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.
Should Palin's 2006 support of the Bridges to Nowhere be Excised Completely from the Article Bridge Section?
In a reversion war, Collect removed the one sentence that showed Palin's support for the bridge. It's a sentence that has never been changed one word in two weeks. I went to Collect's page and kindly asked him to revert to the consensus. He refused, because he incorrectly believes it has been removed before. I told him I would fix it and did (with no comment by him). I fixed it and Hobartimus removed it. I undid his revision.
So I have to ask all wikipedians what I think is a simple question. Is it or is not relevant in an article on Sarah Palin and a subsection on the Bridges to note that she once supported them. I think it is relevant. Hobartimus and Collect think it's not. If folks think Palin's position on the Bridges is NOT relevant, I propose deleting the entire section as unnecessary.GreekParadise (talk) 01:23, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
Here is the duly sourced sentence: "In 2006, Palin ran for governor on a "build-the-bridge" plank in her platform,[103] attacking "spinmeisters"[108] for insulting local residents by calling them "nowhere"[103] and urging speedy work on Alaska's infrastructure projects "while our congressional delegation is in a strong position to assist."[109]" It has four sources and condensed four long quotations on the subject that were in the original draft two weeks ago. No one at any time has ever complained about this sentence until Collect unceremoniously (and I submit accidentally) deleted the sentence an hour or so ago.GreekParadise (talk) 01:27, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
That sentence is more important than approximately 95% of the other stuff in the article. I didn't remember that it said she was "urging speedy work on Alaska's infrastructure projects" -- that generalized wording is somewhat misleading, because she was answering a question that specifically mentioned the Gravina Island Bridge. The sentence should perhaps be made more clear in that respect, but it certainly should not be deleted (accidentally or otherwise). JamesMLanetc01:32, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
Someone else will have to revert it. I've been reported by Hobartimus and Kelly for 3RR, so I undid my own undoing. I will report them for 3RR as well.GreekParadise (talk) 01:34, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
Further to my comment above, the source confirms my recollection. Here is the full text of the question and answer in item 5 of the candidate questionnaire, as recently reprinted by the Anchorage Daily News in this story:
Would you continue state funding for the proposed Knik Arm and Gravina Island bridges?
Yes. I would like to see Alaska's infrastructure projects built sooner rather than later. The window is now - while our congressional delegation is in a strong position to assist.
Given that she said "Yes" to a question about the two bridges specifically, and her comment on "infrastructure projects" was just an elaboration, I've introduced the quotation with a tie to the specific question that was asked. JamesMLanetc01:53, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
I'm sorry, I was doing really well with WP:AGF, but that tears it. Unless Collect and Hobartimus dispute your account, or explain their actions, I am no longer going to be able to AGF with those two. This is pathetic.Homunq (talk) 01:37, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
Again completely misleading section title again completely misleading arguments. Another section just opened for what? Look what I found in the article I will just copy it here word for word,
"In her nomination acceptance speech and on the campaign trail, Palin has often said: "I told the Congress 'thanks, but no thanks,' for that Bridge to Nowhere."[1][2]Although Palin was originally a main proponent of the Gravina Island Bridge, McCain-Palin television advertisements claim Palin "stopped the Bridge to Nowhere".[3] These claims have been widely questioned or described as misleading in several newspapers across the political spectrum.[4][5][6][7]Newsweek remarked: "Now she talks as if she always opposed the funding."[8]"
Seems someone is willing to overlook any amount of material so he can falsely claim that "2006 support of the Bridges to Nowhere be Excised" and other such deceptions and attempted misleading of other editors. Please always look at the article first before taking such bold claims at face value. Hobartimus (talk) 01:41, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
I guess that's just not enough right? This must be repeated at least 10 times in the article? And then everyone must gather at the talk page here and claim that the 10 mentions means that it was "completely excised" and demand the first mention since at least once it must be mentioned. Hobartimus (talk) 01:46, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
Hobartimus, that was removed to the campaign section as you well know as you supported the move (I did not.) You were trying to excise Palin's support from the BRIDGE section. And if you believe Palin's support for the bridge is irrelevant in the BRIDGE section, along with direct quotations by her about the bridge, I think we should delete the bridge section entirely. (Changed Article to Bridge Section in header)GreekParadise (talk) 01:51, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
Oh why not change the section header even further like this? "MY FELLOW EDITORS WE CAN'T LET THIS STAND, ONLY 3 MENTIONS OF PALIN'S SUPPORT FOR THE BRIDGE TO NOWHERE REMAIN IN THE ARTICLE". Hobartimus (talk) 01:53, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
You need to make that about 20 times longer, with a lot more cowbell, and it would be exactly like other posts on this page regarding this topic. How much duplication and irrelevant detail do we need? Kellyhi!01:58, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
It certainly should be "excised" from somewhere, as it is a political fight, not an important part of her biography and it doesn't rate multiple mentions.--Paul (talk) 01:57, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
"For it before she was against it" was the first news blurb against palin after she was announced. It is very relevant. A pro bridge platform for governship vs an anti bridge platform for teh presidency is a stark contrast, and examples should be stated, even in a summary linking to the subarticles. Duuude007 (talk) 02:02, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
The rationale for removal was the extensive amount of material suddenly inserted into the section. If "spinmeister" rises to the point of importance that GP feels it has, so be it. If it is not important, then I see no reason for lots of single word quotes in any article. It is amazing how many comments get posted during dinner. Collect (talk) 02:01, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
Seems that the deception used now multiple times (completely false section headers and statements) just got rewarded again by this edit by Homunq [1] introducing further mentions to the three mentions that were already in the article and that I qouted and bolded above. Of course Humunq acted at once never once questioning the truthfulness of the statements of GreekParadise, who thinks this is now solved by him changing the inflammatory section header from the previous "Article" to "bridge section" as if nothing happened. Hobartimus (talk) 02:03, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
Not fair. I understood the fact that there was still mention in the article. And strikeout is an apology, in my book, not an "as if nothing happened".
I stand by my edit, and stand by the statement that this edit is the first one in my entire time working on this contentious article, aside from drive-bys and blatant vandalism, where I cannot assume good faith. Hobartimus, I would really like to see some acknowledgement that it was a mistake; and Kelly, your snark is not helping. Homunq (talk) 02:20, 20 September 2008 (UTC) (sorry slow connection, third try to commit this)
"who thinks this is now solved by him changing the inflammatory section header from the previous "Article" to "bridge section" as if nothing happened." refers to the person who changed the section header from Article to Bridge section, and that person is GreekParadise, not Homunq. Hobartimus (talk) 02:40, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
Collect, you threw out a sentence that was the product of careful compromise two weeks ago. You did so without any mention ANYWHERE on the talk page. I asked you nicely on your talk page to revert your mistake and you refused to admit it was a mistake. Then, after an hour, I told you I would revert. No comment by you objecting to the sentence, except to Palin's own choice of words "spinmeister". But you didn't think it important enough to bring here. Then I revert to the consensus and Hobartimus, again immediately and without comment, goes back to your mistake.GreekParadise (talk) 02:10, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
You are errant. The "reversion war" was not waged by me, as you well know. I noted the facts of the "war" in the section where I had hoped we would reach a consensus. That means the claim that I did not note the change is incorrect. Alas, some seemed to think that playing games was more important that actually reaching a consensus. Blaming me for that is errant. I do not happen to think sentences with multiple singe word quotations make sense. Where they represent multiple sources, they violate WP:SYNTH directly. Collect (talk) 02:25, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
I submit again, if Palin's stance toward the bridge is not relevant to the article, then the whole section should be deleted. What's the point of even including a section on any of her policies if we refuse to state her position on them? Is Palin's stance on the bridge relevant in a section on the bridge in an article about her? What could be MORE relevant?GreekParadise (talk) 02:10, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
So in short you want at least 4-5 mentions of Palin's support for the "Bridge to nowhere" because any less is just unacceptable. Do I summarize your neutral position adequately? Hobartimus (talk) 02:14, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
We are not talking about the other mentions. If this fact goes anywhere in the article, it goes right here. Do you debate this? (And, as I think a couple people have said already, this is one of the most important sentences in the article, as probably thousands of people a day view the article to check this one fact.) Homunq (talk) 02:23, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
If the republican candidate says it, is it a democratic talking point? Does it matter? As the great John Adams said, "Facts are stubborn things". Duuude007 (talk) 02:26, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
Just opened a new section [2], please comment. After some number of mentions "We are not talking about the other mentions" will just not gonna cut it as far as neutrality goes. Hobartimus (talk) 02:36, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
No, don't cut mention of the bridge, but be careful to have NPOV. If the Governor changed her position on the issue as new facts emerged and the overall environment demanded change, then she did what the dinosaurs should have done to ensure survival. Richard David Ramsey 17:19, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
Multiple quotes in one sentence and WP:SYNTH
Currently in the article, this appears:
In 2006, Palin ran for governor on a "build-the-bridge" plank in her platform,[102] attacking "spinmeisters"[107] for insulting local residents by calling them "nowhere"[102] and urging speedy work on the two bridges "while our congressional delegation is in a strong position to assist."[108]
This sentence appears to tie three separate sources together.
"Material published by reliable sources can be put together in a way that constitutes original research. Synthesizing material occurs when an editor comes to a conclusion by putting together different sources."
My simple question, which needs short answers, is does the sentence as given fall into the category of WP:SYNTH?
