Loading AI tools
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This is an archive of past discussions about Sarah Palin. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 35 | ← | Archive 38 | Archive 39 | Archive 40 | Archive 41 | Archive 42 | → | Archive 45 |
... that would warrant page protection? I do not see any evidence of of such vandalism that would warrant protection of this article. See Wikipedia:PROTECTION#Full_protection ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:11, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
Jossi, don't be disingenuous. Considering how hot this election's running, it's only good sense to keep this article protected til the election is over. RayAYang (talk) 19:52, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
Why was "businessperson" removed as an occupation? I saw no consensus for such at any point? Collect (talk) 13:01, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
There should be a mention somewhere of people who have done impressions of Sarah Palin. See Image:Jennifer Malloy as Sarah Palin.jpg, for example. -- Eastmain (talk) 21:58, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
Hi again everyone. Something of a compromise has been worked out and for now, I have returned this page to semi-protection. Please watch it carefully to ensure that vandalism is reverted ASAP. The page will be re-protected on the morning of Nov 4 until [within reason] the election results are officially posted. Thanks for everyone's patience and have a wonderful halloween. ~ L'Aquatique[talk] 23:38, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
Concerning his relationship with the Sarah Palin campaign, the relevance of Tito Munoz is under review. Please see, Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Tito_Munoz. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 02:07, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
Please cite the proposal in arguments concerning it, and references relied on by the arguments.
References to prior consensus without noting Archive number and section heading are less relevant.
Section: Mayor of Wasilla: Subsection: First Term. 3rd Paragraph begins: Palin fired Emmons... 4th Sentence, "In fact, the bill stated: "A permitee may not carry a concealed handgun into or possess a concealed handgun within [...] or on school grounds.""
Compare this with the text of the bill, and the statute definitions used to define 'school grounds':
Alaska Statute 11.71.900 as it was to be amended by HB 177
AS 11.71.900 Definitions
Firstly, the phrase "A permitee may not carry a concealed handgun into or possess a concealed handgun within" is not in the bill at all. Since the "or on school grounds is part of a list, it is understandable that for easier reading, it was linked with the previous phrase, but it should not have been given quotes as if it were from the text.
Secondly, the quote leaves out material. The full list item text is, "or on school grounds or a school bus; in this paragraph, "school grounds" has the meaning given in AS 11.71.900, which is: ""school grounds" means a building, structure, athletic playing field, playground, parking area, or land contained within the real property boundary line of a public or private preschool, elementary, or secondary school."
This definition does not include colleges.
The version also prohibits carrying of handguns in "a residence where notice that carrying a concealed handgun is prohibited has been given by the posting of a conspicuous notice or by oral statement by the resident to the permittee"
As what is not specifically proscripted is allowed, residences not signposted and other private and public places would have been unaffected.
I propose that the text of the article be edited to read, "SB 177 prohibited guns in primary and secondary schools, but allowed them in colleges, bars, and public places." Anarchangel (talk) 09:31, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
On your contention that gun control issues were not relevant to the case, read this, where you can plainly see that gun control issues were -in- the case. Anarchangel (talk) 13:09, 31 October 2008 (UTC) Anarchangel (talk) 13:09, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
Might I suggest a compromise? There is obvious disagreement on whether SB 177 allowed/prohibited certain aspects of concealed weapons. I maintain that while the disagreement over the law is notable, the actual details of the law are not significant to either the trial or to Palin's biography. Even in its current form, it places WP:UNDUE weight on that singular dimension of the incident (and at the expense of equally important aspects). Would there be consensus to relegate this "he said this but the law said that" level-of-detail to the sub-article, and just make a summary statement of it? Right now it reads:
"Stambaugh, who along with Emmons had supported Palin's opponent in the election, filed a wrongful termination lawsuit alleging that his termination violated his contract, reflected gender discrimination, and was for political reasons;[45] he said, for example, that he had opposed a bill in the state legislature, supported by Palin, that would "permit concealed weapons in schools and bars."[46] In fact, the bill stated: "A permitee may not carry a concealed handgun into or possess a concealed handgun within [...] or on school grounds."[47] The federal judge who heard the case dismissed Stambaugh's lawsuit, ordering Stambaugh to pay Palin's legal fees,[46] ruling that the mayor had the right to fire city employees for any reason, including a political one, or for no reason at all.[48]"
