User:Anarchangel/Sandbox/Consensus building

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Disagreement pyramid is only the beginning.

Assertions go in the Contended section, and only in that section or in Comments. Contradictions go in the Contended section, and only in that section or in Comments. Everything else should be in the form of reasoned argument with examples and links- the light blue slice of the pyramid and up. Assertions are presented in Contended, and if facts can be found to support them, they are moved to Disputed, where arguments on both sides can be presented. When the moderator accepts that a full refutation has been made, it can be added to Refuted, whether it is Conceded or not. If it is Conceded, it can become a Fact in Common. When the moderator accepts that a fact has been proved, and that there are no current valid arguments that are candidates for refutation, it can go to Facts in Common. Old unresolved discussions can be moved to Records of past Misc. and back by anyone, subject to moderation.

  • Record of Consensus building on X
  • Consensus. Moderator only
  • Facts in common. Moderator only
    • Proposed as facts in common
  • Contended
  • Conceded. The most important section, currently, because no one concedes anything on Wikipedia (agf-all generalizations are false)
  • Refuted. Moderator only
    • Proposed as refuted
  • Disputed
    • Disputed sources
  • Records of past Misc (Proposals, Resolved, Refuted, Conceded etc)
  • Disputes regarding Record. General disputes regarding procedure
  • Comments

An example from the archive 46 of Talk:Sarah Palin.

What it represents: Consensus at Wikipedia is informal voting that does not rely on logic, is composed largely of rhetoric and assertion, and then proceeds to a vote which favors numbers over strength of argument. This procedure is founded on a formal structure that removes assertion, requires that reasoned arguments be refuted or conceded (as is mandated, however weakly, by WP:EQ), proceeds point by point to a conclusion, and otherwise works on logic, leaving behind a record of the discussion.

What it achieved: Even without a moderator, it convinced me that there IS a better way to conduct discussions on Wikipedia, and that it should be standard practice. It represented a threat to the partisan interests of the majority of the discussion and was removed, which is evidence to me that its implementation WILL succeed in thwarting their efforts to reconstruct Wikipedia to its detriment.

How it went wrong: (Roughly in order of importance) : It was archived. It was not completed. It had no moderator with authority. It had only one participant operating in good faith* (I do not say that lightly; Writegeist had left the discussion, and my evidence for the behaviour of the others is the other 10 or so archives on either side of archive 46, from about October to January). Wikipedia is a democracy, not a court of law; this means numbers defeat ideas. Wikipedia rules have a great deal of subjective values. Interpretation of rules is always a problem.

* Assertions are almost the entirety of Collect's contributions, for example. Here are two, in one sentence, with no other content. "Ledrush is still correct. Long posts do not make your stance any stronger. Collect (talk) 02:46, 9 January " And another two, albeit one is also sophistry. "The earth still moves. Ledrush is still correct. Collect (talk) 02:44, 9 January 2009 (UTC)" And so on.



Comments[edit]

This is what I have so far. It's pretty much been this way for days, and I just haven't been able to go forward, and people are calling for my stance, etc, so here is the Beta version. Anarchangel (talk) 21:39, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

This is not set in stone. Anyone can challenge any of this at any time. However, as it is an attempt to make our lives easier by having a clearer picture of the consensus, an abuse of this freedom will doubtless be considered a breach of WP:CONSENSUS.

Graham's Hierarchy of Disagreement, from the Wikipedia:Dispute Resolution page, section: 'Discuss with the other party'

Record of Consensus building on kit-budget passage[edit]

Conceded[edit]

  • There was not an average of 10 rapes per year in Wasilla.

I concede this was based on faulty analysis; although the Wasilla records do cover all the years in question, they do not cover rapes specifically. The FBI report for Wasilla shows 1 rape in the year 2000. (this was mostly between Collect and Anarchangel so it could conceivably end up Contended or Disputed again)

Refuted[edit]

No estimate for the cost of rape kits, (the high estimate in the Frontiersman is $1200) comes even close to a quarter of his lowest figure. At the lowest estimate for cost, $300, also from the Frontiersman, Fannon's highest estimate of cost, $14,000, could have bought Wasilla 466 rape kits. Anarchangel (talk) 06:52, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

  • 4.An assertion that Palin "states she had no knowledge of any 'rape kit' policies about billing" is false. When presented with an opportunity to [answer that very question, she answered in another way.
  • 5.An assertion that the budget was under the control of the city council is false. Municipal Code.
  • 6.An 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.
  • 7.An 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.
  • 8.The assertion: the passage is a violation of WP:UNDUE, included on the talk page as of this date 32 times, aka WP:WEIGHT, included on the talk page as of this date 37 times, is false.

