimated $50,000 or more and an income last year of at least $230,000. That compares to a median income of $64,333 for Alaskans and $50,740 for Americans in 2007, according to the Census Bureau. … The Palins' four-bedroom, four-bath house, nearly 3,500 square feet (330 m²), sits on just over two acres behind a tall wood-plank privacy fence that runs along one side of the property. It's one of the newest homes in the Snider subdivision lining Lake Lucille and is assessed at $552,000. … Palin's plane would be worth from about $38,000 to $78,000 depending on its condition

• Jans, Nick (2008-10-11). "Sarah Palin: The view from Alaska". Salon.com. San Francisco, CA: Salon Media Group. Retrieved 2009-01-16. Coming from a college-educated family, living in a half-million-dollar view home, basking in a net worth of $1.25 million, and having owned 40-some registered motorized vehicles in the past two decades (including 17 snowmobiles and a plane) hardly qualifies Palin and her clan as the quintessential Joe Six-Pack family unit … .

• "Sarah Palin: Millionaire?". Saint Louis Business Journal. Saint Louis, Missouri: American City Business Journals. 2008-09-12. Retrieved 2009-01-16. Palin, 44, lists in a March financial disclosure form an annual income of $125,000 as governor of Alaska. Her husband, Todd, earned $47,000 as an oil production supervisor for BP Alaska in 2007 and $46,000 as a commercial fisherman. They also list no credit card debt.

• Tim Middleton (2008-09-16). "A vice president like the rest of us". MSN Money. Redmond, Washington: Microsoft. Retrieved 2009-01-16. Compared with the piles of financial disclosures from would-be presidents I've pored over in recent months, the filings of vice-presidential candidates Sarah Palin and Joe Biden are astonishing. // Palin, the Alaska governor whose selection by John McCain for the Republican ticket has riveted both sides of the political aisle, would be the poorest vice president in recent memory. … [Palin's and Biden's] retirement nest eggs -- which for both candidates are almost their entire net worth -- are modest in the extreme, amounting to somewhere between $300,000 and $400,000 for each family. … In addition to owning their home, the Palins are co-owners, along with friends, of two vacation properties identified not by street number or town name but by tract number from the state's land survey. They have a mortgage on their home but no other debt. … The Palin family's securities reside in two accounts in the name of Todd Palin: a 401(k) from employer BP Prudhoe Bay and a self-employment Individual Retirement Account. Todd Palin's businesses include commercial salmon fishing and sponsored snowmobile racing. // The total value of these accounts at the end of 2007 was $381,405. The investments are much more aggressive than Biden's choices. The Palins' largest single investment was $80,112 in the T. Rowe Price Latin America Fund (PRLAX). Other individual holdings valued at more than $35,000 included Alger Small Cap Growth Fund (ALSAX) and American Funds Fundamental Investors R5 (RFNFX), a conservative large-cap fund. // The Palins report smaller holdings of such ETFs as KBW Capital Markets (KCE) and iShares MSCI Australia (EWA), and such common stocks as Intuit (INTU) and Roper Industries (ROP).

These are the sources I've located as to income, assets, and net worth for the Palins. I think there's enough information here to discuss their finances without facing claims that the discussion is "misleading" or "libelous." --SSBohio 19:42, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Only one of the articles talks about net worth, and it seems that op ed piece got the number from misunderstanding that gross assets don't equal net worth....which is exactly what we don't want the Wikipedia readers to do.LedRush (talk) 19:49, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

In short -- nothing extraordinary enough to warrant much mention in a biography at all. Collect (talk) 20:13, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm glad my hard work amounted to no opening of minds whatsoever. I may as well leave this article to y'all, since no contributions from me are desired or valued. But, it will be a case of leaving in disgust. Even when sources put the Palins' wealth in context, even when the facts are multiply sourced, the inability to see past one's own pre-judgment persists. It saddens me, but i thank you for the education. --SSBohio 20:47, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I think we should probably stay away from this, for several reasons:

1. Including information about assets and net worth doesn't seem to be standard practice for our biographies, unless for some reason it's extraordinarily high or extraordinarily low. For example, Ed Rendell, Mike Rounds, or David Paterson say nothing about finances. Jon Corzine does, but only apparently because he's worth hundreds of millions of dollars. I'm no expert on this, but the Palins' net worth doesn't seem noteworthy to me.
2. It's not a fact that would hold up to the test of time - it's just a snapshot and would quickly lose relevance with the passing of time.
3. There's no context for using raw $ figures to draw conclusions about the family's affluence or lack thereof. I have no idea where these numbers would place her in the context of Alaskans, and neither would most readers, particularly when you include things like the valuation of the family home. A $500,000 house in Casper, Wyoming would be a palace, while a home of the same value in San Diego, California would be relatively modest.
4. It would likely be subject to endless wrangling by partisans. You get a taste of this from the quotes given above. Presumably since part of Palin's political persona is that she's an "ordinary American" who rose to political prominence. Her supporters would want to emphasize this, whilst her political opponents would want to paint her as "rich" or "a millionare" and therefore "out of touch".

Just my two cents... Kelly ^hi! 20:58, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

(ec) I disagree, but my reasons why can't be discussed here for more than a couple of days. Yet, out of belief in the Wiki way, here are some, once more:

1. Information about the finances of candidates for public office are routinely reported in the mainstream press. The Palins' assets are more than triple those of the median Alaskan household. At the same time, they're quite low for a vice-presidential candidate, as MSN Money says: "Palin, the Alaska governor whose selection by John McCain for the Republican ticket has riveted both sides of the political aisle, would be the poorest vice president in recent memory."
2. The fact that when Sarah Palin ran for the Vice-Presidency, her household's assets were over $1 million is not a fact with an expiration date. While she was doing the most notable thing she has done to date, that was her financial picture. It defines her in terms of economic standing and social class at the very point when she was best known globally.
3. As to where these figures would place the Palins among other Alaskan households, I can only point you to the archive, as I have previously analyzed that question in detail using data from the Census Bureau, among other sources. Their asset value is triple to quadrouple that of the median Alaskan household, and, aside from their mortgage, they have virtually no liabilities. Their home is worth about triple that of the median Alaskan home.
4. Since part of Palin's appeal (and part of the antipathy for her) comes from her folksy, everywoman persona, whatever side of the political divide you come down on, her material wealth is a fact to be reckoned with. It is a way to discuss the spin applied by both sides while sticking to actual facts, not partisan opinions.

Nowhere does it say we should keep controversial subjects out of biographies, just that they should be well-sourced. Sarah Palin, is, herself, controversial. Can we say anything about the dollars behind her, or is the subject a taboo? I say it isn't. Being shackled to a rigid ideology (political or wiki) is no way to write a neutral biography. --SSBohio 21:45, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I think you summarized this one perfectly, Kelly. While I didn't follow the election closely, I recall attempts by detractors to paint the Palins as "not the ordinary family you think" (my words). That image became moot after some McCain campaign genius lavished the family with Saks wardrobes instead of dragging them through Sears and a Hair Cuttery, but that aside I'm certain the genesis of this was for the reasons you claim. Unless there's something extraordinary in there, and unless there are mechanisms to ensure it's updated dynamically, it really doesn't add any value to the biography. Addendum: Ssbohio makes valid points in rebuttal. What makes me suspect of the comparisons in context is that her everywoman appeal came as baggage when she was extracted from her Alaskan peers, and that image was well-documented prior to her arrival on the national scene and not the creation of Campaign 2008. One of my other concerns is that the financial worth of politicians, unless extraordinary, is usually released by the politician himself in the form of a financial statement. I'd have more comfort if these numbers were based on that same methodology, but it seems like most or all of this data is the result of independent research by news sources that may have had partisan interests in them. This is another topic where I don't feel strongly, so do as you see fit. Fcreid (talk) 21:59, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to break my self-imposed exile from this article to agree with Kelly's rationale here as well; well-argued and convincing. MastCell ^Talk 21:27, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I'll agree with Mastcell on that.Ferrylodge (talk) 21:39, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