I suggest:
"Stambaugh, who along with Emmons had supported Palin's opponent in the mayoral election, filed a wrongful termination lawsuit alleging that his termination violated his contract, reflected gender discrimination, and was for political reasons,[45] including his disagreement on a proposed state law regarding concealed weapons."[46] The federal judge who heard the case dismissed Stambaugh's lawsuit, ordering Stambaugh to pay Palin's legal fees,[46] and ruled the mayor had the right to fire city employees for any reason, including a political one, or for no reason at all.[48]"
This cuts unnecessary detail from the summary article and obviates the need to cite conflicting sources here that, in and of themselves, are not significant to this person's biography. Fcreid (talk) 23:40, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for your offer of compromise. However, I cannot accept. The article has had in it a false refutation of Stambaugh's stand, giving fraudulent quotations supposedly from SB 177 that never existed in that law, and ignoring the fact that Stambaugh was right about bars and public places. I can never consider details about a state law frivolous. Let me put this into perspective somewhat. This article features a cute glamour shot about her phoning citizens to ask how the city is doing. While that is the standard in this article that it would seem you find relevant, I will be requesting facts that you consider trivial. Anarchangel (talk) 00:58, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
Again, what's on the table is:
"Stambaugh, who along with Emmons had supported Palin's opponent in the mayoral election, filed a wrongful termination lawsuit alleging that his termination violated his contract, reflected gender discrimination, and was for political reasons,[45] including his disagreement on a proposed state law regarding concealed weapons.[46] The federal judge who heard the case dismissed Stambaugh's lawsuit, ordering Stambaugh to pay Palin's legal fees,[46] and ruled the mayor had the right to fire city employees for any reason, including a political one, or for no reason at all.[48]"
Fcreid (talk) 02:06, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
Anarchangel, I have reverted your last edit for further discussion. It was presumptuous to change the entire wording of this paragraph right in the middle of our conversation here, and given that your requested change was for the moment in the minority. In addition, there were several other areas you changed that appeared also to need further discussion/consensus. It does not seem that now would be the time to start disruptive edits while you know the involved editors are right here to assist. Fcreid (talk) 03:29, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
Discussion is over; it's been over for weeks, since my first edit on this page, but I have persevered. Should you continue to revert, arbitration begins. I have had it up to here with your obfuscations, your sidestepping of issues, misuse of WP terminology, and condescending manner. I was prepared to see it through to where I could make you see reason, but on this very page you have ignored my argument that there are quotation marks around material that isn't in the cited source! Or should I say, weren't. It's over, your credibility is completely gone. The reasons for your behaviour are perplexing, but the behaviour itself is intolerable. Anarchangel (talk) 03:40, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
"Stambaugh, who along with Emmons had supported Palin's opponent in the mayoral election, filed a wrongful termination lawsuit alleging that his termination violated his contract, reflected gender discrimination, and was for political reasons,[45] including his disagreement on a proposed state law regarding concealed weapons.[46] The federal judge who heard the case dismissed Stambaugh's lawsuit, ordering Stambaugh to pay Palin's legal fees,[46] and ruled the mayor had the right to fire city employees for any reason, including a political one, or for no reason at all.[48]"
Also, just to clarify in response to your comments above, and to reiterate what I posted on your talk page Anarchangel, this is my first involvement in the language of the Stambaugh firing incident for the article. I had nothing to do what's in there now, so I suspect you have me confused with another editor. Whether you see it or not, I was simply trying to come to a consensus edit that all could agree upon, but I appear to have failed miserably. Fcreid (talk) 04:37, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
I just reverted a major edit by Archangel which substantively changed a large portion of this biography in many areas and, in many cases, clearly in a way that did not reflect the consensus built in the past months. Archangel has since reverted it back. I think they call that an edit war, and I have no desire to be involved in that. However, I think it is patently offensive to have him substantively change this article today. If others agree, maybe we can discuss the individual edits he desires on a case-by-case basis. Fcreid (talk) 03:37, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
I had originally planned on only printing this extremely detailed explanation of my edit in Arbitration. However, some seem curious as to why I edited the way I did. I sincerely hope that your eyes are not bigger than your stomach, or your reach exceed your grasp, or whatever.