"Neutrality requires that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a [Wikipedia:Verifiability|reliable source]], and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each. Now an important qualification: In general, articles should not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views, and will generally not include tiny-minority views at all. For example, the article on the Earth does not mention modern support for the Flat Earth concept, a view of a distinct minority."(Emphasis added)

Clearly the material is not a matter of scientific controversy; it is not equivalent to belief in the "Flat Earth concept"; it is not in opposition to peer-reviewed scientific theory. (Restored Anarchangel (talk) 20:15, 9 January 2009 (UTC) (name of editor who was erroneously mentioned removedAnarchangel (talk) 07:08, 10 January 2009 (UTC)My apologies) An editor challenged this and the other 5 assertions below by way of inserting various comments on 9 Jan.)

  • 9.The assertion that the wording in the article, "An investigation by the St. Petersburg Times found no evidence that Palin had explicitly supported or opposed this policy." is not a negative proof fallacy has been refuted. (Restored Anarchangel (talk) 20:15, 9 January 2009 (UTC))
  • 10.The assertion that the wording in the article, "An investigation by the St. Petersburg Times found no evidence that Palin had explicitly supported or opposed this policy." relies for its notability upon a negative proof fallacy has not been addressed, but it is extremely unlikely that it will ever be refuted. (Restored Anarchangel (talk) 20:15, 9 January 2009 (UTC))
  • 11.The assertion that the wording in the St. Petersburg Times article "Although Wasilla had such a “rape kit” policy while Palin was mayor, there is no evidence that she explicitly endorsed the policy." is not a negative proof fallacy has not previously been contended, but it is so far refuted. (Restored, revised Anarchangel (talk) 20:15, 9 January 2009 (UTC))
  • 12.The assertion that the wording in the St. Petersburg Times article "Yet the campaign has not provided any evidence that Palin ever opposed the policy." is not a negative proof fallacy has been refuted. (Restored Anarchangel (talk) 20:15, 9 January 2009 (UTC))
  • 13.The assertion that the wording in the St. Petersburg Times article ""We can’t find that Palin ever commented on the policy, pro or con."" is not a negative proof fallacy has been refuted. (Restored Anarchangel (talk) 20:15, 9 January 2009 (UTC). (name of editor who was erroneously mentioned removedAnarchangel (talk) 07:08, 10 January 2009 (UTC)My apologies) An editor challenged the above 6 assertions by way of inserting various comments on 9 Jan.)
Sources in common[edit]
Not enough evidence Currently unprovable[edit]
  • Palin knew about Fannon's department charging for kits
  • Palin did not know about Fannon's department charging for kits
  • Only in Wasilla did a police department charge for kits

Facts in common[edit]

WP:BLP of course, and other applicable rules:

Disputed sources[edit]

  • Huffington Post Ferrylodge, Fcreid, and others have contended that the Huffington Post is not a reliable source.

Anarchangel: I cite Fcreid's own find (Archive 42: WP:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_16#Huffington_Post.2C_Gawker_and_About.com) as evidence that although WP editors find HP problematic, it is not automatically discounted as a source.

"There is nothing of merit the Huffington Post could introduce to this article. - Fcreid, 5 Jan"

Might seem like a no brainer to put CNN on Sources in common, and perhaps it ought to be, but some have expressed concern about Croft's interview as not being proof of anything. He is speculating. He is notable on the subject in general, as co-sponsor of HB 270. He isn't an expert on what mayors should know about their employesubordinates, but then, neither are we. The first sentence of the CNN video asserts that CNN found people that said that Wasilla charged.

Disputed[edit]

  • I contend that the source <SPT> is biased for this and other reasons. Despite the fact that it rested its conclusions on a negative proof fallacy, which could as easily be attributed to either side of the argument, it still couldn't bring itself to actually say that. The people at SPT are clever, I will give them that. The wording of the article is not supported by this source.

