Talk:Sarah Palin/Archive 24

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 20 ← Archive 22 Archive 23 Archive 24 Archive 25 Archive 26 → Archive 30

Abortion and stem cell research

I started a new topic because this editorial overlaps some of the topics being discussed here. I've posted the link to the talk page for "Political positions of Sarah Palin" as well, and also put the link on the talk page for "Political positions of John McCain" in case anyone over there was interested. As an editorial piece, it's opinion, but it's Associated Press. I thought it might help with some of the worries about WP:OR, and at any rate that it provides a bit more fuel for discussion. Regards. FangedFaerie (Talk | Edits) 20:14, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

The only statements I can find indicate that she may oppose government funding of embryonic stem cell research over current levels. This is pretty much a non-starter, as much of the stem cell research being done now is not "embryonic." Including, but not limited to, adult stem cells, amniotic fluid stem cells and umbilical cord stem cells. Collect (talk) 12:44, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Abortion tied to rape and incest?

Inclusion of these specific types of pregnancies amounts to pure POV-pushing because of the negative connotation of those terms. There is no reason to enumerate these or any other of the potential means a woman could become pregnant, and the existing statement of "only when the mother's life is in danger" adequately describes her position. Fcreid (talk) 09:05, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. This reminds me of pro-life people calling pro-choice people pro-abortion, or was that anti-choice people calling them that?66.190.29.150 (talk) 09:13, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
I disagree. These "negative connotations" you mention are in the eye of the beholder - I'm sure there are plenty of people who would support her hardline position. In any event, there is nothing POV about fully elucidating that position. Gatoclass (talk) 09:16, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
What's the point in wasting space? "Only if the mother's life is in danger" is quite succinct and elucidates well all by itself. Should we iterate every possible scenario where she believes abortion should be an option? If you believe these various phraseologies are largely irrelevant, why do you even care?66.190.29.150 (talk) 09:26, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
The article should present facts regardless of whether it garners support on one side of the political spectrum or the other. Would she oppose abortion in the case of teenage prenancy? Yes, unless the mother's life is in danger. If conception occurred while drunk? Yes, unless the mother's life is in danger. If the woman claimed it was an immaculate conception? Yes, unless the mother's life is in danger. See the trend here? Fcreid (talk) 09:39, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
One such fact is that her opposition to abortion rights for women who have -- how can I phrase this without "negative connotations"? -- been impregnated against their will. (There, I've avoided that shudder-inducing word "rape".) Some readers (e.g. those who haven't benefited from "Focus on the Family", etc.) that any woman running for high office and born after the eighteenth century or thereabouts would acknowledge such a right; such readers may appreciate being informed (of course in a way that couldn't possibly reflect any point of view on any issue) that such an assumption is mistaken. -- Hoary (talk) 09:49, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
And the existing condition "unless the mother's life is in danger" clearly conveys that. Would a mother's life be in danger in the case of rape or incest? Or are you suggesting that you *intend* to lead the reader to some conclusion? Fcreid (talk) 09:54, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
First I misphrased myself. Not "impregnated against their will" (which of course would cover consensual sex) but "penetrated against their will" or something along those lines. (Actually I'd prefer "rape". Similarly, I'd prefer "incest" to some circumlocution. They're both simple, easily understood terms, and Wikipedia is under no obligation to mince words.) Secondly, no, the "existing condition" does not convey this. Consider: "I'll meet you for dinner tomorrow unless the conference I must attend goes on after 7 p.m." says nothing explicit about what would happen if I wake up tomorrow with a head-splitting cold. Many people (I think most) would assume that the head-splitting cold, although not explicitly mentioned, would prompt cancellation of the dinner date, even if "definitely" or similar were added to the mix. (It seems that you would not be among them.) I don't understand your question "are you suggesting that you *intend* to lead the reader to some conclusion?" What I'm suggesting is that the article makes clear what Palin's position is. -- Hoary (talk) 10:08, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
I've already debunked this claim with the logistics of "making it clear". Feel free to address that argument specifically, or concede the argument entirely.66.190.29.150 (talk) 10:11, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
I take umbrage at your suggestion that a WP reader is not smart enough to conclude what the statement means. I think you made your own position on this matter clear with your Eighteenth Century comments above. However, if you'd like to expand this point to include quoted material where she stated she would "choose life" even if her own daughter were raped, that would seem to be acceptable (whether it makes your point or not). Some may argue undue weight to include point/counter-point in this political summary, however. Fcreid (talk) 10:20, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
This is sourced in Political_positions_of_Sarah_Palin#Abortion. Were you only assigned to watch over this page rather than all of them? EconomicsGuy (talk) 10:38, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
Stating "only when the mother's life is in danger" does not adequately make her position clear. There are obviously many people who are against abortion that believe there should be an exception in cases of rape or incest. This is her stated position and it would be POV and deceptive spin not to add a few words for clarification. IP75 75.36.70.205 (talk) 10:43, 17 September 2008 (UTC)


Then the position statement of those people would not read "only when the mother's life is endangered", would it? Fcreid (talk) 10:47, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
You've suggested that there is some kind of ambiguity here, but in reality the only thing that you seem to want to detail are arbitrarily selected scenarios, of which I will not even specualte as to your or others' intent. But would you be so inclined to give an example of when/how "only when the mother's life is in danger" breaks down in adequately describing Palin's position? Thanks. If you cannot, you would be the one positing a deceptive and POV position by exaggerting the implications of your arbitrarily selected scenarios.66.190.29.150 (talk) 12:41, 17 September 2008 (UTC)


Directed at me, EconomicsGuy? Assigned? I could care less about the politics of this. Frankly, her positions on social issues are polar opposite of mine. My agenda since I first read this article two weeks ago has been to avoid blatant and insidious POV creep. Now that I know most of the personalities on both sides, that's become much easier. Fcreid (talk) 10:45, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

There are many politicians that say abortion should only be banned if the "mother's life is in danger," but when asked specifically about rape or incest, they say "oh yes, that too." I've seen even McCain do it. Palin's position on abortion, in fact, differs from McCain's and that of many pro-life supporters because she refuses to allow an exception that most who are opposed to abortion would concede. The statement merely clarifies the point and does not need to be stated in a POV way. You could say "Palin would only allow legal abortions if the mother's life is in danger. Palin would criminalize abortions made if the mother's health (but not life) were in serious danger or if a woman was impregnated by rape or incest." This clarifies her position and distinguishes it from other pro-life positions.GreekParadise (talk) 14:18, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

It does nothing of the sort, particularly since it's based entirely on the starw man that there is any confusion. You are wasting space to insert completely arbitrary, defacto biased, examples. Her position is crystal clear and completey conveyed by "she only supports abortion in case where the mother's life is in danger". 66.190.29.150 (talk) 14:45, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
True "rape" and "incest" are technically implied by "all" and in a court of law, there'd be no difference, but the argument for the basis of inclusion is to explore some of the more severe consequences of the word "all" the reader probably hadn't thought of.--Loodog (talk) 14:56, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
Note: the source we took this piece of information from also explicitly sets aside cases of rape and incest. Could be argued to be a bias of the Seattle times, but nevertheless, there's precedent for including it explicitly in professional journalism.--Loodog (talk) 15:01, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
Am I supposed to care what kind of examples the Seattle Times wishes to include in its pages? I thought I was an editor of encylopedic content, not constructing a term paper on the details of a specific pro-life position? Perhaps you think your fucntion here is something it is clearly not. 66.190.29.150 (talk) 15:10, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
My point is that your argument about rape and incest being implied would be applicable to the Seattle Times article as well, yet they've found reason to include explicit mentions.--Loodog (talk) 15:13, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
The Seattle Times does not necessarily have a "Neutral Point of View" as one of their bedrock principles.--Paul (talk) 15:18, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
It's common across the spectrum to include the explicit rape/incest mention. Even Fox News: [1][2]--Loodog (talk) 15:35, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
Of course, but he's a writer. It's entirely his volition to include or not include such examples, in fact it's in his job description to inject his own biases into his writing. But this is not a newspaper, nor is this a column; it's supposed to be enclypedic, and atttempts should be made to avoid injecting unneeded bias were none need be. Adding the "examples" does nothing to further enlighten the reader, nor does convey any additional information on her viewpoint. Unneeded bias, superfluous words does not a better wiki make.66.190.29.150 (talk) 15:23, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Loodog. It's not just the Seattle Times -- the overall off-Wiki political discussion includes extensive reference to Palin's position on abortion after rape. We select what to include in this summary based on the importance of the information. Specifying this point is clearly important. That it could be argued to be logically subsumed within "except to protect the health of the mother" doesn't change the way the media are addressing this particular non-exception, making it important. To take one of Fcreid's examples, on a Yahoo! search, +Palin +abortion +rape gets 4,470,000 hits. +Palin +abortion +"immaculate conception" is only 36,200, and even that surprisingly high number probably includes no or virtually no genuine hits. (On the first result page, the bulletin of the Church of St. Mary of the Immaculate Conception discusses Palin's stance on abortion.) JamesMLane t c 15:20, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
It doesn't matter. The addition of the examples is nothing more thsn editorializing. The media have their agenda, but we do not share it, er, we aren't supposed to anyway. 66.190.29.150 (talk) 15:39, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

More: [3] "The candidates were pressed on their stances on abortion and were even asked what they would do if their own daughters were raped and became pregnant." If such an answer is implied, the question need not be asked.--Loodog (talk) 16:30, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Palin is against abortion except in cases where the mother's life is in danger. This is her stated position. That is not controversial. It is supported by the references. Further exposition in this article, especially use of "Palin would criminialize all abortion in the United States" is just editorializing and fearmongering. Kaisershatner (talk) 16:37, 17 September 2008 (UTC) Addedndum: what she believes should be the case, and "she would criminalize" are not the same thing - the reference applies to the former, not the latter. At minimum, recognize the VP does not set abortion policy. Kaisershatner (talk) 16:38, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
Agree. Nowhere in the sources does it says he wants to criminalize abortion. This should be removed.--Loodog (talk) 16:41, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
Re: Paul.h,Struck with apologies; Paul.h did not make the following comment; rather, an IP did. yes, you are supposed to care what the Seattle Times chooses to report as newsworthy. You're supposed to care about what reliable sources say, and reflect it accurately, when you have your Wikipedia hat on. Saying that the Seattle Times "does not necessarily have an NPOV" suggests a deep misunderstanding of WP:NPOV. This is a really simple one: if numerous reliable sources contextualize Palin's abortion stance by noting that she does not support rape/incest exceptions, then we reflect it, even if we personally as editors might disagree with that contextualization. If our sources don't say she'd criminalize abortion, then we don't say it. MastCell Talk 16:46, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
Re: MastCell, "Am I supposed to care what kind of examples the Seattle Times wishes to include in its pages?" was not my edit. It's okay with me if you revise your comment and remove this reply.--Paul (talk) 16:52, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
Thanks Loodog. Moving on to what I hope will be our next point of agreement: sources 179 and 180 don't mention "life of mother in danger." Source 179 says nothing at all about health or life, and source 180 states "Smith said Palin is opposed to abortion, but believes an exception should be made if the health of the mother is in danger." I would change the current wording to reflect this "exception should be made if the health of the mother is in danger" or propose changing the source if that is not her actual position. Kaisershatner (talk) 16:54, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
Well, couldn't we say "Palin endorses the right of a rapist to force a woman to bear his child", and that would still be technically accurate given her stated position, right? Fcreid (talk) 16:56, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Fcreid. It is simply a fact that should be disclosed. That's basically her stance and it is important enough that everyone should know. It could make the difference (for some people) whether or not to vote for her/McCain. EditorU.S.A. TIC 17:06, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
Current version reads "Palin has called herself "as pro-life as any candidate can be"[176] and has called abortion an "atrocity".[177] She is against abortion in cases of rape or incest, but believes there should be an exception if the woman's health were in danger.[178][179]" It is short, accurate, and consistent with the cited sources. Kaisershatner (talk) 17:08, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

It is inaccurate to say Palin's "against abortion" unless you also say that Obama, Clinton, and most pro-choice organizations are "against abortion" too! Many pro-choice people are "against" abortion for themselves and family. The difference -- and only difference -- between Palin's views and Bill Clinton's is that Palin wants to criminalize abortion. According to the article, she thinks "abortions should be banned even in cases of rape and incest." How does she propose to ban it? By encouraging people not to have them? No, she believes in using criminal law to punish people. That's not fear-mongering. That's accuracy. Palin and McCain want criminal sanctions for abortion. They're not just "against" it. They want to punish Americans for doing it. That is her political position. What would you say other than "criminalization"? "Against" abortion does not cut it. To be "pro-life" is not the same as "opposing" abortion. It is a belief that the state should use its police power to force women, against their will, to have a child. In saying this, I don't mean any attack on pro-life people, but you cannot be "pro-life" without supporting a criminal sanction for abortion. If you're against abortion but would not have the State ban it, then you're "pro-choice." And Palin isn't.GreekParadise (talk) 17:16, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

"No, she believes in using criminal law to punish people." I must have missed something. What's the source for this statement? From what I've seen, Palin seems to be remarkably hesitant to use government to pass laws about social issues.--Paul (talk) 17:26, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
So I would say "She would criminalize abortion in cases of rape or incest, but believes there should be an exception if the woman's life (but not health) were in danger." (It is NOT accurate to say that Palin believes an abortion should be legal if the woman's health is in danger. Palin believes a woman must sacrifice her health (but not her life) to have the child.GreekParadise (talk) 17:16, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
GP, I am quoting the cited source. It says "health." I would be happy to look at another source. I think "criminalize" is tendentious. Maybe Palin and McCain want to ban abortions by appointing conservative judges who will allow states to enact laws criminalizing abortion. Kaisershatner (talk) 17:24, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I was being facetious about the rapist rights statment! Here is what we know about Palin's positions:

Rejected sympathy for Down's Syndrome son, as gift from God. (Aug 2008) Opposes embryonic stem cell research. (Aug 2008) Every baby is created with a future and potential. (Aug 2008) Safe Haven bill: allow surrendering newborns without penalty. (Feb 2008) Adoption is best plan for permanency for foster care kids. (Oct 2007) Pro-life. (Nov 2006) Choose life, even if her own daughter were raped. (Nov 2006) If Roe v. Wade got overturned, let people decide what's next. (Oct 2006) Opposes use of public funds for abortions. (Oct 2006) Pro-contraception, pro-woman, pro-life. (Aug 2006) Only exception for abortion is if mother's life would end. (Jul 2006

Here are the actual quoted sources suitable for RS [4]. Anything beyond this, including the "rape and incest" caveat in this statement is pure synthesis. Fcreid (talk) 17:21, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Here's Sarah Palin in her own words, saying she would support a constitutional amendment to "outlaw" abortion even in cases of rape and incest. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lEN-c0zRH1c "Outlawing" is not the same as "opposing" Would you prefer "outlaw" rather than "criminalize"?