I think one per clause is fine, more too many. "Spinmeisters" should go as it basically adds nothing. (OK good night for reals now) Homunq (talk) 02:42, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
Spinmeisters should probably be replaced by "critics", and the '"build-the-bridge" plank platform' should probably be clean up. As it stands, the sentence is klunky and jargon filled. Straighforward prose is probably a better path. Aprock (talk) 03:03, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
These are all direct quotes by Palin. They were originally in four sentences. "Spinmeisters" is HER word. Because folks complained original was too long, I consolidated Palin's four quotes about the bridge into one sentence two weeks ago (and received no complaint until Collect unceremoniously removed it without warning or discussion this evening.) May I suggest everyone READ all four citations in full to satisfy themselves they're accurate? If anyone prefers to put back the four full inset quotations in four sentences, I'm more than OK with that. Some of them were in the Governorship article and may still be if you want to review them. Those who want to change it, please review all four sources and submit a proposal. I think "Spinmeister" is very important because it shows Palin's strongly-worded attack in 2006 against anyone who opposed the bridge at that time. GreekParadise (talk) 03:23, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
All good points, but right now I think part of the goal is to step back a level and remove some of the idiosyncratic rhetoric used by the actual participants. All of that stuff is probably good for the Gravina bridge project page. If you're interested in getting this stuff down right, focusing on the subarticle now, and a more coherent summary after the election is over, would be more productive. The page is a moving target, so putting too much effort into it is likely to result in wasted energy. That's not to say that we shouldn't monitor this section/page, but perfecting it before 2009 is unlikely. Aprock (talk) 03:52, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
I suggest that we replace the new Palin photo at the top with the old one, which is currently in the Political Positions section: the old one is of a higher definition, and is more professional-looking. (It would be even better to have her official photograph, but I'm not sure that it's in the public domain.) The current picture can be moved down to the Political Positions section. What do you think? Regards, Tempodivalse (talk) 16:43, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, this was being discussed above, at #New pic. I like the old photo, too. Unfortunately the official photo from the Alaska state govt website does not have a free license, basically it's a noncommercial license, which we can't use here. Kellyhi!16:50, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
And yet, its being used on a number of other pages, like her 2006 gubernatorial election. I suppose we could do a close-up crop of the image I got the creative commons on... lol. Duuude007 (talk) 17:30, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
The article says his son is being questioned about it. Is this issue being politicized to implicate his father as an accomplice? Switzpaw (talk) 17:52, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
(edit conflict)And the point of this section is what? It is also a bit of a reach to say that Rep. Kernell is involved and one could argue it is a BLP violation to make such a claim.. His son is involved, but there isn't any evidence that Rep. Kernell had anything to do with the hack. --Bobblehead(rants)17:54, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, I have to agree here. McCain supporters are pretty classy and would never stoop so low as to make private family matters or associations a political issue. Kellyhi!17:57, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
Mike Kernell just gave a press release about it this very issue so he is definitely involved in the media part of the issue. Another article states "In the meantime, the Tennessean newspaper wrote about State Rep. Mike Kernell's claims that his 20-year-old son, David, is in fact the hacker everyone's been looking for. However, when confronted, Kernell made no confirmation of that."[5] Somewhat contradictory. Note that "rubico" posted earlier that he was looking for "dirt" and damaging information on Palin to damage her politicly. Rubico said he read all the emails in attempts to find something damaging, can't find the original article now here [6] they say there were 84 emails none of them "juicy". So the hacker was definitely looking to cause politcal damage. Hobartimus (talk) 18:13, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
The name of "rubico" the infamous hacker is allegedly David Kernell [7][8] In every article they present him as "son of Democratic Tennessee state representative Mike Kernell" apparently since he has no notable accomplishement of his own. Hobartimus (talk) 18:19, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
And how is this applicable to Palin's biography? I would argue not at all. This is a minor bit of trivia that hasn't had any impact on Sarah Palin. --Bobblehead(rants)18:28, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
The e-mail invasion is mentioned in the article. Not sure if we should mentioning that the son of a prominent Democrat will likely soon be buying Soap-on-a-rope. Kellyhi!18:31, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
Yes I brought it up as the email stuff is already featured in the article qoute prominently too
On September 18, 2008, one of her two private Yahoo! Mail accounts was hacked by a 4chan user,[9] who used Palin's password reset challenge question to change her password.[10] The hacker posted screenshots from within the account to Wikileaks; these screenshots were further distributed by blogs including Gawker.com.[11][12] The account was subsequently locked out by Yahoo!. The FBI and Secret Service have since begun a joint investigation into the incident.[13]
this is the part that (obvoisly) will need to be updated, even the "start of the investigation" is referenced in the present version of the article. Hobartimus (talk) 18:40, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
I would argue that "4chan user" aids more to the understanding of David Kernell and the context of this event rather than "son of a Democratic state representative". If editors feel compelled to change this paragraph, please at least preserve "4chan user". Switzpaw (talk) 18:48, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
← Fair enough. I just removed it from the article. Seriously, just because it gets minor mention in the news for a couple of days does not mean it has to be included in the article. --Bobblehead(rants)18:55, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
I might suggest removing the section entirely is a little overdoing it. "Minor" is not how I'd refer to the response from either the media or the campaigns. At least a short mention should be here. Tony Fox(arf!)19:01, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
Does it have a lasting impact upon Sarah Palin's life or her status as a candidate for vice president? Just because something gets picked up by the news for a few days does not make it encyclopedic. This isn't Wikinews. --Bobblehead(rants)19:09, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
The place it belongs is under troopergate, which is unresolved and ongoing, because the only thing the email leak showed is she had a private account she failed to produce under subpeona. Also, the Tennessean backtracked from earlier suggestions David Kernell's father had implicated him as the perpetrator. The only evidence to date is a posting on 4chan with the rubico10 yahoo address, possibly by anyone with something to pin on the kid. conspiracy theories lol. 78.60.98.100 (talk) 19:24, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
Just found the original old testimony in a source "The hacker said that he read all of the e-mails in the Palin account and found "nothing incriminating, nothing that would derail her campaign as I had hoped. All I saw was personal stuff, some clerical stuff from when she was governor…. And pictures of her family."[9]. other sources [10][11]Hobartimus (talk) 22:50, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
whitewash by rottweilers
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
I have quietly watched this article and discussion for weeks. I have held my toungue as I have seen relevant information blocked from the article. I have seen dissenting editors attacked and threatened. The fact is that the article is a whitewash. Everytime someone edits to include unflattering but relevant and documented information about Palin; that information gets reverted. Any attempt to restore the information is blocked by viscious pro-Palin rottweilers. Why is the investigation of her abuse of power toned-down? Why is not clear that she had been the leading proponent on the "bridge to nowhere" until it became unpopular? Why is her proposterous claims over being the mother of Trig not even mentioned; does anybody really believe the story of her giving a speech and flying many hours while in labor? But she made the claim... leave it in! I am going expect someone to threaten me and try to get me kicked off wikipedia. Guess what. Look at my name. I am on a public terminal. Nobody will ID me and get me kicked.--Lambchop2008 (talk) 23:13, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
"Her proposterous claims over being the mother of Trig" are not described as such, because only a very few people in the United States think the claims are preposterous.Ferrylodge (talk) 23:21, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
I don't care for Palin much but I can't understand why you would attack her baby. BLP unfriendly comment removed - Wikidemon (talk) 23:28, 20 September 2008 (UTC) As for the other points you brought up, I don't have an answer for you. Illinois2011 (talk) 23:25, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
I am closing this as a rant from a WP:SPA created specifically to avoid detection, not reasonably directed to improving the article. Further, calling articles a "whitewash" is a provocation and an insult to the editors who do make serious contributions. Wikipedia is a place for encyclopedia articles, not political debates. There are plenty of other places to complain about Palin and her supporters, but not here. Thanks, Wikidemon (talk) 23:26, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Palin Earmarks vs. Murkowski
Footnote 101 refers to Palin's earmarks compared to the final year earmarks of Gov. Murkowski, but a better comparison is Palin's earmarks by year vs. each year of Gov. Murkowski (it's possible that Murkowski's final year was his highest and his earlier years may be on par or below Palin's earmarks). Can someone obtain that information? WarrenFW (talk) 03:47, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
During 2008, Palin’s increasing aversion to federal earmarks was the leading source of friction between herself and the state's congressional delegation; according to her staff, she has requested $95 million to $150 million fewer earmarks or funding requests during each of her years in office than her predecessor Frank Murkowski requested in his last year.[14]
Palin’s increasing aversion to federal earmarks was the leading source of friction between herself and the state's congressional delegation - Not in the source provided
fewer earmarks or funding requests during each of her years in office than her predecessor Frank Murkowski requested in his last year - WP:OR - Not in the source provided.
Jossi, the cited source (quoted in the footnote) says: "Palin has increasingly distanced herself from earmarking since she made her first trip to Washington D.C. to lobby Congress for money in 2000. And over the past year, it has been the leading source of tension between Palin and the state's three-member congressional delegation." This obviously supports the statement in the text that Palin’s increasing aversion to federal earmarks was the leading source of friction between herself and the state's congressional delegation.Ferrylodge (talk) 05:17, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
I don't think growing aversion is good descriptor. It seems overly flowerly. It's not clear she had an aversion, and it's not clear that if she did that it was growing. Her earmark position may have been political in nature, and it may have always been the same. Aprock (talk) 21:17, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
If you like we can change it to this: "Palin’s decreasing support for federal earmarks was the leading source of friction between herself and the state's congressional delegation." I'll change it accordingly. Also, I don't think we need a tag in the article every time there's a discussion about how best to word something.Ferrylodge (talk) 21:28, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
I agree about the tagging, but there were other issues brought up as well. I do think the issue of whether this is about earmarks or federal funding needs to be straightened out. I also think the years of comparison needs to be worked out. Alaksa is the biggest recipient of federal funding per capita, and it has been trending up over the last dozen years. Aprock (talk) 21:58, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
The cited source refers to earmarks, which of course are a form of federal funding. I'm not sure I understand what the problem is.Ferrylodge (talk) 22:15, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
Earmarks are only one source of federal funding. It's very possible that federal funding increased while earmarks went down. Aprock (talk) 22:21, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
Likewise, the cited source (quoted in the footnote) says: "For the 2007 federal budget year, the administration of former Gov. Frank Murkowski submitted 63 earmark requests totaling $350 million, Palin's staff said. That slid to 52 earmarks valued at $256 million in Palin's first year. This year, the governor's office asked the delegation to help them land 31 earmarks or funding requests valued at $197 million." This obviously supports the statement in the text about fewer earmarks or funding requests during each of her years in office than her predecessor Frank Murkowski requested in his last year.Ferrylodge (talk) 05:20, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
There are two possible spins on the earmark thing. One spin is that Palin's administration requested what is, in an absolute sense, an ungodly amount of federal earmarks for Alaska. The other spin is that Palin's requests were relatively lower than those of her predecessor. These are both, essentially, spin on the same set of facts. The quoted text is an example of the latter spin. I'd like to see if we can find a middle ground, perhaps by reporting that while Palin's requests still made Alaska the biggest per capita recipient of "pork", they did represent a decrease from the Murkowski.
As an aside, the New Yorker article on Palin this week quoted her on earmarks: "There isn't a need to aspire to live without any earmarks. The writing on the wall, though, is that times are changing. Presidential candidates have promised earmark reform, so we gotta deal with it, we gotta live with it, understanding that our senior senator [Ted Stevens], especially - he's eighty-four years old, he is not gonna be able to serve in the Senate forever." That sounds less like an "aversion" to earmarks than a pragmatic realization that they are no longer politically feasible, but I'm not sure if or how that source should be incorporated. MastCellTalk22:01, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
I agree that we should aim for a balanced neutral presentation, but maybe you're overlooking the whole section on the bridges, which does refer to an ungodly amount of federal funding for Alaska, and even implies that Palin requested and obtained it (when actually Murkowski did that). So, if you're looking for balance and neutrality, it may well be that this article is already unbalanced against Palin on this issue.Ferrylodge (talk) 22:13, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
I think it would be useful to discuss this section on it's merrits. If you think the two sections should be combined, we could discuss that. I think it's important to remember that both of these issues are fairly significant. Although one could argue that much of it doesn't belong on this page. Aprock (talk) 22:24, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
Why can't one subsection of an article balance out and complement another one? Both of these subsections are part of "Budget, spending and federal funds". Wouldn't it be best to take a wholistic view of "Budget, spending and federal funds" rather than separately analyzing every separate part of it?Ferrylodge (talk) 22:28, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure what you're saying here. Subsections of basically factual material shouldn't be a he said, she said sort of presentation. Of course, they sould work together to present information, and redundancy and cross polination of information should be minimized. Could you elaborate on your wholistic view idea? My inclination would be to make three sections instead of two subsections. Aprock (talk) 22:46, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
All I'm saying is that the current section on "Budget, spending and federal funds" seems NPOV right now, looking at it as a whole. The first subsection presents some stuff that arguably makes her look good, and the second subsection arguably presents some stuff that makes her look not-so-good. We're following the cited sources, we don't have further sources that contradict those cited sources, and there's no original research in this section right now, so it would be nice if the tag would be removed.Ferrylodge (talk) 22:58, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
I'm afraid you're losing me on this point. It's not about whether or not the sections make her look good or bad, it's about whether the information is presented in an unbiased manner. You may be suggesting that there are some problems with selectivity here, but it's not clear from what you've written. And again, regarding this specific subsection, I think it's important to clarify whether it's about earmarks, or federal funding. Aprock (talk) 23:06, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
This section is not about "earmarks, or federal funding." It is about federal funding, including earmarks. One is a subset of the other.
I am not aware than anyone now maintains that this section has any original research in it, so I plan on removing the tag soon.