I support a quote of Palin's own words on the subject, along with the questions that prompted Palin's response. Anarchangel (talk) 21:39, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Records of past Misc (Resolved, Refuted, Conceded etc)[edit]

  • The SPT source does not say, 'There is no evidence Palin supported the policy'. The source therefore does not support the statement, "An investigation by the St. Petersburg Times found no evidence that Palin had explicitly supported or opposed this policy."
The source says "Although Wasilla had such a “rape kit” policy while Palin was mayor, there is no evidence that she explicitly endorsed the policy. But nor have we found any evidence that she opposed it." Am I missing something?LedRush (talk) 22:23, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
Nope, my bad, dunno what I was thinking. Retracted, moved it to "Records of past..." Anarchangel (talk) 00:50, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Contended / Disputes regarding Record[edit]

UNDUE/WEIGHT Refuted?[edit]

  • Re: Refuted: WEIGHT/UNDUE. Summary of LedRush's revert: "(Please don't make one point on a subject and claim victory and place the point in a category that says it was refuted.)" I did pause to reflect on that very point, but I found the argument to be incontrovertible, & that it was best categorized as a "Refutation", if not a "Direct Refutation of the central point", according to Graham's Hierarchy of Disagreement pyramid (see top of page), which, through what I can only describe as a bizarre and ironic coincidence, which I just now found out about, is displayed on your own user page (the image page lists your user page as one of the places the image can be found). This is a revert based on procedure that is not covered by any wiki policy I am aware of. I am deliberately fast tracking this one. I feel entitled after all the red herring fishing I, Factchecker, Writegeist, and everyone else who fits the description have been put through by the not only erroneous but erroneous ad nauseum use of WEIGHT and UNDUE. You have made only an argument against my procedure, and as yet, none against the refutation. Until you do so, it stands. Anarchangel (talk) 01:12, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
The earth still moves. Ledrush is still correct. Collect (talk) 02:44, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
Yes, agreed - Ledrush is right on this one. Kelly hi! 02:55, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

SPT negative proof?[edit]

-now disputed, previously in Contended-

"*Currently unrefuted - The notability of the St Petersburg Times claim that there is not "any evidence that Palin ever opposed the policy" rests entirely on a negative proof fallacy."

I have thoroughly refuted this argument. In short, WP can't (usually) say there is "no proof" of something, but we can cite a reliable source which claims it found no evidence of something.LedRush (talk) 22:15, 5 January 2009 (UTC

Anarchangel: I dispute the usefulness of this source in general as it is usually heavily editorialized and often reporting news covered first elsewhere. This particular article contains much less of the former and much more of the latter. As regards citations for the kit controversy in general, it is still an editorial, and a tertiary source reporting on secondary sources. Other sources can be found for every fact in it; other sources did not see fit to print the negative proof fallacy it espouses, namely that supposedly a conclusion can be drawn from the fact that evidence does not exist that Palin knew about charging for kits. The source shows its bias by not stating the other side of the negative proof fallacy, namely that supposedly a conclusion can be drawn from the fact that no evidence exists that Palin did not know about charging for kits.

Evidence: SPT Neg. proof[edit]