How about this sentence: "She would outlaw abortion, even in cases of rape or incest, but believes there should be an exception if the woman's life (but not health) were in danger."GreekParadise (talk) 17:25, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

The problem I have with that wording is it imparts powers to her that she does not have. She will not outlaw abortion. She believes it should be outlawed. That is different. I changed wording to "believes abortion should be illegal in cases of rape or incest." Is that closer to agreement? Kaisershatner (talk) 17:28, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
"She" would not do anything. Read that citation I provided above for her exact words where she specifically stated that if Roe v. Wade were overturned, she would do nothing except except what the people in her state voted to do. You are commingling her personal beliefs with her legislative agenda, and that's flat-out wrong! If you wish to say she would support anti-abortion legislation if that is what her constituency wanted, that would be accurate. Fcreid (talk) 17:29, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
Let's not argue hypotheticals. I like Kaisershatner's version; it sticks to the sources, which indicate that she believes that abortion should be illegal in most circumstances. What action she would or will take based on that belief is a matter of conjecture; I think the reader can draw their own conclusions. MastCell Talk 17:33, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
I disagree. It's not hypothetical at all. She specifically answered the question as quoted in the RS I provided above, and the answer was she would do only what her constituents voted. Can that fact not be woven into this synopsis of her personal beliefs? This is obviously a scare tactic to synthesize that she represents a threat to Roe v. Wade and would outlaw abortions, but there is no citation to support that. Fcreid (talk) 17:37, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
Right now, she has no power to ban abortion given Roe v. Wade. That can be changed in two (and only two) ways, a constitutional amendment and a change on the Supreme Court. She has already said she supports a constitutional amendment outlawing abortion (which reminds me, I think I'll add the youtube clip as a source). If she supports a constitutional amendment and she believes Roe v. Wade should be overturned, it is not unreasonable to suggest that as President she would appoint judges that agree with her. I'm not saying she would break the law. I'm saying she would do everything in her power within the law, if elected, to outlaw abortions.GreekParadise (talk) 17:43, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
Wow Wow let's take a step back, we are getting into major bias territory here, "as President she would..." what what what? You just took huge leaps there without blinking. Let's just stay with the facts Palin is a "nominee" for "Vice President". Hobartimus (talk) 17:48, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
This entire line seems unproductive. It's common knowledge that Palin is "an outspoken abortion opponent". Kaisershatner's wording accurately and concisely conveys her position on this issue without inflammatory wording or spin. MastCell Talk 17:52, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
Bingo, Greek! That's why this entire nonsense is pure provocation. If you want to state her personal position on abortion, do so without embellishment. However, don't synthesize nonsense about outlawing abortion and other stuff that is pure conjecture and entirely outside of her purview to control. And, even if those external forces were to overturn Roe v. Wade, she has also made it clear that (at the state-level, at least) she would abide by the will of her constituents. Why is it so important to synthesize more than the facts we know? Fcreid (talk) 17:50, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
We've described her position as related by reliable sources. If you consider it "nonsense" that someone a heartbeat away from the Presidency just might have an impact on the status of Roe v. Wade, then I don't see a lot of room for discussion. MastCell Talk 17:55, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
Of course, she would "abide by the will of her constitutents." That's a meaningless statement. You're saying that she would not go out and personally arrest people for having abortions if it's not illegal? LOL. The point is she advocates for CHANGING the law to make abortions ILLEGAL. That's not hypothetical. That's what she would do in every legal way she can. Hobartimus makes a ridiculous point that she's only running for Vice President. Since that's true, I guess NONE of her positions on ANY issues matter since the Vice President can't veto bills and can only act legislatively by breaking Senate ties. The point is a VP can become President at any moment. And if Palin becomes President, she will everything she can to change the law so that it becomes illegal for any woman (including a rape victim) to have an abortion if the woman's life is not in danger.GreekParadise (talk) 17:59, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
You made the ridiculous point that "As President" she will have the power to change abortion laws. And then you top it off with the completely unsourced "And if Palin becomes President, she will everything she can to change the law so that it" which I won't dignify with a response as that's just too biased a statement. Hobartimus (talk) 18:22, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
Oh and here she says "life" not "health." http://dwb.adn.com/news/politics/elections/2006/governor/story/8372383p-8266781c.html

Can anyone find a source where Palin herself, rather than a spokesperson, said "health"?GreekParadise (talk) 17:59, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

The 2006 questionnaire: ""I am pro-life. With the exception of a doctor's determination that the mother's life would end if the pregnancy continued. I believe that no matter what mistakes we make as a society, we cannot condone ending an innocent's life." [5] The article also says that the group she's a member of, Feminists for Life, holds the same position. And that she was allegedly willing to sign anti-abortion bills as governor, though that one is more shaky because it's hearsay. Regards. FangedFaerie (Talk | Edits) 18:19, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
So it sounds like the answer is "life" rather than health. She consistently says life and only spokesperson says health once and unquoted.GreekParadise (talk) 18:44, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
Ok, how about we go with "Palin believes abortion should be illegal in all cases except where a woman's life is in danger." It is succinct. Kaisershatner (talk) 18:46, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

So it looks like someone stuck the "rape and incest" back in there despite the ongoing talk here! Can anyone provide a citation where Palin has ever said she doesn't support abortion in the case of "rape and incest"? Anything at all where she's quoted as ever using the word "incest"? If not, those caveats should be removed and replaced with citable material, as this amounts to pure extrapolation of her position in order to capture "scary words" to impress a point. If you would like to say that she would "choose life" even if her daughter were raped, that is reasonable and has citation behind it. Fcreid (talk) 19:55, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I think it's clear that the consensus version is that she supports abortion "Only if the mother's health is in danger". Other versions do not seem to have consensus. Hobartimus (talk) 20:39, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. Someone pulled the rape and incest out after my comment, so it's good now. We'll see how long it remains out. Fcreid (talk) 21:02, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
This whole bit about Palin thinks abortion "should" be outlawed and "would" outlaw it are a bit much for the sources we have. I think it suffices just to say that she objects to all abortions, including those for victims of rape or incest, on personal values. If we wanted to translate these beliefs of hers into actions she would take, we need sources that say that she would or sources saying she already has signed such legislation. I haven't seen any sources showing legislative action taken or wanted to be taken.--Loodog (talk) 21:14, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
Couldn't disagree more. Palin is not a private citizen. She is running for office. Her personal views are irrelevant. (And as I repeatedly point out, many are personally "opposed" to abortion for themselves or their families but would not criminalize the act done by complete strangers. Biden, for example. We could say Biden opposes abortion. And he does. He said so in his Meet the Press interview. But he's pro-choice.) What matters are Palin's political views. And she supports a constitutional amendment to outlaw abortion even in cases of rape. Need a source? Watch the youtube debate I cited.GreekParadise (talk) 03:19, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Proposed rewording

"Sarah Palin is opposed to abortion, including cases of rape and incest, though condones it in cases where the woman's life is in danger." (rewrite in italics)

Why I like this:

  1. Simply states her beliefs, not what she would do.
  2. Keeps rape and incest mention as sources do.

Feedback?--Loodog (talk) 21:21, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Works for me. I would say "... except in cases where the woman's life is in danger", just on grammatical grounds. MastCell Talk 21:22, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
Gibson ABC interview 09/13:
Gibson: John McCain would allow abortion in cases of rape and incest. Do you believe in it only in the case where the life of the mother is in danger?
Palin: That is my personal opinion.
Crystal clear. She makes the distinction. It's absurd to attempt to censor this on the grounds of the words being "scary". Their scariness or otherwise matters not one iota. They are the correct words for the cited violations. And it surely notable, not least to women, that a candidate for vice-president holds the personal opinion that women impregnated by rape and/or incest should be denied abortions. The Serbs, whose war on civilians included impregnation by rape and even, in some cases, by forced incest, held Bosnian Muslim women captive in what became known as rape-death camps. Those who survived long enough to be impregnated were kept alive until their pregnancies were too far advanced for termination. Then they were released into what remained of their communities. Civilized people were in consensus: they regarded it as, er, "notable" that, in the opinion of the Serbs, women impregnated by rape and/or incest should be denied abortions. Why should this view be any less notable when it's held by a candidate for the second-highest public office in America? Writegeist (talk) 21:43, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
Yup, I agree with Loodog's wording. Writegeist (talk) 21:45, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
I must be one of the few who didn't see the Gibson interview or read the transcripts. If that is verbatim, so be it. Let it roll, with the wording as suggested by MastCell. Fcreid (talk) 22:19, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
Alright, changed it.--Loodog (talk) 22:47, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
I'm not fond any of it. It is needless words which are only inject to bias the readers and divert attention. Why does Obama's wiki say he's African American? When many would argue he isn't african american at all since his father was not only part arab but was an african immigrant. I could find all sorts of selective quotes from varioud articles related to it, and turn what could have been a simple phrase into several phrases which could have been better spent just giving the most basic facts. They haven't done that there, and I don't think it should be done here.66.190.29.150 (talk) 23:39, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
She's a politician. This is a political issue. I understand the concern for accurately reflecting her view with reliable sourcing, but beyond that I fail to see the problem. Obama's skin color doesn't have anything to do with Palin's views on abortion. Regards. FangedFaerie (Talk | Edits) 00:07, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
So I take it you've never heard of the words "identity politics"?66.190.29.150 (talk) 00:39, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
Identity politics: "Identity politics is political action to advance the interests of members of a group whose members are oppressed by virtue of a shared and marginalized identity (such as race, ethnicity, religion, gender, sexual orientation, or neurological wiring)." Where does that say anything about a person's opinion on, say, abortion? If you're talking about Obama, take it to his talk pages, please. Regards. FangedFaerie (Talk | Edits) 01:26, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
Don't tell me what to do. You asserted my comment was not related to politics, and you were entirely wrong. If the standard exists in the Obama wiki, then it's going to exist here. Period.66.190.29.150 (talk) 02:28, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Hmm. An aggressive and uncivil response to a civil and justified request. (A request is not the same as an instruction.) Caveat editor(s): before you respond to the user of the 66.190.29.150 IP address, check out its talk page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Writegeist (talk • contribs) 03:14, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

General support (with some rewording) - I think you have to change "is opposed to" to "supports outlawing" or "making illegal". This is not about her personal beliefs. As noted above, many pro-choice voters are personally opposed to abortion. What makes a politician "pro-life" is that the politician is working to criminalize abortion. Other than I support it with Mastcell's grammatical correction. The statement would read as follows:

"Sarah Palin supports making abortion illegal in all cases, including rape and incest, except when the woman's life is in danger."

Oh, and for Fcried, here's evidence she doesn't think incest should be an exception. http://www.juneauempire.com/stories/101906/sta_20061019031.shtml GreekParadise (talk) 03:16, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

This was the exact point I was addressing. Neither the outlawing or the making illegal is supported in the sources. The sources just say what her personal beliefs regarding the practice are. We need a source saying "Sarah Palin would illegalize/criminalize/outlaw abortion", or that she would like to. All that's supported is personal unlegislated belief.--Loodog (talk) 03:22, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
Before we can say "criminalize" or "outlaw" we need a source that backs that up. Several sources preferred.--Paul (talk) 03:29, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
Here she says, in an official debate, that she would support a constitutional amendment to "outlaw abortion, even in cases of rape or incest" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lEN-c0zRH1c She says she would "support the proposal" and "stand by it" The questioner makes clear she's discussing a constitutional amendment rather than legislation (that would be currently unconstitutional). Pretty clear-cut and from the Governor's mouth.Sarah is awesome!!! You can see her saying it yourself.GreekParadise (talk) 03:32, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
YouTube isn't a reliable source. Kelly hi! 03:37, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
It is when it's Sarah Palin herself saying it in an official C-Span debate. Right? Kind of impossible to dispute. So does that officially end the argument on this? Has anyone who has watched the first minute of the video any qualms with including Sarah Palin's position on abortion in this article as follows?