Factoid: the difference in bytes between my edit and the prior version was minus 395. The original was 107,997 bytes, mine was
107,602. It was a comprehensive, nay, a far reaching edit, I will grant you. But massive, no.
The reduction was the Johnson citations, all given page numbers that interfered with their status as <= Ref name => clones of an original, leading to broken links; all had those numbers and the redundant cite format removed, and now will all work. If my version is ever restored.
"Throughout her political career, Palin has been a registered Republican. [citation needed]"
This seemed like a good place for saying this. It existed previously in the article, as a hanging, limp thing at the end of a section, and due to the connection to the Alaskan Independence Party issue in the quite biased source in the citation, looked very much like an editing artifact, possibly a rebuttal to someone claiming that Palin was a member of the AIP, or some such.
It is a general statement, that seems unimpeachable, but since I hadn't a source, and unusually for me, couldn't be bothered to go find one, I fact checked my own edit.
I could have just removed the whole thing from where it was, but I always prefer to leave things be. I prefer information to silence. As I get more experience, I hope to be able to more clearly define that line between something that ought to be reworked and something that ought to be just deleted. This may well end up being on the deleted side of the line. Dunno where else in the article it could go, but it may just be so much of a commonsense statement that it needn't appear.
Johnson links
I first mentioned the Johnson dead links a good week ago, in Discussion. Cleanup time.
Wasilla
Clarification. Is he just some random mayor who happened to wander by?, wonders the reader.
Really no reason to mention the outcome of the election yet. It is only a paragraph away.
"Chase later became Palin's campaign manager for mayor in 1996, when Palin defeated John Stein," > "Chase later became Palin's campaign manager for mayor in 1996," as noted, one of three mentions of Stein's defeat. Believe there are three mentions of Stein in the article, making a pair of each. Stein only has bad things to say about Palin. It is not PoV to note that. However, it is PoV to hound the poor man with insinuations about his integrity. Anarchangel (talk) 20:47, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
..Blasting? ...We have to? ...We must? Perhaps they could find that out in the subarticle, assuming they have momentarily lost their ability to check statements for bias, assuming there is any. Oh, no, wait, they could find it out in -this- article, where I made sure it would be, as a record of the results of the election that Palin was in. Oh, and by the way, seeing as you're back, I am still waiting for a reason why Huffington Post isn't acceptable for citation in Wikipedia. Cite your source this time. Anarchangel (talk) 20:47, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
I might have stuck with just removing vocal, but the fact that she is a critic stands on the very evidence that is already presented in the article, therefore, anyone reading her comments can see that she is a critic. Vocal, well, she had to be tracked down in Wasilla by the writer of the article. The fact that every paper in the country reported his interview really isn't due to her efforts.
It doesn't have a citation, though. Anarchangel (talk) 20:47, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
Moved three term incumbent to the first mention of Stein. I like this because it gives as much info as possible about someone whose name one is encountering in the article for the first time, when curiousity is highest.
I liked the way it added to summing up the previous section with a lead-in to the next, and I don't have an opinion either way about where 3-term should go, so a mere whim was enough for me to move it. I can see that it is a measure of her success, and that does sound an important meaning to convey. I felt that it conveyed that meaning in its prior place, as well, but it can only be a benefit to go with what someone in the discussion thinks is important. Anarchangel (talk) 20:47, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
(Lott, Maxim)Anarchangel (talk) 20:47, 2 November 2008 (UTC) Citation
Just look at this. It is a flaming mess. And as close to nothing to do with the subject cited as it can be while still having something to do with it.