I am also not planning on inserting an "NPOV" tag, because I think the information is presented in an unbiased manner. We follow the cited sources. No notable sources have been rejected. If some people think the section makes her look too good, then they should provide reliable sources that will provide a fuller picture. Conversely, if some people think the bridge section makes her look too bad, then they should provide reliable sources that provide a fuller picture. I'm not aware that there has been any selectivity of sources here, beyond selecting sources that provide useful and notable information.Ferrylodge (talk) 03:04, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
Email hack
I just realised it's not mentioned in the article at all, and think it should be. (I think there's some discussion about it above, but damn this page is long.) A google news alert I have running on "4chan" (since I'm keeping an eye on that article) gives 38 emails, each with at least 2 news stories, on this. It was a very big deal and there are almost certainly more ramifications to come. I'd suggest those watching this article introduce a mention of the incident into it. There's stuff at 4chan#Internet attacks if you want some sources and content to work with, I can help with finding more if you like (though I'm not watching this page, so poke my talk page if you want me to help with anything). Just a suggestion. Cheers, Giggy (talk) 00:56, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
If we mention the hacking we will also have to mention that it concerned government business conducted on personal sites> why not just leave it be!--[[User:Buster7|Buster7]] (talk) 00:59, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
Palin's infobox is more than two screens long, which seems unnecessary to me. In it we include both her time on the oil and gas Commission and in Wasilla city council. While certainly true, neither is particularly notable. The city council, by itself, has little bearing on who she is now (certainly not compared to being mayor and governor). The Commission is an appointed (not elected!) position and based on what links to the AOGCC no other person who has ever been on the Commission has a wiki page. In the interest of a more focused infobox, I'd like to suggest removing one or both of these low impact items. They would of course continue to be mentioned in the text of the article. Dragons flight (talk) 08:11, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
The infobox is short compared to some others I've seen (e.g. McCain's), and so I'd encourage leaving it as it is. It's not customary to omit elective offices, and I don't think that there's any harm in mentioning her first elective office. One might likewise say that merely serving as a state legislator is not notable for a presidential candidate, but the folks at the Obama article would probably disagree. As for the AOGCC, it seems that it's noteworthy experience for a candidate who is running as someone with lots of knowledge about America's energy situation. I'm not sure that it's any less relevant than a judicial appointment, and surely the latter would qualify for the infobox.Ferrylodge (talk) 08:22, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
Main Picture (again......sigh)
I've seen that there is some bickering as to what image should be used as the main image. How about this photo I took or something similar. I have several like this. Illinois2011 (talk) 23:22, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
That's a nice photo. However, no one has objected (yet) to the present photo at the top of the article. The present photo at the top of the article is the third since the Republican National Convention (RNC). The first and second are still in the article, but lower down. The first was objected to because she was looking off to the right. The second was objected to because it was blurry. The third has neither of these problems.Ferrylodge (talk) 23:27, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
Haha, good point Buster7. I was once in San Bernadino National Forest, at a creek where there was a sign for "Deep Creek". But the sign post covered the "C"! :-)
Ok, then why did you just tell me thanks anyway like I was just supposed to move on and forget about it? I have several pictures of John McCain, Sarah Palin, Barack Obama, and Joe Biden that I took myself and that I would be happy to share with Wikipedia. I just don't like changing main images without sharing them with other editors first, which is what I was trying to do. But back to my earlier point, is there anywhere in the article or other articles where this photo might be useful? Illinois2011 (talk) 00:10, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
As mentioned above, the problem with the photo is that it says "McCain Pain". It was suggested above that you crop it so that PAIN and the telepromter are not in the picture, and I agree with that suggestion. If you do that, then I'm sure everyone here would be glad to take another look. But right now, this article has plenty of pictures, so there's not a great need for more. It's terrific that you're willing to share the pictures you took, and I'm sure that myself and many of the other editors would be glad to look at them if you upload them. However, you can save yourself some time by looking at the various articles and asking yourself whether they really need additional photos at this point, and, if not, whether your photos are better than the ones already there.Ferrylodge (talk) 00:17, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
If you can persuade her to release the copyright protection on her official portrait, then we could use it. But right now the State of Alaska is enforcing their copyright, unlike the U.S. Senate.Ferrylodge (talk) 00:37, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
I'm not aware that the media has been using her official portrait very much. But, if they are using it without permission, they may be breaking the law. See here.Ferrylodge (talk) 00:42, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
It's likely they would have gotten the rights or they would have gotten in trouble already - provided anyone cares about it. At wikipedia, copyright paranoia runs deep - into your mind it will creep. Meanwhile, "McCain Pain" would be payback for the "RATS" ad the Republicans had on TV in one of the recent Presidential elections. Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?05:03, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
If you were really creative, you could use Paintshop or something and paste in one of those signs over top of the one in the photo. Manipulating the photo could be a rules issue, though. Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?05:22, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
GIMP is your friend. Edited photos are generally acceptable so long as the edits are clearly marked and there is no intent or likelihood of misrepresenting anyone or anything. Regards, Ben Aveling11:24, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
The problem with your picture is that I really don't know where we would put it: the article already has lots of pictures in it. Perhaps we could insert it into a sub-article or something? Tempodivalse (talk) 17:01, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
im sorry but this is a complete lack of freedom of speech by not allowing others to post factual information about this person that is contrary to what people want you to know about her. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.185.224.11 (talk) 10:51, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
Actually. you don't have any freedom of speech here. But this isn't a forum for you to post all your "factual" info, only info that is appropriate for a relatively brief biographical entry that you might find in an encylopedia.66.190.29.150 (talk) 12:54, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
"Verifiability, not truth". You are free to post whatever you like on the talk page so long as its germane to the article. The article itself is not there for anyone's freedom of speech; it is there for any information that can be verified through sources that doesn't scream NPOV.--Loodog (talk) 13:28, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
There are also rules about how a talk page is supposed to be used, see WP:TALK. For instance, an inappropriate use of a talk page would be to post on Talk:Bigfoot something like "BIGFOOT IS REAL, I SEEN IT" and include a link to your video on YouTube. Switzpaw (talk) 17:18, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
"Freedom of speech" primarily has to do with the rights of citizens to speak out against the government. Last time I checked, wikipedia is not the government, and there is no constitutional right to edit wikipedia. Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?21:29, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
I noted the "beluga whale" piece reinserted under BTNKAB. If I recall correctly, there was a strong consensus not to include ediotializing, and not to include discredited arguments (beluga whales). It looks like some people have been busy setting up a need for reassertion of the consensus that the shorter the section, the better. I also correct the claim that Palin "continues" to support the Knik bridge after she asked for a review. Frankly, adding stuff which was already removed by consensus sounds like "consensus shopping." I would also suggest that the only consensus title named by the editors still appears to be "Bridge controversy. as no contradictory consensus has been found by me. Let's shorten this puppy! Thanks! Collect (talk) 14:58, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
I am theoretically on vacation -- and what I see is disturbing. People seem to use consesnsus shopping to reinsert POV material for which there had already been a consensus. And peopl;e who were caught pushing the rules now seem to be pushing POV full speed ahead into this article. The editting of this article now violates almost every single NPOV article of faith for WP. Collect (talk) 14:01, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
mayoral "at will" firing
The terms "for nearly any reason etc." translate exactly and precisely into "at will." The result is more accurate and shorter. Which I think is a plus. Collect (talk) 15:09, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
I've put it back to how it originally was. "At will" is not a commonly understood term, especially for readers whose first language is not English and linking to At-will employment doesn't seem to properly account for the ruling... This is particularly true since the lawsuit was in regards to him being fired for political reasons. --Bobblehead(rants)22:22, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
An editor eliminated the "including a political one" language, and I'm about to restore itanother restored it. Law is full of situations where one needs to say the specific in addition to the general to make clear that the case at hand is not an implicit exception. In law, "for any reason or no reason" does not necessarily mean that political firings are legal. Reading it, I would not have assumed it without that statement. Implicitly there are always invalid reasons - for example, terminations for extortion, fraud, personal gain, retribution against whistleblowers or people asserting employment claims in good faith, harassment, race/gender/age/religious discrimination, and a host of others are specifically illegal. In private employment, "at will" termination (for any reason or no reason) does not include the right to fire someone for political reasons. So I do think it's helpful to say that the judge ruled specifically that a politically-motivated firing is considered legitimate. That does not imply that the firing was in fact political, but rather that the complaint was dismissed because even if the facts were true it does not make a legal case. So the facts of the case are not worth trying. I hope that's clear.Wikidemon (talk) 23:23, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
The sentnece in the article presently says: "Stambaugh filed a lawsuit, but the case was dismissed; the court concluded the mayor had the right to fire city employees for any reason, including a political one, or for no reason at all."Ferrylodge (talk) 23:26, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I changed my earlier statement. I don't think the "or for no reason at all" is strictly necessary but it's a bit of a legal convention and it doesn't hurt anything either.Wikidemon (talk) 23:28, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
By the way, in private employment, "at will" does certainly include all reasons not specifically illegal (disability, race, religion etc.).
"At will" is a specific legal term, understood by most people. The claim tyhat WP users are not competent to know a simple term is weird. And it is shorter. This article now has as mucvh excess verbiage as "War and Peace." Collect (talk) 14:04, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
I disagree with this edit by Duuude007. He crossed out material in an image caption:
In September 2006, gubernatorial candidate Palin said in Ketchikan that the Gravina Bridge was essential for the town's prosperity. A year later, she cancelled it.
His edit summary said: "removed redundant extra blurb from caption." However, those six deleted words are necessary for NPOV, and they were inserted yesterday by GreekParadise for a very good reason.[12] His edit summary said: "fixed caption to incorporate both Duuude007's and Ferrylodge's suggested captions in one short sentence." The idea that those six words are redundant is incorrect; the present caption gives no clue that Palin eventually killed the bridge.Ferrylodge (talk) 20:37, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
If you see, the edit right before that was a revert (by me), because someone had edited it down to even more basic caption, because yesterday someone had added that blurb. Their reason was because it was "telling the whole story", when the paragraph 1 inch over does that too. I am OK with it being added back, if an editing war doesn't ensue. I still stand by the importance of her Ketchikan's essential for prosperity statement being included in the caption, regardless of the outcome. Duuude007 (talk) 21:25, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
Yes, he did. I've personally spoken with Bob Weinstein several times on the matter. He even forwarded me the original uncropped version, thinking that I had never seen it before. That uncropped version of the image is also included in the creative commons license. They are just slow to finish the encoding for some reason. Duuude007 (talk) 22:13, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
I admit to emailing Palin's office in Alaska for permission to use her official photo, but they never answered, which in retrospect is probably just as well. It's probably best to keep the professional politicians out of this editing process as much as possible. For the most part, they seem to have left it up to us amateurs, AFAIK. Which is great, IMHO.Ferrylodge (talk) 22:26, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
Why not "In September 2006, gubernatorial candidate Palin showing support for the Gravina Bridge in Ketchikan."? A caption should just describe the picture, not tell the associated story.--Loodog (talk) 22:19, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
Loodog, See Wikipedia:Caption#Providing_context_for_the_picture: "A picture captures only one moment in time. What happened before and after? What happened outside the frame? For The Last Supper, 'Jesus dines with his disciples' tells something, but add 'on the eve of his crucifixion' and it tells much more about the significance…. The caption should lead the reader into the article. For example, in History of the Peerage, a caption for Image:William I of England.jpg might say 'William of Normandy overthrew the Anglo-Saxon monarchs, bringing a new style of government.' Then the reader gets curious about that new form of government and reads text to learn what it is." I agree that our caption could be made a bit more concise, perhaps by removing "gubernatorial candidate", but I'm fine with the rest.Ferrylodge (talk) 22:24, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, but the Jesus example tells about events about to occur that makes the present moment notable. Sarah isn't about to wake up the next morning from that photo shoot and change her "bridge" policy then. The purpose of the picture isn't to show contradiction (we'd need her wearing sweatpants with "stop the bridge" written across the ass for the picture to be able to show it); the purpose of the picture is to show her demonstrating support for the project as part of her campaign platform. The full story is told just to the left, we needn't summarize the section in a caption of a picture of her holding a t-shirt.--Loodog (talk) 02:26, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
Palin also isn't a religious figure claiming to be the Messiah, but that distinction is not relevant either. The fact that she dramatically shifted course will make readers want to read the section to find out why. And if they only read in the caption that she supported the bridge, many people will move along to the next section of the article falsely believing that Palin never cancelled anything. The unbalanced caption violates NPOV because it gives cursory readers the false impression that she has only supported the bridge to nowhere. Both sides need to be represented, and it only takes FOUR WORDS ("but later cancelled it").Ferrylodge (talk) 02:34, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
I deleted the part about cancelling, then reverted after Ferrylodge reminded me of this discussion. I think it's a little awkward to say something that happens after the picture was taken, and sounds like we're being argumentative to prove a point. I think actually makes her look bad (flip-floppy or inconsistent) to say she canceled it without the full explanation, which is there in the accompanying text. Sometimes trying not to be POV comes off sounding more POV than just letting things be, because it sounds like things are inserted just to prove a point. Anyway, this could be softened a little bit by combining the sentence with a comma or a bit of explanation, something like "bridge, which she canceled the next year citing Congressional opposition." Wikidemon (talk) 02:19, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
Softening would be fine with me, though I prefer to keep it short ("but later cancelled it" is only four words and thus much less likely to be deleted in the future than your longer softened version). The way I see it, the fact that she dramatically shifted course will make readers want to read the section to find out why. And if they only read in the caption that she supported the bridge, they may well skip along to the next section of the article falsely believing that Palin never cancelled anything.
I'm agreeing with Wikidemon. It just sounds POV-y, like we're going out of our way to pick on her and maybe it seems that way because of how much simpler the photo is than the caption. Maybe there is a way to say all that without coming off as snarky, but I can't think of it. Something like, "Palin supporting the bridge before she canceled it out of budgetary concerns"?--Loodog (talk) 02:46, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
But again, that is omitting the immediate context of the image: what she was doing on that day, holding up that t-shirt for. Thats why I was more in favor of the original Ketchikan statement, let the paragraph explain the rest. Duuude007 (talk) 03:26, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
What about: "Sarah Palin when she supported the bridge" or "Sarah Palin at a time when she supported the bridge"? The implication that this stance was not permanent is there without it sounding like ragging on her.--Loodog (talk) 15:38, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
And here's the discussion part of WP:BRD. The "firings" source does not support this sentence in the article "Palin rescinded the firing of Emmons the next day,[ref] stating that her concerns had been alleviated when Emmons agreed to support Palin's plan to merge the town's library and museum operations." The source only says "As to what prompted the change, Palin said she now has Emmons' assurance that she is behind her." Then two paragraphs later "Palin said she asked Emmons if she would support efforts to merge the library and museum operations. Emmons said she would, according to Palin." The article makes no indications that Emmons opposed the merger prior to her getting the letter and does not indicate that the assurance Palin received from Emmons was the agreement to the merger. You can't tie two different paragraphs from the source together that way and claim they are related. --Bobblehead(rants)02:53, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
Bobblehead, first of all, I don't particularly care for your accusation of "deception" in your edit summary ("Deceptive editing of quote from article used to support claim").[13] See WP:AGF and WP:Civil.