"Sarah Palin supports a constitutional amendment to make abortion illegal in all cases, including rape and incest, except when the woman's life is in danger."GreekParadise (talk) 03:40, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Youtube is a fine source when the actual interview is being shown. Transcripts are preferrable to interviews, but ok. She doesn't say (nor is she asked) that she would sign legislation to outlaw abortion, merely that she would show support for a third-party's constitutional amendment to outlaw it. It's weaker than her actively passing legislation, but it is sourced. We can include the note if you want.--Loodog (talk) 03:48, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
Her record in Alaska doesn't support the claim that she wants to use her power as an elected official to "criminalize" abortion. "Criminalize" is awfully POV, and I don't see this as being as clear cut as some think it is.--Paul (talk) 04:05, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
I did not use the word "criminalize." I said "make abortion illegal". See text of article. If you'd prefer the word used in the youtube debate, "outlaw," I'm OK with that too.GreekParadise (talk) 04:49, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
I still don't understand why rape and incest are specifically mentioned, when the rest of the statement reads she believes in one exception: when there's "a doctor's determination that the mother's life would end if the pregnancy continued."[181] When I added that point about the doctor and the reference, I removed rape and incest deliberately. Saying it this way strikes me as sensationalist: She's against all abortion unless a doctor says the woman will die! Even if there's rape! or incest! All of it! I would prefer the shorter and equally comprehensive version I had inserted: She believes abortion should be illegal except in cases of "a doctor's determination that the mother's life would end if the pregnancy continued."[181] If people care a lot about documenting her view of the law, I would be fine with including "and has expressed support for a constitutional amendment to that effect." Thoughts? Kaisershatner (talk) 14:01, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
I could try again to explain, but I'd just end up repeating what's above. I'd recommend taking a look above starting with the first mention of Seattle times.--Loodog (talk) 14:06, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the recommendation. Add my opinion to those who think the singling out of rape/incest is not productive or useful. Kaisershatner (talk) 14:15, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
How about making it productive by noting her differences with McCain. "Palin's view differs from McCain's in that McCain would make exceptions for rape and incest. [source]" —Preceding unsigned comment added by GreekParadise (talk • contribs) 15:39, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

"Palin considers herself a born-again conservative Christian. She supports... outlawing nearly all abortions (even in cases of rape or incest)..."[6] "In 2002, when she was running for lieutenant governor, Palin sent an e-mail to the anti-abortion Alaska Right to Life Board saying she was as "pro-life as any candidate can be" and has "adamantly supported our cause since I first understood, as a child, the atrocity of abortion.""[7]

When running for governor: "This summer, in a candidate survey by the anti- abortion Alaska Family Council, Palin answered "Yes" to the question: "Would you support legislation and/or a constitutional amendment to clarify that the state constitution does not contain a right to abortion?" As to what she'd do as governor, Palin said, "I would side on the side of life if legislation were passed by the people's representatives in the state of Alaska, the Legislature, but ... there is no law that I could sign in office that could ever supersede the Supreme Court's ruling.""[8]

And as governor: "Palin said Senate President Lyda Green, a Republican from the governor’s hometown of Wasilla, had “ample opportunity” to use her leadership post to advance two proposed anti-abortion laws that died when the regular session ended April 13. “As you are aware, I fully support these bills,” Palin wrote Green... Palin said lawmakers had plenty of time to consider these and other bills, but that Green thwarted their advance by assigning them to committee... she considers the abortion bills important enough to merit their own short special session, possibly in Anchorage." [9] Regards. FangedFaerie (Talk | Edits) 23:15, 18 September 2008 (UTC) Reading all the comments, it is clear that "opposed to" is the correct wording. All else depends on inferences beyond her own words. She stated "that is my personal opinion" and did not go on to state anything about acting to make abortions illegal, and especially she did not argue that the SCOTUS should be overruled. Collect (talk) 12:50, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Knik Arm Bridge

A section in the article currently title "The Second Bridge" has all kinds of problems:

Palin still supports the second bridge, which was proposed in 2005 , through a request in earmark funds. 42 Million has been spent on the planning process. The 600 million dollar bridge and highway project links Juneau with Palins home town of Wasilla with its population of 7000 people. She did ask for a review of the bridge's financing plans and expressed concerns about the financial risks for the state.

Critics state that the bridge is an expensive project , doesn't help commuters, doesn't help create jobs, it may drive the beluga whale to extinction, and serves the Govenors home town of Wasilla. John McCain derided the project calling it a "monstrosity" that was "terrifying in its fiscal consequences." [112]

The whole section is factually incorrect, especially the claims of a link to Wasilla. The proposed bridge is across the mouth of the Knik Arm, much as the Golden Gate Bridge crosses the mouth of San Francisco Bay. Wasilla, Alaska is way the hell up on the north end of the Knik Arm, nowhere near the proposed bridge. Here is a map of the Knik arm and Wasilla. I'm thinking the particular references to Wasilla in regards to this bridge should be removed. Should the arguments of the bridge's supporters be included? Also, according to Knik Arm Bridge, the bridge has been proposed since 1955. Perhaps the whole paragraph should be deleted. Kelly hi! 19:14, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I've removed the section, at least for now, based on a closer examination of the given source. There were numerous factual inaccuracies in addition to the ones cited above, including claims of an extinction threat to beluga whales (nowhere stated in the source) and claims by Democratic opponents of Palin that were cited in this article as straight facts. Kelly hi! 19:46, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
Agree with the above. Hobartimus (talk) 19:51, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
Also, I should have mentioned here that it was also redundant to the "Bridges to Nowhere" section immediately above it, where the Knik Arm Bridge is already mentioned. Kelly hi! 19:53, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
Also agree. The material in the article was clearly wrong about the date the project was proposed and its proximity to Wasilla.--Paul (talk) 19:56, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Well there are two bridges and that is not clearly stated in the title to the section. I suggest a better clarification be made between the two bridges, and the separate issues involving each one. --207.232.97.13 (talk) 22:25, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure when you wrote this, but I long ago removed that section under Bridge Redux REDUX above. Don Young's Way does provide an "alternate route" from Anchorage to Wasilla which was one of its main selling points.GreekParadise (talk) 01:58, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
Have you looked at the map? Wasilla is nowhere near the bridge! I suppose it could be considered an "alternate route" if you wanted to drive approximately the same distance as the existing route, but on a different highway. But are you suggesting the purpose of the bridge is to provide an alternate route from Anchorage to Wasilla? Looking at the map, that's a silly suggestion. Kelly hi! 02:05, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
Absolutely, that's the purpose of the bridge according to many people including Wasilla's mayor. Please read this: http://community.adn.com/node/131399. We can include it as a source.GreekParadise (talk) 02:15, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
Also, as the article points out, the official name of the bridge is Don Young's Way. I don't know who removed all the references to the official name of the bridge. If you oppose giving the official name of the bridge, please say why. Someone even removed it from the "see also"!GreekParadise (talk) 02:19, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
The quote says Dianne Keller, who succeeded Palin as mayor in Wasilla, has said the new $600 million crossing could lower traffic congestion in the fast-growing community. It doesn't say the purpose of the bridge was to link Anchorage to Wasilla, which, looking at the map, is kind of a dumb idea. They're already linked by a route of approximately the same distance. Also, the official name of the bridge is "Knik Arm Bridge, as our article on the bridge states. Kelly hi! 02:25, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
Kelly, did you read the article? Just because you think the mayor of Wasilla has a dumb idea doesn't mean that the purpose of the bridge is not to connect Wasilla to Anchorage. It clearly is an ALTERNATE route. And the official name of the bridge is "Don Young's Way." I'll be happy to change the name of the other wikipedia article, if you wish. But read the source. It clearly documents what I say. And since it does, I see no reason not to put it back, unless you or another wikieditor can think of one. (Also the claim that she canceled the Knik Arm Bridge is false and should be removed immediately.) I'll remove the false claim and begin putting back in the Don Young's Way name. I'll wait on the "alternate route" a few minutes to see your response, but again, it's hard to dispute the mayor of Wasilla with your own point of view.GreekParadise (talk) 02:38, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
Who said she cancelled the Knik Arm Bridge? Also, look at the other opinions above. Our article says the bridge has been proposed since 1955, and just because the current mayor says it "could ease congestion" doesn't mean the purpose of the bridge is to link Anchorage to Wasilla, when a glance at a map shows that's not the case. Kelly hi! 02:54, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
Also, in regards to the name, "Knik Arm Bridge" returns 23,500 Google hits[10] while "Don Young's Way" returns about 3,000.[11] which tells me the former name is the most common usage. Kelly hi! 03:00, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't know who said she cancelled the bridge but I've already taken it out. As for Don Young's way, it is the official name, even if it gets fewer hits. (I'm not for deleting the more popular unofficial name, only for adding back the official name.) As for the alternate route, a glance at the map shows that's exactly what it is. If you read articles on the bridge--and I've probably read about 30 now--there are a number of Wasilla commuters who argue for and against it, with those for it saying the current bridge gets backed up and it provides an alternative way around it. I just looked at local.google.com. Go there yourself. Type in Wasilla. You'll see there are ZERO named towns, not a single one between Wasilla and Anchorage on the side that would served by Don Young's Way. I'm not saying that development cannot occur. Of course it can. (Don Young's son in law has some land out there.) But, as of now, among populated areas, the only area the bridge would serve is Wasilla, as an alternate route to Anchorage.GreekParadise (talk) 03:07, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I'll tell you this much - I read the AP article, but I also looked at other sources, and came away convinced that the AP article was not a reliable source. If you bothered to look at any of the maps, either that Kelly linked above or those in the sources and external links for the Knik Arm Bridge article of which this PDF map is the best, you yourself could see this - any route over that proposed bridge would only be a shorter route from Wasilla to Anchorage if you first moved the city of Wasilla at least 6 miles to the west. More importantly, the actual reason for the bridge is given here, and has nothing to do with Wasilla. Please don't try to push unreliable crud into the article, realize that sometimes the media is just wrong, and when it is the responsible thing to do is ignore the sources that don't have a significant connection to reality. GRBerry 03:12, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
(ec)I can see including the "Don Young's Way" alternate name in Knik Arm Bridge, but why include it here? Especially when a direct "see also" link (Knik Arm Bridge) has been changed to a redirect link (Knik Arm Bridge (Don Young's Way)). Why change a direct link to a redirect? Kelly hi! 03:20, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
Because one of the reason this bridge was criticized as a bridge to nowhere was because people thought it typified pork barrel spending and the name was part of it. \(I personally heard of Don Young's Way years ago and only heard of Knik Arm three weeks ago when I started researching this, but I'm not from Alaska. I don't want to change the link. I just want to mention in the body that it's named after Don Young, as I had it before. This was the old text:

"a proposed bridge ("Don Young's Way", named after Alaska's Congressman) crossing Knik Arm to provide an alternate route from Anchorage to Wasilla."GreekParadise (talk) 03:27, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

As to GRBerry's point, call it unreliable crud if you like, but it's the Associated Press and the Mayor of Wasilla and the Anchorage Daily News against your say-so. I've read the criticism, that it's actually 6 miles longer. (I've done a lot of research on it.) Critics have said that. And proponents say it would be an alternative route when the main bridge is crowded. I have looked at the maps. And I can provide at least five more sources talking about it as an alternate route to Wasilla. I never claimed it was the ONLY reason for the bridge or even the primary reason for the bridge. But it clearly is a reason and one I see often talked about in all the sources on it.GreekParadise (talk) 03:27, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
Do you have any other sources that say the purpose of the bridge is as a route to Wasilla? Because the AP article obviously has issues. (The Anchorage Daily News did not write this article, they just reprinted the AP piece.) You're synthesizing something from the Mayor's quote that simply isn't there. And I still don't understand the need to include both bridge names here, when the reader can simply click on Knik Arm Bridge and learn all about any alternate names. I tend to see it as an effort to backhandedly link Palin with Young, who is actually one of her political opponents and a controversial figure. Best to keep it as neutral as possible by simply using the most common name. Mention Young all you want to in the bridge article. Kelly hi! 03:34, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
If you want to say she's an opponent of Young somewhere in the article fine by me. I never said that or even implied it. The bridge's official name is Don Young's Way. He was chair of the House Transportation Committee. It was seen as his boondoggle. In fact, if he hadn't named it after himself, it might have escaped scrutiny. I think there are many people like me, who don't live in Alaska, who have heard of Don Young's Way and never heard of Knik Arm. That's the reason to include it. And after all, it's the actual name of the bridge. "Knik Arm" is unofficial.GreekParadise (talk) 03:47, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

"Dianne Keller, who succeeded Palin as mayor in Wasilla, has said the new $600 million crossing could lower traffic congestion in the fast-growing community". What about that quotation is unclear to you? Do you think the mayor of Wasilla was NOT talking about Wasilla when she said "this fast-growing community." C'mon Kelly, that's really stretching it.  :-)GreekParadise (talk) 03:49, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Did you read what I posted above about common usage? Why keep repeating yourself and making me repeat myself? Just make your argument once, let other people comment, and consensus will emerge. As I said, that mayor's quote does not at all address the reasons for building the bridge, just a possible side effect. You're taking too much from it. Kelly hi! 03:51, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
I will revert. I have already found five sources that talk about the Wasilla-Anchorage connection, including the conservative Washington Times, the independent Congressional Quarterly, and several in Alaska. It was you, I think, that made the original change, and you did so without a single source to back you up. I can provide a dozen, given time. And you can't find one. Find me a source that says that the distance to Wasilla had nothing to do with it. It's in practically every article I see on it. And if anyone disagrees, I defy you to find me five sources that dispute the many, many sources I have found from every political perspective, from every geographic perspective, and from the Wasilla mayor herself.GreekParadise (talk) 03:55, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
Will you please have a little courtesy and post the sources here for us to examine? There are 3 other editors here who have agreed with me, you are the only person arguing your point of view. Kelly hi! 03:58, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
Why are you simply reverting against current consensus instead of discussing? Hello? Kelly hi! 04:07, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Why? Because you ended the discussion. In effect, you have admitted that I'm right, that you can't find anything that the Mayor of Wasilla said that does not support my view. And how can you dispute it when the Mayor of Wasilla herself is talking about supporting the bridge to lower traffic-congestion in her town. It's undisputable. She doesn't call it a "side effect." That's your language. And does it really matter if it's a "side effect" or "a reason to build the bridge." It's the same thing. It's one reason to build the bridge and it's why the mayor supports it.GreekParadise (talk) 04:25, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Let's be perfectly clear what happened here. A well-sourced sentence that has been in the article for ten days and agreed upon by many consensus editors was changed, with NO SOURCE to back up the change except WP:OR. I have given several sources, AP, CQ, Washington Times, Anchorage Daily News, and Wasilla's own mayor (!) and others I haven't even named yet: Sitka paper, Ketchikan paper. Unless some editor can provide sufficient notable sources that dispute my very fine reputable sources from all political and geographic persusasions and Wasilla's own mayor, my 30 sources beat zero sources. It's not a vote of the editors that counts; it's the fact that well-sourced information was replaced by unsourced information.
If you have even half a dozen sources saying that an alternate route to Wasilla is not a purpose of the bridge, I'd genuinely like to see them. Virtually every source I've read says it is. Now if you would like to modify the sentence, based on a real-live source apart from WP:OR, I am all ears.GreekParadise (talk) 04:16, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
For the record, I added "spurring development" to the quote. I am more than willing to admit that there may have been more than one purpose for the bridge.GreekParadise (talk) 04:40, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
Here are some of many sources describing a purpose of the bridge being an alternative route from Anchorage to Wasilla:

http://www.cqpolitics.com/wmspage.cfm?docID=weeklyreport-000002944951

http://community.adn.com/node/131399 (you've read)

