Talk:Sarah Palin/Archive 25

Archive 20

←

Archive 23

Archive 24

Archive 25

Archive 26

Archive 27

→

Archive 30

Merge subsections

I haven't been following all of this earmark and "Bridge to Nowhere" discussion. However, it seems clear that the "Federal funding" subsection ought not to be separate from the "Budget and spending" subsection. I'll go ahead and move the "Federal funding" subsection" under the "Budget and Spending" subsection.Ferrylodge (talk) 19:54, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Fannie and Freddy

Can someone explains what Palin meant when she said this "Well, you know, first, Fannie and Freddie, different because quasi-government agencies there where government had to step in because the adverse impacts all across our nation, especially with home owners, is just too impacting.” in her interview with Fox News' Sean Hannity. I would like to add her viewpoints on this. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:15, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

It might help to read up on them. The wiki article is sparse, but maybe that will change now that they are on the headlines. Fannie Mae grew out of FDR's New Deal, a response to the great depression. Between 1954 and 1970 it was phased from being government instituion to being a publicly traded company with a "special" relationship with the US government. Here's a timeline for the curious: http://www.alliemae.org/historyoffanniemae.html. Aprock (talk) 22:15, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Is there an interview transcript up yet? (I don't think there is, because there is more of the interview to air yet tonight.) Yeah, there's some stuff from that interview should be added. I do understand her point about dumb government backing of those mortgage corporations, which are going to end up costing the average taxpayer a lot of money. Thanks, Barney Frank and Chris Dodd! :) Kelly ^hi! 20:18, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Don't forget LBJ, who quasi-privatized them in 1968. Seems like either the government should be responsible or not.Ferrylodge (talk) 20:20, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

There must be some reason why Fannie and Freddy had such a special status, did they contribute to political campaigns by any chance? Hobartimus (talk) 20:25, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I think they did! I even think that some of their former notable leaders are working for a particular campaign! Kelly ^hi! 20:28, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Is there any evil that can't be traced directly to a Democrat? :) And yes, Freddie Mac did make illegal campaign contributions; they paid a then-record fine to the FEC in 2003 for funneling money to Michael Oxley, Republican of Ohio, then chairman of the House Financial Services Committee. Freddie Mac also gave generously to the Republican Governors Association, which to its credit eventually decided to return the money ([1]). Back in the days when soft money was legal, Freddie Mac was the 2nd largest contributor to the National Republican Party, second only to PhRMA ([2]). MastCell ^Talk 22:18, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Jossi - I'd say I need more context to figure out what is being said. The word "different" is the first clue - different than what? The antecedent is missing from this selection. Hobartimus - Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac started as government agencies, then were privatized and sold stock on the stock market by LBJ to pay for the Vietnam war, and have been heavy government lobbiers ever since - in part because they were more regulated than the average lender. Although prior to this month there was not a legal obligation on the part of the government to cover any failure they encountered, there was a widespread market expectation that the goverment would in fact cover any failure. GRBerry 20:29, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Several excerpts from this interview available here: http://thepage.time.com/excerpts-from-palins-hannity-interview-part-i/ ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:50, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

You did pick up all of that expert that is in that page, but it is likely the paragraph break at the end could just be the typesetter putting one in where they thought it convenient, as it would make sense if the next excerpt were an uninterrupted continuation of that paragraph. The paragraph after that could either be a continuation or separated, impossible to tell without a complete transcript. I still think I need more of the context to be certain, but can better offer an opinion now. All in all, I think she is saying 1) that the government should be selective about intervention, 2)that the Fannie and Freddie interventions were justified due to their 2A) quasi-government agency reputation and 2B) their important role in the U.S. mortgage market, and 3) that the AIG intervention was appropriate - though I'm less clear on the reasons for 3. Reasons 2A and 2B have been part of conventional wisdom for why the goverment would intervene on Freddie and Fannie for many years; see the identical "Assumed guarantees" section of either of their articles. I don't know how extensive AIG's role in the construction bond market is, but for essentially every government financed construction project (bridges, buildings, repaving a road, et cetera) the actual builder is required to post a performance bond purchased from an insurance company. A major failure in that market could literally shut down the construction industry until new insurers stepped up to sell bonds. It is impossible to tell which other insurance carrier duties of AIG she would be referring to; the most common explanation the past couple days for the intervention on AIG was their role in insuring credit default swaps, meaning that if they went under a lot of banks would immediately become undercapitalized and have to raise capital overnight. Again, I still think we should wait for a complete transcript before using this. GRBerry 14:09, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,424346,00.html has the "rush transcript" for the Palin interview. "PALIN: Well, you know, first, Fannie and Freddie, different because quasi-government agencies there where government had to step in because of the adverse impacts all across our nation, especially with homeowners. It's just too impacting, we had to step in there. I do not like the idea though of taxpayers being used to bailout these corporations. Today it was AIG, important call there, though, because of the construction bonds and the insurance carrier duties of AIG. But first and foremost, taxpayers cannot be looked to as the bailout, as the solution to the problems on Wall Street." Collect (talk) 14:31, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

How lovely - as I speculated above, the Time page did take a single response and split it into parts as if they were separate. But they didn't omit anything from that reply. I see I skipped above part of her meaning, which was the part that she repeated twice in the paragraph: 4) Taxpayers bailing out the corporations is a bad thing even though it was needful. GRBerry 15:53, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

This may not be relevant to this article, but certainly relevant to the campaign: http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/09/a-what-administ.html ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:55, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

The blog entry is relevant neither to this section, to the campaign, or anything else, and does not remotely qualify as RS in any manner at all. Collect (talk) 13:55, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Swamps and wetlands

While the concept of "wetlands" has made the expression somewhat anachronistic, I'd just like to note that working on this article sometimes feels like draining a swamp. That said, it seems like this article seems to be gradually moving toward NPOV.Ferrylodge (talk) 22:01, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Palins Church not mainstream Assembly of God

Sarah Palin's congregation is not part of the world wide pentecostal denomination known as Assembly of God but is affiliated with New Apostolic Reformation, of "Third Wave". This movement is NOT the same as Pentecostalism of the Asssemblies of God —Preceding unsigned comment added by Adamkrattkc (talk • contribs)

Please see the refutation to your error above in #Palin's Church. Repeating falsehoods does not make them more credible, it just makes you less credible. GRBerry 21:56, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Pay cut as mayor disputed

[3]

I realize that that is not an WP:RS, but it makes some very specific claims about an article in The Frontiersman, which is. The frontiersman does not have online archives going back that far. For now, the safest thing to do is just remove the claim, which I have done. I left a somewhat obvious choppiness in the prose, somebody else should probably fix that. Homunq (talk) 22:21, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

The safest thing would of been to get consensus before removing it as that statement has consensus when it was added. Theosis4u (talk) 22:29, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I read the link you provided a "talking points memo" which was a bit oddly sounding for a title and also checked the edit you made [4]. What seems to be the problem what do you want to change the only thing I found was a $61,200 figure in your link what would be an exact 10% pay cut. It seems the council actually passed a resolution to achieve this so this must be researchable. Hobartimus (talk) 22:40, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

The given link gives this storyline: Mayoral pay was $64000 shortly before Palin came to office. The city council voted to raise it to $68000 over her objections (that is, she voted against the raise). Shortly after taking office, she got it cut to $61,200. Three years later, it was back at $68000, and nobody has a clear story as to when or why that happened. It could be that the $61,200 never took effect. All of this is allegedly referenced to reliable, but inaccessible, sources. If any of it is true, the article was incorrect as it stood.

Since this is BLP, the safest thing to do with a disputed fact is to leave it out, not to leave it in. Homunq (talk) 22:46, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Do any of the reliable or unreliable sources cast any doubt on the proposition that she sought to lower her salary from $68,000 to $64,000? If not, then let's allow the article to say so, citing the New York Times reference that has been deleted.Ferrylodge (talk) 22:59, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes let's start researching this, I see the problem with the conflicting 61.2 vs 64 numbers, however I'd say that how much was the pay before Palin took office really has no relevance, when she took office her pay was 68. We don't know if they'd changed the pay 10 times during the rule of the previous mayor or not and that's the previous mayor's story. I didn't check what this source was whose talking points were these? Isn't "talking point" with some negative connotations what's this site some sort of blog you read or what really? Couldn't figure it out what it was. I'll start looking for some sources. Hobartimus (talk) 23:05, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Seems fair. Except of course for the exact numbers. the NYT says she cut to $64000, the source says "the McCain campaign provided us with minutes from a Wasilla City Council meeting from November 13, 1996, which appear to show that Palin introduced and passed some sort of measure to reduce her salary by 10 percent." - which means $61,200. Since this seems like a more specific documentation, I would be OK with "sought to reduce her salary to $61,200" or "... by 10%". Then when people ask, "well, did she or didn't she?" we'd have to say "not sure."

As for the connotations of the name of the source: just read their wikipedia entry. It's a partisan blog, but it does have a staff of professional journalists, and has won awards. They would hardly be making something like this up, particularly because they've specified their sources to the point it would be easy to check offline. Homunq (talk) 23:15, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

The "dispute" is from Talkingpoints.com, a quite partisan site. The evidence appears to show that she could not reduce her salary for the last fiscal year because it would be the salary of the next mayor -- $68,000. Up to that point, she had drawn a lower salary. Had she kept the lower salary for part of the fiscal year, it might have been binding on her successor. Fiscal years running from 1 July to 30 June are not uncommon, and do not coincide with Mayoral terms. Since this simple explanation fits all the known facts, and the statement from Palin given in "talkingpoints" it is likely to be the correct interpretation. We know from the Wasilla annual audited report that "administrative salaries" for 2000 were budgeted at $167,005 and came in under budget at $161,594. Several sources back the ordinance being passed for her pay cut as well. I am inclined to think the talkingpoints memo is the problem, and not a valid source. There is sufficient evidence to state that she had a pay-cut ordinance passed, which is not disputed by talkingpoints.com and I would suggest that the undisputed fact be inserted in the article. Collect (talk) 23:17, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

What are your sources for all of this? It definitely clarifies the matter, if you can give sources. Homunq (talk) 23:30, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Wasilla official documents are at http://www.cityofwasilla.com/index.aspx?page=136 . One can track administrative salaries compared with city council salaries if one spends the time. A cursory look supports the claim that the administrative salaries (presumably including secretarial salaries etc.) showed a different rate of change than did the city council salaries from 1996 to 1998. I am not a CPA, but I would bet that a person skilled in accounting could determine with some accuracy what happened. The Wasilla newspaper, alas, does not seem to have archives from that period searchable online, which was my first hope for solid material. Collect (talk) 23:40, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

cool. What about your claim that she had to increase her salary to set a precedent for the next mayor? Homunq (talk) 00:01, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Even the TPM site says "Two and a half months after I was elected, the new resolution kicked in, but I took a pay cut down to $61,200. Then I had to accept the $68,000 since the last fiscal year started." I look especially at the last part "since the last fiscal year started" to indicate that the fiscal year was important, else why mention it? Collect (talk) 00:25, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

OK, but I think you were reading a lot into the word "last" up above. I think it just means FY 99 in context. Homunq (talk) 00:36, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

(undent)The unreliable source says: "When she came in as mayor, she passed the ordinance which brought her salary down to $61,200."