I don't think that was intended as a personal attack. This is a question of whether or not that text was deceptive, on which reasonable people can differ. Homunq (talk) 12:21, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
The article now says: "Following a meeting with Emmons and expressions of public support for Emmons, Palin rescinded the firing of Emmons the next day,[37] stating that her concerns had been alleviated when Emmons agreed to support Palin's plan to merge the town's library and museum operations.[citation needed]" You know very well, Bobblehead, what material this sentence of our article was attempting to summarize.[14] If you think we should summarize better, then give it a try. But please stop with the baseless personal attacks about my alleged "deception."
As you note, the cited source says: "Palin said she asked Emmons if she would support efforts to merge the library and museum operations. Emmons said she would, according to Palin." The article also says: "Palin said Friday she now feels Emmons supports her but does not feel the same about Stambaugh." There is no way on Earth that this does not support the sentence in the Wikipedia article. But why not try rephrasing if you don't like it. Are you seriously arguing that Palin's cancellation of the Emmons firing was unrelated to the fact that Emmons said she would support merging the library and museum?
You have also moved a sentence that mentions that both Stambaugh and Emmons supported Palin's mayoral opponent. You have moved this sentence to an inappropriate spot in the article, and I do not understand what legitimate reason you could have for doing so. The present Wikipedia article now says: “Stambaugh filed a wrongful termination lawsuit claiming his termination was for political reasons as both he and Emmons had publicly supported Palin's defeated mayoral opponent.” This sentence you've written is not supported by the cited source, and falsely implies that a reliable source has reported that Stambaugh told the judge about his support for Stein against Palin. The cited source does not suggest that Stambaugh ever mentioned to the court that he had supported Palin's opponent. Here’s what the cited source says: “Palin told the Daily News back then the letters [firing Emmons and Stambaugh] were just a test of loyalty as she took on the mayor's job, which she'd won from three-term mayor John Stein in a hard-fought election. Stein had hired many of the department heads. Both Emmons and Stambaugh had publicly supported him against Palin.” Obviously, the cited source is not mentioning political allegiances in connection with Stambaugh's lawsuit, but rather in connection with the initial firings of both Emmons and Stambaugh. Our Wikipedia article should follow the cited source.Ferrylodge (talk) 03:06, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
When a paragraph and a half of content is removed from a quote that changes the meaning of what is being quote, I'm not sure how else to describe such an edit except deceptive. It's the equivalent of a movie saying a reviewer called the move "Brilliant", when the reviewer actually said the movie can only be called brilliant if one is stoned out of their mind. I didn't rewrite the sentence because it is possible that is what assured Palin of Emmons' support, just that the sentence is not supported by the source. Also, after having re-read the "pressure" source, it seems both of our interpretations are incorrect. The source is not talking about the initial firings, but rather Palin asking for the letters of resignation from all of the department heads immediately after she took office. I'll modify the wording to make it more in line with the "firings" source as the "pressure" source has more to do with the book banning than Emmons's and Stambaugh's termination. --Bobblehead(rants)04:07, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
Bobblehead, an ellipsis always removes content. If you think that every use of an ellipsis is "deceptive" then you really need to reconsider. And I'll repeat: Are you arguing that Palin's cancellation of the Emmons firing may have been unrelated to the fact that Emmons said she would support merging the library and museum?Ferrylodge (talk) 04:17, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
Bobblehead, your completely off based and exposed your POV pushing. You wrote, "as the "pressure" source has more to do with the book banning than Emmons's and Stambaugh's termination". As there is no evidence for that what so ever,. Your trying to remove the one bit of evidence we do have for their disagreement. By removing that one bit, your hopes are to get people to infer it was just about the books. The readers know about the book issue and when they see this other reference about the merger between the library and museum, they can make their own decision about the the truthfulness of Palin's comment.Theosis4u (talk) 04:22, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
Ferrylodge, there is a difference between using ellipses to remove content that does not change the meaning and using them to change the meaning. The quote as provided changed the meaning. I also believe I answered your question and I quote: "I didn't rewrite the sentence because it is possible that is what assured Palin of Emmons' support, just that the sentence is not supported by the source."
Theosis4u, what the @#$% are you talking about? Here is a link to the "pressure" source[15]... Read it.. What is it about? Palin bringing up banning books with the librarian. What doesn't it have anything to do with? The firing of Emmons and Stambaugh.. Also, what the @#$# did I remove? Here's my edit to the article[16]. Sheesh. --Bobblehead(rants)05:05, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
Bobblehead, yes I owe you an apology. I completely misread your intent now that I see your agreement with Ferrlodge's edit. Sincerely. Theosis4u (talk) 05:44, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
"Palin is scheduled to be shredded" in the VP debate with Biden on 10/2. The word "shredded" has to go, but I don't get to edit here, even though I *think* I'm an "established" (though rarely active) member. Thanks!—Preceding unsigned comment added by Robertsonsohio (talk • contribs) 03:08, September 22, 2008
Sarah Palin has in interviews admitted to never having met a Head of State, this however is incorrect as she met with and spoke to the President of Iceland in October 2007 at the Arctic Energy Summit Conference where they both gave speeches. Either she forgot about it, or she feared ridicule for being able to claim to have met the Head of State of the Republic of Iceland (population 300.000+). --Stalfur (talk) 14:20, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
That is quite interesting. Is it possible that although they both gave speeches they did not speak to each other? It looks like a lot of people gave speeches and it is possible that they did not all meet each other. PlasticupT/C15:45, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
Not bad. I like it better than the pic with her facing right and away from the page. Just cruised through the entire article (a rarity, as the politics parts bore me), and it's actually shaping up into a pretty fine article. There's a tad too much niggling detail in places, but I appreciate that represents the ebb/flow and ultimate compromise of diverse opinion here in talk. I think we've wasted too much space on the Yahoo email incident, but I suspect that'll become more obvious when the incident fizzles into obscurity. In one technical note, there is also a big white space near the top and after the "First Term" section, but I won't attempt to fix because of my lack of skillz. Overall, however, the article is quite good and Wikipedians should be quite proud of the process that brought it to that point. Fcreid (talk) 09:29, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
That's why I used "not bad". :) I agree. It is a bit blurry. Isn't there a "press photo" or something equivalent that WP is free to use? Fcreid (talk) 15:04, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
Just to be clear, is this your image Ferrylodge, because the linked Flickr page shows an NC license which would be incompatible with Wikipedia. Dragons flight (talk) 16:02, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
I found it at Flickr, but it was not sufficiently free, so I got permission from the copyright holder. Then I zoomed, cropped, and uploaded via OTRS. I admit that it's slightly blurry, but it's an improvement I think, since it's more formal and looking straight ahead. We'll have to keep an eye out for higher res pics.Ferrylodge (talk) 17:10, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
FWIW, I like the new pic way better than the previous one, although I do hope we can find one that's a little more in focus.--JayJasper (talk) 17:14, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
It was very much in focus just the face is a very little part of the complete picture from which it was cut out, so the face was blown up it looks pretty sharp on the original. Hobartimus (talk) 17:26, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, Ferrylodge, for your conscientious efforts. IMHO the previous picture—now in the section "Political Positions"—is better. It shows a flesh-and-blood person in a real-life background, possibly looking off the page at some good moose. And it's in focus. The new picture is, by comparison, stilted and blurry, even rendering indistinct the titanium spectacles which have generated thousands of backorders for the supplier. Can you move the previous picture back to the top position and, correspondingly, put the new picture into "Political Positions" where it may be deemed more fitting with the subject matter? Richard David Ramsey 22:27, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
What if we fix the centering? The present photo seems so much more dignified, and is both forward-looking and formal. I like the old one too, but would hope that we can stick with this one (with improved centering) until an even better one is found.Ferrylodge (talk) 19:53, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
I like the new one also. But of the 3, I prefer the first. ( If truth be told, I actually would rather see the one from June-2008 with the dead fox around her neck!)(Just a little levity on a pleasant Saturday afternoon)......--Buster7 (talk) 22:47, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
Ferrylodge- I think the recent pic you added is the most appropriate for a main bio pic. It's a little dark - can you lighten it? BTW, I sharpened the Carson City pic and it looks better. Let me know if you want to see it. IP7575.25.28.167 (talk) 23:33, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. I'm not sure it would be so great to lighten the current image, because it would make the people in the background more visible. Regarding the Carson City pic, sure, if you upload it I'd be glad to take a look. But it's propobably not so imoprtant now that we've got a new pic at the top. Cheers. (And let's keep the dead fox out of this!) Ferrylodge (talk) 23:51, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
I prefer the "blurry" pic to the current one, and I also prefer the "looking away" pic to this one. In fact, I don't like this one at all.--Paul (talk) 00:16, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
I am afraid that I still find the image blurry, and now, grainy. The first picture (where she's "looking away") is the best in my opinion. Tempodivalse (talk) 01:00, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
I don't understand why F'lodge is so obsessed with imposing this mugshot as a replacement. The technical term commonly used by photographers for an image of this quality is "crap." It is soft, out of focus and grainy, and la Palin's soft, out-of-focus, grainy head is too small in the frame. Even a half-blind pig wearing lipstick could see that the first picture is more suitable in all respects. (If you don't like it facing to the right, flip it.) If the blurred one has a place anywhere in the article it's in Political Positions until something better becomes available. Come on F'lodge. Admit the substitution is a crock and swap the pictures. Please. At least until another good sharp full-face shot turns up for the header. — Writegeist (talk) 04:56, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
I'm not obsessed, dammit!!!! I'm not, I'm not.
Seriously, there are three pics. What do you think of the second one Writegeist (the one lower down in the article, in the section on "Budget, spending and federal funds")? If you really think the present one is crap, then we'll switch to one of the other two. Tell me which one, so that I can obsessively obey. :-)Ferrylodge (talk) 05:00, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
Out of the three images, I still think that the "looking away" photo (in political positions) is the best: it's the clearest, and it's not too dark either. Tempodivalse (talk) 14:21, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
There's now a new version of the image up. The experts at the Wikipedia graphics lab suggested a wider crop, which makes the image much less blurry, and I also did a very low-grade sharpening. So, I think the present Carson City image is now much better than the original version of the Carson City image that I posted on 19 September. This present image is not permanent, but I think it's a decent stop-gap until we get a better one.Ferrylodge (talk) 22:49, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
The lead pic is no better IMHO. She's even more pin-headed and still out of focus. The shot is cluttered: there's a bunch of microphones, a lectern on which you can just see speech notes by K. Rove ("And remember babe, it's a noo-clear, not a noo-cooler button"), a disembodied hand, and an acronym for the Aided Laser Inertial Navigator that la Palin uses to determine the precise direction in which to moon Russia from her front door (what her campaign aids call "practice in conducting U.S. foreign policy") if McCain gets elected and drops dead. Please! Swap the top pic with the Political Positions pic! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Writegeist (talk • contribs) 23:55, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
We are getting perilously close to having to line up the three pics for a vote. Writegeist, I detect some lack of love for Palin, on your part. Might that be influencing your choice of pics?Ferrylodge (talk) 00:28, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
3 proposed pics
This is looking-away Sarah. Then we have fuzzy Sarah and dark Sarah. WHICH SHOULD GO AT THE TOP OF THE ARTICLE?