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/sep/05/palin-yet-to-say-no-thanks-to-other-big-earmarks/

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2008/09/14/for_palin_political_issues_still_unresolved_in_alaska/?page=2

http://www.sitnews.us/0908Viewpoints/091608_joan_beraldi.html

GreekParadise (talk) 04:41, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Also, for the record...There may be only one editor stating a case but that does not mean that other editors are not observing and willing to support, if necessary. GreekParidise was not a lone candle in the wind. His SOLITARY defense of his edit does NOT imply that it is the ONLY defense. This is true in other threads as well. --Buster7 (talk) 04:48, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
One of your sources says, "the project would link "two strategic ports and facilitate the construction of the Alaska natural gas pipeline." He also said plans call for private financing in addition to state and federal money." Those are direct facts to the primary reasoning of the bridge. Why is the indirect benefit to the traffic in Wasilla so important to the article? Couldn't we list hundreds of indirect benefits and negatives to building any bridge? Are we (& sources) just picking the mayors comment out of hundred of other supportive comments that were given? I can see how it would be nice to include it to create an inference that Palin might be "helping out her home town". What else does the reader gain from knowing about the Wasilla reference in this article that they would also discover if they reviewed the sources? Theosis4u (talk) 05:13, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
The nonconsensus edit should be reverted to the version established by Kelly. Hobartimus (talk) 11:15, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

The source which claims the Knik bridge goes to Wasilla was reinserted to buttress an argument that Palin still continues to support that specific bridge project. Was that source (which also refers to the bridge endangering whales) discredited in some manner? Collect (talk) 12:44, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Did you read the section above? Maps [12] show that the proposed bridge over Knik Arm, near Anchorage is nowhere near Wasilla. See this other map with the bridge clearly marked [13] and see the comment of admin GBerry "Please don't try to push unreliable crud into the article," and I agree with that assessment. When the "Wasilla connection" was added back despite consensus that it is inappropriate it was also a BLP violation of this section of BLP [14]. Hobartimus (talk) 13:00, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
I apologize for circumlocution lest I run afoul of criticizing any editor who might insist that this article was and remains accurate, despite any maps not supporting the claims. I agree a heck of a lot with your position. Collect (talk) 13:10, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
I would ask that any editor read all five sources before commenting further on this topic. WP:OR is NOT acceptable as a source. If you want to add other reasons why the bridge was important other than "spurring development" and an "alternate route from Anchorage to Wasilla", I'm OK with that. Feel free to add them, but you should first be able to find at least five separate mainstream sources that mention these additional reasons, just as I have. (And for the record, I could increase these five sources to 30, if I needed to.) I note that every wiki-editor that has objected to this has given a POV reason why. The question is not whether mentioning Wasilla creates a certain impression of Palin. Let's just get the facts.GreekParadise (talk) 14:07, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
So Theosis, find five sources that say "link ports" and "faciliate natural gas pipeline" and then let's add those reasons in.GreekParadise (talk) 14:07, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
Collect, I'm not aware of anyone discrediting the Associated Press article in any way. Heck it was repeated in the Anchorage Daily News. If anyone would discredit the AP, you think it would be a local newspaper since the bridge touches Anchorage.GreekParadise (talk) 14:07, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
Hobartimus, I saw the maps, and I never claimed the bridge was "near" Wasilla (although in Alaska, 30-40 miles is pretty "near"). My claim, backed up by several sources, was that the bridge provided an "alternate route" from Wasilla to Anchorage. As it happens the proposed bridge is near Anchorage. And once you cross the bridge, the first named town you hit is Wasilla. GBerry's personal opinion that the Associated Press/Anchorage Daily News is "unreliable crud" carries no weight with me. There are mainstream media sources from the far right (Washington Times) to the center (AP, ADN, CQ, Mayor, Alaskan paper) to the left (Boston Globe) that mention one of reasons for the bridge is an alternate route to Wasilla. Even your source, Hobartimus, knikarmfacts.com mentions the Wasilla route(http://knikarmbridge.com/faqs.html - scroll to bottom). Where are the mainstream sources that DON'T mention it?GreekParadise (talk) 14:07, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

"The only proposed compromise I could think of is "while most sources that mention the Knik Arm Bridge/Don Young's Way detail the benefits of an alternate route between Wasilla and Anchorage (including Wasilla's mayor), some wikipedians, based on their own research, have come to the conclusion that all the mainstream non-biased media sources are false and that their own perspectives (which they admit are designed to help Palin) are, in fact, the correct ones."

Does anyone see any problems with this compromise? Umm, I do. :-D But if anyone has any sources other than WP:OR, please show them to me. Otherwise, five sources beat zero. Like it or not, you cannot change a well-sourced sentence and replace it with your own research.GreekParadise (talk) 14:07, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't mind pointing out the bridge is "near Anchorage" and provides an alternate route from Anchorage to Wasilla, if that would satisfy some of you.GreekParadise (talk) 14:12, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Tat would be about as accurate as saying that the Tappan Zee Bridge provides an alternate route from New Rochelle to New York City. Collect (talk) 12:53, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
Why the insistence on naming Wasilla when the city of Houston, Alaska is even nearer the proposed bridge? It's an attempt to insinuate in the minds of the reader that her provisional support is based on some kind of hometown thing. Kelly hi! 13:04, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
If you insist on relying on your own research, rather than published sources, you should know that, according to Google, the town of Houston (population 1200), along the proposed road that would be built is four miles further away from the bridge than Wasilla (population 7000-9000)GreekParadise (talk) 20:18, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
Huh? The fact remains that no one is Wasilla is likely to drive an additional ten minutes and pay an additional $3 each way in order to drive across a bridge. http://www.tollroadsnews.com/node/1729 is a "published source." Collect (talk) 20:24, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Dhraaammaaa warning/ Yahoo email hacked

Appearantly Ms. Palin's yahoo accounts were hacked, at some point I'm sure someone is going to want to add info discovered there to the article. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 20:49, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure they want to, but such additions would be reverted under violation of WP:BLP. It is not the business of Wikipedia to publish private citizen's personal information. Jtrainor (talk) 21:00, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
very true, but what about information that is really public record type information, that was kept on these accounts? (letters, memo's etc regarding state business?) Just a warning that the drama potential of the incident is high. not to mention, that the incident itself might reach a notable position (i sure hope not though, it's stupid). --Rocksanddirt (talk) 21:14, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
Well, I'm sure she didn't use her personal Yahoo! account for official business, or, say, to help one of her political donors get a government job. I mean, that's something that the Bush Administration and Washington insiders do to avoid public scrutiny, and I've been told Palin is a maverick :) In all seriousness, it remains to be seen how much of an issue Palin's use of personal email accounts to conduct state business (and her subsequent attempt to privilege those emails) will be. If the good folks at 4chan really have cracked the account, that would be interesting, but we'll have to wait and see. Thanks for the heads-up. MastCell Talk 21:19, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
Appearantly the Guardian's blog has picked it up, don't know if that counts as reliable for this sort of thing. not linking. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 21:57, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
Blogs are generally not used as Reliable Sources. Oh yeah, and she's pretty MILFy, all right. 204.52.215.14 (talk) 22:02, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
The Guardian report is written by a staff writer, see here, a foreign correspondent in the old parlance, so it hardly comes under the usual def of blog. Newspapers seem to be calling their columns blogs these days. Kaiwhakahaere (talk) 22:34, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
Well, the AP is on the case. I think there's at least a 50/50 chance it's a hoax, but it's out there in reliable sources. I'd rather wait to see how it shakes out before we include anything in the article. MastCell Talk 22:13, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
Another site I saw this mentioned on said it was 4Chan where the emails were posted. So flip a coin whether they were real or not, but I wouldn't put it past them. As for the "propriety" of it, I wouldn't read too much into it. It's very common to be friends with people you work with or friends with people you also have business relationships with. If one such person shoots you an email at your personal account that contains one paragraph about business and one about personal stuff, I doubt any of us would take the time to split it out and reply to the personal from the personal email and the business from the business email. Now we're technically and security minded people - Palin isn't. To me, "emailgate" isn't worth a mention unless there is something really juicy there. --B (talk) 22:20, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
If it's true, I'm sure the Secret Service are knocking on some doors right now. Hopefully they bring their waterboard. :) Kelly hi! 22:22, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
Kelly, your post just made me Laugh Out Loud. :-). I'm going offline, feeling rather good about the state of things.  :-) Keeper ǀ 76 22:25, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
While not an inappropriate response...if it was 'anonymous' through 4chan....it's likely proxied from here to eternity and not really traceable. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 22:49, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
Out of curiosity, I snagged an archive of what was allegedly captured before everything disappeared from 4chan and generates the 404 error it now does. There was certainly nothing "interesting" in the thread I snagged... generic platitudes to friends and family and the like. Even if it's legit, unless someone is holding back some bombshell, this is just a fizzle in the pan. What was interesting to me was that, even among this less-than-savory crowd, there was still contentious dialog about Palin. I didn't think these guys even cared about politics! :) Fcreid (talk) 22:42, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
It does look like it may be legit, though: [15] Fcreid (talk) 22:51, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
It is legit. Anonymous appear to be responsible. [16], [17] 89.139.48.100 (talk) 23:55, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't think this belongs in the article. I cannot imagine a more egregious breach of the WP:BLP policy of Presumption of Privacy and respect for Basic Human Dignity.--Paul (talk) 00:05, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I suggest we tread very carefully on this, including links to the alleged data. This is one where waiting a day or two before mention is the most prudent path. Fcreid (talk) 00:11, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

The information that hackers claimed they have hacked her email is now well sourced and I would say confirmed. See the Washington Post. It's also near the top of Google News. The story appears to also have a hook, that Palin might have violated the law by using her personal email for government business. That appears notable. --Cdogsimmons (talk) 00:13, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually the story doesn't say it's illegal, just that the person doing the FOIA request thought it was careless.The story also says that "Palin refused to comply with a public records request in June to divulge 1,100 e-mails sent to and from her personal accounts, citing executive privilege." --Cdogsimmons (talk) 02:07, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
I've heard that some of the sources are going down as legal action is taken. At this point there's no evidence of any wrongdoing - from what I've seen the alleged e-mails were personal or political in nature, not official. Kelly hi! 00:16, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
The Gawker link is here.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 00:18, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
crap. I agree with fcreid, we should go slow with it. as of now the only thing are RS allegations of inappropriate email hiding from public records disclosure. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 00:19, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, I'm thinking if there was anything illegal/incriminating there, we'd already have been hearing MSNBC and the New York Times trumpeting it. But we'll see. Kelly hi! 00:31, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
well...my bit of OR into this indicates that some of the anonomous folks posted the screen shots and stuff at /b/ and also sent material to wikileaks. wikileaks reviews stuff before posting so, there could very well be material to come out of this that would turn this back into the VP-announcement-wheel-war-frenzy of a couple weeks ago. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 00:35, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
The AP says the following: "The disclosure Wednesday raises new questions about the propriety of the Palin administration's use of nongovernment e-mail accounts to conduct state business. The practice was revealed months ago — prior to Palin's selection as a vice presidential candidate — after political critics obtained internal e-mails documenting the practice by some aides." Hackers break into Sarah Palin's e-mail account (AP)--Cdogsimmons (talk) 00:43, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
FoxNews says the following: "Gawker complained that Palin has since “deleted” the account, and suggested she was trying to “destroy evidence.”" Palin’s E-Mail Account Hacked, Published on Web Site. --Cdogsimmons (talk) 00:47, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
Personally I think John McCain broke the password on the account, to refute Obama's claim that he doesn't have hacker skillz. Kelly hi! 00:55, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
I think this shows the wisdom of John McCain's distrust of email! :-)--Paul (talk) 01:03, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I have to admit, since the Secret Service is now involved with law enforcement[18] that it's probably worth a footnote at a minimum. rootology (C)(T) 03:29, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Since it's all over the news. If it's still going tomorrow, I'd say add it. Damn Drudge, he made the link sound like it was Feds vs Anonymous, but it hadn't finished loading yet. rootology (C)(T) 03:30, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
CNN says the FBI and the Secret Service are on it. Somebody is screwed, I think - this shit is felony-grade. Kelly hi! 03:46, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
I also understand there are indications she may have been in dialog with some exiled member of Nigerian royalty in some sort of scam to launder $18,000,000.00USD (EIGHTEEN MILLION DOLLARS) in exchange for 35% of that for her services. CNN will certainly latch onto that! Fcreid (talk) 10:28, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
Maybe we should detail the e-mail thing in Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2008. ;-) Kelly hi! 12:03, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
The 4chan dude who broke it said he was afraid of the FBI during he did it. However interesting this is it has no place in the article right now per WP:RECENTISM. Hobartimus (talk) 13:39, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I fail to see the relevancy to an article on Sarah Palin. Will someone kindly remove any insertion on the main page? At best it is prurient, at worst it is a violation of law to promote theft of personal information online. Collect (talk) 14:02, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Concur. This news is yesterday's flash in the pan and was not even noteworthy then. I read the "confession" from Rubico (who claims it was he who actually accessed the account/violated the law), and he said he went through every piece of mail in her mailbox specifically looking for something to derail her campaign but found nothing. It shouldn't be in here unless and until it bears meaningful fruit beyond the tin-foil hat bloggers. 138.145.4.3 (talk) 14:15, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
I don't see anyone promoting the "theft" here. As for prurient interests, this does not appear to me to be obscenity. From what I can see this is a discussion regarding whether the fact that Sarah Palin's email account was hacked and leaked onto the internet for everyone to see should be mentioned in this article. I see the Recentism argument but I do think the issue is relevant to Sarah Palin.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 15:27, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
Prurient: "Uneasy with desire; itching; especially, having a lascivious curiosity or propensity; lustful." I, in fact, state that the desire to find Palin's emails and publish them precisely fits the dictionary definition furnished.
That's your opinion, which looks like WP:OR. I'm more concerned with the facts and whether this incident will have an effect on the outcome of the campaign. If so, I think it deserves a mention. If it's forgotten by tommorrow then no. --Cdogsimmons (talk) 17:48, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
Using a dictionary qualifies as "original research"? Somehow that does not seem like the official WP definition of "original research." I, on the other hand, tend to view dictionary definitions as not being "opinion." Thanks! Collect (talk) 18:20, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
It's your opinion that the definition fits the situation. I personally do not see anything "lustful" about the situation. You seem to disagree.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 19:51, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