"I am not sure that Anarchangel understands the negative proof fallacy. It is when the lack of evidence that something is true is used to definitively state that that thing is true. That is not the case here. We are using a citation from a reliable source which says only that they didn't find evidence that Palin knew about something. The article doesn't state that Palin didn't know about something. The difference is huge." - LedRush 25 Dec
From the page, Negative proof, previously shown on talk on 26 Dec:
"Negative proof, the fallacy of appealing to lack of proof of the negative, is a logical fallacy of the following form:
"X is true because there is no proof that X is false."
It is asserted that a proposition is true, only because it has not been proven false. The negative proof fallacy often occurs in the debate of the existence of supernatural phenomena, in the following form:
"A supernatural force must exist, because there is no proof that it does not exist".
However, the fallacy can also occur when the predicate of a subject is denied:
"Religious people haven't been able to produce conclusive evidence to support the existence of a "God", therefore such a being must not exist."
Now, consider the statement, currently in the article uncited, "An investigation by the St. Petersburg Times found no evidence that Palin had explicitly supported or opposed this policy."
X=Palin never "explicitly supported or opposed this policy" . It is true because "An investigation by the St. Petersburg Times found no evidence that Palin had explicitly supported or opposed this policy."
A perfect match to "X is true because there is no proof that X is false."
This statement is a negative proof fallacy." Anarchangel, 26 Dec
"As stated above, I don't think that the response does anything to further any evidence of anything. The interpretation of the response is original research, and the inclusion of the questions and answers is undue weight. Anarchangel (and a couple of others) and I (and several other editors have been over this ad nauseum and I doubt we'll ever agree on either point.
But the real reason I responded was because I don't think the negative proof fallacy is relevant here. Anarchangel incorrectly states (or implies?) that the current language in the article says that "PAlin never 'explicitly supported or opposed this policy'". That is not true. The article merely states that the SPT didn't find evidence that she explicitly supported or opposed this policy. This is a statement about what the SPT found (or didn't find) and allows the reader come to any conlusion about this that they want (i.e., that there is no evidence or that there is evidence that has just not yet been uncovered by the SPT).LedRush 04:16, 26 Dec"

-Removed some back and forth stuff that isn't really logical argument, or an attempt to be- Anarchangel (talk) 00:50, 6 January 2009 (UTC) -Restoring the back and forth stuff to refute Led's claim that it consisted of me making personal attacks on him. I was frustrated, and so I used rhetoric. I try to provide only facts. Anarchangel (talk) 04:13, 6 January 2009 (UTC) Tell me, Led, how'd you do in math? Specifically, algebra? Anarchangel (talk) 09:47, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

"This is just stupid. The wording I used comes directly from the article. The formula is a 100% transposition. You're wasting my time. Anarchangel (talk) 09:52, 26 Dec
"
"What is stupid is that you've clearly made a mistake and you can't bring yourself to admit it. The wording you use comes from the article, but you've deliberately changed the meaning from a statement about what the SPT found (which is what the article says) to a statement Wikipedia is supposedly making about a fact (which helps your argument but just doesn't exist).LedRush (talk) 14:41, 26 Dec"

I stand by my statement that the negative proof critique of the sentence is Contended and currently Unrefuted. Anarchangel (talk) 00:11, 6 January 2009 (UTC) I also find the objection to logical argument as being Original Research frightening. Anarchangel (talk) 00:50, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