This is a late entry, courtesy of IP75, with reduced color saturation, blurred background, and white paper on podium removed. Let's call it Fuzzy2 :-)
Tut tut F'lodge, were I lacking in love for this paragon, I would press for a very long shot that's totally out of focus. Hm. Come to think of it... :~) — Writegeist (talk) 01:27, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
Since dark Sarah isn't so dark anymore, I'd go with her. Otherwise, fuzzy Sarah will have to do. (Maybe I'm just tired of looking-away Sarah.) --Evb-wiki (talk) 01:31, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
I vote for the left (looking away) picture -- its not dark like the right picture, nor is it blurry like the middle picture. And I don't see why the "looking away" should be too big a problem. Tempodivalse (talk) 01:34, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
Hi Y, I uncropped it, and then noticed your comment here. As I explained at the Image page, cropping it out makes the image very elongated, and the top of this article looked like one of those weird mirrors at the circus.Ferrylodge (talk) 03:30, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
I like looking-the-wrong-way Sarah just fine, but the dark one is pretty good, too. Between the image clarity and the cluttered background the fuzzy one looks very unprofessional and shouldn't be at the top of a Wikipedia article, at least not if we can do better. -- Vary | Talk03:40, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
The full sized image the fuzzy, blown up pic was cropped from, on the other hand, is great and might be useful elsewhere in the article. -- Vary | Talk03:43, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
The picture at the podium, almost looking into the camera, is one of the best ones here. And this jockeying over photos makes me wonder if wikipedia has turned into Us magazine or something. One thing for sure about having a photogenic VP candidate for once (eat your heart out, Spiro Agnew), we won't be hearing any more stuff from the McCain camp about how Obama is too much of a "celebrity". Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?05:47, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
One of the best ones here? Where? On this article, or on Wikipedia? Either way, I disagree - it's nice that she's looking towards the camera, but the picture looks very ameturish because it's so fuzzy from being enlarged and because the background is a mess. The picture it was cropped from is a far better picture, and we'd be better off finding somewhere to use it in the article than the fuzzy crop. And what does Palin being photogenic have to do with anything? -- Vary | Talk13:03, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
Re: 'Fuzzy2' - I reduced the color saturation in the background of the image and blurred it (Sarah is the same as in 'fuzzy Sarah'). This helps reduce the clutter and makes the hand less apparent. When you blur the background, it makes the subject look sharper. I also removed the white paper at the podium. IP7575.25.28.167 (talk) 07:27, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
Even after IP75's excellent photoshopping efforts, I'm still bothered by the middle "fuzzy" picture -- the "ALIN" and the strange hand in the background don't look professional at all. Also, the picture is really zoomed-out due to the wide crop, so it's harder to see her face, unlike the other two photos (although I can't say I really like those two all that much either). There must be a "press photo" or something that Wikipedia is free to use or something... Tempodivalse (talk) 21:30, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
Time to put this pit-bull out of its misery. I moved the sharp pic to the top, and the blurred, cluttered pic with disembodied hand etc. to Political Positions. It's all about the technical standards of the respective shots. — Writegeist (talk) 21:56, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
(undent)Because Writegeist has just unilaterally removed the Carson City (standing at podium) pic from the top of the article, and replaced it with the Dillingham (looking-away) pic, let's summarize the opinions expressed by editors.
Supporting Carson City (standing at podium) pic: Y, Ferrylodge, Paul, IP75, Baseball Bugs, Happyme22[17]
Also, at the Wikipedia Graphics lab, Fasconcellos indicated that the Carson City pic is the best substitute right now, although the Dillingham (looking-away) image is of higher quality.[18] And Evb-Wiki indicated that his second choice after the dark Ramstein pic is the fuzzy Carson City pic.
So, it would seem that the Carson City (standing at podium) pic is the clear favorite right now. Which raises the question of why Writegeist has just unilaterally removed it. Comparing pics, the removed pic is looking straight ahead, whereas the inserted pic is not just looking off to the side, but looking off to the side away from the text. The removed pic includes formal attire, whereas the new pic is very informal. The removed pic has an unruly, spontaneous background, but the background of the new pic also looks like chaos. The removed pic has lower resolution than the new pic, but it's not unacceptably low.Ferrylodge (talk) 22:11, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
In any dispassionate critique of the pics on offer, the one I returned to the head, with SP looking away, is self-evidently the highest quality of all those on offer. As for the attire: dripping in pearls--"informal"? No. Just less formal than another shot. Instead of splitting hairs about just how unruly and spontaneous a background can be, or how formal or informal a few hairs out of place in the candidate's coiffure might be, or what exactly is her point of focus off to the right, let's first get the encyclopedic basics right: a sharp picture so that the features are clearly visible; head large in frame, to capitalize on available space. - Writegeist (talk) 22:31, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
I plan to revert your edit tomorrow, if you do not revert yourself first. You objected to the pic, so we had a discussion and formed a consensus. Now you are defying the consensus. If the only criterion was resolution, then we could insert a high-resolution photo of Adolf Hitler here. But there are other criteria, such as formality, dignity, whether the subject is forward-facing, et cetera. And, yes, the Carson City photo shows her in more formal attire, not some blue coat with collar and zipper. Of the three pics, I think the one you put at the top is the worst.Ferrylodge (talk) 22:35, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
I would rather not prolong this forever, but you can request comment if you like. I can live with the current Ramstein photo at the top. Can you? I am strongly opposed to the photo of Palin in a coat with collar and zipper, gazing off to the right, with a very messy background. My favorite is the Carson City pic, but I can live with Ramstein.Ferrylodge (talk) 23:02, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
F'lodge, the diversionary silliness about dignity etc. and the hilarious-yet-rather-sad resort to Godwin's Law make it pretty clear that you've abandoned all semblance of rational discussion. I'm happy to let you have your way, although you may have to duke it out with Evb-wiki, who likewise, it seems, can offer no WP-based justification for his own choice of a different pic), much as one inevitably caves to the wailing child's demand for gratification and buys it the ice cream. That your subjective judgment will result in the proud display of one or other poor-quality picture is fine by me: personally, I strongly favor both the poor-quality dark shot and the almost equally poor-quality blurred pin-head shot over the decent-quality, clear close-up. (Which, incidentally, could easily be cropped closer and flipped.) They get much nearer to my idea of the perfect Palin representation, which as I said earlier would be a very long shot totally out of focus. Have at it! — Writegeist (talk) 23:41, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
It is not kosher to flip images. See MOS:IMAGES: "Images should not be reversed simply to resolve a conflict between these guidelines; doing so misinforms the reader for the sake of our layout preferences. If an image is ever reversed or otherwise substantially altered, there should be a clear advantage to the reader in doing so (for example, cropping a work of art to focus on a detail that is the subject of commentary), and the alteration must be noted in the caption." Also, I'm not sure it's quite proper to compare your fellow editors to wailing children, but thanks at least for doing that to someone other than myself. Hopefully, we'll soon get a wider selection of photos that we can bicker about.Ferrylodge (talk) 23:48, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
WP:Images: Poor quality images (too dark, blurry etc.) or where the subject in the image is too small, hidden in clutter, ambiguous or otherwise not obvious, should not be used. — Writegeist (talk) 00:13, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
Writegeist- Please note that Ferrylodge has mentioned several times that this is a temp pic until we have another main pic. I would have removed the hand and "ALIN" completely if I thought that the image would not eventually be replaced. For the time being, it is in my opinion the best of the three. It is appealing and she is looking towards the camera. In the 'dark pic' her head is turned and her eyes look goofy. IP7575.25.28.167 (talk) 01:01, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
Gosh! Well, it's gone now - it seems the editor put it in the wrong section. The MSNBC video was entertaining. The connection with Palin they chose to show is that in July she was at the church and, pressed to say something about the pastor, recollected that he had forthrightly prayed that she would be elected. And she was! Pingku (talk) 18:21, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
Despite Kelly's comments, I'm interested in this story. It clearly follows up on her evangelical religious background. How much did she know about Muthee when she made those comments? Does she agree with his stance that witches should be driven from the vilage? What's her real stance on freedom of religion and separation of church and state? Accusing the press of idiocy for trying to figure out who a completely unknown candidate for vice president of a major party is two months before an election is not helpful, or NPOV.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 03:12, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
For those of you who don't know the details (and only to fill you in so you can make an informed decision about whether this information should be included, since heaven forbid, I wouldn't want to be accused of turning this talk page into a forum or trolling or anything), Sarah Palin has associated herself with the evangelical pastor Thomas Muthee,[15] who controversially instigated a witch hunt in Kiambu,Kenya, where he accused a local woman, Mama Jane, of committing witchcraft and gave her a choice to leave Kiambu or to be saved by God. Mama Jane fled for her life [16] I personally think this information is relevant, notable, and fits in well in a section devoted to her religious views or her views on freedom of religion section (although perhaps even better at the Thomas Muthee article which is under review for being deleted for of all things being a COATRACK of this article). In any case, I think it deserves an HONEST discussion here.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 04:13, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
What should be discussed here is whether, and to what extent, the issue should be incorporated into the article. There seem to be two reasons why it might be included. The first relies on a demonstrated connection between Palin and Muthee. To my mind, the MSNBC contribution is inconclusive on this point. It shows she was grateful for his praying that she she should be elected, and for giving her his 'blessing'. Anything more is conjecture or interpretation, or perhaps something she might be questioned about - none of which is suitable for an encyclopedia article. The cited newspaper article adds nothing. The second reason why the issue might be included is if it is picked up more seriously by the main stream media. Pingku (talk) 15:48, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
I've been working on Thomas Muthee quite a bit. He founded churches in Kenya and nearby countries, he famously chased a witch out of town, he spoke at Palin's church ten times in Oct. 2005 and blessed her when she was running for governor, and Palin mentioned him during that speech she gave at the pulpit in Wasilla. I think MSNBC was making a mountain out of a molehill, honestly, and I don't think he needs to be mentioned here. Maybe on her Governorship page, as a "See also," but I'm not leaning that way. Regards. FangedFaerie (Talk | Edits) 03:34, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
Since the Thomas Muthee page is still under discussion for being deleted (it was nominated by Kelly for being a COATRACK to this article), I think we should hold off on adding the information to the Sarah Palin article until that vote is resolved. If the page is deleted, I think the information belongs on a Palin related, probably Public image of Sarah Palin. It does not appear that the press have found any strong connection between Palin and Muthee besides the association with the church and the blessing Muthee gave her for governor, and her acnowledgment of the blessing at the church. I haven't seen any indication that Palin ever expressed support or displeasure at the Mama Jane incident. If she did, that's another story and I would say it should go on the Political positions of Sarah Palin page since it would clearly relate to her position on law and order and freedom of religion.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 16:01, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
Not reaching consensus from the prior discussion, I'm going to suggest changing the title of something instead of the non-consensus title that is currently there. To avoid POV issues, I suggest changing the title to "Gravina Island Bridge". Since that's the title of the primary sub article, I don't see any problems with it. I'm not a big fan putting the word controversy into a section title, especially when it's not clear from the section what the exact point of controversy is. Is it that it was considered by some to be pork barrel, but not by others? Is it that Palin changed her position on the bridge? Aprock (talk) 19:49, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
Not just that she flipflopped, but that the McCain campaign had been strong opponents of the bridge even when she was "for" it. Now that she is on the same ticket, her contrast is so great, its farsical. The fact that she continues to repeat the phrase the majority of the times that she is seen hurts her credibility. Duuude007 (talk) 20:05, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
It seems to me that all of the federal money for the bridges (or most of it) was already squeezed out of Congress during the administration of Palin's predecessor. Did Palin support or oppose that squeezing? After all, that squeezing is what was most controversial. The Amercian people never would have cared if Alaska wanted to spend its own money on this thing.Ferrylodge (talk) 20:43, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
The very definition of contoversy, is the disputing of accepted fact. Thats what she does every time she repeats the "thanks but no thanks" comment, despite the facts that show it is false. And to be clear, the money from the pool was applied to the bridge anyways, and yes, she did support that. Per numerous citations in Gravina Island Bridge she consistently supported that, while running for governor in 2006. Duuude007 (talk) 20:50, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
Palin said in September 2007 that the state was "about $329 million short of full funding for the bridge project, and it’s clear that Congress has little interest in spending any more money on a bridge between Ketchikan and Gravina Island.” So it appears that Palin decided then to stop the project, rather than keep bugging Congress for more money. All this is undisputed, right? But I'd still like to know whether she EVER supported squeezing Congress for money to fund these bridges. That's a different question from whether she supported building the bridges after Congress had already forked over 400 million bucks.Ferrylodge (talk) 20:59, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
So, should a discussion of that controversy be in this section? It seems silly to have that not be included, and still title the section "Bridge Controversy", which is why I think a more factual title would be better here. Aprock (talk) 20:56, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
Ok, I'll be changing the title sometime today unless there is futher discussion about the merrits of one vs. the other. Aprock (talk) 22:33, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
What about the other bridge? Are we going to remove discussion of the Knik Arm Bridge from that section? If you want to get "controversy" out of the title, how about "Bridge proposals" or something like that?Ferrylodge (talk) 22:37, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
