Talk:Sarah Palin rape kits scandal

Prev. on WP

URLs

• 'Rape kits' material. There is every piece of documentation here to show either negligence or intent. Shoved off the page by brute force

1. CNN • • • 2. Washington Post • • • 3. Frontiersman • • • 4. Frontiersman • • • 5. Seattle Times • • • 6. Huffington Post-Jacob Alperin Sheriff • • • 7. USA Today

8. Frontiersman • • • 9. Blog

• HB 270. The bill to make it illegal to charge for rape kits, which is now standard legislation across the US

10. AK state legislature • • • 11. AK state legislature

• This one never hit the page. Probably the best material. Years before Palin was even mayor, she and others bought their way ($5 apiece) onto the lowest board of the local hospital, which elects the next highest board, which elects the highest board. Palin and others ended up at the top, and voted to stop abortions in the hospital and embezzled $thousands on local anti-abortion charities. Pretty good value for money. Took the AK supreme court to stop them.

12. LA Times • • • 13. Touch-n-go AK Supreme Court legal record • • • 14. YouTube • • • 15. AP release

16. USA Today • • • 17. LA Times • • • 18. Yahoo search

• There is a scary sequel to the Pay-per-Power thing, in which anti-abortion doctors chose to take a bold moral stand...against a threat to their paychecks. Stop oppressing my rights, they said, to choose to not perform abortions by removing my federal funding.

Choose Freedom from Responsibility Now! Amendment 2967, 2009

• Links to gun activists & AK separatists

19. Salon • • • 20. Salon

21. Huffington Post-Jacob Alperin Sheriff

22. Edge • • • 23. Zimbio • • • 24. Frontiersman • • • 25. Washington Post • • • 26. Swamp • • • 27. US News

• AK state legislature: primary sources, so be prepared to defend that. There are primaries there already, like the link to her duties as mayor.

28. AK state legislature • • • 29. AK state legislature • • • 30. AK state legislature • • • 31. AK state legislature • • • 32. FBI crime stats 33. AK state • • • 34. AK state legislature • • • 35. AK state legislature • • • 36. Wasilla stats
Anarchangel 21:42, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Record of Consensus building on kit-budget passage

Conceded

• The records do not show there was 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.

• The SPT source does in fact not only say, 'There is no evidence Palin supported the policy', but also supports the statement, "An investigation by the St. Petersburg Times found no evidence that Palin had explicitly supported or opposed this policy."

Retracted Anarchangel (talk) 00:50, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Refuted

• 1.Only in Wasilla were victims charged for rape kits. HB 270 Finance Committee minutes et al
• 2.There is no evidence that Wasilla charged for rape kits Frontiersman Fannon interview
• 3.The FBI Uniform Crime Reports "Wasilla rapes for 2000: One" contradicts -either- Fannon or the Frontiersman. "According to Fannon, the new law will cost the Wasilla Police Department approximately $5,000 to $14,000 a year to collect evidence for sexual assault cases."

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

• Frontiersman interview with Fannon http://www.frontiersman.com/articles/2000/05/23/news.txt
• Frontiersman interview with Palin http://frontiersman.com/articles/2008/09/30/breaking_news/doc48e1e1294d418713321438.txt
• Wasilla Municipal Code http://www.codepublishing.com/AK/Wasilla/Wasilla02/Wasilla0216.html
• Time http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1837918,00.html

Not enough evidence Currently unprovable

• 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

WP:BLP of course, and other applicable rules:

"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."

Disputed sources

• 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"

• St Petersburg Times:
• CNN http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/09/21/palin.rape.exams/index.html
  

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

• 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)

Contended / Disputes regarding Record

UNDUE/WEIGHT Refuted?

• 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?

-now disputed, previously in Contended-

• St Petersburg Times:

"*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

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

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)

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".

Negative Proof and the SPT Article

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)

Huffington Post

• 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?

"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)