The St Petersburg Times claim that there is not "any evidence that Palin ever opposed the policy" rests entirely on a negative proof fallacy."
Therefore:
The notability of the statement, "An investigation by the St. Petersburg Times found no evidence that Palin had explicitly supported or opposed this policy." currently in the article rests entirely on a negative proof fallacy.
Regardless of the undisputed fact that it is true that SPT said that. Anarchangel (talk) 01:01, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I thank Anarchangel for removing his personal attacks on me [Note, he reinserted the personal attacks in response to my thanking him for not doing so], even though we continue to disagree on this argument, which I believe is clearly provable unlike many discussions of fuzzy wikipedia policies. Anarchangel seems to have conceded that the statement in the article doesn't rely on the negative proof fallacy as he first contended, but now switches to make two separate (but related) arguments: 1. that the SPT article rests on the negative proof fallacy; and 2. that the notability of the current language is affected because the SPT article relies on the negative proof fallacy. Unfortunately, while the second argument would fail no matter what, the fact that the wikipedia article doesn't rely on the SPT for a definitive statement that there is no evidence destroys both arguments. The SPT does say that "there is no evidence" of Palin's support or opposition, and taken literally (which I would argue is unnecessary) if would be an example of the negative proof fallacy. However, our article doesn't make so bold a statement...it uses the SPT argument merely to say that their investigation found no evidence...which we both seem to agree doesn't rely on the negative proof fallacy. It is merely a provable statement about the outcome of an investigation. It supports the language in the article, which doesn't rely on the negative proof fallacy nor does it rely on the SPT statement being a declarative one saying no where in the universe does evidence exist.
And even if, arguendo, the above is not persuasive, the SPT article also states "We can’t find that Palin ever commented on the policy, pro or con." This clearly doesn't rely on the negative proof fallacy and supports the current language of the article just as well. That would mean that no part of any statements anywhere in this process would rely on the negative proof fallacy.LedRush (talk) 03:21, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
1."the second argument would fail no matter what" Why and in what way?
Doesn't matter...do we need to get into hypothetical arguments that aren't needed? I am sorry I brought it up.LedRush (talk) 05:00, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
I'll count this as a retraction for now, as for now, you haven't answered the question. Anarchangel (talk) 07:36, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
You can count this as you want....you've avoided my argument by attacking throw-away phrases..
2."the wikipedia article doesn't rely on the SPT for a definitive statement that there is no evidence" Good grief. So that's why you put no cite on it when you restored it? I jest, of course, but this argument is dead wrong. "it uses the SPT argument merely to say that their investigation found no evidence...which..." relies for its notability on a negative proof? Aw, so close. No, you say instead "which we both seem to agree doesn't rely on the negative proof fallacy" Well, no, I don't agree.
Well, you've changed your argument (or I misunderstood your original). Originally, I thought you contended that the WP article was an example of the negative proof fallacy. Now you are saying that it relies on an article which relies on the negative proof fallacy. These are different arguments.LedRush (talk) 05:00, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
Look, you aren't even stating the argument clearly enough to criticize my argument. For example, it would be perfectly correct to say that "the WP article was an example of the negative proof fallacy". I modified my argument because the most specific truth is the most durable and most true. I haven't changed my argument since we started debating here. How many times have you changed your arguments, I wonder? I'll count this as a concession for now, as for now, you have not answered the question. Anarchangel (talk) 08:17, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
You can count it as a concession, but you've changed your argument from one that I had refuted earlier to one I refuted below. Your insulting tone and attitude is tiring.LedRush (talk) 14:28, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
3."We can’t find that Palin ever commented on the policy, pro or con." Firstly, this is misleading. It ignores the evidence of the Palin email Frontiersman interview, aka the Palin quote, showing that she was given a chance to comment, and did not. And the Palin quote does not use the negative proof of 'we found no evidence', which is, contrary to your assessment, appreciably different from "Palin made no comment".
It doesn't matter...it is a reliable, verifiable source which says it found no evidence. Let's stay on subject. If you want to attack the source for being incorrect on the facts, do so, but not while we're discussing the negative proof fallacy, please.LedRush (talk) 05:00, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

It does in fact matter. In fact, it is the whole point. I'll count this as a retraction for now, as for now, you have not answered the question. Anarchangel (talk) 08:17, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I am not sure if you're trying to be insulting or not...you are attacking the the source for being incorrect on the facts which is a completely different discussion than the one we're having. Assigning me arguments I don't have and then counting them as a victory when I don't play your game is also tiring and insulting.LedRush (talk) 14:28, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
4.I am restoring the comments, so that everyone can see that I was not making personal attacks. I would appreciate it if you did not take advantage of my generosity.
You made a personal attack. I am not taking advantage of anything and would appreciate it if you don't insinuate otherwise. If you like, you can keep the language out and I'll remove me thanking you for being courteous in this regard (and we can delete the discussion of it here, as well). I didn't want to make this into another example of personal attacks, I wanted to thank you for removing attacks against me.LedRush (talk) 05:00, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
5.I can't really have conceded any points here, because you never made any of the arguments you are making now before. I certainly have nothing to concede now that you have made them. I say again, the original statement in the SPT article is a negative proof. The notability of the statement in the article rests on a negative proof fallacy. Anarchangel (talk) 04:13, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
I have proven otherwise above. Can you tell me how the following statement made in the SPT is an example of the negative proof fallacy? "We can’t find that Palin ever commented on the policy, pro or con." It is a simple statement about their process and the results of their specific investigation. The WP article then reports what they say about their own investigation.LedRush (talk) 05:00, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
Proven what where? "Can you tell me..." : Why would I do that? I never said that part of the SPT article was a negative proof. However, I had already challenged the suitability of that sentence, in number 3 of this set of 5 points. I will count the assertion that I had conceded points as refuted. Anarchangel (talk) 08:17, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
Are you changing the argument yet again? So now you have no arguments left about anything being the negative proof fallacy and are clinging to your charge that the SPT article got the facts wrong?LedRush (talk) 14:28, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Negative Proof and the SPT Article[edit]