I'm not taking any position right now about whether the Knik Arm Bridge is worth mentioning in this article. You may be correct that it's not. Evidently, your heading change is not just a heading change, and is instead linked to removing the Knik Arm Bridge from the article. I can't support the title "Gravina Island Bridge" if the section continues to discuss the Knik Arm Bridge, but I could support the title "Gravina Island Bridge" if there's consensus to remove discussion of the Knik Arm Bridge.Ferrylodge (talk) 22:49, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
I do agree that "Bridge Proposals" or "Proposed Bridges" is a better title than "Bridge Controversy", but I don't see why the other bridge cannot be mentioned if the heading is changed. Could you explain this further? Aprock (talk) 22:57, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
@ Adcock...Please delay your change. There has been day-long discussion yesterday. Out of respect for other editors, maybe we can wait till later. As I stated , you can change it to Bridge over the River Kwai...as long as the reader is presented with the facts. I would like to see Wasilla mentioned, but I understand and defer to consensus.--Buster7 (talk) 23:05, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
Aprock, all I am saying is that the heading should describe what's in the section. Nothing more and nothing less. If both bridges are discussed in the section, then it would be fine to change the heading to "Bridge proposals" or "Proposed bridges". It would not be appropriate to change the heading to "Gravina Island Bridge" unless the material about the Knik Island Bridge is removed.Ferrylodge (talk) 23:08, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
I'm still not following you on the requirement to remove the second bridge here. A title does not describe what is in the section "nothing more and nothing else". Otherwise the title would be the section. I certainly agree that the text might have to be changed a bit, but the idea that the exact nouns that appear in section should be defined in the title seems a bit silly to me. Aprock (talk) 23:12, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
@Apcock...If you could read back to some of the previous talk sections you will see that there are some lines drawn in the sand...and alot of unresolved discussion. If I'm not mistaken even an edit war broke out...so...maybe...we can wait???--Buster7 (talk) 23:15, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
Aprock,I really don't see how to be any more clear about this. There is now substantial, considerable, significant material in the section regarding the Knik Arm Bridge. Therefore, the heading of the section should not give the impression that the section is solely about the Gravina Island Bridge. I do not see what is wrong with renaming the section "Bridge proposals", at least for the time being while more than one proposal are described in the section. You say that you agree that "Bridge Proposals" or "Proposed Bridges" is a better title than "Bridge Controversy", so why not support it?Ferrylodge (talk) 23:18, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
I did in fact say that one was better than the other. I would support that change for now. I still think your argument against my proposed title doesn't make much sense, for exaclty the reasons I stated. Aprock (talk) 23:23, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
Is there no mutally agreeable objective reliable source that both sides of this issue could cite as the main basis for the article? Fcreid (talk) 23:25, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
That does seem to be part of the problem. There is some confusion as to whether this should be lumped into a general discussion of earmarks (or federal funding in general), about whether this is about the "Bridge to Nowhere", or about all the bridges in that original earmark, about whether or not the bridges were legitimate infrastructure, or about Palin's position on the bridges, or about the "Thanks, but no thanks." quip she made at the convention. Various themes have surfaced in this subsection and the parent section over and over again without much stability as a result. Aprock (talk) 23:32, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
I avoid the politics parts for exactly this reason, but it's clear that derivatives of all those events you describe exist in wide variations and depend greatly on what "flavor" source you search. Moreover, the piecemeal inclusion of tidbits from an enormous number of disparate places is, at its core, turning this section into an original research project. It's certainly one that a reader would never find in any single source, and I suspect it leaves most bewildered on why. Fcreid (talk) 23:41, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
I think we should go back to Bridges to Nowhere, but I'm happy with Bridge to Nowhere. Whether it's singular or plural or Bridge(s) shouldn't make us delete the only obvious title for this section. The public will look for that title in the summary above and in Google. They want to known Sarah's position on the "Bridge to Nowhere" or "Bridges to Nowhere" not the "Gravina Island Bridge" or any other name. More than 400,000 google citations have used "Bridge to Nowhere" and more than 50,000 google citations (including NYT, WaPo, CNN, Fox News, etc) have referred to both bridges as "Bridges to Nowhere". Only 18,000 have used "Gravina Island Bridge." Most Americans have not heard of Gravina Island. No campaign speech mentions Gravina Island. Palin (and McCain) publicly both use the term "Bridge to Nowhere" So let's use it. And I'd make it plural. The plural does not exclude the singular. The text explains exactly the truth, that is, that the nickname refers to the first bridge, or more rarely, both. As long as Knik Arm is included (and whether it should or should not be is a separate issue, I think it should), the title should be Bridges to Nowhere. That the first is more well known than the second is duly explained in the article.GreekParadise (talk) 00:18, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
In general I agree with this basic position. However, the current title is bad and we need something less sloppy while we hash out the eventual name.Aprock (talk) 00:33, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
I did some history. The Bridge to Nowhere section was first added to the article by Young Trigg on the morning of August 28 at 8 am. From the morning of August 28 to 11 pm on September 19 (23 days), it remained some variant of "Bridge to Nowhere", sometimes singular, sometimes plural, sometimes in quotes, sometimes with parenthentical (s). But never a removal of the word Nowhere until yesterday. When it happened yesterday, a dozen or so of us immediately and vociferously complained that we wanted the consensus where it had stood for 3 weeks. Don't take out Nowhere. There were ugly edit wars to put it back. True, we "nowhere" supporters didn't all agree on singular or plural but we all agreed on Nowhere. It was put in by a Palin supporter (Young Trigg) and anti-Paliners like it too. When it was changed, the person who first changed it -- Ferrylodge -- said he did so because of the singular/plural problem and not because he thought "Bridge to Nowhere" is improper. I respectfully suggest that since the title was and has always been "Bridge to Nowhere", we change it back to the last agreed-upon consensus. And then we can go back to arguing over singular, plural, etc. Besides "bridge to nowhere" is the only title that Palin uses and that the vast majority of Americans know.GreekParadise (talk) 00:40, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
Just to be clear, the edit that changed the title was done here [19] without consensus by Ferrylodge on the 18th. The stated reason for the change was "scare" quotes not the wording of the title. She then changed it here [20] to "Bridges that allegedly go nowhere" based on some talk. When I undid these changes and removed the original scare quotes, Collect reverted it here [21], with the justification that the change had not occured by consensus. (talk) 01:18, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
In sum, I think those that those who depart from the well-established consensus that existed from the time the section was created until yesterday have the burden of proof to change it. I suggest we revert now, and I strongly suspect that there are few editors who have a very powerful preference that it be a little-used name, rather than the common one everyone in America uses. Indeed, I think it should not have been changed in the first place without a detailed discussion on the talk page. And that was simply not done when it changed. So let's revert now. And continue the discussion. And see if anyone mightily cares that it not be called "Bridge(s) to Nowhere." As for singular, plural, or (s), or quotations, I don't care. Let the reverter choose.GreekParadise (talk)
So....Bridge on the River Kwai is out???? LOL...Considering the effort to have others realize the validity of his position we should leave some form of Bridge to Nowhere so the reader will find it.--Buster7 (talk) 00:50, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
I've never been strongly opposed to having "Nowhere" in the heading somewhere. My main objection was to having parenthese in the heading, which I have never seen before and looks kind of weird. People here should also keep in mind that "Bridge to Nowhere" is a pejorative that some Alaskans won't like, and should keep in mind that the section currently covers two bridges rather than one. So, before we go back to the "Young Trigg" version (which I find a hilarious concept given the astoundingly controversial nature of Young Trigg), is there some way to get "Nowhere" back into the heading while easily addressing the two concerns I just described? Such as: "Bridges to nowhere or somewhere"?Ferrylodge (talk) 01:49, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
While I don't dispute that "Bridge to Nowhere" has negative connotations, it's not clear why this is an issue for the title alone. If something is reasonable for the body of the article, it should be reasonable for the title. It's how everyone refers to the issue, including Palin herself. We've discussed your second bridge concern before, and you still haven't explained why it shouldn't be in there. The section covers two bridges, two governors, an island, an airport, earmarks, and roads, just to name a few of the subjects discussed. It's pretty clear that the main subject of the section is the "Bridge to Nowhere", so it seems reasonable that it should be the title. Aprock (talk) 02:01, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
I'd like to point out that "Bridge to Nowhere" in the section heading was disputed from day one when Young Trigg inserted it.[22] I don't especially mind quotes in the heading, but parentheses is overdoing it. Quotes easily solves the problem of us opining that it's a bridge to nowhere. So, I'd prefer "'Bridge to Nowhere'" instead of "Bridge to nowhere". And I think we can easily solve the problem of more than one bridge by writing "'Bridge to Nowhere' proposals". So, that's my proposal: "'Bridge to Nowhere' proposals".Ferrylodge (talk) 02:16, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
Just to clarify, the reason for the edit there was not that "Bridge to Nowhere" was disputed, rather the length of the section was not long enough. If there is discussion about the title, either in edits or in talk, before the recent changes you made, it would be useful to see them here. That said, I do favor your proposal over the current title. Aprock (talk) 02:23, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure exactly what has been said about this heading over the past three weeks. As you know, much has been said, and it's difficult to keep track. If people have no big problem with "'Bridge to Nowhere' proposals" then let's do it. And then I hope maybe we can focus on whether there's any need for the "original research tag" in this article.Ferrylodge (talk) 02:39, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
OK, I've just spent a couple of hours doing wiki-research. Please don't complain this is "too long." I present below all of the titles of the bridge section from the day it was created until today so that we can look at them.
Aug. 28 - Young Trigg created section Bridge to Nowhere
Aug. 28 Bridge to Nowhere (separate section); Bridge to Nowhere (mentioned in Governorship section)
Aug. 29 Bridge to Nowhere in Governorship section; Bridge to Nowhere (separate again)
Aug. 30 Bridge to Nowhere; Bridge to Nowhere in Budget Section
Sept. 1 Bridge to Nowhere in Budget Section
Sept. 2 "Bridge to Nowhere" in Budget Section; Bridge to Nowhere
Sept. 3 Bridge to Nowhere
Sept. 4 Bridge to Nowhere (locked?)
Sept. 5 Bridge to Nowhere (locked)
Sept. 6 Bridge to Nowhere (locked)
Sept. 7 Bridge to Nowhere (locked)
Sept. 8 Bridge to Nowhere (locked)
Sept. 9 - article unlocked; Knik Arm added to main article after being in sub-article for several days
Sept. 9 Bridge to Nowhere; "Bridge to Nowhere"; Budget, Spending, and the "Bridge to Nowhere"; Bridge to Nowhere; Bridges to Nowhere; "Bridge to Nowhere" and "Don Young's Way"
Sept. 10 "Bridges to Nowhere"
Sept. 11 Bridges to Nowhere; "Bridge(s) to Nowhere"
Sept. 12 "Bridge(s) to Nowhere"
Sept. 13 "Bridge(s) to Nowhere"
Sept. 14 "Bridge(s) to Nowhere"
Sept. 15 "Bridge(s) to Nowhere"; "Bridge to Nowhere"; "Bridge(s) to Nowhere"
Sept. 16 "Bridge(s) to Nowhere"
Sept. 17 "Bridge(s) to Nowhere"; "Bridge(s) to Nowhere" and The Second Bridge, a Bridge to Somewhere; "Bridge(s) to Nowhere" and The Second Bridge, $600 Million highway project; "Bridge(s) to Nowhere" and The Second Bridge; "Bridge(s) to Nowhere"; "Bridge to Nowhere"/"Bridges to Nowhere"; "Bridge(s) to Nowhere"; "Bridge to Nowhere" and The Second Bridge; "Bridge(s) to Nowhere";
Sept. 18 "Bridge(s) to Nowhere"; Controversial Bridges; Bridges that allegedly go nowhere
Sept. 19 Bridge Controversy; Bridge to Nowhere; "Bridge to Nowhere"; Bridge Controversy; "Bridges to Nowhere"; Bridge to Nowhere; Bridges to Nowhere; Bridge Controversy; "Bridge to Nowhere"; Bridge Controversy; The "Bridge to Nowhere" Controversy; Bridge Controversy; Bridges to Nowhere; Bridge Controversy
Sept. 20 Bridge Controversy (left unchanged while we've discussed title on talk page for two days with, unfortunately, no resolution)
Two names have lasted the longest:
Bridge to Nowhere
PLUSES - this was the section name that was created on Aug. 28 and lasted 7 days unmolested (Sept. 2-9)
MINUSES: only lasted 7 days as stand-alone title, and most of the days it was locked; second bridge was not in section at the time, so no singular/plural conflict
"Bridge(s) to Nowhere"
PLUSES - basically unmolested, standing unlocked for 6 days (Sept. 11 - 17); includes idea of both singular and plural
MINUSES - many folks hate both quotes and (s)
Arbitrary section break 1
We've had a request for comment and thus far, gotten nowhere. For now, I think we should revert to the last consensus choice which is "Bridge(s) to Nowhere." It has lasted 6 days. If there is a further consensus to change it, let's change it. If folks prefer Bridge to Nowhere, I'm OK with that too. Clearly Bridge Controversy has to go. It has only lasted because of fierce disagreement here that it be included at all. Neither Palin, nor McCain, nor any Alaskan politician, nor anyone in the media refer to it as "Bridge Controversy." There are 100,000s who use either Bridge or Bridges to Nowhere. Ironically, the author who first edited it as "controversy" did so because of the singular/plural problems and NOT because he preferred the word "Controversy" over "Nowhere." Given this history, unless an acceptable compromise is found, I think the only choices are:
I posted this and got an edit conflict and then read what Ferrylodge and Aprock wrote. Since Ferrylodge really doesn't like (s), let's just call it Bridges to Nowhere. That is an accurate name as used by 50,000 sources including the New York Times. It's a compromise between the two longest-lasting titles. And it's explained in the article that the name Bridge to Nowhere usually means Gravina, while Bridges refers to Gravina and Knik Arm. How about it?GreekParadise (talk) 02:38, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
Furthermore, because Ferrylodge hates the (s), we can change this sentence:
The nickname "Bridge(s) to Nowhere" has been used for the Gravina Island Bridge alone[105] or, more rarely, both bridges.[108]
to this sentence:
The nickname "Bridge to Nowhere" has been used for the Gravina Island Bridge[105], while the less common nickname "Bridges to Nowhere" usually refers to both Gravina and Knik Arm.[108]GreekParadise (talk) 02:43, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
I much prefer "'Bridge to Nowhere' proposals" for the section heading. "Bridge to Nowhere" gets more than a half million hits.[23] In contrast, "Bridges to Nowhere" only gets only a fifth as many hits.[24]
Also, as I said above, using quotes in the heading would make it clear that it's not our term and judgment, but rather the term and judgment of others. The term is pejorative, and it would be better and more encyclopedic for us not to endorse the term, especially if it's going to cover a bridge that is still going to be built (i.e. Knik Arm).