That kind of homogeneity will not result in susbstantive improvement to any article, much less one on a vibrant yet polarizing political figure. If the ossification in this article is such as to not allow for a simple fact to be stated, if it instead must be removed without consensus to do so, then what hope is there for the big controversies? --SSBohio 21:45, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't think anyone is suggesting that this info be banished from Wikipedia. If you think that her wealth is relevant to her "homespun" image, then by all means stick it in the sub-article about her image. But not everything in the sub-article ought to go into this one. See WP:Summary style.Ferrylodge (talk) 22:21, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

(E/C with Ferrylodge) Wikipedia is not a soapbox. You provided a bunch of links, but (overlooking the fact that one of them is factually wrong), there is no real reason to include this information. The Palins' net worth is neither exceptionally large nor exceptionally small, and likely falls somewhere in the middle of the pack of all governors. There is no big controversy here, but there appears to be an attempt to gin one up. Horologium (talk) 22:28, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I hope I did more than "post a bunch of links." I'd also like to think that the reasons I provided are "real," even if you disagree with them. Other than that, I'd ask you to assume good faith that I'm not attempting to "gin up" a "controversy." If the Associated Press, the Washington Post, Salon.com, and MSN Money all see fit to comment on the issue, then we can take it as read that there is an issue. Belittling my contributions here and making unfounded accusations against me doesn't advance our declared goal. Addressing the factual issues you raised: (1) The Palins' net worth is exceptionally large, being that it's roughly triple the median for Alaskans.[14] (2) Palin's net worth may or may not be in the "middle of the pack" of all governors. Do you have a source? Her net worth is, however, exceptional among Alaskans, as well as among Vice-Presidential candidates, albeit in the opposite direction, as is pointed out in the MSN Money article. --SSBohio 21:56, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Um -- I think this just might be OR amok. I do know her asserted worth is well under the median for Congress, Senate and Governors. Collect (talk) 22:10, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Ok, you've accused me without making your accusation specific enough to defend against. What OR? --SSBohio 16:10, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

No OR -- Opensecrets.org lists the median Senator net worth at $1.7 million [15]. As her total assets were stated at up to $1.2 million, assuming she has a mortgage, her net worth is likely about $700K, which is the median for Congress members. Governor list is not calculated as such ... apparently not all states require detailed info. Washington state, for example, has no brackets ending above $100K on financial reports -- $100 million would show as "above $100K" there. It would absolutely require a lot of OR to gauge the governor rates, but as for Congress, she is likely below the median, and ansolutely so for Senators. Collect (talk) 16:45, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Are you no longer alleging "OR amok?" Using your assumptions, her net worth is roughly quintuple that of the typical Alaskan. That makes her relatively wealthy among Alaskans. She is also relatively poor among Vice-Presidential candidates, according to MSN Money. According to your source, she is relatively poor among Members of Congress. The measure you get depends on the yardstick you apply. I just want to report the facts and leave the conclusions to the reader, rather than molding their perceptions by withholding certain facts and presenting others. --SSBohio 20:24, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

My problem here is that the onle source which gives any actual information is admittedly speculating. It uses the rather shaky phrase "appears to" be worth ... Now, I'm not even good enough with my own finances to be able to add all those numbers up acurately, but I can't see putting a possible upper limit in the article without a possible lower limit. I see no sources offered that provide balance to this speculation.

I also have somewhat of a problem with the implication that she is somehow much wealthier than all other Alaskans. There are many, many people who have homes just as nice, or better here. While a good majority do not, (myself included), she is not living like a queen while the rest of us are starving either. Like any other place, there is a great diversity in the wealth of the population, and it does't seem fair to use a mere average as some kind of comparison.

Many Alaskans own planes, and many, many more own snowmachines. While very big assets in their own right, both are extremely high maintenance and costly to operate. Snowmachines, (or snowmobiles, whatever you call them down there), also depreciate in value very quickly. It is also not unusual for Alaskans to have a cabin out in the wilderness somewhere. Unless excessively developed and easily reachable, these are usually not of any real great value.

To sum up, my main objection is that I don't think a lot of the variables have been considered, and this appears to be more speculation than a reportable fact that would add something signifigant to the article. I also generally agree that her (speculated) wealth is not sufficiently high or low to merit mention, but might, (might), be willing to change that position if some more reliable information could be presented. I don't think the extra sources provide that definitiveness.Zaereth (talk) 23:42, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Zaereth, I agree with you about the speculative nature of the source. However, Wikipedia already has a way to deal with a reliable source making a claim like that: we explicitly tie it to the source, saying that "The Associated Press reported that the Palins' assests appeared to be $X.X million." The article is, after all, a news piece, not an editorial, and was reported by a world-renowned press agency.