First term
I have clarified this, above.
Another reason for moving this: it shortens a long sentence.
", the former mayor of Wasilla and Palin's 1996 political opponent,"
This is vintage Ferrylodge. Attempt to discredit opponents by implying bias due to having lost or competing for something. I know he believes that it implies bias because he has said so, somewhere around the 7th of October, on this page's Talk. I can not know he is consciously doing it, but the preponderance of evidence has convinced me that it is so. And of course, the fact that Stein lost to Palin is mentioned in the very same paragraph. The fact that he was lost/was a political opponent was repeated three times.
You know what gets me about you saying he was her opponent, all the time? They used to go to aerobics class together. Palin and Stambaugh and Stein. They helped her build Wasilla's city infrastructure from the ground up, and she turned around and stabbed them as soon as she had an opportunity. You keep repeating this same old lie over and over, that because someone -might- have PoV, we can't quote them. Heck, if they -do- have PoV we can quote them. It is a fact that they said it. Dang, give it up, will you? I gave up listening to that ages ago, and this is the last time I will even respond to it. Anarchangel (talk) 20:47, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
"The next day, following expressions of public support for Emmons and a personal meeting, Palin rescinded the firing of Emmons,"
Palin may well have rescinded Emmon's firing the next day after expressions of public support, as it seemed to be saying, poorly, but I doubt it.
In retrospect, this one I am not entirely happy with, other than changing it from what it was, it had to be changed. I didn't check the cite to attempt to nail down the timeline. Not even sure that I noticed at the time that it could have meant the chain of events I detail here.
"Stambaugh, who along with Emmons had supported Palin's opponent in the election,<ref
Another thing I missed. Really had wanted to do something about yet another repeat of the election results. "turb" deals in great depth with the Stambaugh issue, and with great insight and yet discretion, better than any of the other cites used about him. I rescued it from propping up the absurdly irrelevant "How's the City doing?" anecdote.
"filed a lawsuit lawsuit alleging wrongful termination contract violation, and gender discrimination."
Used the phrasing from the cited article to minimize meaning being lost, obscured, or warped in translation.
"In the trial, the defense further alleged political reasons;<ref"
For one thing, this phrase ended up looking tacked onto the end of the previous cited phrase. Mainly, though, giving it a sentence of its own separated the obviously disparate charges and evidence given at trial.
"Stambaugh said that he had opposed a bill in the state legislature that Palin supported.<ref"
Still breaking things up into smaller sentences here, to give them the weight they deserve, to let the connections between them be connections of the thoughts of the reader rather than of the writer, and pursuant to these things, I feel this sentence is now a bridge between the case and the bill, rather than a hole opening up on the floor of the courtroom down which the reader falls, into the Senate....And there I must end, for the night. Anarchangel (talk) 06:07, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
Also, for clarity and tracking, would it be possible to make these edits individually rather than a cut/paste from somewhere? I suspect that's a bit more work, bit it's also what triggered the surprise last night, as the diff was not very easy to distinguish the minor editorial from the fairly major substantive changes. Thanks! Fcreid (talk) 14:47, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
Double quotation marks (X said "Welcome to my humble abode") denote material that came directly out of someone's mouth, or directly off a page they wrote on, they can be transcribed in whatever manner from there, but it must be an -exact- replication. Single quotation marks (X said 'Welcome') can be more of a paraphrase of the material, but there isn't much playing around with that either. Pure paraphrases (X welcomed us.), without quotes, are used to shorten the matterial, and are often verb phrases such as the example.
If material has double quotes around it, it damn well better have a cite. If it has a cite, it damn well better be in that source, not in a link from that source, and sure as heck not be just made up and stuck in the article because, why, no one will notice? It would be awkward to paraphrase? No. It just isn't done.
Ok, now, this, from the -very beginning- of my proposal. The -very first- point I made.
"Firstly, the phrase "A permitee may not carry a concealed handgun into or possess a concealed handgun within" is not in the bill at all. Since the "or on school grounds is part of a list, it is understandable that for easier reading, it was linked with the previous phrase, but it should not have been given quotes as if it were from the text.