Furthermore, "'Bridge to Nowhere' proposals" has some ambiguity in it, since it may refer to multiple proposals for a single bridge, or for more than one bridge. Ambiguity is sometimes a good thing, such as here where one of the bridges in question is not commonly called a bridge to nowhere. "These days, when someone talks about the Bridge to Nowhere, they mean the Gravina Island bridge", according to Factcheck.org.[25] Also, putting "proposals" in the heading suggests to readers right up front that the bridges haven't been built, i.e. they're just proposals.Ferrylodge (talk) 02:48, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
As I said above, the quotations marks are fine with me. But I think "proposals" is vague. Are there other bridges besides these two? Why would someone "propose" a "Bridge to Nowhere" anyway? Knik Arm has been called a Bridge to Nowhere 50,000 times, although admittedly far less often than Gravina. Besides, WE're not calling Knik Arm nowhere, the blasted NYT is! :-) See the source, right there in the headlines. So I don't think we can be criticized for saying "Bridges to Nowhere". No choice is perfect, but I think "Bridges to Nowhere" is likely to last the longest.GreekParadise (talk) 02:54, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
LOL. They wouldn't, which is why the quotations are good.
Another thought, the word "proposals" is brand-new. Never been used in 23 days. I'm not saying you can't build consensus for it. But I do think we have to revert to a consensus version until you build consensus for it. I think, if you agree, I can revert back to a prior stable version. But I think a lot of people would be upset if we put up a new never-before-used version without a lot more consensus. Make sense? Of the prior used versions, is "Bridges to Nowhere" the least of evils for you?GreekParadise (talk) 03:01, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
Greek Paradise, may I ask whether you have ever accepted any compromise language other than a version consisting of those three words? It seems like you have been rather persistently insistent on those three words, no more and no less. Other editors have objected to them. So why not try something new that tries to address some of their concerns? No one yet has objected to saying "'Bridge to Nowhere' proposals", have they?Ferrylodge (talk) 03:09, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
I just think we should go back to an old name unless there's a consensus to change. As you know, I supported your "Bridge to Nowhere" Controversies compromise but no one else seemed to bite at it, except you and me. The one you suggest is similar. I don't think the two of us, even if we agree, can fairly put something new in. But I do think I could "be bold" and revert back to one of the older-used names, and I hope/think folks may leave it alone or work to develop a further consensus. As you can see from my research the three-word titles have lasted through 23 days and at least 5000 revisions (literally) and were not controversial until yesterday. So any of the six solutions I propose is, I think, fairly stable. But if a consensus later develops for "Bridge to Nowhere" proposals, fine. GreekParadise (talk) 03:14, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
I think you two are the final players in this chess match. I would bet that other editors will abide by your mutual decision...at least for awhile.--Buster7 (talk) 03:19, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
Oh. OK. I though it was yours. When I saw it, I said
PROPOSED COMPROMISE, which I am pleased to see Ferrylodge has suggested (with the exception of the (s) which we can ditch if necessary for compromise):
The "Bridge(s) to Nowhere" Controversy
Excellent. I fully support this.GreekParadise (talk) 22:55, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
I've been willing to compromise but no one has gone for it. That's why, I think we have to return to the last consensus version, which is one supported by a large number of editors in the request for comment. Even Collect admitted he had no problem with it but he said he just became upset because of the edit war. It stood for 23 days. Let's return it and see if folks really care. And you can choose which of the six three-word versions you like.GreekParadise (talk) 03:32, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
You once said: "(undent) I have no problem with "Bridge to Nowhere" as the title. I also have no problem with "Bridge controversy" as the title. I would be happy to support the former if people would ease up on trying to greatly change the text in the section.Ferrylodge (talk) 21:22, 19 September 2008 (UTC)" Have you changed your mind?GreekParadise (talk) 03:34, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
No, I haven't changed my mind. People have not eased up on trying to slant this section of the article, and I haven't seen you lift a finger to stop it. For example, just a few moments ago, the caption on the image was slanted, from NPOV to POV.[27] I was willing to compromise and go with "Bridge to Nowhere" if people would stop trying to slant the text. Why should I keep my part of the bargain if others will not keep theirs? I do not think that "Bridge to nowhere" is a good title, because it lacks quote marks to distance us from the name. I do not think that "'Bridge to Nowhere'" is a very good title, because it is singular and the quote marks are liable to be removed. The way to avoid removal of the quote amrks is to have something in the heading that is quoted alongside something that is not quoted. I do not underatand why you refuse to accept "'Bridge to Nowhere' proposals" but I'm happy to waste my evening and yours waiting for some sign of flexibility from you.Ferrylodge (talk) 03:46, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
Ferrylodge, I have AGREED to your quotations. I will happily agree to support you in always keeping them there. Remember that the singular/plural "Bridge(s) to Nowhere" was accepted for a week throughout 1000s of changes. I promise you that I will actively support you in keeping those quotations on (and I have never touched the caption). If you don't like the (s), we'll throw out the s. I've offered you six different possibilities. I don't think I'm the inflexible one here. A three-word title stood for 23 days. I've worked 2 hours to do a lot of wiki-research just for you, to show you that it was the prior consensus. And you have formerly agreed the title is OK, but you only want it as a bargaining chip. I don't think that's fair. I could delete something that you really like and say I won't let you return it, even though I don't mind it, unless you agree to something I like. But that wouldn't be proper, would it? OK you like the quotations. We agree. You don't like the singular. Fine. You don't like the (s). OK. I'm flexible. Let's do "Bridges to Nowhere" (quotations included of course) and then see if anyone else disagrees.GreekParadise (talk) 03:54, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
No. I have already explained to you that the phrase "Bridges to Nowhere" is much much less familiar than the phrase "Bridge to Nowhere". I provided you links to the Google hits. Here they are again. "Bridge to Nowhere" gets more than a half million hits.[28] In contrast, "Bridges to Nowhere" only gets only a fifth as many hits.[29]Ferrylodge (talk) 03:57, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
So fine. Let's go singular. "Bridge to Nowhere" Knik Arm will be in the article but not in the title. Fine by me. If you like it, I like it.GreekParadise (talk) 04:05, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
If you want a "fancy, balanced" title that mentions both bridges, we can say: "Bridge to Nowhere" and "Don Young's Way". Don Young's Way is the official name of the Knik Arm Bridge.GreekParadise (talk) 04:07, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
No. I've already explained that this section is currently as much about the Knik Arm Bridge as it is about the Gravina Island Bridge. The title can easily reflect that, by using the plural instead of the singular. The plural "'Bridge to Nowhere' proposals" accomplishes that easily and concisely.Ferrylodge (talk) 04:09, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
Are you OK with:
"Bridge to Nowhere" and "Don Young's Way"
"Bridge to Nowhere" and "Knik Arm Bridge"
"Bridge to Nowhere" (Gravina Island) and "Don Young's Way" (Knik Arm)
All these titles show there are two bridges.
Tell you what. I will completely back down. I will agree with " 'Bridge to Nowhere' proposals" even though I think it's a clunky title and a never-used phrase. If you will revert it right now, I won't change it and I'll go to bed. I won't say a further word on it, unless there's a formal Request for Comment or some such thing, where I will then state my preference for the simple three words. If other wikipedians can live with it, I can too. But if they can't, I'll join with them because my preference is for any of these seven choices:
Bridge to Nowhere
Bridge(s) to Nowhere
Bridges to Nowhere
"Bridge to Nowhere"
"Bridge(s) to Nowhere"
"Bridges to Nowhere"
"Bridge to Nowhere" and "Don Young's Way"
(actually, I really like this last title and find it elegant because underneath it is: See Gravina Island and Knik Arm, so we have the nickname/official name followed by the geographic name)
I have no problem with the heading being "'Bridge to Nowhere' and Knik Arm Bridge". The term "Don Young's Way" is not currently used anywhere in the article, so I think that term would be confusing. Shall I go ahead and change the heading to "'Bridge to Nowhere' and Knik Arm Bridge"?Ferrylodge (talk) 04:40, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
Some statements above inaccurately represent my opinions and actions, as the posters well know. The consensus reached was for "bridge controversy" and for no other section title. I was open to any title until some person violated the assumption of good faith needed for WP to operate. Thatr person continues apparaantly to operate in less than good faith. When a person does so violate rules, I tend to regard their shopping for new consensuses as being problematic. Thanks! Collect (talk) 21:22, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
I hope we stick with the present title for awhile: "'Bridge to Nowhere' and Knik Arm Bridge". Readers will immediately recognize the "Bridge to Nowhere" phrase, which is good. And the heading also reflects that there's another bridge that's very much involved in this too. Can we let it be for awhile, please?Ferrylodge (talk) 21:26, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
Arbitrary section break 2
Modifications to Bridge Article
Do you also want me to change this sentence?
The nickname "Bridge(s) to Nowhere" has been used for the Gravina Island Bridge alone[105] or, more rarely, both bridges.[108]
to this one?
The derisive term "Bridge to Nowhere" usually refers to the Gravina Island Bridge[105], while the less common phrase "Bridges to Nowhere" normally refers to both Gravina and Knik Arm.[108]
"Derisive" makes clear that opponents -- not wikipedians -- are using the insulting "nowhere" term. New sentence also clarifies singular and plural use of term.GreekParadise (talk) 05:24, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
I would just stick with "nickname" instead of saying "derisive". First of all, people can pretty well figure out for themselves that "Bridge to Nowhere" is not exactly a compliment. Secondly, not everyone who uses the phrase "Bridge to Nowhere" is necessarily deriding the bridge. For example, many news articles use the phrase without quotes, but merely for purposes of identification rather than derision. So: "The nickname 'Bridge to Nowhere' usually refers to the Gravina Island Bridge[105], while the less common phrase 'Bridges to Nowhere' may refer to both Gravina and Knik Arm." No need to say "normally", IMHO.Ferrylodge (talk) 05:31, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
The section is long and wordy already. What's the reason for introducing a synonym? Things are more clear when we just use one name for the bridge. People who follow the wikilink can find out the synonym. Is the point simply to show how vain congresscritters are? We already know that!Ferrylodge (talk) 05:41, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
I had heard of "Don Young's Way" years ago as some wasteful earmarked bridge. I had not heard of "Knik Arm" until I started editing this section. I suspect others are in the same boat as I. It does seem awfully vain and may be one reason why the bridge was considered controversial or a waste of money. Young didn't help his constituents by naming the bridge after himself. But that's neither here nor there. His name on it is, I think, also a symbol of a "typical earmark," like how Robert Byrd names everything in WV, which is probably why I remembered it. Indeed, I thought "Don Young's Way" was THE Bridge to Nowhere to the sparsely populated island with the airport (that I later learned was called Gravina) until I studied about 50 sources in preparation for editing this section. So clarifying Don Young's Way as Knik Arm, helps those like me (or me several weeks ago) who had heard of Don Young's Way and the Bridge to Nowhere but didn't know if they were one bridge or two.GreekParadise (talk) 05:51, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
As for length, I'm busy working on combining other stuff non-controversially. The LA Times article just mentions the same access road mentioned a sentence or two earlier.GreekParadise (talk) 05:53, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
OK. I'm also putting back in that wonderful "spinmeister" quote by Palin that someone took out. That's a word that should be back, as it's her word describing opponents of the bridge, but I'll make sure it doesnt lengthen it any.