The reliable source says: "Ms. Palin, who had campaigned promising to cut her own full-time salary, reduced it from about $68,000 to about $64,000, but she also hired a city administrator, John Cramer, adding a salary to the payroll."

Thus, it would be consistent with both to say that she: "supported an ordinance that reduced her $68,000 salary by several thousand dollars." I'll insert that.Ferrylodge (talk) 23:26, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

OK, that seems to be consistent with all sources the exact number can wait, Humunq is right that we need to get stuff right if we put it in, there is no rush here. Hobartimus (talk) 23:29, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I found this old article reprinted recently [5] but it has no number except that the salary of Mayor is 68 000. Hobartimus (talk) 23:41, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

There doesn't seem to be any dispute that she cut her salary, the only question is by how much. The sentence about cutting her salary should be restored without any specific numbers.--Paul (talk) 23:50, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

The article does cast doubt on whether she ever earned only 61.2, given that three years later she was earning 68. However, the only reasons given for that doubt are the later number and the fact that the McCain campaign didn't do their research for them. I'd say we can discount this doubt. Homunq (talk) 00:19, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually, it turns out that the established consensus would seem to be that TPM is a WP:RS. Therefore, I would support using the source to say that she lowered her salary but that it went back up. If we need to explain the later rise, the best we have is "The pay hikes were apparently due to mandated salary increases that the City Council refused to overrule, though that's not certain." which I would accept phrasing as "she lowered her salary,(nyt ref) but by 1999 the city council had raised it back.(tpm ref)" (Note that I am only suggesting trusting TPM not to lie about the contents of The Frontiersman, which is clearly supported by the WP:RS/N consensus cited. Note further that this wording is shorter than the current "supported an ordinance".) Homunq (talk) 00:19, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

I'd urge that the details be put in the sub-article, rather than the main article.Ferrylodge (talk) 00:27, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. But it is misleading to say she took a pay cut, then not mention that the pay was back up two years later. Really I am getting tired of UNDUE arguments about things smaller than a sentence. Homunq (talk) 00:33, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Just FYI, I wasn't motivated by WP:Undue weight, but rather by WP:Summary style.Ferrylodge (talk) 00:52, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

My point stands :) Homunq (talk) 01:16, 19 September 2008 (UTC) (sorry I removed that comment, I hit reload on my edit box and my browser overwrote your comment)

TPM is not RS for a BLP. To wit: "When adding contentious biographical material about living persons that relies upon news organizations, only material from high-quality news organizations should be used." TPM does not meet this criterion. Sorry to burst anyone's bubble. Collect (talk) 00:41, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Oops. You're right. The fronteirsman is, but not available online. How very 20th century. Would be great if someone from Wasilla went to the archives and pulled the article and added the ref to wikipedia (if they had a title, that would prove they'd seen it, since TPM just gives the date). But I'm not holding my breath.

So, I guess we're going to have to go back to the "supported an ordinance" language. It's a pity, but I simply cannot support "lowered her salary" if we have a non-BLP RS saying that the lower salary lasted two years (FY 97 and 98). Homunq (talk) 01:01, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

TPM is a sort of grey source. It has produced award winning journalism and it is clearly subject to editorial control. It is also partisan. I wouldn't use it justify expressing opinions about Palin, but I would consider TPM a reliable source for the purposes of recounting what the Mat-Su Valley Frontiersman said, and absent some other argument I'd assume the local newspaper for the region including Wasilla is a reliable reporter of Wasilla news. Dragons flight (talk) 01:06, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

OK, DF, you are welcome to add it back into the article. I've been bold enough for today. Here's the diff where I removed it: [6]. Homunq (talk) 01:09, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

(In response to the recently deleted ID-10-T comment by Pdeblasi): *I may have weighted opinions on the matter as well, but Wikipedia has made it clear to myself and everyone else that this is not a forum, such blp attacks are not welcome even in talk. Please tone down your remarks or bring it into user discussion rooms. Duuude007 (talk) 02:41, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Whatever the pay cut was, I haven't yet read any hint that it was more than 10%. Meanwhile, this NYT article says she also hired a city administrator, John Cramer, adding a salary to the payroll. This article at salon.com elaborates, perhaps contentiously: But after a tumultuous start, marked by controversial firings and lawsuits against the city, Palin felt compelled to hire a city manager named John Cramer to steady the ship. [¶] "Sarah was unprepared to be mayor -- it was John Cramer who actually ran the city," said Michelle Church, a member of the Mat-Su Borough Assembly, who knows Palin socially. If this is true, it seems that Palin reduced the mayor's share of responsibilities a lot, but reduced the remuneration for it slightly. This may of course have been entirely justifiable (a more energetic mayor may be right to create more work, and, effectively, more responsibilities, and to employ somebody else to do part of it). Still, if Cramer was paid a decent salary (a matter that I suppose can be looked up at Wasilla's website), Palin would I think have ended up effectively increasing the mayoral paycheck. -- Hoary (talk) 10:01, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

"Journalists" often turn to the "common man" "the man of the street" a "local resident" for their information. For our purposes however this local resident Michelle Church is a far cry from a reliable source. When a politican has 90% approval that still leaves a good 10% to cherry pick from and misrepresent the "people's opinion". Hobartimus (talk) 11:04, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Eh? What has this got to do with the "people's opinion"? This is a named member of the Borough Assembly. Further, she isn't writing in her blog but is instead talking to a writer for salon.com, who finds what she says credible. -- Hoary (talk) 14:09, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

So far we now have the audited statements of Wasilla. It appears that the 10% cut from $68,000 agrees with the other cited amount of $61,200. If so, a cut existed. Any quibble that someone hired employees is absurd -- by that token the President of the US has gotten a $20 million pay increase over the past decades because they have more employees? Collect (talk) 13:59, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes that's patently absurd, why stop there, why stop at just the wages, why not count all the expenditures of the federal government? The president has a salary of 3.2 trillion apparently. Hobartimus (talk) 14:04, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

What was Palin's job supposed to be, and what was her pay for this job supposed to be? She altered the job, and she altered the pay. Is the alteration of job irrelevant to the alteration of pay? -- Hoary (talk) 14:09, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

What do you mean "altered the job" when the president hires 100 000 more soldiers for the military how much do the wage costs go up? It will be much easier to do the president's job of protecting the country and national interests with more soldiers, should he then cut his salary by 20 billion? How more absurd can you get? Hobartimus (talk) 14:24, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Wait I know, when the President fires someone he should increase his own salary by the amount of the fired person's salary. After all his job will be harder in some way without the fired person it's only fair that he should get an increased salary for the firing. If cuts for hiring are fair it's only fair to get huge increases for firing someone. Hobartimus (talk) 14:30, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

I guess Obama should fire half of his campaign staff and simply take their salaries that were paid by campaign funds and simply take that money and pay all of it that was saved to himself. He does much of the heavy lifting anyway why should others get all those salaries? Hobartimus (talk) 14:34, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

If you can think of a Prez who fired somebody and announced that he (the Prez) would do that person's work, then your attempted analogy may be meaningful. I've no idea why you're rabbiting on about Obama. ¶ Palin cut her own job responsibilities a lot and cut her own pay a bit; the latter cut is better viewed in the context of the former cut. -- Hoary (talk) 14:39, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

You are working under the assumption that the hired person contributed nothing just took a pay check for nothing. If he increased efficiency of the towns governace by a measly 1% he paid for his salary and actually added a net benefit to the town. You do realize that hiring a person can be monetarily worth it many times of over if they are a good employee right? Other than that your claim that "Palin would I think have ended up effectively increasing the mayoral paycheck." is so ridiculous on it's face that you effectively trapped me in this discussion by even me debating it. No wonder I'd also made irrelevant comments. By the Obama analogy I wanted to wonder if your theory works the other way too? For example when Sarah Palin was governor and fired the chef saying she likes to cook you would support adding the whole salary of the cook simply on top of Palin's since he "announced she would do that person's work"? Or does your theory only work one way? Should we note that Palin's job responsibilites grew by getting food and her pay didn't grow in the part of the article where it's discussed? Hobartimus (talk) 14:53, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

[bounce left] You are working under the assumption that the hired person contributed nothing just took a pay check for nothing. I made no such assumption. ¶ You do realize that hiring a person can be monetarily worth it many times of over if they are a good employee right? Yes I do, right. (My mental age is above 12.) ¶ "Palin would I think have ended up effectively increasing the mayoral paycheck." is so ridiculous on it's face [...]. Stating that it's ridiculous does not demonstrate that it's ridiculous. ¶ I'm not familiar with the business of the chef; if she got rid of the chef and took on the chef's work, then the article can mention this; however, I venture to guess that the chef was less important to the town or state than Cramer was to the town, and that he was paid less. -- Hoary (talk) 15:02, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

The question is, would you support adding the salary of the chef as a bonus to Palin's salary in this case? Hobartimus (talk) 15:10, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

So why attack the hiring if we don't know how much Cramer contributed? It's entirely possible that hiring Cramer was a great monetary decision for the town. If that's the case should she be penelized for making a great decision? Should the salary be reduced even further than it was? And let's say Cramer stays on and the next mayor fires him losing all the contributions he provided but saving the cost of his salary, should the new mayor get an increase for this firing? If this increase is not justified how can a further reduction be justified? Do you think the citizens would accept such a "firing bonus" increase in the next mayor's salary? Hobartimus (talk) 15:51, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

People: this is not a forum. The article mentions creating the position of administrator and lets the reader draw their own conclusions, as it should. The only question is, do we have good enough sources to be able to say that her salary was back up to 68K by '99; and, if we do, is including that fact warranted under summary style and undue weight considerations (or, alternately, should we remove all mention of her salary as too muddy an issue to summarize)? I would support either using the source, or removing the salary info, but I will NOT let (this tiny part of) the article stand as it is forever (without further discussion or new facts). Homunq (talk) 17:02, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

[7] now TMP was deleted as a source. Hobartimus (talk) 17:40, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