Anarchangel and I seem to be spinning in circles in this discussion above, so let's try this again. While I believe I have conclusively proven this concept is not applicable, Anarchangel disagrees, though we are discussing more side ideas than is helpful. Anarchangel, can you please concisely state what part of either the WP article language or a relevant section of the SPT article relies on the negative proof and why you believe it? I will try to answer as briefly and clearly as I can below your statement (not underneath each argument as we've done before). I have as briefly as possible listed only the arguments that I feel are necessary to proving my point. Perhaps Anarchangel can respond as concisely as possible below my assertion and we can get at the heart of our disagreement. Hopefully by both of us having short descriptions or our assertions we can address the central themes and not get sidetracked down superfluous roads.LedRush (talk) 14:28, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Never mind the above, I'll start and include only the arguments central to my conclusion.
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) 15:26, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
You've started a whole new section without conceding a single point from the above section. There is only one way I can deal with this evasion, and that is to count points as conceded when they are unanswered. This process only works if you follow the rules; I regret having to make new ones, but there is no other option when one person is cheating. Anarchangel (talk) 02:38, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
Ledrush is still correct. Long posts do not make your stance any stronger. Collect (talk) 02:46, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Do you have anything else to add? Because until you do, the argument against negative proof argument is going into Refuted. You've mixed two statements here, and the first from SPT does not actually even cite the material from the article properly.
The first sentence is indeed about the underlying truth. It implies that Palin did not comment on the policy. This is not just a negative proof, it is very misleading, as can be seen by Palin's interview with the Frontiersman, where she replies to questions about the policy.
The sentence from the article is both, directly a negative proof, and a statement that relies for its notability on a negative proof, which I suppose is inevitable, as we are all at least capable of paraphrasing and citing correctly. I won't comment on either as I have done so before, leaving behind one argument in my pursuit of more and more complete truths, which process was subsequently attacked as "changing the argument". Anarchangel (talk) 02:38, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Firstly, I quoted the article directly. Perhaps this is the source of some of our disagreement. Secondly, I'd like to point out that I tried to refute your central argument by setting the definition of a negative proof, followed by two quotes and two logical analyses of why those quotes don't fall under the accepted definition. You have merely contradicted me and stated the opposing view point without touching on my central themes. I made this discussion (as I said clearly above) so that we could try again and this time only discuss the core issues, and not the side ones. Hopefully you will choose to constructively engage me.LedRush (talk) 03:21, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Huffington Post[edit]

  • There is nothing of merit the Huffington Post could introduce to this article. The Huffington Post is a liberal blog, as I've tried to explain several times. If this were a matter of non-partisan interests, their research might merit consideration. As the primary source of this smear, it should be self-evident that any verifiable factual data you could find there should be readily found in more qualified and reliable sources. There is no way they would be considered a reliable source for a biographical article on someone like Palin. Any original research or op-ed conclusions based on any facts or their own research should be considered tainted. In contrast, the St. Petersburg Times is a print-based newspaper that specifically received awards from notable journalism outlets for its investigative reporting and fact-finding during the 2008 Presidential campaign (possibly even this specific issue). If the ultimate consensus is to keep any mention of the rape kits, the SPT findings will stay. Fcreid (talk) 23:11, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Anarchangel: I cite Fcreid's own find (Archive 42: WP:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_16#Huffington_Post.2C_Gawker_and_About.com) as evidence that although WP editors find HP problematic, it is not automatically discounted as a source. -prev cited-

With regard to this particular HP article, it has definitive links on SP's connection to this matter. I really don't care if substitutions are used; I just don't have any, and I don't know how to get them. If you can find budget links, wow, great, please? I don't care about Sherriff's conclusions. He does make a good point, but he editorializes. Anarchangel (talk) 00:50, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Guilt by association?[edit]

"The present material also employs guilt by association with Fannon and with Fannon's policy." -Ferrylodge, 6 Jan 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)

Ultimately, all the WP RULES below are subjective. Ultimately, none of them can ever be resolved without subjective judgement. These are all distinctions for reasonable editors without too many disagreements to find a point of agreement on. I want it resolved that it is subjective. If you can find proof that any of these is a logical argument capable of being supported by factual evidence, go for it.
Pursuant to this, we should examine the article with our best (subjective) arguments for and against the material being subject to one of these rules. And then stop bringing them up. Dang. Anarchangel (talk) 02:15, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