• As to her relative wealth, the statistics are clear: The median household net worth for Alaskans is $166,180.^[16] Given the available sources, the Palins' appear to have roughly triple the wealth of the typical (50th percentile) Alaskan. Being a significant outlier is something I consider exceptional.
• In Alaska, the median home value is $144,200.^[17] The Palins' home is valued at about $550,000. That's 3.8 times the median. Again, nearly quadruple the median seems like a meaningful distinction.
• A median and an average are two different things. The median net worth is the figure at which 50% of Alaskans are above it & 50% are below it. It is much more representative of a diverse population than a "mere average" would be.
• I'm sure that many Alaskans do own airplanes and snowmachines. That's not particularly remarkable, nor is it topical to the question. In fact, the Palins' seaplane is decades old and may be worth about the same as a well-appointed SUV. As for the Palins' land holdings, they are valued by the State of Alaska, a matter of public record, as reported in the sources I cited.
• To sum up, I've considered the variables you cite, but they're mostly irrelevant to the fundamental question of whether to report anything at all about the Palins' assets or net worth. There are reliable sources that speak to the Palins' finances, and financial disclosure is part & parcel of being a candidate for national office. --SSBohio 21:56, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Zaereth, thanks much for the Alaskan perspective. When placing Palin's wealth in the context of the Alaskan population, it makes me think of the state I grew up in, which had a huge Native American population (generally poor). When all residents, including Natives, were averaged, even a regular family farmer or small-business owner was way above average by comparison. Does the Native population in Alaska similarly distort comparisons? Kelly ^hi! 00:50, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

No problem. I think what a lot of people also don't take into account is the high cost of living here. Many people move here with the knowledge that a job can often pay more than the same job in the Lower 48, but then find that a gallon of milk is $5.00 and a small rib steak more than $12.00, etc ... A simple cost comparison may not be so simple after all. Zaereth (talk) 01:35, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Coincidentally, that was the price for milk when I lived on Adak_Island in the Aleutians even twenty years ago (and the milk arrived frozen! :) It costs four times that on Adak today, and it's $18 for a frozen pizza. People don't appreciate the impact that fuel and transportation costs have on prices at the grocer's shelves, although there was an ample supply of caribou and halibut in return for a little effort. As with all remote places, one would earn several times the income on Adak of the same position in a major city, as is likely the case with Todd working on the North Slope. You earn that with long work days, back-breaking labor and isolation. Regardless, CNN Money lists the 2008 Anchorage median family income at $80K and median home price at $270K, placing the Palins income and home value smack in the middle of ordinary and non-notable. Not sure why there's so much interest in it. Fcreid (talk) 13:41, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

To answer your question simply, yes. Here in Anchorage the number of poor versus well off natives is probably average, but out in the villages life can be somewhat ... different. (I want to use the word primitive, but don't want to offend anybody. Suffice it to say, its nothing like life in the towns or cities.) Villages are often very poor with no running water or sewer systems, quite often, proudly, living the same subsistance lifestyle their great culture has been living for thousands of years.Zaereth (talk) 01:45, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply...I remember that a similar argument came up a few months ago in reference to beluga whales. Apparently there are Natives that rely on the whales for subsistence, and they were being overhunted - and there were some issues regarding Palin's attempt to balance the Native's survival concerns with the fed's species concerns. There are definitely issues up there that are in a completely different context than those we have down here. Kelly ^hi! 01:57, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps a compromise statement that doesn't attempt to define a context or draw a conclusion (and presuming there is agreement upon what the variable would be), e.g. "At the time of her 2008 campaign, the Palin family's net worth was estimated to be $FIGURE (citation)". BTW, it's critical to agree upon a source for that net worth. Their income and assets are meaningless without calculating their liabilities. I'd personally be reluctant to include the value of their primary home in that calculation (unless it's a magnificent mansion they inherited free and clear), as it's not something one can sell to achieve liquidity (except in disaster), and its relative geographic worth is irrelevant unless the family intended to downsize or move. Ya gotta live somewhere! Her vacation properties would be relevant to calculating net worth, providing she owns those without mortgages, as would Todd's bigger toys, e.g. his seaplane. (I don't see the need to tally up the discrete values of snow machines, riding lawn mowers or HDTVs unless we're getting ready to sue the family! :) Fcreid (talk) 23:16, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Fcried, we don't seem to have any citations for her net worth, except for one that has apparently mistaken gross assets for net worth.LedRush (talk) 23:33, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) I just poked around a bit myself, and it does seem the this has been largely speculative and usually accompanied by a narrative that attempts to dispel her everywoman image. That's neither verifiable nor notable. Don't governors release financial disclosure statements or something equivalent that identifies their net worth (under ethic rules and such?) When one starts calculating the equity in a primary home to inflate a net worth figure, it's usually the owner applying for a loan they shouldn't be taking or the plaintiff determining the award they expect! :) So, it seems like sourcing is really the problem on this, huh? Fcreid (talk) 23:56, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