That user may not have been aware of this discussion, I mentioned it on their talk page, and meanwhile temporarily deleted the factoid until there's consensus here. I have no problem with the info in the article, as long as the wording has consensus here, but I do not want misleading versions there. Homunq (talk) 17:58, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Good edit Homunq we should only present accurate/consensus info in the article, the correctness of the 4000 figure that was reinserted is one of the main points of this whole discussion. Hobartimus (talk) 18:40, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand why it is important to mention that her salary ultimately went up. It is undisputed that Patin cut her salary when she took office, and of the subsequent increase the TPM article says "An article in the same paper a week earlier shows Palin herself discussing the fact that she'd accepted the increase, albeit against her will." If Palin took office and then cut her salary and later the city council raised it against Palin's wishes what does that gain the reader in understanding? It doesn't tell us anything about Palin. Including the fact of the ultimate increase implies that Palin didn't reduce her salary when the truth is that she really did and it stayed that way for two years.--Paul (talk) 18:30, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Despite the proof by assertion that TPM is RS, the fact remains that TPM does not contradict the pay cut at all, but as a fact only can state that at the start of "the last fiscal year" that the pay raise reverted. Thus "Palin sought, and the City Council passed, an ordinance reducing the Mayoral salary from $68,000 to $61,200 per annum." Does this fit the facts as stated, and confirmed by the Wasilla official audits? Collect (talk) 18:34, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

"the last year" as of march 99. This could refer to FY 99 or FY 98. Given that she took office at the end of 96, and spent 2 months at the prior $64K salary before it was to first go up to $68K, that leaves 1 or 2 years of lowered salary, in a 3 or 6 year period (depending on how you count). You cannot claim that the lowering is notable but the raising is not. I will support neither, or both; you can easily fit both in one sentence. I object to just including the lower salary. (And I am perfectly willing to blame the increase on the city council, even though I have my personal doubts about the plausibility of that scenario). As to "proof by assertion", just go and read the WP:RS/N archive 9, which was the evidence I gave. Homunq (talk) 18:48, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

The lowering is notable because it was delivering on a campaign promise. She said she would do it, she did it. It stayed that way for almost two years. The fact that it went up is less notable, because almost all salaries go up over time. For instance, if the mayor's salary had a 3% cost of living allowance, it would have gotten back to $68K from $64K in two years by itself. BUT had it not been cut, it would have been $72k in two years without the cut. Palin did get the council to cut her salary. The city ended up paying less money to the mayor than would have been the case without the salary cut. We can all look out on the Internet and see that places like sarahpalindirt.com are all over this claiming that when everything was over at the end of six years, Palin was receiving $68K in salary so she is "lying" about cutting her salary. This is a very strange concept of lying. I am fine with language like: "Upon taking office, Palin reduced her salary by 10%, though council-mandated raises erased the cut over the next three years" But implying somehow that she didn't cut her own salary is throwing in with the sarahpalindirt.com folks. (P.S. The salary was increased from $64k to $68k before Palin took office. She got it reduced to $61.4 which is a 10% reduction).--Paul (talk) 00:08, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

This is a case of borderline WP:RECENTISM, because the change effectively reversed any positive impact the first decision could have caused. Just like the Democratic "bump" was reversed when Palin first was introduced, and reeversed again when people started to get to know her. It was temporary, and definitely not notable. Neither is this, but I would be willing to admit that it is a bio worthy statement. for the sake of equal weight, however, I would not allow it to be in this BLP, ESPECIALLY with how big the article is, unless both sides are provided for NPOV. Duuude007 (talk) 00:17, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Duuude007, it is not the same as poll numbers because it is real money. Palin took home less of it, and the city payed less of it. If your boss cut your salary by %10 for three years and then restored it to what it had been, would that be non-notable because it was temporary?--Paul (talk) 00:31, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Good point. By all accounts this is at least $6,800 we're talking about, and she was not independently wealthy. Still don't like her but have to give credit where it's due. Homunq (talk) 01:13, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Homunq, thank you for that comment. In all of the partisan yelling over this election it is good to see that people are willing to admit that some things are true even if the are part of a political story. Obama is a gifted public speaker whose life is a classic American success story of rising from nothing to the the highest ranks. The McCain family really has spent generations in selfless public service to their country. Biden is an honest and likeable guy who has triumphed over personal tragedy. And, Palin really is a reformer who has risen through Alaskan political circles fighting political corruption and trying to make government more efficient. Not all political stories are invented from nothing. Some political stories are true, and honorable people, though they may argue over policies, will admit and agree to those truths.--Paul (talk) 03:56, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm seeing a consensus to present both sides. Editing article with "Upon taking office, Palin reduced her salary by 10%, though raises passed by the city council erased the cut by 1999." (I hope that my edit to your statement is as or more encyclopedic, that is the only intent.) Homunq (talk) 00:22, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

I'd prefer "over the next three years" to "by 1999" because it is more clear to the reader and they don't have to remember when the cut took place and then do the math.--Paul (talk) 00:31, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

aargh, it's hairsplitting and I'll accept whatever you do, but the sources actually seem to indicate that it was just one raise, we are just not sure when (Palin said "the last fiscal year" in March 1999, but I am really unsure whether that means FY 1999 or FY 1998). That's why I changed it to "by", though I did leave "raises". You make the call. Homunq (talk) 01:13, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Facts please ... Sarah Palin and when dinosaurs lived

Can someone please provide the facts on whether Sarah Palin actually said that she believes dinosaurs roamed the earth 10,000 years ago? Or is this just some misinformation put out by the Obama folks. Thank you.

I certainly hope that she believes that dinosaurs roamed the earth 10,000 years ago. After all, dinosaurs still roam the Earth, inasmuch as birds are dinosaurs. See Dinosaur: "The 10,000 living species of birds have been classified as dinosaurs." Anyway, this page is not for general discussion of Palin, but rather for figuring out how to improve this article.Ferrylodge (talk) 05:09, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you Ferrylodge. While not everyone may agree with you (See Alan Feduccia, I find it is great to learn that birds are dinosaurs. I looked up Sarah Palin to try to fact-check what I heard. The purpose was not to discuss Ms. Palin but to ask that more information about what she believes be added to the article.

In a similar vein the article discusses her beliefs about global warming (or rather mis-informs) by only indicating she believes it is not "human-caused" and ignoring her recent interview with Mr. Gibson in which she indicated the very reasonable position that "mans' activities certainly can be contributing to the issue of global warming." In my opinion one of the ways that this article adds value is by clarifying and objectively presenting Ms. Palin's beliefs so that interested voters, such as myself, can sift through the enormous amount of misinformation being shovelled at us this election year. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.6.143.42 (talk) 06:13, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

My recommendation would be for you to please sign up and start editing this article. We need more editors who objectively present Ms. Palin's beliefs.  :-) Ferrylodge (talk) 06:30, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

I think that Ms. Palin's beliefs about Dinosaurs should be represented on this page if they have become a mainstream political issue. For that you need a cite. I don't think she was talking about birds Ferrylodge. --Cdogsimmons (talk) 20:38, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

I haven't seen that she's said anything on the subject. Does anyone have a cite?Ferrylodge (talk) 20:54, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Heh - I think I'm going to start substituting "dinosaurs" for "birds" in normal conversation. For example, this year I have had a huge problem with dinosaurs building nests in the eaves of my house. In terms of the article, "dinosaurs" is probably not the correct terminology - I think I read at Daily Kos that Palin refers to dinosaurs as "Jesus ponies". :) Kelly ^hi! 15:59, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Kelly, you can't believe everything you read at Daily Kos. :) MastCell ^Talk 17:13, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

OR?

The article was recently edited as follows: "This was the same day that Palin gave a similar letter to Police Chief Stambaugh; Emmons as well as Stambaugh had publicly supported Palin's defeated mayoral opponent, John Stein."[8] The edit summary says: "The implication that the firing was because of their support of her opponent constitutes original research."

But there was no original research here. We were simply following the cited source, which says: "Both Emmons and Stambaugh had publicly supported him against Palin. Emmons survived the loyalty test and a second one a few months later. She resigned in August 1999, two months before Palin was voted in for a second mayoral term."[9] Therefore, I'll revert.Ferrylodge (talk) 05:27, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Global Warming Position

I changed the article so that it says Palin has stated in the past that she does not believe that global warming is human-caused, but has since modified her position-- saying in September 2008 that "man's activities certainly can be contributing to the issue" and that "John McCain and I agree that we gotta do something about it."[187][188][85]. I think that the term "modified" is a lot more NPOV and encyclopediac than either "U-Turn" of "flip-flop", but I'm willing to change it if other editors insist on that sort of language. The fact that her position was modified is well established by The Associated Press and others. The Squicks (talk) 06:32, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree with this edit. "flip-flop" and "u-turn" are not encyclopedic, they are editorializing.--Paul (talk) 13:54, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually the positions are consistent. "Caused" implies primary causality. Speeding "caused" an accident. "Contributing" is a secondary or lower level of causation. The sun shining in his eyes" was a contributing factor in the accident. Clearly Palin believes global warming is occurring, but does not believe the primary cause is Man. Collect (talk) 14:04, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

They may be consistent in legalese, where the definition of the word "is" is debatable. In common sense terms the two positions are, as the AP noted, "at odds". The term "modified" is fine. MastCell ^Talk 17:11, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Not only are the positions consistent, they are consistent with how a large number of people view the issue, ergo the positions are not "at odds." The question of "modification" does not arise. Most people I know of use the term "caused" as I stated, and would not use "caused" to indicate something of secondary or tertiary importance in normal use of the language. Collect (talk) 18:38, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

OK, we've both expressed our opinions. Since the AP characterizes these positions as "at odds", let's go with that for encyclopedic purposes. MastCell ^Talk 18:48, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

I see that someone has changed the term from "modified" to "clarified". I prefer "modified" as I see it as the most neutral and un-loaded term, but I'm fine with "clarified". Thoughts? The Squicks (talk) 21:01, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Big BLP Violation

I corrected a bad BLP Vio, in the Political Positions section; it said she supports "comprehensive sex education", which as we can easily discover, covers sexual acts that none of the sources claim she wants Alaska's public school kids to hear about. Her position, as the sources clearly spell out, is one of teaching abstinence, but with some mention of birth control. Fee Fi Foe Fum (talk) 07:48, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

it said she supports "comprehensive sex education", which as we can easily discover, covers sexual acts that none of the sources claim she wants Alaska's public school kids to hear about. No, that's not true. The term 'comprehensive sex education' means sex education in which abstinence is preferred but birth control is mentioned. I don't where where you get the idea that gay sex tips are given out in "comprehensive" classes, but the dozens of so of RS that I've seen clearly say that "comprehensive" means "abstinence first, birth control second".