The concept that everything "leaked" onto the Internet is fair game is somewhat alien to me. As for "Recentism" it specifically and precisely fits the issue as well. Collect (talk) 17:18, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Personal life section

Well, the religion part has somehow grown to approximately 3/4 of the section on her personal life. Information on her hobbies, etc., has been cut out as "propaganda",[19] so we have a problem again with undue weight on religion. I propose cutting out the mentions of the single prayer she made in the Wasilla church, which now takes up about half the personal life section. Kelly hi! 22:58, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree, Kelly, but stand by for a firestorm of opposing opinion. As far as I'm concerned, far too much weight has been placed on this one commencement speech to these ministry students, but there's just nothing else to support the weight that this speech represents a persistent theme with her. You would think there would have been homage paid in multiple other venues, like city council hearings, gubernatorial addresses, etc., where the impact would have actually been meaningful. There's just no evidence of that. Moreover, we have firsthand accounts from both friends and enemies that Palin didn't wear her religious beliefs on her sleeve. Given that, I write off the speech as pandering to a specific audience. Others won't let it die as easily, I assure you. Fcreid (talk) 23:15, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
Oh, and where did Erik the Red get consensus to remove the "gushy" stuff? Frankly, that's one of the few actual meaningful things about "Palin the person" in this biography. That needs to be added back soonest. Fcreid (talk) 23:17, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
I think her religion is a reasonable topic to some extent, given the role it has played in her public persona and in reliably-sourced coverage of her. That said, I do tend to agree with Kelly and Fcreid here that the quotes and the lengthy exposition of that single prayer are jarring. There's actually nothing remarkable about that prayer, which is why it seems so odd to rehash it at great length. Palin can't be the only American to pray for the safety of the troops, or for wise leadership, or for the success of a project - I suspect hundreds of millions of Americans do this. I'm fine with devoting some space to her religious beliefs as they've impacted the campaign and national discussion, but I'd agree that the current paragraph is lopsided and reads oddly. MastCell Talk 23:40, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
Agreed. Unfortunately, the only compromise we've been able to establish creates a "ransom note effect" with bits pulled out of context to make it look like she's a total loony! Fcreid (talk) 23:44, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
By the way, no offense intended to those whose religious beliefs are actually so intense. Fcreid (talk) 00:02, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
(ec)Yeah, I think the (third?) paragraph, which recounts her church membership history and personal statement of religious beliefs, is appropriate and neutral. The last paragraph, with the long exposition about the prayer, is in fact "jarring" (thanks for the awesome word, MastCell!). I'd be happy with leaving the third paragraph and trimming the fourth. Thoughts? Kelly hi! 23:47, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I just restored it. This was discussed once at Talk:Sarah Palin/Archive 21#Levi Johnston and one editor may have wanted to remove it (it could have just been a rhetorical argument) and one editor though it should remain. My feeling is that a biography should have something about the subject and not just be a collection of quotes from the culture wars.--Paul (talk) 23:44, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Were you referring to the personal hobbies part? Kelly hi! 23:51, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
It's what I removed that was undue weight. Was her completion of marathon in less than four hours a significant part of her life? No. The rest of the stuff is written in such a way that it serves to enhance the persona she's created of a folksy, down-to-earth everyday American, or "hockey mom". If we can reword the material so that it does not carry this tone, I'd be all for including it. (The hobbies, not the marathon). Erik the Red 2 (AVE·CAESAR) 00:07, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
This is a biography, and those are her personal hobbies and accomplishments. It absolutely belongs in this article. Fcreid (talk) 00:12, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
Then let's write about it in a way that doesn't enhance her "like us folks" image. Erik the Red 2 (AVE·CAESAR) 00:37, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
I don't think there's anything that unduly enhances that image, Erik. They are all statements of fact, supported by multiple sources and have never been in contention. And I can't imagine how they could be presented in any more of a "clinical" manner. Fcreid (talk) 01:39, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
And good luck sanitizing the "like us folks" image. That's like trying to hide the incredible hulk being green, or that linux is free. Covering it up it is an act of censorship and bias.--Canislupus01 (talk) 05:08, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
Agree with the cutting back of the religion related excesses. Hobartimus (talk) 01:20, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Kelly, you "trimmed" the whole relgion section by accident. Don't worry, I fixed it. Grsztalk 18:18, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Grsz, did you even read the section above? I left the part of the religion section that people agreed to leave. I only removed the undue weight part. Why the hell can't people express their point of view here first instead of blindly reverting? I would have held off if anyone had made an argument about retaining that info. This is hugely frustrating. Kelly hi! 18:23, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
Not as frustrating as the groups in here that band together to get their work done. Palin's religion has become a pretty big part of the conversation surrounding her. Yes, the paragraph was too big, but it's inappropriate for you to say you're "trimming" something, when you just go and delete the whole thing. The most important part of the discussion of her religion is the statement on Iraq, and that's the only part I left. Grsztalk 18:49, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
No, no, no, no, no. If there is any mention of the "Iraq Crusaders onward by God's Will" nonsense, then the entire thing gets reverted to provide the full context, including that it was to a group of missionary students graduating after a year in a "Jesus Master's" program or something and that it occurred in the Wasilla church. Fcreid (talk) 19:36, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
It does say that. Did you even bother to look? It also includes Palin's defense. Grsztalk 19:42, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
I reworded it slightly to add some additional qualifiers. Frankly, the audience, occasion, venue and the fact that this was a one-time issue that is inconsistent with any other available source describing her behavior with respect to religious beliefs cannot be overstated. Fcreid (talk) 20:03, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
This statement without citation needs to go, however: "Palin's religious views have been seen as an issue by both her supporters and her detractors." If you want to revert to that statement that her religious views have come under attack in the press, that's fine. This statement is a synthesized lie. Fcreid (talk) 20:09, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
Just for the record, that was me, trying to come up with the most uncontroversial topic sentence I could. I did not mean "issue" to have any positive or negative connotations, as I believed "scrutiny" to have. I guess I failed. The current version is fine. Homunq (talk) 02:01, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
No sweat and thanks. It's taken two weeks to boil this down to a concise summary, but I suspect someone will change it this weekend. :) Fcreid (talk) 23:02, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
I have reworded it to what I believe is an accurate, neutral and true account. Fcreid (talk) 20:29, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Yahoo! Email Hacked

Since it's going to end up here anyway after it's been put up and removed and put up and removed,(Dang strait"woot") let's start the discussion. Should this page have a mention that Sarah Palin's personal email was hacked and screenshots released to the Gawker and Wikileaks. See here. There are allegations that Palin was wrongfully using the account to conduct government business (a freedom of information act request was made). I say, Yes.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 23:49, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

This is under discussion a few threads up: #Dhraaammaaa warning. Let's centralize it there. MastCell Talk 23:51, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
Got it.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 00:04, 18 September 2008 (UTC)


Okay I did a search and it is already in the news media.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/09/17/palins-email-account-hack_n_127184.html http://voices.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/09/17/palins_yahoo_account_hacked.html So I say yes based on reliable sources. --207.232.97.13 (talk) 00:19, 18 September 2008 (UTC)fred

{P.S. very off topic, however a good wiki suggestion would be around the issues of hacking , trolling , and 4chan,Encyclopedia Dramatica here is a great article to bring you up to date and probably worth a wiki page of its own.) http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/03/magazine/03trolls-t.html?pagewanted=1} --207.232.97.13 (talk) 00:19, 18 September 2008 (UTC)fred --207.232.97.13 (talk) 00:20, 18 September 2008 (UTC)fred

Regarding the topic of Palin emails I came across this Salon article on Sarah staying off the Palin staying off government servers with her email accounts.

http://machinist.salon.com/blog/2008/09/15/palin_emails/

--207.232.97.13 (talk) 00:47, 18 September 2008 (UTC)fred

Let's try to keep this discussion to the one above.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 00:49, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
I changed the subject heading to Talk:Sarah_Palin#Dhraaammaaa_warning.2F_Yahoo_email_hacked.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 00:51, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
Ironically, it seems article on wikipedia may have helped the hacker gain access to the acct: [20] Professor marginalia (talk) 01:29, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm. How did I guess there would be a thread about this? Anyway, it's not biographically important, not unless there's a huge fallout. A discussion of this probably belongs in the article about Anonymous, and perhaps in some campaign-related article somewhere. But I must say, the fact that it happened is a lot bigger of a deal than anything they are reported to have disclosed.Wikidemon (talk) 01:52, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I've noticed that the Obama and Biden articles frequently use Wikipedia:Recentism for removal justifications, seems that is absent with many points on the Palin articles. Theosis4u (talk) 04:51, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

In discussion of this very issue, a few threads above, a number of editors invoked recentism as a reason not to include it (yet) in the article. If you feel some sections of the article are overly recentist, then the most productive approach would be to specifically identify them and suggest changes. Vague insinuations of bias rarely lead anywhere useful. MastCell Talk 15:56, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
Not sure what your getting at. I only learned of Wikipedia:Recentism when I saw a edit done to either Obama or Palin that listed Wikipedia:Recentism in the edit notes. I believe is was done by you MastCell. My comment here was simply pointing out that the sourcing of Wikipedia:Recentism in that edit made things very clear to me to understand the context of the edit. I'm not making insinuations, just saying that to specific state Wikipedia:Recentism is useful and could be done more often here. That it seemed to help the admins in managing the other articles pretty well. Theosis4u (talk) 18:31, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
Ah. Well, I apologize for misunderstanding your point. I think recentism is a useful concept which could be applied here as well, so it sounds like we're in agreement. MastCell Talk 22:03, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

"Earmark" vs. "Funding Requests"

"Earmark" has been pointed out to have several different meanings, therefore it would seem reasoable to use "funding request" to refer to requests made by a state or municipality, and reserve "earmark" for funding placed in legislation by Congress. "Funding request" is a non-colored and accurate term for funding requests. I suggest this is the most neutral way to handle what has become a hot-button issue for some. Collect (talk) 12:28, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

"Earmark" has different meanings only because we sometimes get careless and write "[[earmark]]" rather than "[[Earmark (politics)|earmark]]". When linked properly, "earmark" is fine, and it's the term commonly used by both sides in the debate. Obviously, Palin doesn't have the power to earmark money herself, but the context is usually clear that she's requesting and earmark. (For example, one sentence you changed, "Many of the earmarks that Palin had requested were criticized by Senator McCain....", can't be misinterpreted, and the earlier version is preferable.) Where that context isn't clear, I agree with you that it should be stated, along with the use of the correct wikilink. JamesMLane t c 16:38, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I find the argument that "it is used by both sides" when I can find many cases where it is not used by one side to be disingenuous. Further, the term "federal funding" is a term of absolute neutrality. Given the choice between a term associated with a POV and one not so associated, I submit the choice is clear. Let's avoid POV usage of colored terms. Collect (talk) 17:21, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I note that "earmarks" has been reinserted, without using any reference to "funding requests." Absent any other objection to the clearer language, I would trust someone would undo that revert. I do not want a revert war, I want NPOV usage, rather than a deliberate reversal of the emended language. The term "earmark" has been pointed out repeatedly not to be the correct term for funding requests from a state or municipality. Thanks! Collect (talk) 17:35, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

In the spirit of compromise, I did not remove "earmark" even where it was inaptly used. Collect (talk) 19:14, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

The specific example I gave was, "Many of the earmarks that Palin had requested were criticized by Senator McCain...." It's somewhat imperious of you to say, "The term 'earmark' has been pointed out repeatedly not to be the correct term for funding requests from a state or municipality." (emphasis added) By my example, I pointed out that you were wrong. Only Congress can enact an earmark, but Alaska can certainly request one. Putting aside what the campaigns say, the MSM have used this formulation. JamesMLane t c 00:39, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
Proof by iterated assertion does not work here. The term "earmark" has a specific meaning, and to use the average reader's unfamiliarity with how the system works to push a POV is errant. Actually, it is wrong. I have inserted "funding requests" without reverting the term "earmark." I trust that the phrase "funding request" will not get reverted yet again, as I think that is contrary to what is right. That you call me "imperious" is outre for sure! I do not revert stuff repeatedly. Collect (talk) 00:56, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
http://earmarks.omb.gov/earmarks_definition.html "Earmarks vs. Unrequested Funding. At the broadest level, unrequested funding is any additional funding provided by the Congress -- in either bill or report language -- for activities/projects/programs not requested by the Administration. Earmarks are a subset of unrequested funding. The distinction between earmarks and unrequested funding is programmatic control or lack thereof of in the allocation process. " Official government definition. Collect (talk) 01:02, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
Here is how Sarah Palin herself addressed the subject: "We have drastically, drastically reduced our earmark request since I came into office." (from the Charlie Gibson interview) This is the obvious meaning -- states and localities can request earmarks. There's no reason we shouldn't talk about Palin requesting earmarks when she does so herself. JamesMLane t c 22:56, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

separate article on political positions

It appears that there is a separate article on Palin's political positions. That article contains much material which, by consensus here, is unsupported. As essentially all of the salient material is now within this article, it would appear that the other article ought either be brought into sync with this article, and maintained in sync, or else ought be removed as duplicative and quite likely not conforming to the NPOV rules. Is there a mechanism which would ameliorate this problem? Or is it proper to have disparate material in another article which, within the parent article, has been determined to not belong or even be inaccurate? Collect (talk) 13:57, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Palin Inconsistent remarks

Was wondering if we should have a specific section on inconsistent statements told by Palin ie Bridge to know where, Alaska producing 20% of US energy, Visited Iraq, Visited Ireland, Previous VP candidates have never met with world leaders....