My impression of this was that it was a campaign narrative (sort of like the "RNC bought nice clothes for her" thing) and thus would belong in the campaign article...something along the lines of "The McCain campaign promoted Palin as an "everywoman" (If they did, I don't recall.) while some media outlets portrayed her as wealthy with assets of X dollars." But otherwise I think we should stick to the conventions we follow in the biographies of other active politicians/governors. With respect - Kelly ^hi! 00:15, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

With what's been presented thus far, I would have to agree. I will caveat that if we were to find a reliable source for the family's net worth at the time of the campaign, I would agree with one of Ssbohio's points above that stating, "At the time of the 2008 presidential campaign, the Palins had a net worth of $(some amount)." That seems to be of historical and static significance and would survive the test of time in a biography. It seems determining that amount remains elusive, however. Fcreid (talk) 00:20, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

I would support a one-sentence mention in the Sarah Palin article and maybe a paragraph in the article on her campaign. I'm not seeking to make a point about her either way; I simply believe that such sourced information should not be excluded as it gives the appearance that we aren't providing a full, fair portrait of this public figure. --SSBohio 21:56, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Straw Poll on inclusion of statement on assets or net worth in article

OK, it looks like that we have general agreement that we would like to add a line about her net worth if we had one (regardless of whether or not it is necessary or unique. But the problem is that we only have sources for her gross assets, which I (and perhaps others) think will be mistaken for a statement about her net worth. So, I think there are two possible remedies, and would like to introduce this straw poll below to see what we think. This is not binding, and please include brief arguments you think are necessary. If you think an option should be changed, or a new one introduced, please do so.

At the time of the 2008 presidential campaign, the Palins had gross assets of $1.2 million, though an accurate determination of their net worth has not been made public. (or something to that effect to let people know gross assets =/= net worth).

1. This is a good solution in terms of disclosing what we know without overemphasizing it or speculating about what we don't. --SSBohio 20:24, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Do not include this information in the article (at least until a reliable source for net worth is found)

1. Agreed. If a reliable source could be found that addressed the question of net worth in context, I would be open to changing my mind. But I'm not sure why we would include this in Sarah Palin when we don't typically include it in our other biographies of state governors. Kelly ^hi! 16:15, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
2. I find just giving the assets, even with the warning, to be misleading. Also, I've not seen this done in other BLPs and don't see the need here. If we get a net worth number, I could change my mind.LedRush (talk) 16:23, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

   Can we not trust in the reader's ability to read? I'd much rather do that than assume ignorance on their part. --SSBohio 20:24, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