"
There was no comment at all about this, but lots of other criticisms made the cut.
And this, from later on, repeating what had been, previously, ignored completely. "I was prepared to see it through to where I could make you see reason, but on this very page you have ignored my argument that there are quotation marks around material that isn't in the cited source! Or should I say, weren't."
And which now are, again, thanks to the revert and the other revert.
After which came this exchange:
-Fcreid's Proposal reprinted.-
Bleh. Got me saying quotations, when I meant quotation marks. O well. So there it is. If you can make anything of this, good. About time, I would say. Anarchangel (talk) 06:42, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
I agree. Let's get rid of those quotes entirely and not turn the 1997 Stambaugh firing into a thinly veiled 2008 Campaign referendum on partisan gun control stances, as the issue had nothing substantive to do with his case. Moreover, even if his termination did result from differing political ideology on gun control, Palin was still fully within her decision-making authority to do so, and the judge ruled so. Palin contends her "lack of confidence in Stambaugh's loyalty to her and her policies for Wasilla" was the reason for his firing. We have nothing to contradict that. In fact, if you read the two contemporaneous articles from 1997 and 2000, you note the word "gun" appears exactly zero times. So, if you want to debate ad nauseam with others (not me) on whether an obscure senate bill required arming kindergarten-aged Alaskan children with assault weapons or not, feel free. It won't result in forward progress to the current wording. Instead, my recommendation below provides full mention of the gun control policy difference but obviates the need for tangential and irrelevant debate. So, instead of lashing out at me, could you please tell me where what I offer below fails on either fact or substance?
"Stambaugh, who along with Emmons had supported Palin's opponent in the mayoral election, filed a wrongful termination lawsuit alleging that his termination violated his contract, reflected gender discrimination, and was for political reasons,[45] including his disagreement on a proposed state law regarding concealed weapons.[46] The federal judge who heard the case dismissed Stambaugh's lawsuit, ordering Stambaugh to pay Palin's legal fees,[46] and ruled the mayor had the right to fire city employees for any reason, including a political one, or for no reason at all.[48]"
Fcreid (talk) 11:08, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
I find that I must endorse Anarchangel's simple, concrete, policy-based objection over Fcreid's sprawling, emotional rant. If material isn't in a source, it shouldn't be attributed to that source. The end.Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 17:03, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
(undent) I find this talk page section extremely difficult to follow. Assuming that it's not because I'm a moron :-) would it be possible to more clearly identify what the proposed edits are? Thanks.Ferrylodge (talk) 18:24, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
I propose this more minimalist revision that recognizes their policy differences on the concealed weapon law but obviates the need for a full Second Amendment debate or to dissect the wording of SB 177 in the context of Stambaugh's firing. It places equal and appropriate weight on all known aspects of the incident and in summary of the RS. Fcreid (talk) 21:48, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
From the citation. Just as zero differs from any finite number, "no reason at all" is differs from "nearly any reason". Anarchangel (talk) 23:07, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
I have added a section POV tag to the "Mayor of Wasilla" section due to the abusive and non-policy-based edit warring that has kept any brief mention of the rape kit issue out. While Wikipedia policy states that I should simply add the rape kit material in a fashion that observes the relevant core policies, the reality is that anything I add will simply be reverted. Thus I am adding the POV tag and here I will substantiate that all burdens for inclusion have been met. That done, it will be incumbent upon other editors to make substantive and policy-based arguments why it should be excluded.
For reference, here is my original edit. I have never stated that it was beyond objection, but I think so far the primary objection has been that the passage I wrote was too long. In my defense, I was trying to do the best job of fairly representing each side without over-representing either, yet giving a slight balance toward the subject rather than the critics, and all that resulted in some wordiness. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sarah_Palin&diff=245282445&oldid=245281592.
The criticism is sourced ... attributed to at least 5 major news outlets, most of whom directly quote Alaskan politicians speaking on the issue. (As an aside, the issue is also treated fairly in these reliable sources, just as they were treated fairly in my original article text, so there really is not much cause for objection.)