I realize these may not be consistent with an NPV but this does give an understanding into her creditability. 99.228.151.16 (talk) 14:10, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't think so. Every politician makes inconsistent statements. Hers are not exceptional. We will list them point by point in their own right, but to devote a section to it is POV.--Loodog (talk) 14:59, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
You may be looking for http://www.factcheck.org/. MastCell Talk 16:04, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
Pointing out every politicians' flubs and inconsistent remarks is beyond the sane scope of any article. And in general they have nothing at all to do with "credibility" at all. They have to do with our species. Collect (talk) 22:37, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Bridge to Nowhere POV tag: Hobartimus' FALSE edits WITHOUT discussion on talk page should be reverted.

Hobartimus, without going on the talk page, has put in a number of false facts in the article that bear no support in the sources. He has admitted he's done it for POV and I note that on this talk page, he has already been admonished for this. After a long talk page discussion, all of these changes he made were all against the sources.

1. The Gravina Bridge goes to the Gravina Island. The bridge does not go to the airport, which lies on the island as the original said.
2. The official name of the bridge is Don Young's Way. Like it or not, that's the name of the bridge. You can't delete it because you don't like the name.
3. All sources say the Knik Arm bridge provides an alternate route to Wasilla. See talk page. Hobartimus has no source other than WP:OR.
4. Media section deleted with no reason given on talk page.

I will add a POV tag of non-neutrality unless either Hobartimus seeks compromise or the article is reverted back to the SOURCED facts. Ironically, now the article points to sources that in no way back up Hobartimus' changes!

Please support reversion to original. With that support, I will remove the POV tag.GreekParadise (talk) 14:55, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I asked you before not to make personal attacks see WP:NPA. See the section on this talk page titled "Knik Arm Bridge".[21] above where this is discussed and where administrator GBerry already said to you "Please don't try to push unreliable crud into the article" I'd consider that as a warning if I were you. This was said in direct response to your point 3 that you also bring up here. You were also warned by others to respect consensus and not to make nonconsensus edits which is a direct violation to WP:BLP. "The bridge does not go to the airport" ???? What's that supposed to mean? We have a whole Wikipedia article, see the article Ketchikan International Airport. Hobartimus (talk) 15:18, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
You made it personal. You made unsourced changes. Give me one source to back up ANYTHING you have changed. You cannot remove sourced content or replace it with unsourced content based on WP:OR or WP:IDONTLIKEIT. (GBerry's insult of the Associated Press as "unreliable crud" is also not based on fact, particularly when the AP is backed up by the Anchorage Daily News, Congressional Quarterly, the Washington Times, the Boston Globe, local Alaskan newspapers, and Wasilla's own mayor! Your only sources, Hobartimus, are WP:OR and WP:IDONTLIKE IT and POV. If not, give me a source!GreekParadise (talk) 15:24, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
What is unsourced that is currently in the article? I already asked you and you didn't name the statement. Please name the unsourced statement that I placed into the article and I will remove it/get a source for it. What's unsourced? The removal of the Anchorage-Wasilla connection (your point 3) was done per a consensus of editors, reinserting it without consensus would be a BLP vio, so that can't be it, I can't think of anything that's currently in and unsourced. Hobartimus (talk) 15:31, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
You have no right to remove well-sourced information and/or replace it with false information. There is no source that the Gravina Island bridge goes directly to the airport. All the sources say it goes to the island and then there's an access road. It may seem silly but the original is true and your edit is false. Period. Don Young's Way is a well-sourced fact. It's the name of the bridge. Why do you want to remove it? Any reason other than POV? Anchorage-Wasilla is a well-sourced fact supported by some editors, dozens of sources and with ZERO sources to the contrary. Why have you removed the truthful, well-sourced information? Any reason other than you don't like it? The fact that several editors also don't like it because of their own research is irrelevant. You simply cannot delete well-sourced material you don't like based on your own edits.GreekParadise (talk) 15:48, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
Is it in the article that it directly goes to the airport? I didn't put it there the word directly but if it's there delete the word directly then. I hope you don't deny that it does link the International Airport with the city. I removed Anchorage-Wasilla per consensus above on this talk page. Did you read that discussion that decided that it was inappropriate? Hobartimus (talk) 15:59, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
I think this points up a major problem with the "Bridge to Nowhere" section of this article. It's full of odd and tangential trivia which have little direct bearing on Sarah Palin, yet which provide an endless opportunity for argument and ill-feeling. The section should be much shorter, and it should focus on Sarah Palin's actions with regard to the Bridge, and the reaction to them, rather than bogging down in details about which roads the bridge connected, or naming issues, or whatever. Fight about those in the bridge articles, not here. The bottom line is that the Bridge connected sparsely populated areas. That should take up one short, declarative sentence, and the remainder of the section should discuss Palin, not the various bridge names, or Congressional amendments that Palin had nothing to do with, or the population of Gravina Island, or the price of tea in China. MastCell Talk 16:01, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
All of this relates to Palin and that's why H wants it removed. The first statement Hob added was false. I had that Gravina Island was sparsely populated and to be fair, someone asked that the airport be included. I was fine with that. But then H made the true statement false. As to the second statement, it's the official name of the bridge. As to the third, it relates to Palin because Wasilla is her hometown. And the fourth relates to Palin's use of the bridge. As H has given no reason or sources for his changes (and he's had an hour to think of them), I will revert. None of H's changes, other than the media criticism, affect the length of the section, and the media criticism relates directly to Palin.GreekParadise (talk) 16:05, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
Do not play games please. You know that the media criticism is in the campaign section because it happened in the campaign, there was no media criticism before the campaign started rather she was praised. You know very well that it's in the campaign section, I qouted it to you in full on your talk. And the Anchorage-Wasilla connection was removed per consensus. Reinserting it without consensus would be a BLP vio. Hobartimus (talk) 16:13, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

1)The media criticism is about the BRIDGE. Period. Full stop. Readers of the bridge section should be able to read about it, which is why I pointed to it. Kaiser agrees.GreekParadise (talk) 16:17, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

2) No consensus can be built around WP:OR. I and Buster and others think that 30 sources trump zero sources. It's hardly consensus if: a) several wikieditors disagree; and b) ALL sources support my interpretation and NO sources support yours. And if any of those disagreeing editors were fair-minded, they would recognize that 30 sources trump zero sources and revert it back themselves.GreekParadise (talk) 16:19, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I have given H an hour to supply reason or source for his edits. He cannot. I will now revert. It is my second reversion on the official name of the bridge (Don Young's Way) and the alternate Wasilla-Anchorage route as one reason for bridge (and my first reversion on the media and airport). I will not make a third reversion. If others support me--and believe that wikipedia should be based on truthful sources rather than personal research--they will back me up on it. If you've already expressed your view on the many earlier talk pages, I would welcome reiterating it here.GreekParadise (talk) 16:22, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

1)I don't agree with 1) but if you do decide to reinsert it I only ask that you then delete it from the campaign section so there will be no duplicate sections (see I used duplicate per your earlier request when we discussed this).
2)What's the rush with 2? The Anchorage-Wasilla connection, I didn't count but clearly 5-6 editors at least disagree with you on this what's the need for urgency? On sources, I could bring 100 sources that discuss Palin's glasses, that doesn't mean that it can't be reverted unless someone "brings sources that deny" statements about Palin's glasses. That's just silly, we have millions of sources it doesn't mean that the material is appropriate to the article, this is why we have discussions, consensus... To decide if it's apporopriate to put in a biography. Hobartimus (talk) 16:32, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
Thank you, H, for at least beginning a discussion on this. That's what I've been trying to do for over an hour. On 1), I want to refer to the more detailed discussion in the campaign section without duplicating it. On 2), Buster supports me and you and Kelly disagree with me. Possibly GBerry too, but I'm not confident he has read my other cited sources. You have conceded, have you not, that the Anchorage-Wasilla connection was one reason for the Knik Arm Bridge. Right? It may be the primary reason since it's in virtualy every source on the topic and the Wasilla Mayor seems to think it so, but I haven't said it's the primary reason. It's "a" reason. And it clearly relates to Palin. So my question for you, that I've been trying to understand for several hours now, is why DON'T include it? What's your reason? The only reasons I've heard so far are WP:OR, and I insist those are not valid.GreekParadise (talk) 16:39, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
Please don't insist that people must endless repeat their arguments over and over. I spent some amount of time reading the official proposal documents for the bridge (linked from the Knik Arm Bridge article) and can't find anything about Wasilla. The proposal seems to be all about developing the area across the Arm from Anchorage and general improvement of the Alaskan transportation infrastructure. To insist on identifying the purpose of the bridge as being an alternate route to Wasilla is so much undue weight it's just silly. I suppose you could say the Golden Gate Bridge was constructed to provide an alternate route from San Diego to Seattle, and be technically correct, but it wouldn't belong in an article about a politician who supported the bridge. Kelly hi! 16:52, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
The official proposal documents that I read also mention Wasilla. See the last paragraph of http://www.knikarmbridge.com/faqs.html. Did you read something else I should be aware of? I don't disagree that development is an additional reason, but as far as transportation needs, the closest two cities it would connect are Wasilla and Anchorage. There is not a single named town, village, or settlement of any size across the bridge from Anchorage that is closer than Wasilla. And yes the Golden Gate Bridge does connect San Francisco and Marin County, its closest populated areas.GreekParadise (talk) 16:58, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
Just looking at the history to try to untangle this. Hobartimus has the last revert. I cannot be sure of all the changes because the silly warring in wikicomments has thrown off the diff algorithm (c'mon, guys, both of you... if you really have to add ALL CAPS wikicomments, at least leave the last guy's comments intact and add yours instead of reversing its meaning. That means you, Hobartimus.). As far as I can tell, Greek Paradise is right about all the issues being fought about here in talk, but there is also a significant paragraph about the relation to the presidential campaign and "lies" which is in contention on the page but not being discussed here.
I absolutely encourage both of you to find a compromise. GreekParadise may be right if the argument is just WP:RS, but if there is a concern about WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE then the correct solution is compromise. I will now do my best to put in some kind of compromise; though I will favor GreekParadise because I feel that RS is on their side, I will not go 100% with their version. And then, instead of continuing the edit war, both of you talk productively to each other - fewer arguments and more productive proposals of actual article text posted here in talk. Homunq (talk) 17:10, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
ps. I am also inclined against someone who does a "last word" edit-war revert without mentioning it in the ongoing talk page debate.
"What is the purpose of the project?
The project is being developed to create an efficient link between the operations and infrastructure of the two ports; build an alternate north-south emergency response and disaster evacuation route; establish the transportation infrastructure for existing and projected population and economic growth; and implement the Alaska legislative mandate to construct a bridge crossing of Knik Arm (AS 19.75).(from [22]) Not a word about Wasilla. The main discussion of this is here [23] people who revert against consensus as developed in the Knik Arm Bridge section violate BLP outright.Hobartimus (talk) 17:17, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
(ec)I think you hit the nail on the head with the POV and UNDUE thing. Perhaps a benefit of the bridge may be reduced congestion in Wasilla, as people would theoretically be able to cross the Knik Arm without having to drive around the Arm, through Wasilla. But this seems to me to be WAY down the list of purposes for the bridge, and to mention only the theoretical Wasilla benefit and no other purposes is way too much weight. I could support in the article on the [[Knik Arm Bridge, if balanced with the other purposes, but the only purpose for stating that here seems to be an attempt to induce a subtle POV that the Wasilla thing is the reason she has a measure of support for the bridge. There's no evidence for that. I think we should simply have a short clause that states the purpose of the bridge is to cross the inlet of the Knik Arm near Anchorage. Kelly hi! 17:17, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I disagree with the entire premise initially given, and support the edits by Hobartimus. The nature of the attack on him will not be questioned by me, although I could see where some others might do so improperly. Collect (talk) 17:24, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Oops. I stand by my request that you guys work it out on the talk page before edit warring, but I missed that other section of the talk page before I put in my compromise edit. If I had seen the prior discussion, I would have been better able to assume good faith for Hobartimus's last edit. Homunq (talk) 17:47, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Weighting of bridge stuff - proposal

Proposed: Detailed coverage of bridge funding, benefits, drawbacks, and controversies belong in sections in the articles Gravina Island Bridge and Knik Arm Bridge. Discussion of Palin's role as Governor in those issues belongs in summarized paragraph(s) in Governorship of Sarah Palin. In terms of the impact on the campaign, coverage should be in John McCain presidential campaign, 2008. Discussions of sources, weighting, POV, etc. should be on the talk pages of those articles. Only when consensus is achieved there should neutral summaries of the material be brought to this talk page and proposed for inclusion. Discuss. Kelly hi! 17:35, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