If you want to change the wording to favors sex education involving discussion of birth control, that's fine with me. It's as technically correct as before. But let's leave it at that. The Squicks (talk) 08:00, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, the sources say abstinence, with "discussion" of birth control. We must follow the sources. That's what they say. And I got the idea about what comprehensive sex education teaches here Sex education#Lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender youth. Fee Fi Foe Fum (talk) 08:20, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Is there any Sex Ed program being taught in the U.S. that doesn't promote abstinence? The current wording sounds a bit stilted and contrived, as if it were trying to make a point without stating it. Fcreid (talk) 09:36, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

The current wording now says "She supports abstinence-only sex education programs in public schools that include some discussion of birth control." By definition abstinence-only sex education excludes discussion of birth control. Is there a more correct way to describe her position? The source says "abstinence-before-marriage" education. JenWSU (talk) 13:25, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

If she includes birth control as something to be discussed, then "abstinence only" is clearly errant. "Palin favors sex education which promotes abstinence, along with discussing birth control" is the only wording I see which covers the facts as known about her position. Collect (talk) 14:06, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Concur. Fcreid (talk) 14:41, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, that sounds about right. Kelly ^hi! 14:45, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Sounds accurate to me. Coemgenus 14:51, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

While I still disagree about what "comphrehensive" education is, the wording She supports sex education that promotes abstinence and that also discusses birth control is just fine and I don't see why anyone would have a problem with it. The Squicks (talk) 21:03, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, my "prurient" inner self was actually anxious to learn what other things constitute FFFF's definition of comprehensive. :) Fcreid (talk) 23:27, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Please Change her position on Gay Rights.

Her position on gay rights is misleading. Her old article, as found via the Way Back Machine at archive.org, says this:

Her first veto (as Governor) was used on legislation that would have barred the state from granting benefits to gay state employees and their partners. In effect, her veto granted State benefits to same-sex couples. The veto occurred after Palin consulted with her attorney general on the constitutionality of the legislation.

It even has a citation for you to use.

cadennis

Yes, I also recall that statement with its citation and was wondering how it got lost. I think it speaks clearly to her other assertions that she would not allow personal beliefs to impact governance, and it certainly warrants inclusion from that respect. Fcreid (talk) 14:39, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

The way the section was worded before was misleading, as it implies that Sarah Palin supported offering benefits to same-sex couples, which was definitely not the case. She vetoed the legislation solely because it was unconstitutional and didn't have a chance of holding up in court. She did, however, strongly support the intent of the bill. Kaldari (talk) 17:59, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Is there evidence that she strongly supported the intent of the bill to deny benefits to same-sex couples, other than through inference based on her personal beliefs? Fcreid (talk) 18:19, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

By the way, I don't care either way, but such an assertion does require citation. Frankly, if you wanted to say, "Palin's strong personal beliefs make her loathe to accept homosexuality, tobacco, drunkenness, pornography, long hair and whatever-else-she-dislikes, but there is no evidence her beliefs have impacted decision-making in office", I would be fine with that. I actually prefer knowing where someone stands in supporting the laws that protect me rather than pretending he or she thinks just like me. Fcreid (talk) 21:17, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

The Pew Center says that "in December 2007 Palin signed a bill calling for a nonbinding advisory vote on the issue of benefits for same-sex partners and said she supported a constitutional amendment to deny the benefits if the advisory vote showed the public wanted such action." The Squicks (talk) 21:14, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Polling and WP:RECENTISM

I see this edit by Mldowns (talk · contribs) added the statement "As the capmaign progresses, recent polls suggest that her initial popularity and boost to the McCain campiagn is waning. [177]" Shouldn't we be avoiding these types of polling updates per WP:RECENTISM? Kelly ^hi! 14:50, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Given that WP is not a ticker-tape site, and a biography is certainly not the appropriate place for election coverage page, it doesn't make sense to include any polling data. Moreover, in the current Zogby poll, ticket popularity among likely women voters is actually +2 from the previous poll, but popularity with those who label themselves Democrats is -8 (which probably accounts for any shift in overall numbers). However, again, it's not really our place to be tracking and reporting such things. Fcreid (talk) 15:00, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

"Palin's favorable rating is at 40 percent, according to a CBS News/New York Times poll. That's down 4 points from last week." Couple of things down 4 and margin of error is 3 on both measurements so if in actuality it was 42 both times that would be within margin of error for both measurements. Second other polls that we have cited showed 58%-54% favourability rating previously hugely off from 44 percent here so that was cited here as "previous number" something is definitely off, maybe the polls are apples to oranges in some way? no way this could go into a BLP in this form. Hobartimus (talk) 15:07, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Just a note: if two polls each have an MOE of 3 points, the difference has an MOE of 3*sqrt(2), or about 4 points. Both polls can be off, so the combined MOE is bigger; but they are unlikely to be off in precisely opposite ways, so it is less than twice. Homunq (talk) 17:12, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Polls might be useful in retrospect for biographical articles, but they certainly shouldn't be included as if Wikipedia were Wikinews.--Paul (talk) 15:11, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

The entire Sarah Palin#Reception section is WP:RECENTISM and should be scrapped. Or it needs to be constantly updated to keep it current. --Evb-wiki (talk) 15:14, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

• Agreed. A similar argument came up when someone fought to keep convention poll bounce quotes about Palin on Obama's article. Duuude007 (talk) 15:20, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Other poll Palin 47%, Biden 44% in Make-believe Presidential Match-up. If we do decide to insert some more polls need to wade through a few of them not to let a cherry-picked poll slip through. Hobartimus (talk) 15:25, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Should we remove all mention of polling from the "Reception" section, or remove the section entirely? We probably won't be able to have a stable version until after the election anyway, when things are looked at in retrospect. Kelly ^hi! 16:09, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

The reception section is fine. What happens these days are more part of the Vice Presidential campaign section. Hobartimus (talk) 16:19, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree that inclusion of current polls is definitely WP: RECENTISM and should not be included in this article. JenWSU (talk) 16:37, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

• I think a short reception section is important. Her pick as V.P. on McCain's ticket really shook things up. If there is one notable thing in this entire article, THAT is the thing. See: Sarah.--Paul (talk) 16:45, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
• It is notable that she is the first republican VP nominee. It is not notable that they got a convention bounce out of it, as every convention gets a bounce, and as of a few days ago, the bounce has already settled into reverse. Duuude007 (talk) 16:55, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
  • I see two options: either cover both the convention "bump" and its subsequent dissipation, or leave polling data in the campaign subarticles and omit it entirely from this bio on grounds of recentism. I'm fine with either; the latter is probably preferable, because of the difficulty of keeping polling data up to date. I don't want to see the article go on at length about the convention "bump" but omit mention of its apparent evaporation, that's all. MastCell ^Talk 17:05, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

I second MastCell. Homunq (talk) 17:13, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Two things should not be confused. The one is convention bump and the other is the bump due to picking Palin. Every number we have shows that comparatively Palin helped the Republican ticket a lot more than Biden helped the Democrat ticket. Biden's speech had 24 million viewers for example at a time that Democrats were leading in the polls by 8 percent or so vs much higher Palin number. Hobartimus (talk) 17:16, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

You just said it very well, without needing to include any polling "bounces". That's what the article should do. Homunq (talk) 17:23, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

The real "shake up" was the energizing of the Republicans.--Paul (talk) 17:17, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, that's the issue. Everybody gets "convention bounce", the problem is interpreting the long-range effects. A lot of sources discuss the fact that the Palin pick may have cemented McCain's conservative base, allowing him to move left to pick up undecideds, but it's all pretty much speculation until the election is looked at in retrospect by scholars. If we want to include opinions about this for now, that's probably OK, but we should probably attribute those and specify those as just opinions for now. Day-to-day polling data destabilizes the article and isn't really encyclopedic. Kelly ^hi! 17:29, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I think it's fair to say that Palin's selection energized elements of the Republican base which had previously been a tad lukewarm about McCain; that seems borne out by a number of solid sources (e.g. [10]), and it moves away from minute-to-minute polling data to a more substantial political trend/event. MastCell ^Talk 17:34, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Rape kits

Is there any way we can cover this issue in a balanced way? Let me try to list the facts (feel free to interject below or add good sources):Homunq (talk) 18:12, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Wasilla PD had a policy not to pay for rape kits, which include both evidence collection and emergency contraception. It was one of a small number of towns with this policy.

This was noticed by the state legislature, and they passed a law against it, claiming that the effect would be to force victims to pay.

Palin's involvement or knowledge is not clear, although she was mayor. Neither is the number of victims affected (which may be 0, and was 0 in FY 2000).

Palin has stated that she has never supported charging victims for evidence collection.

This has all been reported, and related to Palin, in several reliable sources. I claim that a short paragraph with this info is notable and not undue. Homunq (talk) 18:12, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Isn't that covered in the mayoralty article? Kelly ^hi! 18:13, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes it is mentioned in the sub-article, which does not indicate that Palin was involved at all, so it doesn't seem like something that needs to be elevated to this main article, unless there's something erroneous or incomplete in the sub-article.Ferrylodge (talk) 18:49, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Wasilla public records show that no one was charged from at least July 1, 1999 on. A period when some have asserted charges were made. (earlier records do not appear to have been retained). Therefore the claim that people were being charged at the time the Alaska law was changed (after Jan 1, 2000) are clearly errant. Result: WP:COATRACK as a minimum. Collect (talk) 18:44, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

I may be wrong, but this seems like more of a bloggy talking point than a meaningful part of an encyclopedic biography of Sarah Palin at present. I guess the mayoralty article would be the right place for this; I'm not crazy about including it here at present. MastCell ^Talk 18:47, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

I too would not include this "nuggett" in a bio, but maybe in a sub article, if at all. I guess it got some traction but I think I know or can guess why. --Tom 18:58, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

As usual, any fact that does not seem pro-Palin is trashed. The fact is true and its controversial. Other than it making Palin look bad, is there any reason NOT to include it? I mean the same mayoralty article says "She also oversaw new bike paths". And bike paths are more important than rape kits??????GreekParadise (talk) 19:10, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

GP, MastCell has no pro-Palin bias. If they say it's no-go right now, I accept that. Homunq (talk) 19:21, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, MastCell is no Palinphile and I have respect for his opinion and efforts at neutrality, despite disagreements we've had in the past. Kelly ^hi! 19:23, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

GP, your views have been iterated at length. Terseness has virtue. If the only records which exist show no one being charged, then the assertion that they were charged is up to you to prove, Proof by assertion does not work, nor does proof by fifty paragraphs. Collect (talk) 19:25, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

This certainly seems like a non-issue to me. If there are no reliable sources showing that Palin knew about this, and if the are no reliable sources showing that anyone was ever charged for the test, this is just a political hit job with a feather duster. It has nothing to do with the biography of Sarah Palin.--Paul (talk) 23:38, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Public domain video of Palin

I've asked this before, but we have full-motion public-domain video of Palin that can be found here. Do we have anyone skilled at converting .wmv files to Ogg/Theora? Kelly ^hi! 19:01, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh geez! That audiovideo at the John McCain article was almost impossible to convert, and I didn't keep a record of the million steps necessary to do it. Which one of those Palin audio videos is really all that great?Ferrylodge (talk) 19:04, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Potential witness?