The criticism is relevant to Palin's notability, as it reflects a statewide controversy involving one of Palin's appointees, coupled with the allegation that Palin knew about the issue and would have been in a position to stop it. Both the secondary sources and the primary sources they quote assert relevance to Palin's status as mayor of Wasilla at the time the practice was employed and then outlawed.
The criticism is notable. Besides that it is carried in multiple reliable sources, the critics themselves are notable politicians, not just fringe individuals interviewed at the county fair.
The criticism does not have to be worded in a way which violates WP:Weight. In fact, my original wording did not violate WP:Weight, with the lone objection that the text was too lengthy. In any case, WP:Weight is not an issue unless someone words the article in a way that violates WP:Weight, in which case this can simply be corrected. The mere possibility of a violation is immaterial.
Our goal here is to neutrally reflect published opinion without inviting the reader to form one conclusion or another. By serially reverting, edit warring, and otherwise insisting on excluding the material outright, some editors are second-guessing major reliable sources, forming and favoring their own conclusions, totally in violation of the letter and spirit of policy. The bar has been met for inclusion. Substantive, non-incorrect arguments must be made for exclusion if editors wish to exclude it. When I say "substantive, non-incorrect arguments" I mean that arguments should directly cite Wikipedia policies, rather than just vaguely mentioning them, and simultaneously the arguments should not largely contradict the policies being cited. This is not too much to ask; to the contrary, I'd say it's the bare minimum.
Thus, for example,
For reference, although I'm sure there are more, the specific five sources I cited were:
Let's try to have a discussion that is focused and on point. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 20:23, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
This issue has been decided by a clear majority of the editors here. Disruptive attempts to hijack the article are petulant and childish. Just because your opinion didn't win out doesn't mean that you can take your ball home and end the game. Until consensus changes, the article will remain as it is under a clear mandate of wikipedia policy regarding BLPs and general editing.LedRush (talk) 23:23, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
"Palin appointed[46] Charles Fannon to replace Stambaugh as police chief. Fannon later become embroiled in controversy regarding the Wasilla police department's policy of billing evidence collection kits to rape victims' health insurance.TBD"
I like it too, with one tiny change: Palin appointed[46] Charles Fannon to replace Stambaugh as police chief. Fannon later become embroiled in controversy regarding the Wasilla police department's policy of billing the cost of evidence collection "rape kits" to rape victims' health insurance.
I propose the slight change in wording because people have heard of "rape kits" but may not have heard of "evidence collection kits" and may think that has something to do with a broader evidence collection mission than the samples they do for rape victims. I would like to hear from LLLL and Factcheckeratyourservice though to see if it satisfies them. And I also would like to see LLLL's suggestions for the other two things he/she wanted.GreekParadise (talk) 01:28, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
I sensed we were only inches away from getting one of the bones of contention behind us, but it looks like there are many who still feel it should not be included in the article even in its current form, as the statement doesn't actually involve Palin. If someone wants to run with it further, by all means do... I'll check back in the morning to see where things stand. Fcreid (talk) 01:47, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
I keep coming back to one thing: where is the evidence that Wasilla's practise was ever controversial? All claims that it was the reason for the state law are utterly refuted by the fact that the town's name never came up once at the hearings. If anyone was concerned about Wasilla in particular, they would have mentioned it. Therefore nobody was, and all later claims to the contrary are false, no matter who makes them. QED. -- Zsero (talk) 06:52, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
I'd say that any reasonable person would call a practice made illegal by a state law enjoying nearly unanimous support "controversial", but this is Wikipedia.Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 16:09, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
City of Wasilla document incorrectly used on Wasilla Alaska page to cite 2 payments by the city This document quite clearly is the denial by the city that they had -charged- for rapes in 2000. Anarchangel (talk) 23:13, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