I'll also correct "Because the budget for the bridge was greater than the congressional earmarks, Palin did not want to cover the difference," This is just false and it's not in her statement. The earmarks DID provide enough for both bridges but she decided to spend them on other things.GreekParadise (talk) 06:02, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
Then why did her statement say, "we are about $329 million short of full funding for the bridge project"? Also, you would be well-advised to revert only if you think it's really necessary. What makes you think that someone won't come back and paraphrase the spinmeister quote? You've got to be more flexible if this article is ever going to become stable.Ferrylodge (talk) 06:11, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
Because she didn't want to spend the money on the bridge, which is fine, but Congress never reduced the earmark. As for the second point, I can't see any wiki-logical reason for taking out one word that is a direct quote from Palin. What, other than POV, would cause someone to delete her choice word describing bridge opponents? That would be like someone removing Nixon's "I am not a crook" and replacing it with Nixon denied he was crooked. If you can say it in one word, why NOT have a direct quote unless someone is delierately trying to hide the fact that she used that memorable word? I don't remember any NPOV arguments for removing it and the revision is longer than the original. But I'm not reverting back. I'm rephrasing.GreekParadise (talk) 06:40, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
I also cut the LA Times article, while leaving the reference and took its quote about the "nonexistent bridge" and folded it into the earlier mention of the access road.GreekParadise (talk) 06:45, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
We need a source that definitively says that Congress had already given ALL the money needed for the bridges BEFORE Palin became Governor. Do we have such a source? The present Wikipedia article quotes her as saying that Alaska needed to build the bridges "while our congressional delegation is in a strong position to assist." Why would she need the congressional delegation if Congress had already fully funded it? Why would she say in September 2007 that "we are about $329 million short of full funding" if Congress had already provided full funding? And please don't say stuff like "Congress never reduced the earmark" when we know that Congress decided not to use an earmark for this at all (i.e. Congress opted for "no strings attached").
It was never "all" the money. Congress gave $442 million, half for Gravina and half for Knik Arm. Then removed the "earmark" and gave the same $442 million and said spend it how you want. Now Palin COULD have used the entire $442 million on the Gravina Island bridge with a little left to spare, but decided not to (and I don't blame her).
I feel like we're going in circles again. Please tell me: how much would it have cost to build each of the two bridges? How do you know whether that total cost exceeded $442 million, or not? You wrote above that Congress "DID provide enough for both bridges" but how do you know that? Please cite a source, so we can put it into the article.Ferrylodge (talk) 07:12, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
Regarding "spinmeister", I'm just saying that you ought to pick your battles. If some doofus wants to paraphrase, then big deal. It's not as though the article will become false and misleading as a result. My advice: try to focus on preventing the article from becoming false or misleading. The rest is not worth your time. But if you do want to put back "spiinmeister" then you ought to devote the time to doing it right, and that means figuring out who paraphrased, and bringing it up at their talk page, I think.Ferrylodge (talk) 06:50, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
Except all the sources are messed up now. The source [108] says she said "spinmeisters" are turning the project "into something that's so negative" It does not mention "nowhere" insulting local residents. That was a different source. Whoever changed it mangled up the sources. She never said "nowhere was spin." She said nowhere was insulting and spinmeisters were negative. Whoever changed it didn't read the sources and misunderstood what she said. Now maybe these are distinctions without a major difference but the original was accurate and the current version misstakes what she said. (That's why I wish people would check the original sources before paraphrasing quotes.)GreekParadise (talk) 07:00, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
You ought to look at the edit summary of the culrit who did it, and try to work out an arrangenment so that it woun't just get changed back again. Your goal should be not to get things the way you want them, but rather to get them the way you want them so they're not likely to change right back again.Ferrylodge (talk) 07:12, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
I had already fixed it with proper sources. But I won't put it in. I'll leave the inaccurate version in for now. Here's the fix, though, if someone else wants to do it right. I'm too tired now to find out who took out the quote originally. And after tonight, I may not be able to work on this for awhile, so I'll leave the accurate versions below so that someone else, if they choose can contact the person who took it out and use the accurate sources:
In 2006, Palin ran for governor on a "build-the-bridge" plank in her platform, criticizing "spinmeisters" who would turn the bridge project "into something that's so negative," by using the word "nowhere" to insult local residents.[17][18] She urged speedy work on Alaskan infrastructure "now -- while our congressional delegation is in a strong position to assist."[19]
and fyi, here's the (also accurately sourced) original sentence.
In 2006, Palin ran for governor on a "build-the-bridge" plank in her platform,[17] attacking "spinmeisters"[18] for insulting local residents by calling them "nowhere"[17] and urging speedy work on Alaska's infrastructure projects "while our congressional delegation is in a strong position to assist."[20]
(undent)Well, I see you've overhauled this section again.[30] Before your edit, the article said:
The state is spending a portion of the federal funding, $25 million, to complete a Gravina Island road to the place where the bridge would have gone, which officials say will open up new territory for development, and therefore that portion of the federal money will not have to be returned.
After your edit, the article says:
The state is spending a portion of the federal funding, $25 million, to complete a Gravina Island access road to the nonexistent bridge, expressly so that no federal money will have to be returned.
You have repeatedly made this edit, and it is highly misleading. If the road had not been built, only that $25 million would have had to be returned, whereas you make it sound like all the hundreds of millions would have to be returned. And you say that that was the express reason for building the road, when you know very well that officials said the road would open up land for development. I find your edits stubborn (because you've done the exact same edits repeatedly before), misleading, and grossly inapprorpiate seeing as how you said nothing at this talk page to justify them. You're just making us all go in endless circles.Ferrylodge (talk) 07:37, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
No one's complained about that before. I'd be happy to change "no federal money" to "none of that portion" Read the article. That's NOT what state officials said. That's what her spokeswoman said (that the road was needed on Gravina Island for development.) Here's the full quote:
Meanwhile, work is under way on a three-mile road on Gravina Island, originally meant to connect the airport and the new bridge. State officials said last year they were going ahead with the $25 million road because the money would otherwise have to be returned to the federal government.
[Palin spokeswoman] Leighow said the road project was already under way last year when Palin stopped the bridge, and she noted that it would provide benefits of opening up new territory for development -- one of the original arguments made for the bridge spending.
Perhaps what you or others see as stubbornness is the fact that I've read the sources, all of them for this section in full, so I know when someone's adequately quoting them or not. I'll change "no federal money" to "none of that portion." GreekParadise (talk) 07:48, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
Oh, and the "nonexistent bridge" part comes from the LA Times article which is still cited but the second sentence on the same subject was removed.GreekParadise (talk) 07:51, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
Last thing, and I know this one is controversial. I briefly presented BOTH SIDES of the Knik Arm Bridge controversy, that the bridge is just across Knik Arm to Anchorage and 40 miles from Wasilla but that Palin has been criticized for providing that link to her hometown and for the beluga whale threat. I mentioned she supports it with reservations and included money spent and her review of costs. If someone wants to revert that's their choice, but I've tried very hard to be fair, and I ask that if anyone revert all the anti-Palin information, they remove the pro-Palin information as well.GreekParadise (talk) 07:55, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
If someone would like to re-insert the accurate "spinmeister" quote, I would be much obliged. I haven't done it myself, at Ferrylodge's suggestion, so has not to cause hard feelings. My hope is that whoever removed it will check the sources and realize the sentence is now inaccurate and either fix it themselves or, more easily, stick in one of the two accurate versions I have placed above.
And with that, I'll leave wikipedia for several days. Please be fair, give both sides of any controversy, and please, above all, respect the sources. Tighten if you wish, but please do not remove accurate and sourced information without a good wiki-reason. If you have a dispute, I think direct quotations from the sources are the fairest way to resolve it. And I would ask that no one edit a sentence in this section without reading the sources to see if the changes you make are accurate and still cited to the right source. Thanks!
(And I've already noticed a few tightening/typo correcting changes that Ferrylodge has made to the section. Thus far, I like and agree with all of his changes. But, and this will take some effort, I'm not coming back to wikipedia after I type this for several days.)GreekParadise (talk) 08:17, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
Amazingly enough, I fwas travelling the past day and did not see any consensus for "Bridge to nowhere" -- especially not i.8n the archived RfC. I think if one bridge is given its correct name in the section title, so ought the other bridge. One does not use a nickname and a proper name in one title.
If one proper name is used, so should the other. Thanks! Collect (talk) 14:46, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
GreekParadise and Ferrylodge whittled on it all night...and finally came to an agreement. By now, for all of us, these bridges really do lead to nowhere--Buster7 (talk) 14:55, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
I'm going to stand with Buster7, Ferrylodge, and GreekParadise here. The history of the title has been laid out here by GreekParadise, and Ferrylodge has been the primary editor in terms of voicing concerns and activly working on the title. They have come to agreement, and I support it. Aprock (talk) 16:05, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
I see that the title was changed without consensus it'll propably be have to be reverted since it was a subject of an ongoing Rfc. Hobartimus (talk) 16:21, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
Also the mere existence of a whole section and section title raises questions about WP:UNDUE in itself. I looked over the Barack Obama article and didn't find any section dedicated to a "controversy" or anything similar. Hobartimus (talk) 16:23, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Hobartimus. Those who appear here to claim a new consensus were on the short ewnd of the older consensus, whihc hasd a formal RfC tag. If you don't wish to abide by the comments you solicit, then you ought not keep consensus shopping. WP suggests that those who operate in bad faith should be ignored. Collect (talk) 21:25, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
Collect, it appears from your comment in an earlier section that you're asserting the existence of a consensus for a title that omits the word "Nowhere". Is that your position? My recollection of the comments was that quite a few of us thought the single most important thing was that the title include the phrase "Bridge to Nowhere" or a variant (Bridges, Bridge(s), whatever, with or without various suggested other terms). What is your interpretation of the alleged "older consensus" that you now invoke? JamesMLanetc05:23, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
Rewrote section
I've done a rewrite of the whole section, mostly for style and tone. I'm not trying to disrespect anyone here, and frankly, approached this from a fresh perspective that it was simply poorly written due to all the back and forth changes. I tried to make it say the same thing as before, albeit with fewer summary or argumentative statements - just lay the facts out. And a number of copyediting changes. Plus, a lot of material had been stuffed into footnotes that didn't belong. The footnotes seem to have been supplementing things in the article rather than being used for verifiability purposes. That was just making the references section messy. If people want to read more they can follow our wikilinks or the citation links to the source articles. Some of the extended discussion on particulars is getting way too nitpicky. The facts of the matter are fairly simple, and it should not be too hard to describe them. People can make of them what they will, but this is supposed to be an article about her, not about the bridges. Because this was mainly stylistic I have no real position on any particular item - I'm not making claims about POV, weight, etc., so I'm sure there are some further changes and improvements. Wikidemon (talk) 01:47, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
You left in the campaign talk about "spinmeisters", etc., which I think merits inclusion but is less important than the substantive reasoning Palin gave. During her campaign she favored the projects because she thought the state's Congressional delegation would be able to get funding for them. As Governor, she issued the message that effectively canceled them, and she referred to Congress's unwillingness to fund them. I'm restoring the excerpt from her statement in her response to the issues questionnaire from the Anchorage Daily News, because it ties directly into the later quotation from her message as Governor. Together they explain her change of position. JamesMLanetc03:41, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
^Bolstad, Erika. "Palin's Take On Earmarks Evolving", Anchorage Daily News, (2008-09-08): “For the 2007 federal budget year, the administration of former Gov. Frank Murkowski submitted 63 earmark requests totaling $350 million, Palin's staff said. That slid to 52 earmarks valued at $256 million in Palin's first year. This year, the governor's office asked the delegation to help them land 31 earmarks or funding requests valued at $197 million….One thing is clear: Palin has increasingly distanced herself from earmarking since she made her first trip to Washington D.C. to lobby Congress for money in 2000. And over the past year, it has been the leading source of tension between Palin and the state's three-member congressional delegation.”
^ abcTom Kizzia (2008-08-31). "Palin touts stance on 'Bridge to Nowhere,' doesn't note flip-flop". Anchorage Daily News. Retrieved 2008-09-08.: "Congress eventually removed the earmark language, but the money still went to Alaska, leaving it up to the administration of then-Gov. Frank Murkowski to decide whether to go ahead with the bridges or spend the money on something else."
^"Where they stand (10/22/2006)", Anchorage Daily News, August 29, 2008{{citation}}: CS1 maint: date and year (link): Q: "Would you continue state funding for the proposed Knik Arm and Gravina Island bridges?" A: "I would like to see Alaska's infrastructure projects built sooner rather than later. The window is now - while our congressional delegation is in a strong position to assist."