I disagree with this recent edit that mentions Colberg is a potential witness. First of all, the cited source doesn't say so. Second of all, Colberg initially recused himself, but then observed some testimony (by Bailey) to Branchflower, and concluded on that basis that he did not have to recuse himself because he did not potentially have a conflict of interest. was observed giving some testimony to Branchflower, and it was concluded on that basis that Colberg is not a material witness. By mentioning that he is a potential witness, we're departing from the cited source, implying that he shouldn't be giving legal advice on this matter, and overlooking the reasons why he suspended his recusal. Plus, this section of the article is supposed to be concise, rather than endless.Ferrylodge (talk) 19:20, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Homunq, now you've added a September 9 ref for the "potential witness" bit, but that pre-dates the news about Colberg's suspension of recusal.Ferrylodge (talk) 19:23, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

"Van Flein said Wednesday that after listening in on Colberg's interview with Branchflower, he believes Colberg is not a 'material witness.'"[11]Ferrylodge (talk) 19:35, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Please remove the disputed material from the article. Thanks.Ferrylodge (talk) 19:49, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Apparently Homunq has gone away. Would someone please remove the disputed stuff he inserted half an hour ago? ("himself a potential witness in the case") Thanks.Ferrylodge (talk) 20:02, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

The page is not protected. What's stopping you from fixing it? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 20:05, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

I think everyone is being cautious about WP:3RR. Kelly ^hi! 20:07, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

What Kelly said.Ferrylodge (talk) 20:08, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, OK, but recruiting someone else is considered gaming the system. However, I'm game today. Just tell me exactly how it should read, and I'll fix it, as I am at 0RR on this article currently. Or is it that wording about 6 lines up? "Van Flein said..." etc. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 20:14, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Done, per above ↑. --Evb-wiki (talk) 20:16, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Ya beat me to it. But at least that will prevent me from getting blocked. For that reason, anyway. Meanwhile, please enjoy this SNL clip of Sarah Palin disguised as Tina Fey, and "Frasier" disguised as Hillary Clinton: [12] Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 20:25, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

LOL - thanks, Bugs! Or, as Sarah Palin would say, "Thang Q". :) Kelly ^hi! 20:28, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I didn't mean to recruit anyone. Just wanted to get it out of there if people agree there's no consensus for it. TGIF!Ferrylodge (talk) 20:27, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

I guess I was wrong about that (and then AFK). I was trying to find some way to indicate that he is not totally separate from the case himself - he is named as one of the people who talked about Wooten to Monegan - without obsessing on the point. But I was wrong, and it's not a huge deal anyway, because now there's another bit about Todd. Homunq (talk) 20:50, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

NYT

This article presently says: "According to the New York Times, Palin has pursued vendettas, fired officials who crossed her and blurred the line between government and personal grievance."

Here's a response from columnist Jeff Jacoby of the Boston Globe:

The national media, meanwhile, have only further eroded what remained of their reputation for objectivity. For months they refused to mention the infidelity of John Edwards, yet they leaped with relish onto Bristol Palin's pregnancy . Ravenous for any negative morsel on the GOP running mate, they deployed legions of reporters to Alaska, who have produced such journalism as the 3,220-word exposé in Sunday's New York Times that upon winning office, Palin - gasp! - fired opponents and hired people she trusted.[1]

[1]Jacoby, Jeff. "Enough of the Palin feeding frenzy", Boston Globe (2008-09-17).

I'm not sure how this should be treated, but maybe it would be appropriate to either move the NYT material (about vendettas) into the "Reception" subsection, or add Jacoby's critique to the NYT material.Ferrylodge (talk) 20:40, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree. I am a total politics junkie, and I was the person who wrote our article on the John Edwards scandal. That Times article is baffling. Reading it, you would have no idea why her approval rating is so high. There's an objectivity problem here with what would normally be considered a reliable source, and I think we have to regard some of their claims as dubious. Kelly ^hi! 20:46, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that this particular op-ed from a partisan columnist should carry any more weight than the thousands of other such op-eds that have published about Sarah Palin. Let's leave Pandora's box closed. MastCell ^Talk 20:50, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

(ec)Yeah, let's definitely leave out the op-eds - that is indeed Pandora's Box. But I think we need to tread cautiously when it comes to our sources regarding contoversial issues. Another example, besides the Times, is The Atlantic Monthly, who hired a photographer that published some deranged modified photos of John McCain, and has also provided a forum for Andrew Sullivan, who is pushing some truly demented stuff, like Trig Trutherism and the allegation that Palin wanted her baby to miscarry because she submitted to amniocentesis. We need to use multiple sources for controversial claims, and discuss those things before including them. Kelly ^hi! 20:57, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

I think that we should try to distill the NYT critique down to make it less POV. It's obviously a hit-piece, though based in research. How about just "blurred the distinction" instead of saying much the same thing 3 different ways? Homunq (talk) 20:56, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

"According to the New York Times, Palin has on several occasions blurred the line between government and personal grievance." ...? Homunq (talk) 21:01, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Sounds better.Ferrylodge (talk) 21:10, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Wow! Unlike many others here, I'm not really a political junkie, but I did read that piece from the Boston Globe (my long ago hometown)... he must have been monitoring this talk page for the past three weeks! At one time or another, someone attempted to inject every one of those lies, including the most despicable ones. People really need to reconsider their priorities when they find themselves stooping to such actions on behalf of a political campaign. :( Fcreid (talk) 21:06, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Are we here to question any purported intentions of a source which is deemed reliable? Or are we here to report on what these sources say about a subject? Let's stay close to the sources, as close as possible, please. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:16, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

(ec)It's not that I disagree with your statement, it's that we should be careful to cite multiple sources on particularly controversial claims, because sources that we would normally consider reliable have repeatedly screwed up in this subject area. Yet another example would be the the Washington Post, which published as fact a statement that Palin believed Saddam Hussein helped orchestrate the 9/11 attacks - they had to publish a correction that Palin was actually referring to Al Qaeda in Iraq. Kelly ^hi! 21:23, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Jossi, I've been here since the 29th. I don't recall if you were, but beyond the bizarre and outlandish, we actually had people posting on her biography that Trig was her daughter's child, that she was having an affair and even insuinating that she made the flight from Texas to Alaska in an attempt to miscarry. Despicable stuff, all trying to be inserted in here because some crap newspaper was willing to publish it. Just because the newspapers have shown they have no sense of decorum does not mean we must follow. Fcreid (talk) 21:22, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Jossi's been here since that time - he's pushed POV in the article and wheel-warred over the protection of the article. Jossi is currently the subject of an arbitration case regarding his wheel-warring. Kelly ^hi! 21:34, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

As a WP-neophyte, I won't pretend to know what all that means, but I have personally seen very few instances of true "vandalism" with malicious intent (and certainly non by Jossi). Despite, words do hurt--sometimes a great deal--and I think simply being a responsible and compassionate human above any politics would have averted much of the acrimony in the past few weeks. Enough of that editorial now, sorry. Fcreid (talk) 22:13, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Newspapers are what they are, and I agree that in this and many other instances, they sometimes print rubbish. But that does not mean we should ignore such sources, in particular if these are mainstream newspapers. Please read WP:V ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:26, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Jossi, I would agree if this were an article on widget production or the swallows (whoops, dinosaurs) of Capistrano. However, it's disingenuous of us not to recognize the only "reliable" thing about certain sources is they can always be counted upon to swing left or right (sometimes very wildly). Ironically, that's when I turn to Wikipedia and the reason many others do, too. Fcreid (talk) 23:15, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Also, the NYT is not the only one referring to "vendettas". This from the UK Times (Sept 17): "Vendetta row can't hold Sarah Palin back - Times Online". Retrieved 2009-09-19. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:20, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

On the contrary, the UK Times wrote about one alleged vendetta. No "s". Big difference. And their subtitle clarified that she was merely, "accused of hounding" her brother-in-law.Ferrylodge (talk) 21:29, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

To me, editing down the NYT sentence is not really about making judgements about its bias. It is more about not giving undue weight to a single report, and not using POV language ourselves. In this case, the allegations are substantiated, but repeating essentially the same charge three times, based on one article, is undue. I would, however, support using the word "multiple" instead of "several" - I count at least 8 different charges in that article, although most are pretty minor. Homunq (talk) 23:00, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Redirect

I personally beleive that we need to add a redirect similar to the one used with Senaotr Obama's page. As Governor Palin is the most searched individual with that last name,, it would be logical to send users who search Palin directly to the Sara Palin page, no to the disimbauguation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.248.155.3 (talk) 22:00, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree, but unfortunately there was no consensus to do so. See Talk:Palin and its archives.Ferrylodge (talk) 22:03, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

There is more than one "Palin" in the world. Try looking under "Monty Python" for example. Collect (talk) 22:25, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Respectfully recommend making the Sarah Palin page the default for searches on "Palin" until the hits on this page subside. In the meantime plant a disambiguation note at the top of the Sarah Palin article, to help the minority of readers who make be looking for Michael Palin (the British comedian associated with Monty Python) and other Palins. A change in the default for "Palin" to Sarah Palin can be reversed later. Richard David Ramsey 22:53, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Michael Palin is a widely known actor and comedian. In any case, please take the discussion to Talk:Palin ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:16, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

"Palin" should go to the page listing all the Palins, not to this one individual. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 23:17, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, Bugs is right (as almost always) on this one. :) Kelly ^hi! 23:24, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

I thought I was wrong about something once. Turned out I was wrong about being wrong. Meanwhile, I went to that page, but didn't post anything there, as I can't make any sense of it. Also, I don't understand why there would be both a list of Palins and a disambiguation page of Palins. I would think they're the same set of info. Maybe someone can explain that to my ever-more-feeble brain. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 23:28, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Request for Comment

A discussion about whether naming a section "Bridges to Nowhere" or "Bridge controversy". 22:57, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Comments by involved editors

Please be concise

• There is wide consensus of sources that use the term "Bridge to Nowhere": "Bridge to Nowhere" - 9,228 news sources "bridge+to+nowhere"+sarah+palin; compare with "Bridge controversy" - one singular source (Las Vegas Review) "bridge+controversy"+sarah+palin. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:00, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Just a note that "bridges to nowhere" gets 103 hits, and of the first 10, only 4 actually refer to both bridges rather than the general concept of bridges to nowhere. I'd still like the S or parenthetical S personally, but if it has no consensus I have little basis to push it. Homunq (talk) 23:25, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