I sincerely hate beating this dead horse mercilessly, but please note my point above (with citation from Wasilla city records) where city officials state two rape kits were issued in 2000, after the law passed, and they were paid for by the state and not the victims' insurer. It directly contradicts one of Croft's arguments, i.e. "It was one of those things everyone could agree on except Wasilla. We couldn't convince the chief of police to stop charging them," and it provides more reason that we question the accuracy of his other accusation which, with descriptors removed, says nothing more than "I think she could have known." I never advocated including this material in the first place. Despite, and with the help of others on both sides, I proffered the compromise that is in the current article, i.e. "Fannon later opposed a state law preventing police departments from billing rape victims' health insurance for evidence collection kits.[49]" Some feel any mention is too much, while others feel the article should substantiate the allegation that Palin knew despite the lack of evidence. Where does that leave us? Fcreid (talk) 08:23, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
City of Wasilla document incorrectly used on Wasilla Alaska page to cite 2 payments by the city This document quite clearly is the denial by the city that they had -charged- for rapes in 2000. Anarchangel (talk) 23:13, 29 October 2008 (UTC) On the point of whether the article should show that the victims were protected from being charged, by HB 270, or that the insurance companies were protected from being billed, by it: would you be interested at all in how the framers of the law wrote it? The final version of the amendment to Alaska Statute 18.68 Anarchangel (talk) 23:13, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
"Fannon later opposed a state law preventing police departments from billing rape victims' health insurance for evidence collection kits.[49] There is no evidence Palin was aware of the police department policy [cite St Pete Times article which states exactly that]."
This satisfies the requirement that the issue says something about Palin, making it relevant to her biography, and it allows anyone (like Appraiser) who wants to conclude that her manifest lack of awareness was equally or more damning. Fcreid (talk) 20:38, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
Fcreid (talk) 22:05, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
I'm back to liking a terse and factual single sentence. We're not arguing for/against the policy itself, so it's really irrelevant whether anyone was ever billed. We're simply acknowledged that Fannon objected to it, but there's no evidence Palin even knew.
Fcreid (talk) 23:57, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
Fcreid (talk) 00:15, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
Well, on a positive note, it seems we finally got 25-words describing the "rape kit" issue that (I hope) captures that in NPOV language before full protection. I apologize for my insistence and annoying volumes of talk on this singular issue, but I believe the issue caused unexpected collateral damage to this person's integrity in a manner that was patently unfair to her record and for a BLP. I appreciate everyone's patience on this for the past month. It's a better article as a result! :) Fcreid (talk) 10:24, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
(outdent) Hey, I'm not defending the policy, but rather illustrating that at the time Fannon did that, it was not illegal or necessarily even unethical, depending upon your point of view with respect to preserving taxpayer funds. Fannon was also not alone in the practice, either in Alaska or nationally, and I'd be surprised if it's not still occurring in local police jurisdictions in states without such a law. By Fannon's own admission, it's clear he did not do this consistently, indicating there was no established "Wasilla policy" for doing so. Finally, it's abundantly clear no individuals were ever charged directly, at least in Wasilla, so I think it's unsupported to ascribe any nefarious intent or callousness towards rape victims (which really is what this whole issue boils down to in context). The scenarios I presented were simply to illustrate that the practice itself is not without analogs in other "routine criminal investigative matters". (Well, admittedly, the last scenario was to yank the chain on socialized medicine.) Regardless, I sense we blog here, as we already reached a meaningful consensus edit in the article that presents all the known facts in the matter and allows the reader himself to come to his own judgments. There is no value adding that "so-and-so thinks she could have known" as it doesn't modify the stated premise that "there is no evidence Palin knew about the practice". Fcreid (talk) 07:30, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