  • Endorse it seems that BLP cannot be enforced to a desirable degree here some will just undelete the disputed material whatever BLP says. Hobartimus (talk) 17:37, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
since Gravina Island Bridge is already a merge of a Palin subarticle and structure article per the discussion page and category tags, it is a valid argument. It should follow the same rules of BLP under that cause. Duuude007 (talk) 17:42, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Partially endorse: We should just say "the Gravina Island Bridge"; no airports, no populations, no nothing else. The wikilink is right there, and if anyone is curious about the specific areas connected or their populations, they can click it. The point is that this is a politically controversial "Bridge to Nowhere". Let's just say that, rather than trying to illustrate it with factoids which belong in the bridge article. As to here vs. the Palin subarticles, there should probably be a brief summary here with more detail, perhaps, in the subarticles. I don't think it should disappear entirely - it's a relevant part of her biography at a couple of key junctures - but it can be summarized more briefly and readably than we're currently doing. MastCell Talk 17:55, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
    Yes, that's absolutely what I'm saying. Also, rather than bringing original or new material directly here to this biography, it should first be introduced, and included if appropriate, at the sub-articles. Then a summary should be brought here. Kelly hi! 17:59, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
  • A sentence or two is going to be more appropriate than a paragraph or two here, this stuff has often been grown to severely undue weight. The Big Dig, a far bigger and more important transportation project is barely even mentioned in the biography of Tip O'Neill, the speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives that did more than anybody else to get funding for the project. And that level of description is due weight; this level of description is far beyond due weight. The Interstate Highway System (properly named the Dwight D. Eisenhower National System of Interstate and Defense Highways) gets two paragraphs in the biography of Dwight D. Eisenhower because it is widely considered one of his most important and enduring contributions. Those two examples demonstrate just how far beyond reasonable bounds coverage in this article has gotten. GRBerry 17:57, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Cmt - First, WP:BLP does not prohibit including things that might show the subject in a bad light; it merely requires attribution to a reliable source. Also, I've see WP:UNDUEWEIGHT thrown around so often on this page that even a lone six-word sentence on a issue was axed. That's ridiculous. There is clearly POV all around. Second, WP:CONCENSUS does not trump reliable sources. "Minority opinions typically reflect genuine concerns, and their (strict) logic may outweigh the "logic" (point of view) of the majority." Thus, mob rule is not the way things work here. Personally, I've given up trying to contribute to this page. --Evb-wiki (talk) 18:05, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Nobody (at least not me) talking about eliminating this stuff entirely. I have no problem with "controversies" so long as they're neutrally worded and appropriately weighted. What we're talking about is that the detail and discussions belong in the subarticles, with appropriately-weighted summaries being brought to this article per Wikipedia:Summary style. Kelly hi! 18:08, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Part of the reason due weight versus undue weight has had to be discussed so much is the number of editors who want to put everything about their favorite issue in the main article. If new, these are editors who don't understand proper use of summary style. Another part of the reason is the editors who are erroneously believing that everything which can be sourced reliably (or sometimes even unreliably) must be included. These are editors who are confused on the difference between necessary and sufficient conditions; as being sourcable is a necessary but not sufficient condition for inclusion. If only experienced non-partisan editors were working here, these discussions and explanations wouldn't be necessary and you wouldn't see them as much. GRBerry 18:15, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

My only comment is that we should not be using quasi-voting. If you have something to add to the debate, by all means, comment, but the use of endorse tends to lead to violating WP:DEMOCRACY.

Oh, and I do not particularly stand behind my "compromise" edit. Whatever solution can get the best consensus is fine with me. I just did it because I feel that edit wars should not have a winner, even a temporary one. Homunq (talk) 18:13, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Does anyone care about sources? I should note that this is the first time in this entire debate, which has gone on for hours, that Hobartimus has brought in any source that does not mention Wasilla. It is written by the bridge toll authority, a source that would make money from the bridge and wants to be in the Governor's favor and even that source DOES mention Wasilla here (http://www.knikarmbridge.com/faqs.html) outside H's paragraph. Balance H's first source with all the other sources I have noted: the Associated Press, the Anchorage Daily News, the Washington Times, the Congressional Quarterly, the Boston Globe, various Alaska newspapers, AND the present mayor of Wasilla, Alaska also say that a major reason for the bridge was an alternate route to connect Anchorage to Wasilla. Indeed, EVERY SINGLE SOURCE ON THE ISSUE mentions Wasilla somewhere. If anyone wants to their own research -- which is the only basis until now I've heard for refusing the multiple sources -- they should note on Google Maps that there is not a single named city, town, village, settlement, or burg anywhere between Anchorage and Wasilla that would be connected by the bridge. I realize that development is an issue and I included it in the simple original phrase:

proposed bridge crossing Knik Arm to spur development and provide an alternate route from Anchorage to Wasilla

The statement is accurate, it's not undue. One could add "in the region" after development if you want. But no one's trying to write a book here. There's a reason why every single source on the bridge mentions Wasilla. That's a major purpose of the bridge. (But the original version doesn't say "major"). I should also note that this language has sat still for almost 2 weeks of contentious edit warring, so I'm clearly not the only one with this view.GreekParadise (talk) 18:16, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

GreekParadise, the whole point of this conversation is that your arguments probably belong at Talk:Knik Arm Bridge. When that article achieves consensus on the issue, this article should only include an appropriately-weighted mention, per Wikipedia:Summary style. Kelly hi! 18:19, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

OK. I think it's now established now that my version is sourced and the current version is not. No source says "to allow development of Anchorage." That is in the current article and has no basis in any of the sources. For pages and pages, editors were arguing based on their own research that I was incorrect about sources. I'm glad that is resolved. The new argument is that it's too long for a summary page. I note returning the phrase to its original form: "to spur development and provide an alternate route from Anchorage to Wasilla" is only 12 words. The Hobartimus version "to allow development of Anchorage" is only five words but is demonstrably false and not supported by ANY source anywhere. Should we change five words of newly-inserted false content to return it to the twelve words of original true content that no one disputed for two weeks? I think we should.GreekParadise (talk) 18:27, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

And if it's OK with you, Kelly, since folks are mostly discussing the Anchorage-Wasilla connection here and not the other three changes Hobartimus made without agreement, I'm going to continue to add sections on the other three changes at the bottom, starting with the airport. Is there agreement that the inaccurate Hobartimus change on the airport be reverted back? See discussion below.GreekParadise (talk) 18:30, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Um, no. The purpose of the bridge, per the FAQ you linked, is The project is being developed to create an efficient link between the operations and infrastructure of the two ports; build an alternate north-south emergency response and disaster evacuation route; establish the transportation infrastructure for existing and projected population and economic growth; and implement the Alaska legislative mandate to construct a bridge crossing of Knik Arm.[24] Nothing about Wasilla. Kelly hi! 18:34, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Here's the part about Wasilla in the FAQs. Maybe you missed it: "The logical terminus for the crossing on the Mat-Su Borough side is the Point MacKenzie Road near Port MacKenzie that connects to the existing Knik-Goose Bay Road, and ultimately to the Parks Highway at Wasilla." But why are you bringing back in discussion of sources here? Which is it? If it's reliable sources, I can rule it out as an issue because you know I have dozens of them, and you have, at best, one biased (written by the very toll authority that wants the bridge and even your source mentions Wasilla). You don't dispute the Associated Press, the Anchorage Daily News, the Washington Times, the Congressional Quarterly, the Boston Globe, various Alaska newspapers, AND the present mayor of Wasilla, do you? Here are the sources again. These are just a few. If people want 10 more, I'll give them.

http://www.cqpolitics.com/wmspage.cfm?docID=weeklyreport-000002944951

http://community.adn.com/node/131399 (you've read)

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/sep/05/palin-yet-to-say-no-thanks-to-other-big-earmarks/

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2008/09/14/for_palin_political_issues_still_unresolved_in_alaska/?page=2

http://www.sitnews.us/0908Viewpoints/091608_joan_beraldi.html

I'd like to rule out the source question as a red herring, since I have many many reliable sources and the current words that are in the article right now HAVE NO SOURCE WHATSOEVER BACKING THEM. There is no source of which I'm aware that mentions "development in Anchorage." Hobartimus made that up. And his made-up language is in the present article until someone (not me) reverts.GreekParadise (talk) 18:48, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Once we have dismissed "sources" as an argument, we get to the question of "undue." Here is the original paragraph (that I did not write, btw) that Kelly deleted:

Palin still supports the second bridge, which was proposed in 2005 , through a request in earmark funds. 42 Million has been spent on the planning process. The 600 million dollar bridge and highway project links Juneau with Palins home town of Wasilla with its population of 7000 people. She did ask for a review of the bridge's financing plans and expressed concerns about the financial risks for the state. Critics state that the bridge is an expensive project , doesn't help commuters, doesn't help create jobs, it may drive the beluga whale to extinction, and serves the Govenors home town of Wasilla. John McCain derided the project calling it a "monstrosity" that was "terrifying in its fiscal consequences." [112]

Even though I liked the original paragraph, after Kelly removed it, I brought back 12 words. Now those 12 words--admittedly truthful and well sourced--have been replaced by Hobartimus with five words that everyone admits are completely unsourced. If editors don't like my 12 words, I am in complete support for bringing back the original paragraph.GreekParadise (talk) 18:48, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, we understand that you are in support, since you've built gigantic walls of text on this page repeating yourself over and over, and insisting that if others don't also repeat themselves on this page, you have consensus. The point is that other editors have concerns about undue weight and problems with NPOV that you simply refuse to address. Kelly hi! 19:03, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
Kelly, how do you propose including the alternate route to Wasilla but weighting it appropriately so that the information is accurate and NPOV, but not too long? Got any ideas? I thought we did a great idea on Gravina Island "(population 50), where Ketchikan's Airport lies". In six words, we conveyed both sides of the dispute. Do you have any solution to show both sides other than throwing away multiple reliable sources? Would you prefer a more direct route: "Some have criticized Palin because the bridge provides an alternate route from Anchorage to Wasilla, while others note that the bridge would spur development in Knik Arm"? I thought I said that very thing, short and sweet in my original:
"to spur development and provide an alternate route between cities such as Anchorage and Wasilla"GreekParadise (talk) 19:12, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
Kelly, I agree on the repetition and the walls of text. However, it is baffling to see you say that GreekParadise does not address "undue" when they just said: we get to the question of "undue.". As to NPOV, I have yet to see any argument about NPOV that is not based in UNDUE, and doubt that one could be posed. Homunq (talk) 19:07, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
The fact is that the "alternate route to Wasilla" claim is not included in the FAQ on the bridge, and anyone with common sense looking at a map of the area can see why it's not stated as a purpose of the bridge, because such a claim is ridiculous on its face. Wasilla is nowhere near the bridge, and there is already a direct highway route from Anchorage to Wasilla. The "alternate route" claimed benefit is so far down in the weeds that it would barely rate a mention in Knik Arm Bridge or Governorship of Sarah Palin, much less here. Kelly hi! 19:24, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
Not to mention false. The bridge by itself does not provide any sort of access or connection to Wasilla, it would need many Km of high quality road in addition AND the trip would be longer than the already existing road (depending on the shape of the future road possibly much longer). The Bridge and a huge long road together would provide access not the bridge by itself. The Bridge by itself is only good for allowing the city of Anchorage to start developing and building up on the other side and links to the Port MacKenzie area. The statement that the bridge provides a link between these two is a clear twisting of the facts and is designed as a misrepresentation so that the reader has the false image of Anchorage at one end of the Bridge and Wasilla at the other end of the bridge, you cross the bridge and you are there. Any look at the map shows that Wasilla has nothing to do with this bridge its nowhere near it and it wouldn't even get one KM shorter route to Anchorage. Not to mention the bridge was proposed in 1955 many years before Palin was even born. By selectively including and omitting these facts an agenda emerges. Administrator GBerry said regarding this Anchorage-Wasilla issue "Please don't try to push unreliable crud into the article" to GreekParadise and I agree with this assessment. Hobartimus (talk) 20:01, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
OK, that's one source, the toll arm authority. How about the other five sources and the mayor?GreekParadise (talk) 19:58, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Here's my proposal, based in part on what Collect did.

Original: "to spur development and provide an alternate route between cities such as Anchorage and Wasilla"
Original + Collect: "to spur development and provide an alternate route between cities such as Anchorage and Wasilla, although Wasilla is not near the bridge"

"Near" is kind of a weasel word.

How about:

"to spur development in the region and provide an alternate route between cities such as Anchorage (5 miles from bridge) and Wasilla (40 miles away)"

That way we don't have to argue about near or far.GreekParadise (talk) 19:58, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

How about being reasonable, and agreeing to drop all mention of Wasilla because any attempt to mention it is an attempt to make our readers draw false conclusions. Your continues advocacy for such blantant untruths amounts to soapboxing. GRBerry 20:05, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

GRBerry, everything I do is backed up by many reliable sources. And yours is just your own opinion. You haven't given a single source. My advocacy is for truth. What's yours for? I resent your implication that my reliable sources are advocacy and your personal opinion is somehow true, even though you can't find anything to back it up.GreekParadise (talk) 22:31, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Please, God, enough already. Don't repeat yourself over and over again, we've already heard it a million times. We're tired of the same preaching over and over again. The current version is way more neutral and contains the same factual information. Kelly hi! 00:14, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Odd (mis)use of sources

In the "Governor of Alaska" section, we state that Palin has sometimes opposed the Republican establishment, especially with Ted Stevens. To support this maverickness, we cite an article entitled... Campaign money hurts Palin's outsider image. That article's thrust is that Palin received donations from the same "fundraising scheme" at the center of Ted Stevens' corruption indictment. The article explicitly states: "Palin didn't reach the governor's office picking fights with the Senate's longest-serving Republican." The thrust of the article is that: "The donations aren't evidence of corruption, and Palin is not among the lawmakers under investigation in the VECO case. But they undermine arguments that Palin has broken from Alaska's Republican machine, including Stevens."