3. The Palin's wealth (or lack thereof) is not notable at all. There is no reason to include it Sarah's biographical encyclopedia article.--Paul (talk) 16:28, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
4. Once again, I generally agree that the speculated wealth of the Palin's is not at all notable, as it is not beyond the standards of a Governor, and especially not one whose husband has two jobs. (Fcried's statement above is correct. A job on the north slope consists of 12 to 16 hour work days, 7 days a week, in -20 to -50° weather for weeks or months at a time. And commercial fishing is some of the hardest, most dangerous work out there.) Also, I think the estimate of wealth is admittedly high, judging things such as snowmachines and planes at their new value, and as for home value comparison, the numbers are obviously an average of the entire state. If you include all the remote villages, where a house often consists of one room with a honey bucket in the corner, (if you don't know what a honey bucket is, you probably don't want to), then of course it seems as if she's living in a mansion compared to the rest of us. In urban areas this is just not the case, and the number provided by Fcried, (an average of ~ $300,000), seems to me to a better estimate. But original research aside, if a source that is definitive could be found I could probably be persuaded to change my mind, as I don't feel too strongly about an accurate mention. I do think the unique situations here in Alaska should be taken into account if any type of comparison is made. Zaereth (talk) 17:50, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

   Your facts are wrong: • The cited sources do not estimate the value of their assets based on new values, but on current market values. • Todd Palin's income is not at issue here, but it was reported in detail in the sources I cited • The numbers are not an average of the entire state, but a median, as I said. • Niether are the numbers an "estimate," as the value of the Palins' home is a matter of public record. The omitted facts are in what I've written, as well as in the sources cited. You have only but to read them. --SSBohio 20:24, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

   The only fact I've stated is the huge difference between the urban and rural areas, which is not wrong. The rest is opinion, (hence my use of words like "seems to" "I think" "probably" and as the source uses, "appear to"). While I could talk gravitational theory all day, honestly, I have a hard time understanding the math involved to produce this number, and am merely trying to take it at face value, as I believe many others will. Perhaps a less ambiguous line that puts the statement into context would help. I'll leave that to smarter people than myself and simply try to help provide some of that context. Other than making sure there is no confusion on the matter, (like mine), my only other objection is that of notability, and I'm standing right on the fence on that one, as I believe the number in itself does not merit inclusion or exclusion.Zaereth (talk) 22:15, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

   Some of the facts you've stated in your rationale for your decision:

   • You raise red herring issues about the Palins' income when the question isn't one of how much income the Palins have, but of the value of their assets. No one has said that the Palins don't work hard or that they don't deserve the wealth they've accumulated. Discussing incomes when the question is one of assets is factually inaccurate.
   • You said the wealth estimate was "judging things such as snowmachines and planes at their new value." That is factually wrong and contradicts the sources cited.
   • You said the home value "numbers are obviously an average of the entire state" when they explicitly aren't. That is factually wrong and contradicts the sources cited.
   • You said that the $300,000 value provided by Fcried "seems to be a better estimate" than the value provided by citation to a reliable source. Stating that a figure concerning Anchorage (where their home isn't) is a better estimate than one produced by taking a census of Alaska (where their home is) is factually wrong.
   • Although the figures I've cited for comparison are specific to Alaska, rather than being national figures, you imply that "unique situations here in Alaska" haven't been "taken into account." That is factually wrong and contradicts the sources cited.

   I implore you to make your determination based on the facts of the matter which are laid out in the cited sources and the discussion above, unless the facts you're citing are similarly supported. --SSBohio 09:08, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Once again, I have only stated 2 facts, the difference between the urban and rural areas, and the working conditions on the slope. Words such as "appears", "seems", "looks", etc ... are verbs meaning: the way in which something is being percieved in ones own mind. ('Jack looks rough. Jack appears to be sick.' [Is Jack really sick, or maybe he was just up late last night? We'll never really know until we ask him.] 'Speculation.) Words such as "probably", "possibly", and "maybe" are adverbs used to denote a level of uncertainty. (Maybe Jack is sick. Jack is probably sick. [We are pretty sure Jack is dying from the flu, but a level of uncertainty remains. Maybe he's just hungover.] Speculation). Read my concerns above and look for such key words. My problem is my level of certainty is not very high from what is written in the source, because most people, myself included, are not going to go through the list and try to add up everything ourselves, but are going to rely on the initial statement, "appear to be worth 1.2 million", and this leaves a level of uncertainty that I am not comfortable with. Perhaps a little more research would yield some more concise information? Maybe some simple rewording of the proposed line would be sufficient? I see no reason to rush into this.