News sources on Google only show the most recent news. These bridges have been controversial since long before the current Election. I think, with respect, a better Google search (the entire web) is the one I did below.GreekParadise (talk) 00:14, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

• -This section refers to two separate bridges, not one. "These days, when someone talks about the Bridge to Nowhere, they mean the Gravina Island bridge", according to Factcheck.org.[13] Other headings in this article cannot be found in reliable sources, and that's fine for this heading too.[14]Ferrylodge (talk) 23:02, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

• Both of the above are patently true. (I would add that Palin herself uses the phrase "bridge to nowhere" about the Gravina bridge frequently). Thus, although it is awkward, we are forced to do something like =="Bridge to Nowhere" and The Other Bridge== (whatever it's called). Homunq (talk) 23:07, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

-My lack of commenting here should not be mis-constued as lack of interest, just lack of time. I will not comment further--Buster7 (talk) 23:07, 19 September 2008 (UTC

• Google lists 487,000 pages for "Bridge to Nowhere" + Alaska, 51,900 pages for "Bridges to Nowhere" + Alaska, and zero pages for "bridge controversy" + Alaska. (I added the Alaska to distinguish from other "bridge controversies" or "bridges to nowhere".) That is the reason why "Bridge(s) to Nowhere" stood in the original consensus version for two weeks prior to being changed yesterday. There were occasional quibbles about the quotations, singular/plural and the (s) but none about the basic idea that it should be the name of the section. No matter what wikipedia editors think, I don't think they should coin a new term for a term that's been used 400,000+ times in the singular and 50,000+ times in the plural. To illustrate the difference, the original article wrote (with good sources): The nickname "Bridge(s) to Nowhere" has been used for the Gravina Island Bridge alone[104] or, more rarely, both bridges.[107] Finally, the subject of this biography, Sarah Palin, also frequently says "Bridge to Nowhere" and has never on record in any source said "Bridge Controversy." The same is true for McCain and virtually every commentator on the bridges, except for the wikieditors here.GreekParadise (talk) 23:31, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

• - *Editors who have reverted while a section was already asking for consensus, who have added material and vandalized the section in question in bad faith, have made my decision for me -- the only proper title for the SECTION is "bridge controversy." The section is not the bridge, and the eponym which is being pushed is not required as a section title. Unless, of course, one feels that all section titles must be eponyms? I would not be this strong were it not for the continued reverts while a request for consensus was already on this board. (making this request for consensus actually duplicative) Collect (talk) 23:13, 19 September 2008 (UTC) I have been told I used "eponym" incorrectly, will anyone reading substitute the appropriate word for a name which is popularly but not officially assigned to something? Thanks! Collect (talk) 23:16, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

I am sorry for whatever happened, but revenge in article-space is not the answer. (for the record, I made no edits myself, but did, before the fight started, elsewhere suggest to GreekParadise that they choose one issue at a time and start with this one, rather than posting TLDRs about everything at once) Homunq (talk) 23:18, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

I intend no revenge, Indeed I thank those who attack me, as I was brought up to do. The Revision history on the main article speaks volumes, however, for those who look there. Espicially for those changes made while my request for consensus was being deluged. When I started it, I was perfectly happy with any rational outcome. Collect (talk) 23:23, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

• Agreed, "Bridge controversy" or "Bridge controversies" is the proper NPOV name for this section. The "Bridge to Nowhere" monicker can be mentioned in the text. Kelly ^hi! 23:16, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Could you expand on your thoughts as to why "Bridge to Nowhere" is not appropriate for the title, but appropriate in the text of the article? Aprock (talk) 02:53, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

• If there is more than one controversial bridge, and only one of them is about the "Bridge to Nowhere", then obviously you can't call the section by that name. "Bridge controversies" would make more sense, and then be sure to mention that one of them was called the "Bridge to Nowhere" in the popular media. P.S. I'm an "involved" editor in general, but not on this specific topic until now. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 23:16, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually the Knik Arm Bridge (Don Young's Way) has been included in two "Bridges to Nowhere" along with Gravina more than 50,000 times. (See Google.)GreekParadise (talk) 00:27, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

• Bridge Controversies is the best name for the section, the name that is neutral, and all-inclusive. Erik the Red 2 (AVE·CAESAR) 23:23, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

• "Bridge Controversies" is not a good title, as the subject of the article is the bridge(s), not the controversies surrounding them. "Controversial Bridges" might be better, but I certainly prefer the generally accepted descriptor "Bridge to Nowhere" title for the summary, and removing any reference to sister bridges, or other pork barrel spending. Aprock (talk) 23:29, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

• How about The "Bridge to Nowhere" Controversies - This keeps it in the singular but notes more than one controvery.GreekParadise (talk) 23:34, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Strikeout the "The", this isn't The Princess DiariesHomunq (talk) 23:45, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

LOL. Fine by me. How do folks feel about "Bridge to Nowhere" Controversies ? I still prefer "Bridge(s) to Nowhere" personally but I'm seeking compromise. Remember, tens of thousands of media sources, including the NYT, the WP, CNN, and Fox News have all used "bridges to nowhere" in the plural to refer to Gravina and Knik Arm (Don Young's Way).GreekParadise (talk) 00:27, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm still for Bridge Controversies. Only one bridge actually leads to nowhere. The other leads to somewhere, the central economic hub of Alaska: Anchorage.Zaereth (talk) 00:23, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Of the two original choices, I prefer Bridge to Nowhere to Bridge controversy, simply because the phrase "Bridge to Nowhere" is so common. This isn't like the Democratic talking-point phrase "Culture of corruption" that was coined two years ago and was used almost exclusively by Democrats. The phrase "Bridge to Nowhere" was used by bridge opponents in 2005; was referred to and criticized by Palin when she ran in 2006; is being used by her now in every speech she makes; and is being used now by Democrats attacking her and by media pointing out the inaccuracy in her speeches and in the campaign ads. GreekParadise's suggested compromise is acceptable, although I think "Bridge to Nowhere" controversy would be a better variation. Putting "Bridge(s)" with the parenthetical s into the heading could be confusing. There's controversy that turns on that phrase, and whether the phrase applies to the Knik Arm Bridge can be noted in the text. Keep the heading simple. JamesMLane t c 02:12, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

• WP naming conventions/guidelines suggests titles that are short, simple, and are commonly known or referred to. "Bridge to nowhere" meets all of the criteria while the other names are convoluted or less known. Palin, other politicians and the MSM all refer to it as the "Bridge to nowhere" and a Google search produces over 800,000 results. As noted in prior discussions, the plural "Bridge(s)" is not necessary and should be explained in the test of the section. An editor may not like the name "Watergate", but that is the known name and per guidelines we should not change it. Why does there have to be such lengthy discussions about this and all the other minor or non-issues? IP75 75.36.70.205 (talk) 03:33, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Why is the misquote/mischaracterization on Russia still in?

"....and affirms that if Russia invaded a NATO treaty member the United States would meet its treaty obligations and go to war with Russia."

Despite the misleading titles of the the sourced articles, you can nowhere find that she ever suggested going to war with Russia. She says she would HELP a nato ally if Russia invaded them, and then specifically went out of her way to articulate that help was not specifically military, but instead pressuring our allies to help out and using economic sanctions against Russia. Someone seems to archived the previous discussion where I pointed this out.

In the recent Hannity interview, she even said military action against Russia has to be "taken off the table."66.190.29.150 (talk) 23:28, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, anon - do you have a link to a transcript of the Hannity interview? We should probably examine that for facts to include here, and in Political positions of Sarah Palin. Kelly ^hi! 23:35, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

=http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,425161,00.html Near the top, just aftert the bolded "Crosstalk".66.190.29.150 (talk) 23:46, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

It's certainly a good source, as it's a conservative commentator who's not going to try and bait her but is trying to get honest answers. What she said was no Cold War, i.e. not a repeat of the game we played with the USSR for 50-plus years. "We do not want to start a war with Russia. No Cold War. That's got to be off the table." Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 23:52, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Narrative structure/topic sentences for troopergate section

(and no I'm not suggesting title change)

There is now ample documentation to add topic sentences to paragraphs 2 and 3 of the troopergate section. Something along the lines of "Initially, Palin cooperated openly with the bipartisan investigation.... After Palin was chosen as McCain's running mate, the atmosphere became more partisan, and Palin stopped cooperating." There are probably hundreds of sources that give such a narrative by now - [15], [16], [17], [18], etc, etc... I'd be happy to do a source-off (suggest some fair search terms on google news, then choose articles 1, 3, 5, and 7 or whatever) to prove this if anyone doubts it. I think such topic sentences would make the section more readable, but I am not going to do something that controversial without talking about it first. (Please, if you want to say that it is equally Democrat's fault, give sources and incidents - all I can find is French's "October surprise" quote.) Homunq (talk) 00:09, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

SupportGreekParadise (talk) 00:12, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Homunq, the approach you propose is fine with me though I would suggest something along the lines of: "Initially, Palin cooperated openly with the bipartisan investigation.... After Palin was chosen as McCain's running mate, and the Alaska Senate committee issued subpoenas the atmosphere became more partisan, and Palin stopped cooperating claiming the investigation has become "tainted." (or you could stop after "stopped cooperating")--Paul (talk) 00:25, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

There is an entire wiki devoted to this issue already. Stick to the basics. In fact, after reading through it, there is way, way, way too much stuff about this in this wiki. It should be condensed to one paragraph or so, not added to.66.190.29.150 (talk) 00:46, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

For purposes of the Palin bio article, her response to the investigation is important, so its inclusion is proper. I'm not sure what's meant by "cooperated openly" -- as opposed to cooperated covertly? She pledged to cooperate, and I'm virtually certain that that statement could be sourced. Whether she did cooperate is less clear. I think she produced some emails but withheld many others based on a claim of executive privilege. She herself didn't cooperate by testifying, but she wasn't not cooperating; her testimony hadn't yet been sought. Also, let's check the sources; I think the term "tainted" came from the McCain campaign, not from Palin individually. JamesMLane t c 01:40, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

(undent)This may be opening a can of worms, though I appreciate the good intent. First, inserting topic sentences would increase length. Someone would undoubtedly come along and chop the whole section down to a few sentences, and rightly so. We have got to keep this section concise and reasonably short. Secondly, the reason why the thing broke down in partisanship involves things like the Senate leader of the investigation predicting that it would be damaging and might be an October Surprise, long before the investigation was complete; a topic sentence can't just imply that the thing broke down because of McCain picking Palin, without metnioning these statements of the Senate leader.Ferrylodge (talk) 02:03, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

McCain is a "yipping little dog"?