We are using the article to support a claim that Palin has "broken" with Stevens and cut a separate path. But the article's explicit and implicit message is actually largely the opposite: that Palin received money from many of the same sources, and that she has strategically allied with Stevens when politically beneficial to her. The article's message is that the record "undermines arguments that Palin has broken from Alaska's Republican machine." (emphasis mine) Why are we citing the article to support a diametrically opposite claim? MastCell Talk 17:03, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm glad you brought this up, Mast- this is happening in several places in the article, as quotes are cherry-picked to support a statement, even if the thrust of the source article is the opposite. This all has to be looked at and corrected. Similarly, this article is including quotes in the footnotes to support individual points but then using the "ref name" system which attaches that quote to any time the ref is involved, even if that quote is not verifying the additional places in the article it is attached to. This gives an inaccurate, unbalanced presentation. I propose that we remove all such quotes within references and let our readers look at the sources themselves and thereby get the entirety of what the source is saying, not the carefully tweezed quote. I've duplicated a few sources with different quotes as a temporary fix, but I think we need to look at this. Further, today I removed from the text a quote that was actually a quote from an article, but read as if it were a direct quote from MOnegan, which is was not. We have to be much more careful about how we use quotes everywhere in this article and this needs to be fixed. Tvoz/talk 22:19, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
the supposed main thrust of a given article is largely just POV pushing of the author, granted it's arrived at from the facts as they present themselves, or in the case of Sarah Palin sometimes non-facts. Take a look at my recent discussion sub section in here, where two articles' "thrust" are completely contradicted by anyone with the ability to read and comprehend basic english.66.190.29.150 (talk) 00:56, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
MastCell, I had the same reaction when reviewing that paragraph yesterday. I think the preponderance of sources and evidence do show that Palin is a reformer and has made plenty of enemies in Alaska. I'm going to try to find time this weekend to rewrite that entire paragraph with new sources, but retaining the skepticism that some commentators have raised.--Paul (talk) 01:04, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Bridge to Nowhere - Airport on Gravina Island

The original statement on the Gravina Island aiport is here:

a proposed bridge connecting Ketchikan to Gravina Island (population 50) where its airport lies;

An editor removed it. I left an hour to discuss it on the talk page and when no reason was given, I reverted it. Then the same editor reverted it a second time, changing it for the second time to this language:

a proposed bridge connecting Ketchikan to Ketchikan International Airport and Gravina Island (population 50)

I believe the original statement is more accurate. The proposed bridge does NOT connect Ketchikan directly to its airport. It goes to the shore of Gravina Island. Then a substantial access road on Gravina Island (mentioned later in the article at a cost of $25 million) goes from the bridge to the airport. I believe the original statement is the correct way to say it. The new way is not only inaccurate; it may create confusion about the access road. If you agree, please express support and/or revert it back as I cannot.

Another option I would support would be :a proposed bridge connecting Ketchikan to Gravina Island (population 50) where Ketchikan's airport lies GreekParadise (talk) 17:57, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Can we please keep the bridge discussion centralized instead of forking into multiple conversations? Jeez. Kelly hi! 17:52, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
I was purposely forking to separate out the four issues on which Hobartimus and I disgree. Editors may agree on some and disagree on some. This makes it clear and easy for anyone to read and review. (I told you I was going to do this in our discussion on my talk page about 45 minutes ago.)GreekParadise (talk) 17:57, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

:::Oops, when I wrote this, there was no discussion above. Now that it's there we can stay there. Sorry.GreekParadise (talk) 18:03, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Turns out the discussion above mostly deals with the Knik Arm Bridge. For simplicity sake, let's deal with each change discretely. What are folks' views on the airport change?
A simple Wikilink to Gravina Island Bridge, without further exposition as to the reason for the bridge, is sufficient. People who want to know more can read that article. If details on Palin's support/oppositions are included in that article, a summary would be appropriate in Governorship of Sarah Palin. The permanent population of Ketchikan Island is not really an item of interest in the Sarah Palin BLP. Kelly hi! 18:38, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
What about a proposed bridge connecting Ketchikan to it's airport on Gravina Island ?? Grsztalk 18:41, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
I definitely support just cutting out any explanation, since it is obvious from context that the worth is questioned and any details are at the sub-article. If we do keep the explanation, I think GreekParadise's version is more accurate. Homunq (talk) 18:58, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
I think it's great that in only six words "(population 50) where its airport lies," we manage to show both sides of a dispute which is detailed in the sub-article. That's why I like the original draft.GreekParadise (talk) 19:04, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

The article was changed by another editor to imply that the DYW bridge would be part of a route from Anchorage to Wasilla. I added the fact (sourced elsewhere) that Wasilla is not proximate to the bridge. I hope this is sufficient to stop some of this sruff. Collect (talk) 19:09, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Collect, that comment belongs in the discussion above, about the other bridge. I understand, it is hard to keep this straight. Homunq (talk) 19:16, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
You beat me to the punch, Homunq. I was going to say "No doubt, Wasilla is FAR from Gravina Island :-D but I think you wanted to comment on the section above."GreekParadise (talk) 19:19, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
Sorry -- the title of this section is plural as well, and I thought it therefore applied to plural bridges ... and, as far as I can tell, has precisely the same interested parties, for good or ill. If it is to be restricted to a single bridge, then the plural is misleading. Changed DYP to DYW while here in any case. Does anyone think that the entire Bridge stuff should be edited down to 3 or 4 sentences rather than dancing on the head of a pin about Wasilla being reached by the bridge? (Rhetorical question, I fear) Collect (talk) 19:23, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
Changed to singular. I think (hope/pray) that this tiny issue in this subsection has been resolved.GreekParadise (talk) 19:35, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
I still disagree that the permanent population is relevant. Maybe include the number of employees at the airport? Kelly hi! 19:37, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
My comments stand -- I suppose changing the name after the confusion arose will confuse still more people. So far, it appears the sections have exactly the same denizens, and some of the same issues are raised in both sections. Might we just actually discuss the issues raised instead of minutiae? Specifically -- ought this entire bridge stuff be editted down to a bare minimum instead of engulfing the entire article? It is running into COATRACK status rapidly. Collect (talk) 19:42, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
Yes, a two or three-sentence summary of the issue as described in Governorship of Sarah Palin would be appropriate, per Wikipedia:Summary style. Kelly hi! 19:57, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
As a draft, although I could not fully summarize the section under Governorship of Sarah Palin in three sentences, I ended up with the following (which would be preceded by a link to Governorship of Sarah Palin:
In Palin's 2006 gubernatorial campaign, she supported the building of a Gravina Island Bridge, which had been nicknamed the "Bridge to Nowhere." The project was attacked as an example of pork barrel spending. As a result Congress stripped it of an earmark allocation. The money previously earmarked for this and another project, the Knik Arm Bridge, also known as Don Young's Way, was to be made available for transportation projects generally.[77]

Palin changed her mind on the bridge, her Communications Director said, when “she saw that Alaska was being perceived as taking from the country and not giving, and that impression bothered her and she wants to change it. … I think that Sarah Palin is someone who has the courage to re-evaluate situations as they developed.”[73

With, of course, corrected footnote numbering.

I would like to hope that this is shorter than any current version, and covers all the pros and cons involved. Collect (talk) 20:33, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Something like that would be ideal for the Governor section. The current political controversy would be suitable for the campaign article. Kelly hi! 20:36, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
I m honored. Anyone who wishes to place it there is to be thanked! Collect (talk) 22:33, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

(undent) I did some rephrasing and shortening. Hopefully it will not be considered a problem.Ferrylodge (talk) 21:16, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Certainly an improvement, as far as I can tell. Collect (talk) 22:33, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

For the record, I think the current section is abominable. It takes the hard, considered careful work and compromise of 20 editors over two weeks and throws it in the trash can. But I won't revert today. I'll leave it to others to fight my battles. Hopefully someone will fix it. And I encourage someone to do so. If not, coming tomorrow, I'll want someone to justify any reason, besides POV, why you would take the most important fact anything discusses with regard to Palin and bowdlerize it. Because if you're going to throw away the Bridge to Nowhere section, we're gonna have to throw away about half the rest of the article as "undue." I mean, is the hacking of her email account really more important than the thing she's most famous for? Controversial bridges????? LOL. Could we underplay it any more? Could we throw any others well-known titles in hopes readers don't find the truth? I have an idea. Why not just call the Lewinsky Affair "Clinton's controversial friend"? And in the Nixon article, let's call Watergate, a "mishap at a Washington hotel" GreekParadise (talk) 22:34, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Greekparadise, can you identify a particular change that seems particularly atrocious? Thanks.Ferrylodge (talk) 22:37, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
Start with the title. Why would you give up Bridge to Nowhere? I'll get the rest tomorrow.GreekParadise (talk) 22:40, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
As I said in the edit summary, I thought it looked stupid to use quotation marks as well as parentheses in a section header. There's nothing nefarious about it. If you can think of another heading that doesn't use quote marks and parentheses, then that would be fine with me. Not one of the cited sources used a title containing parentheses. Plus, this section of our article covers two bridges, one of which is "rarely" referred to as the "Bridge to Nowhere", so it seems absurd to use a section title that rarely refers to the section's subject-matter. I'll see if the section header can be modified to address your concern.Ferrylodge (talk) 22:44, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Is there a reason why John McCain is (or needs to be) mentioned in this summary? Aprock (talk) 23:21, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I'm going to go ahead and remove McCain from this summary in a bit. If someone feels that McCain's position on this is vital in the biography, please chime in here. Aprock (talk) 00:24, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
snip, snip Aprock (talk) 03:41, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

The current title "bridges that allegedly go nowhere" is absurd. The story is about "bridge controversy," and that should be sufficient. There is no need for any title other than "Bridge controversy" unless one is invested with using a particular epithet for the bridges which is iterated in the body of the section. If the title were "Bridge(s) to Nowhere" then that term should not be repeated in the body of the section. Unless, of course, the aim is to increase character size of the article -- which is already too big by half. Collect (talk) 23:35, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

The title is rather idiotic. Grsztalk 23:38, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
Collect, I'm sorry you don't like the new section header. Let's work on it. I think the main point of Greek Paradise was that we need a header that people will immediately recognize as referring to the so-called "Bridge to Nowhere". So, that's what I was aiming for, without the ridiculous use of parens in the heading (which none of the cited sources use). Although I initially wrote "Bridge Controversy", I changed it to "Bridges that allegedly go nowhere" in order to address the concern of Greek Paradise. Do you acknowledge that he has a legitimate concern?Ferrylodge (talk) 23:41, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
I can live with the current "Bridge controversy", but you'll have to persuade Greek Paradise.Ferrylodge (talk) 23:46, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
The POV usage of "Bridge(s) to Nowhere" has been made excessively clear (comments which might have been viewed as attacking anyone are being totally avoided). The "RtN" name has attracted material which is wrong and errant, and iterated to boot. If we remove that name from discussion, maybe, just maybe, this section can get stable. The only section title which will now work is the simple one "Bridge Controversy." Collect (talk) 23:49, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
Current version looks good in that it presents all the same factual information as the previous version, but in a far more neutral way, without the "gotcha" or "ZOMG HYPOCRITE" attitude. Let people read the facts, follow the links to the subarticles and sources, and make up their own minds. Kelly hi! 00:18, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
One fact that is missing is that the bridge(s) is in the general vicinity of Wasilla. Let the reader decide how to respond to pertinent information. To leave this fact out, considering the enormity of the state of Alasaka (40 miles is 'just around the corner") and the obvious advantage to her home community, is deceptive.--Buster7 (talk) 04:21, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
Also, did we lose a bridge somewhere???...How about, Controversy over Bridges..--Buster7 (talk) 04:30, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
The Tappan Zee Bridge is much closer to New York City than DYW is to Wasilla. Yet, it is not emphasized in that article. The DYW is more clearly seen as a means of egress from Anchorage than as a means of ingress to Wasilla, and its proximity to Wasilla was not considered a key factor in the choice of location of the bridge. Without sounding like a [sic] patroller, I think "large size of Alaska" is clearer. Collect (talk) 13:52, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
Why mention Wasilla instead of Houston, Alaska, which is much closer to the bridge? Kelly hi! 13:55, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

:::::::Why not treat the whole thing as a ridiculous joke, Kelly, rather than a clear POV-push by you to use your own research to trump the Mayor of Wasilla, the Associated Press, the Congressional Quarterly, the Anchorage Daily News, the Washington Times, the Boston Globe, and the Sitka and Fairbanks papers? This is blatant violation of wiki-policy. And you know it, which is why you have avoided mention of the sources every time I do. I ISSUE YOU A DIRECT CHALLENGE, KELLY, TO TELL ME WHY YOUR OWN PERSONAL RESEARCH TRUMPS ALL OF THESE SOURCES. ANSWER WITHOUT JOKES, INSULTS, OR NAME-CALLING. READ THE SOURCES YOURSELF. STOP THE CONDESCENSION. ARE YOU CAPABLE OF DOING THIS OR NOT?GreekParadise (talk) 19:35, 19 September 2008 (UTC) Originally you wrote "Houston"; you didn't specify "Houston, Alaska"; and I thought you meant Houston, Texas. You have ridiculed and condescended to me so much today--while refusing to read or even acknowledge my many sources that tell you your WP:OR is wrong-- that I assumed you were just being condescedning again here. In this case, I was wrong. Once you changed it from "Houston" to "Houston, Alaska", I understand what you meant.GreekParadise (talk) 00:02, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Would it be possible to have more bolding or capitalization? How do you really feel? Kelly hi! 19:40, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
Wasilla is the 5th largest city in Alaska..an enormously large-sized state. HUGE! To ignore Wasilla is glaring.--Buster7 (talk) 19:55, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
Fairbanks is larger...should we say it's an alternative route to Fairbanks? Kelly hi! 19:59, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

I didn't think it was possible for you, Kelly to actually read the sources and respond without condescension. I was right. I can make it as bold as possible. But as you say, you know all and 100 sources are all wrong.GreekParadise (talk) 21:50, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sarah_Palin/Archive_24&oldid=1142777085"