Closing this section, as it has gone severely off topic, and the discussion was exhausted. Retitled it in accordance with the reference sources used in the article. Risker (talk) 06:18, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Factchecker, it now reads as: Palin appointed[49] Charles Fannon to replace Stambaugh as police chief. Fannon later opposed a state law preventing police departments from billing rape victims' health insurance for evidence collection kits.[50] Fannon said that the Wasilla police had sometimes done so in the past, but according to Stambaugh, the investigations were paid for by the city before Palin became mayor. [51] An investigation by the St. Petersburg Times uncovered no evidence Palin that was aware of or supported this.[52] I think I see improvement here for the most part. Can you refer me to the citation for "according to Stambaugh, the investigations were paid for by the city before Palin became mayor"? I don't see any mention of Stambaugh in reference [51]. It may be in another reference that I didn't see, and given that Stambaugh remained on as Wasilla police chief for some period of time *after* Palin became mayor, perhaps it's meant to say "investigations were paid for by the city while Stambaugh was police chief" or something? Fcreid (talk) 17:00, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
(undent) I've tried to address all of these concerns. See what you think.Ferrylodge (talk) 17:53, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
(undent)This material is getting completely out of hand. Its length has almost doubled during the last 24 hours. We've already established that Plain had nothing to do with it, so it should not be in the article in the first place. The compromise we agreed up[on is being abused, IMHO.Ferrylodge (talk) 19:15, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
(outdent) That would be fine if you hadn't introduced wrongness and factual misstatements to the article... but you did. You changed the first sentence to "Fannon later opposed a state law requiring local governments to pay for evidence collection kits and other costs in cases of rape", which is blatantly wrong and distorts what the article actually says. The law Fannon opposed made it illegal for police to bill victims or their insurance for investigative costs and required police to pay for STD tests and emergency contraception. If the law ALSO required the police dept to pay for the investigation, instead of billing the criminal, or whatever else they may have had in mind OTHER than billing victim/insurance, then the article doesn't say that and neither has any of the other articles I've read. The law as stated in the article just says what they CANNOT do.. ie bill victims/insurance. You also changed the text of the USA Today article, which reads "In cases when insurance companies are billed, the victims pay a deductible" to "In cases when insurance companies are billed, the insured person generally pays a deductible" ... needlessly implying uncertainty (WP:Weasel) where none is implied or stated in the article. You also changed the article text to read "There is no evidence that Palin explicitly endorsed or opposed Fannon's policy.", blatantly making a grand generalization out of the actual true and accurate statement, which is that the St. Pete Times conducted an investigation and found nothing. You bogusly made some assertion about the format (source should be in the footnotes) even though WP:Weasel plainly instructs direct attribution of the source within the text of the article when dealing with a controversial topic for reasons exactly like the following: If you take a statement in the St. Pete Times "Our investigation found no evidence..." and change that into a factual assertion "There is no evidence..." (with "source: The NYT" listed down in the footnotes), you have committed a blatant distortion of the facts.. using Wikipedia to say something that the source absolutely does not say. Sadly, a considerable bulk of your edits achieve exactly this distortion and obfuscation of what is on record, with alarming regularity and uncommon vigor.Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 22:38, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
(outdent) From Day One on this, Factchecker has been trying to push his POV that Palin was somehow complicit in this arrangement with her police chief, and that Fannon's opposition is somehow entwined with her pro-life position. It's utter nonsense, but Factchecker is intent on weaving a complex quilt of disparate parts that makes it appear that way. The FACT, Factchecker, is there is no evidence Palin was aware of this practice in Wasilla or her police chief's opposition to the new law. No matter how many ways you twist it, anyone coming to that conclusion would be doing so based on your dishonesty. I relented on its inclusion only because Appraiser made a valid point (which Jim had made earlier), i.e. the fact that she didn't know it was happening and didn't know what her police chief objected was also significant, as some might conclude she was detached from operations (no matter that this was a mere triviality that occurred twice that we're aware, and that despite the police chief's grumbling, Wasilla was never not in compliance with the new law). You need to give your axe a rest on this one. I don't know why you've become such a stakeholder in building this into a WP lie. Fcreid (talk) 00:21, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
|
Seamless Wikipedia browsing. On steroids.
Every time you click a link to Wikipedia, Wiktionary or Wikiquote in your browser's search results, it will show the modern Wikiwand interface.
Wikiwand extension is a five stars, simple, with minimum permission required to keep your browsing private, safe and transparent.