This article currently cites the "Jed Report" as one of its reliable sources. It was initially inserted by Jossi, and was removed and reinserted several times.[19] The Jed Report is not, in fact a reliable source. It's a blog, and a very partisan one at that. It's author says, "I've been blogging at The Jed Report since early 2007, focusing primarily on the 2008 presidential election."[20] The blog contains lots of stuff like this: "in Barack Obama we've got a statesman who wants to work together to get things done for all Americans. On the other hand, in John McCain we've got a yipping little dog." I am removing it yet again, and I would urge people like Jossi to please let it be. Thx.Ferrylodge (talk) 01:23, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Duude beat me to it.[21] Thanks.Ferrylodge (talk) 01:26, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the jedreport is not a WP:RS. But the caption can carry some explanatory text, no? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:29, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I've thought similar things when I saw the photos that were published by The Atlantic Monthly photograper, Jill Greenberg.[22] When I saw the photos, I thought "Jeez, didn't you have a clue what was up when she had you put in fake vampire teeth and smear strawberry jam around your mouth? Hello, McCain!" I expect my presidents to have more of a clue than that. :) Kelly ^hi! 01:31, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

How sweet.Ferrylodge (talk) 01:44, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Wow, you weren't even kidding. He gets credit for that in my book. But he's still what that photo says. Homunq (talk) 01:49, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

LOL - I'm sure the North Vietnamese torturers worry about that very thing every night before they go to sleep. :) Kelly ^hi! 01:52, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

(undent)The caption for the T-shirt photo is still lousy. See Wikipedia:MOSQUOTE#Quotations: "The author of a quote of a full sentence or more should be named; this is done in the main text and not in a footnote." Also, a contributor should try to avoid quotations when a summary of a quote would be better.[23] I strongly urge that the caption summarize the quote.Ferrylodge (talk) 01:44, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Currently ONLY 7 mentions of Palin's support for the bridge to nowhere in the article

I ask all the neutral and BLP sensitive editors to quickly rectify this horrible situation and increase the number of mentions. Editors who try to remove any mention should be attacked by the neutral editors.

The mentions are as follows,

1. . Prominent picture in the article provided by a political opponent of Palin of the Democratic Party, the mayor of Ketchikan [[:Image:palin_nowhere.jpg|thumb|right|In September 2006, gubernatorial candidate Sarah Palin visited Ketchikan and expressed support for the bridge.]]
2. .Two Alaskan bridge proposals supported by Palin have become symbols of federal pork barrel spending and faced strong criticism across the country:[102] Gravina Island Bridge connecting Ketchikan to Gravina Island (population 50), where its airport lies[103] and Knik Arm Bridge.[104][105]
3. . In 2006, Palin ran for governor on a "build-the-bridge" plank in her platform,[102] attacking "spinmeisters"[107]
4. .... urging speedy work on the two bridges "while our congressional delegation is in a strong position to assist."[108]
5. , 6, 7. :

   "In her nomination acceptance speech and on the campaign trail, Palin has often said: "I told the Congress 'thanks, but no thanks,' for that Bridge to Nowhere." Although Palin was originally a main proponent of the Gravina Island Bridge, McCain-Palin television advertisements claim Palin "stopped the Bridge to Nowhere". These claims have been widely questioned or described as misleading in several newspapers across the political spectrum. Newsweek remarked: "Now she talks as if she always opposed the funding.""

Seriously please take a long hard look and ask yourselves if you feel this is neutral and not violationg BLP. I think it's time for everyone to reassess their own neutrality as related to the article and take a hard look at the past discussions. Hobartimus (talk) 02:29, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

WP:POINT Homunq (talk) 02:33, 20 September 2008 (UTC) Hobartimus, I'm logging off for the night. I respectfully suggest that you do, too. Good night all, I hope that the world doesn't end before morning because of a POV in this article. Homunq (talk) 02:40, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Homunq, part of the reason why there are so many mentions of it is that the issue has lasted for over three years, and is a significant issue in Alaskan politics. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aprock (talk • contribs) 03:05, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Seems to me all well sourced and a neutral representation of the sources available. If at all, it needs more sources as there is a consensus of sources on the subject. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:48, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

• Hobartimus dude, <sigh> thats why they call it a controversy. She wasnt exactly consistent, until she repeated that one "thanks but no thanks" quote over a dozen times. I'm sure that all of those can count for the one mentioned, can they not? We can add them up if its absolutely necessary to show how contradictory her statements are, but for the sake of space, I think we should leave ith as a summary, and do that in the subarticles. Its good as is. Duuude007 (talk) 02:50, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Is she really a journalist?

Wikipedia lists journalist as her profession, but in lots of other languages this is not mentioned. And in fact she is never worked in her life as a journalist! Yes, she has done a degree in journalism, but she worked only as a sports reporter, which is very far from journalism. So this is should be gone, somebody wanted to color her profession list..... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.131.244.150 (talk) 15:15, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

sports reporter is journalism. maybe not high grade journalism, but that's a subjective arguement. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 16:02, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

This has come up before. I guess an example would be Hillary Rodham Clinton, which states that she is a lawyer, despite the fact that she has not practiced in many years. Palin has a degree in journalism, and that was her initial profession. Kelly ^hi! 20:40, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

So why not list Sports Reporter as her profession? That would clear up any confusion. Bristolsbabydaddy (talk) 21:41, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Because that sounds like trivializing to some, and I imagine there would be resistance on POV grounds. *shrug* FangedFaerie (Talk | Edits) 21:55, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Substitute "Occupations" for "Profession"? "Homemaker" is not a profession. But sports reporter/journalist/whatever, homemaker and politician are all occupations. Writegeist (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 08:21, 19 September 2008 (UTC).

The comparison to Clinton is not correct - her profession most certainly was an attorney; she has a law degree, which is a professional, graduate degree - she is a member of the bar, practiced as an attorney for many years. Palin has an undergraduate degree and she majored in journalism - this is not a professional degree, and her stint as a sports reporter was brief and hardly her profession. Tvoz/talk 09:15, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Palin online popularity benefits the McCain campaign

"Nearly 1.2 million people read Palin's Wikipedia page in the first 36 hours after Republican presidential candidate John McCain announced she was his VP choice, according to Web analytics company Compete.com Palin's page was the most popular Wikipedia page for all of August, even though her candidacy was only announced August 29." ..."Palin's online popularity might also be fueling the higher number of female Web surfers visiting JohnMcCain.com. Prior to the addition of Palin to the Republican ticket, 48 percent of visitors to McCain's site were female; since the Palin announcement, female visitors account for 52 percent of traffic." [24] --Hapsala (talk) 16:33, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Hmm... so it went from 48% to 52%? And the margin of error is? And since when can a website tell if you're male or female? This is some scary stuff. MastCell ^Talk 16:48, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Intresting point about the male/female "statistic". Still something might be appropriate along these lines in case decent sources come around. A short sentence about the magnitude of Wikipedia traffic perhaps? Hobartimus (talk) 17:02, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Is CNet a reliable source? Aprock (talk) 17:28, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

MastCell, they can tell your gender because of the DNA readers embedded in the space between the keys of your keyboard. Wearing tinfoil finger caps prevents this. Kaisershatner (talk) 21:21, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

A senior columnist at The Washington Post confirms the figures, saying that: "No doubt about it, Palin has impacted the political Web like no political figure before her. And in a campaign season that's seen the rise of Rep. Ron Paul and Sen. Barack Obama online, that is no small feat".[25] Maybe, its time to mention this phenomena in the article? --Hapsala (talk) 18:24, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Bridges to Nowhere - One Last Attempt To Remove POV

For 10 days, back when we had pro-Palin and anti-Palin people on the site, there were pushes and shoves but basically compromises throughout the site. Now that virtually all the wikieditors are actively pushing pro-Palin point of view, the article has gone, IMHO, from B-class to D-class. It's true I've almost entirely been focused on the Bridges to Nowhere. I carefully researched more than 100 articles and explained each and every change on the talk page. For this I have received all manner of criticism. Here is a sample of some of the criticism:

• GP's sources (AP, Washington Times, Wasilla Mayor, Anchorage Daily News, Congressional Quarterly and local Alaska newspapers) are "unreliable crud." The personal research of another wikieditor says you're wrong, GP, and the consensus is you're wrong, so we're reverting and trashing your sources.
• That fact, while true, harms Sarah Palin/makes her look bad.
• This fact, which makes Palin look bad, violates WP:UNDUE because it adds words to the article, sometimes as few as 7 words.
• This statement, which admittedly has no basis in fact, has to be included because of "consensus."
• GP's sources and arguments backing up GP's edits are too long and hard to read.

Here's the original version:

"Bridge(s) to Nowhere"

See also: Gravina Island Bridge and Knik Arm Bridge (Don Young's Way)

Two Alaskan bridge construction proposals supported by Palin in her 2006 gubernatorial race have been derided as a symbol of pork barrel spending: a proposed bridge connecting Ketchikan to Gravina Island (population 50) where its airport lies;[95] and "Don Young's Way" (named after Alaska's Congressman who strongly supported it), a proposed bridge crossing Knik Arm to spur development and provide an alternate route from Anchorage to Wasilla.[96][97] The nickname "Bridge(s) to Nowhere" has been used for the Gravina Island Bridge alone[95] or, more rarely, both bridges.[98]

...

Eight months after becoming Governor and a month after the bridge received sharp criticism from John McCain,[102] Palin decried the "little interest" by Congress in the Gravina Island Bridge based on "inaccurate portrayals" and directed Alaskan officials to look for fiscally responsible alternatives rather than expending state resources or the $442 million Alaska received in federal monies in place of the bridge,[103] which Alaska will not return[104]. Alaska is currently spending a portion of the funding, $25 million, on a Gravina Island road to the place where the bridge would have gone, expressly so that none of the money will have to be returned.[99] Palin continued to support funding the Knik Arm Bridge, estimated as more than twice as expensive as the Gravina Bridge would have been; in June 2008, she ordered a review of its costs and prospects.[105][106]

In the 2008 presidential election, McCain and Palin have said in speeches and in advertising that Palin "stopped the bridge" and said "no thanks" to Congress on funds for the bridges. These statements have been widely criticized as "lying" or "misleading" because they omit: (1) that Palin originally supported the first Bridge to Nowhere, (2) that she continues to support the second Bridge to Nowhere, (3) that Congress had already removed the earmark before she became Governor, and (4) that Alaska has kept the entire $442 million originally earmarked for both bridges. See above and sources and text of Sarah Palin#Vice-Presidential Campaign.