WP:WEIGHT is subjective[edit]

WP:RECENTISM is subjective[edit]

WP:COATRACK is subjective[edit]

Rmv own 'comments for the record'. Anarchangel (talk) 02:17, 6 January 2009 (UTC) Anarchangel (talk) 02:15, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

BLP burden of evidence[edit]

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)

This contention rests on a mistaken reading of the policy. Can we pleas keep the discussion in one place...in this case, below? It is not helpful that you make claims or victory at multiple places on the discussion page even though other editors have been arguing against your position.LedRush (talk) 21:25, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
You know the pyramid, Led, that's a Contradiction. The objective of this is to keep points already made in a nice neat list. Discussion can take place point by point, here in Contended or Disputes about Record, or anywhere you choose. Note that before entering them onto the list, I discussed the Refuted points (e.g. 'Refuted' 4-7) in the discussion at the bottom of the page. Anarchangel (talk) 20:53, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
No, it is not a contradiction. It is a plea for you to keep discussion in one place and stop claiming victory everywhere so that we can constructively discuss the subject.LedRush (talk) 21:05, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

What turned out to be a misunderstanding about 'Refuted:' 9-14[edit]

-regarding the insertion of points against 9-14 as 'refuted' into the Refuted section-

Funny -- none of my comments were restored in this colloquy. Ah well. Collect (talk) 20:26, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
You're more than welcome to put comments here in the Contended / Disputes about Record section; it would probably help to make a new subsection for it as I have done for this exchange. Anarchangel (talk) 20:53, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
Moving comments again? Kindly move my comments back to where they were so people can see what I was commenting on. You said you "restored" material -- well "restoring" precisely one side of a discussion is a strange idea of "restoring" indeed. Thank you most kindly for moving this back. Collect (talk) 20:59, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
First of all, I apologize for the mistake, I thought it was you who had edited my points 9-14. I have clarified, apologized at that location, and removed your name. I hope that resolves the issue.

I am trying to keep that section as uncluttered as possible. In that sense, to call this edit 'restore' was an accurate summary. 'restore' was also accurate as it was a reversion of this edit. Anarchangel (talk) 07:08, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

"Restoring"[edit]

Restoring precisely one side of a colloquy is not restoring anything. When noted, moving the comment as far away as possible makes one doubt further the purpose of the "restore." I would humbly suggest that moving comments hither and yon with the aim of making them appear meaningless is not a proper way to edit the Talk page of an article. Thanks! Collect (talk) 21:03, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Seriously, Collect. You changed all the 'Refuted' stuff around, the definition of BLP up there is even now still subverted by the selective quoting that someone, I haven't looked, but it might have well been you, changed it to, and you're complaining about me trying to fix all that? Anarchangel (talk) 05:56, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
Huh? I assure you that I do NOT edit Talk pages by moving stuff around. If you wish to charge me with anything, post the diff here. If you do not, then be a mensch. Thanks! Collect (talk) 14:48, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
Agf, please. You don't know his aim. KillerChihuahua?!? 22:28, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
History is a problem as he has done this before, KC. Collect (talk) 02:02, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
and again I strongly suggest you cease the snarky comments which imply you know his intent. Making such comments does not reduce the hostile and combative behavior at all but rather prolongs and exacerbates the issues. KillerChihuahua?!? 02:52, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

=-=-=-=--=-==-=-=-=--=-==-=-=-=--=-==-=-=-=--=-==-=-=-=--=-[edit]

Notes[edit]

Negative proof was used, over and over, to imply something, despite repeated denials. In the end, though, I did get a better understanding of the fact that the statements relied for their notability upon a negative proof. UNDUE etc were eventually used to get rid of the material altogether, and were a powerful weapon in any wikiwarrior's arsenal, but were usually used to the detriment of Wikipedia. They are much more subjective than they need to be, and have in fact been nerfed considerably due to the emergence of a new rule. Unfortunately I cannot remember what it is; been a while. There is much more to say about this, but I am leaving it for now

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Anarchangel/Sandbox/Consensus_building&oldid=461888211"