I think a lot of us agree on the subject of notability, the main arguement here being: who cares? Does this information bring something signifigant to the article. There is a lot of information which could be included about a person in an article, but something like whether or not they eat Corn Flakes or Wheaties for breakfast is not usually notable, as it does not provide any significant information about the person. I think the number itself falls into that catagory, without any context as to why it actually is significant to the article. I applaude your enthusiasm and implore you not to give up. There are many, such as myself, who would easily go for this if these two objections could be met. Zaereth (talk) 18:25, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

1. As per LedRush, Paul h, and Zaerath. Horologium (talk) 22:17, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
2. per several above. Entire thing is a non-issue, and is not notable enough to be in a BLP. That said, so far no one has offered anything more than rank speculation. Collect (talk) 23:32, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

   Reliable sources cannot be dismissed as "rank specualtion." That's why they're called reliable sources. --SSBohio 09:08, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

3. Do not concur. Even if this figure were calculated by a financial professional (which it wasn't), one's gross assets (the tally of personal property and income) is meaningless without knowing their financial liability on those assets (and deriving a net worth), and including that figure contributes nothing valuable to the biography. For all we know, they could have multiple mortgages, home equity loans and still not hold a title for the personal property used to calculate these amounts, and they may actually be in debt deeper than most Alaskans! Moreover, the only context I've seen discussion on this (around the blogs) has been couched in language that attempted to dispel a Palin "common folk" image we don't even establish in this article! I'm not sure what this would convey to our readers with that bit of useless trivia. Fcreid (talk) 23:40, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

   These assertions are contradicted by the facts. How can assets be "meaningless" when every Federal politician's financial disclosure form states their assets? The cited sources above say that the Palins have no other liabilities aside from what they owe on their home. You stated that the median home value in Anchorage is $270,000 and that the Palins' home value is "smack in the middle of ordinary and non-notable." Their home value is double the median value you cite, and nearly quadruple the median value in Wasilla, which, unlike Anchorage, is where their home is actually located. --SSBohio 09:08, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I've received particularly harsh criticisms about including this information. It's been described as "useless," "misleading," "libelous," "partisan," "OR amok," a "distort[ed] comparison," "neither verifiable nor notable," and "inflate[d]." Amid all they hyperbole and vitriol deployed against the inclusion of this information, one thing remains: It's just a number. In considering the matter, I can understand that there is opposition to its inclusion. However, I see no reason that a simple number, a plain fact, should be opposed with such impassioned invective. This isn't good vs. evil stuff; It's a number. I'd like us to return to disagreeing while still speaking respectfully about the other person's view, if we might. If we are to truly write a neutral biography, we should be letting the facts speak for themselves as much as possible, rather than appearing to support a point of view about the subject with hyperbolic language like "useless" and "libelous." --SSBohio 09:08, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I think you're being too thin-skinned on this. The problem is you haven't convinced anyone why the figure is notable and worthy of inclusion in this biographical article. It's abundantly clear the Palins are neither wealthy nor in poverty. This article does not assert or establish anywhere the relevance of Palin's wealth (or lack thereof), and the only context found for this issue was campaign attacks, so I'm not sure where you see that it fits in. In addition, and regarding the calculation of wealth, what you're presenting is simply not fact (at least meaningful fact) as it's been stated. It's third-hand amateur speculation that, for all we know, may have been derived by dumpster diving, eBay and Zillow. It's paparazzi material. Fact would be the public financial statement released by the Palins (or their accountant) that enumerated their income, assets and liabilities, in much the same manner you alluded to above for other people where the figure is notable. It's not an arbitrary figure derived by non-professionals who don't know the difference between net worth and assets. And, again and above all, even those amateur calculations don't amount to anything notable enough for inclusion. Fcreid (talk) 12:15, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

BTW, if you're interested in the Palin digs for personal edification, there is a Zillow entry on it. Note the pictures that link from there. It's not a bad place and seems like a great location, but it's smaller than I had envisioned and without much surrounding land (~2 acres). Some of the accompanying dialog from Alaskan natives regarding local home prices is also interesting (where she is clearly low in the pack in terms of home value). Also, for what it's worth, the ~$550K "value" is from the Mat-Su appraiser's office! If only my home would sell for what my county appraiser says it's worth! :) Anyway, much ado about nothing in my estimation. Fcreid (talk) 12:44, 22 January 2009 (UTC)