Now the new version:

Bridge controversy

See also: Gravina Island Bridge and Knik Arm Bridge

Sometimes known individually as the "Bridge to Nowhere", two Alaskan bridge construction proposals have become symbols of federal pork barrel spending and faced strong criticism across the country.[102] The two proposals were for a Gravina Island Bridge connecting Ketchikan to Gravina Island, where its airport lies,[103] and a Knik Arm Bridge crossing the Knik Arm inlet near Anchorage.[104][105]

...

Eight months after becoming Governor, Palin directed Alaskan officials to look for fiscally responsible alternatives.[108] Alaska has decided to not return any of the $442 million to the federal government[109] and is spending a portion of the funding, $25 million, on a Gravina Island road to the place where the bridge would have gone, so that that portion of the money will not have to be returned; according to a Palin spokeswoman, the road will open up new territory for development.[102] Palin continued to support funding the Knik Arm Bridge, and in June 2008 she ordered a review of its costs and prospects.[110][104]

I realize the old consensus way is longer. That's because it had both sides of the argument. Much of the pro-Palin stuff ("fiscally responsible", "airport", "June 2008 review", "spur development") were pro-Palin facts I added myself to try to be fair to both sides. Other parts (eight months, omnibus bill, changes to criticism, deletion of most of the Knik Arm criticism) were other editors' suggestions that I agreed to and compromised in. But being fair does lengthen the article. Anyone could write it much shorter if they were not trying to accommodate everyone's concerns. Now all the pro-Palin stuff I or others added to be fair remains in the article while virtually all of the criticism of Palin, or basic explanation of what happened, has been removed.

Virtually every change from the old version to the new version is pro-Palin POV, anti-grammatical and/or unsourced.

1. BAD TITLE - So the current Bridges to Nowhere title doesn't even mention the Bridges to Nowhere. Nice. Great way to hide from the wiki-reading public the most common issue Palin has mentioned and the most common one for which she has been criticized. I must commend the Orwellian editors. BTW, does anyone mind if I change Watergate in the Nixon entry to "controversy over local burglary"?

2. BAD REFERENCES - No mention of the second bridge's official name ("Don Young's Way"), which is how the bridge is mostly known in Congress and in the Lower 48, taken out because, according to one editor, "we don't want to connect Palin to Don Young." Huh? THAT'S the reason? Given it has one name in Alaska (Knik Arm) and one name in the 99% of America outside Alaska ("Don Young's Way"), shouldn't both names be used? (Incidentally "Bridges to Nohwere" is the more common usage for both bridges.) It even leads to redundancy: ("Knik Arm Bridge crossing the Knik Arm inlet") when simply using the proposed bridge's actual name would solve the problem. What's the harm again in giving the actual name of the bridge that is the subject of this section?

3. NO EXPLANATION OF BRIDGES TO NOWHERE - One of the best ways to hide a controvery is to refuse to explain what the controvery was about. The original version explained why they were called Bridges to Nowhere and in very short phrases gave argments for and against (i.e. small population of Gravina Island but airport on island). The new version is SOLIDLY PRO-PALIN PROPAGANDA. It mentions the airport but not the population. It mentions Anchorage but not the alternate route to Wasilla that's in virtually every source on the issue. "Wow, if the bridges were all a good idea, it's really strange they called them Bridges to Nowhere!", says the reader scratching his/her head.

This edit went in typical wiki fashion. The population of Gravina island "(population 50)" was condemned as POV for not giving the "pro-bridge" reason. So the pro-bridge reason (the airport) was added. And then the anti-bridge reason was removed. The same happened with Don Young's Way. First the reason proposed by all the sources, including Wasilla's own mayor (alternate route to Wasilla from Anchorage) was in the article, then it was suggested that there were only reasons for the bridge in a single source, then, when the other reasons were added, the reason mentioned in dozens of sources that "could make Palin look bad" was removed.

4. BAD GRAMMAR - "Sometimes known individually as the "Bridge to Nowhere", two Alaskan bridge.... Huh? Not only bad grammar. It's false. Bridge to Nowhere means the Gravina Bridge. Bridges to Nowhere refers to both Gravina and Don Young's Way. That's how the terms are used. Find me a source that says otherwise.

5. NO MENTION OF CONNECTION TO PALIN UNTIL HALFWAY THROUGH ARTICLE - The original points out, like any good journalist article, the connection to the subject (Palin) at the beginning of the first sentence to the section at hand. The latter hides the ball.

6. NO MENTION OF JOHN MCCAIN'S CRITICISM A MONTH BEFORE PALIN CHANGED HER MIND - The original article points out that only a month after McCain criticized the bridges, Palin changed her mind on them. It doesn't go into the speculation that she did this as a possible VP choice, but it provides the fact in summary form so that readers can make up their own mind. This fact was removed. Same pro-POV Palin wiki-edit happened as before. "Eight months after becoming Governor" was added to prevent "undue" focus on McCain and then the McCain quote was dropped. (The original quote by McCain mentioning Minnesota bridges was also dropped as huge POV. Really, it's huge POV to mention a discrepancy between a Presidential and Vice-Presidential candidates views? That can never be mentioned anywhere? Didn't know that. Show me a wiki rule on that.)

7. NO MENTION OF WHY SHE CHANGED HER MIND - Palin's reason for changing her mind was clear. In her official press release, she blamed Congress for its "little interest" and didn't want to use state monies without earmarked federal funds. (Don't believe me. Read the source!) Originally, we had the full quote. Then it was asked to be cut down. Then it was suggested "blaming Congress" wasn't fair. So I made a careful compromise with several wiki-editors shaving what Palin said in her press release down, to present both her blaming Congress and her looking for "fiscally responsible alternatives." Then later editors threw our careful consensus compromise in the trash and promoted pro-Palin POV without even mentioning Congress, the primary focus of the press release.

8. NO MENTION OF EXPENSE OF SECOND BRIDGE - I guess it's embarrassing to Palin that the second bridge which she still supports costs twice as much as the first. Gotta throw it out, said the pro-Palin wikieditors! I should note that I, trying to be fair, added the part about the review in June. But every time I try to be fair, my bend-over-backwards attempt to find support for something pro-Palin stays in while the Palin criticism gets tossed.

9. CRITICISM ENTIRELY REMOVED FROM SECTION - Couch it however you want, but there is substantial criticism for Palin claiming she said "no thanks" to Congress on the bridge, when she actually said "yes thanks", kept the money, and didn't build the first bridge (but supports the second). This criticism is everywhere from the conservative Wall Street Journal to more mainstream sources. In wikipedia, we generally allow critics to have their say and supporters to have their say. Not with Palin. The criticism was removed to the campaign article, where it is carefully divorced from the bridge controversy so that no one reading one or the other can tell if the criticism is justified or not. Very clever. But not, I think, appropriate.

As you see, I could go on and on and on. I've been working on this one section diligently for two weeks. Every time a compromise version has been suggested, I have worked diligently with editors to balance pro- and anti-Palin positions, to prevent the article from becoming too long, to incorporate suggestions as long as they are backed up by sources, and to ruthlessly exclude WP:OR despite some high-level wiki-admins suggesting their own research trumped 6 separate well-sourced articles and the statement of the Mayor of Wasilla!

For two weeks it worked. For two weeks, there was yin and yang, changes I liked and change I disliked but could live with. I think we were ruthlessly fair. Then the night before last, an editor that shall remain nameless wrenched the article out of consensus and, without any warning on the talk page, reverted it three times to his version which included false information, unsourced information, own research, anti-consensus and blatant Palin-POV. After spending all day trying to fight him -- and running out of reverts, I dared not go over two -- I had to concede I was outnumbered by the pro-Palin groups flagrantly violating wiki rules (the most egregious being the own research trumping the many many sourced facts).

I will try again. I wish to return to the old version that stood the test of time for two weeks. I wish to put back the bridge criticism in the bridge article where it belongs, rather than in the campaign section where it will be discounted or overlooked. I would ask those that disagree to state why before changing it back. This is a very long post, and I have been accused of writing too long. It's true. But when someone make 25 unwarranted changes in the middle of the night to a once-stable article, it takes a long time to explain why each and every change is wrong. I guess I could do what some of the other editors did -- change with little explanation. But I wanted to make a complete statement before giving up a hopeless task.

If we can get compromise and consensus the way we used to, great. If it's simply reverted back with insults and threats -- which is what happened to me all day yesterday - then I'll quit wikipedia, slap up a POV-tag and admit that this great experiment in trying to be fair has failed. I would ask only this: if you work for the McCain/Palin campaign, you should out yourself and no longer work on this article. I do not work for the Obama/Biden campagign. I'm just a citizen trying very hard to do the right thing. But I know when the system is set up against me. When you have an article that goes into depth on Palin's beauty pageant, her yahoo account being hacked, and favorable outdated polls but fails to even mention a recall campaign when she was mayor or include widespread media criticism that she has lied about the Bridge to Nowhere in the section on the Bridge to Nowhere (which is not even named "Bridge to Nowhere"), I know when I'm licked.

I ask for support for reverting back to the "fair and balanced" way the article used to be, with facts represented by sources and both sides represented.GreekParadise (talk) 19:07, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Greek Paradise, I don't think you're going to get very far by giving such an incomplete summary of where things stand now. The present article also says:

In her nomination acceptance speech and on the campaign trail, Palin has often said: "I told the Congress 'thanks, but no thanks,' for that Bridge to Nowhere."[147][148] Although Palin was originally a main proponent of the bridge, McCain-Palin television advertisements claim Palin "stopped the Bridge to Nowhere".[149] These claims have been widely questioned or described as misleading in several newspapers across the political spectrum.[150][151][152][153] Newsweek remarked: "Now she talks as if she always opposed the funding."[154]

How did you overlook that?Ferrylodge (talk) 19:11, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

I didn't overlook it, Ferrylodge. I helped draft it. It was the product of extensive compromise over a week, and then someone removed it from the Bridge section. Does that mean, Ferrylodge, you support putting it back in the bridge article where it belongs? If so, I'll do it right now.GreekParadise (talk) 19:15, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

I support leaving it where it is in the main article, at least for the time being. It's very much campaign-related.Ferrylodge (talk) 19:20, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Then how about a reference to it in the bridge section so a reader of the bridge article knows there's more bridge information outside the bridge section?GreekParadise (talk) 19:53, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

• WP:TLDR. Another gigantic wall of text. Can you make your point a little shorter, maybe specifically addressing the concerns that people have raised? Kelly ^hi! 19:14, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Sure, here's my point written briefly. Virtually all Palin criticism has been removed from this section, while pro-Palin material remains. I want to return the article to neutrality and show both sides again.GreekParadise (talk) 19:17, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

(ec)GP, the specific point raised by multiple editors was that your version was not neutral and put undue weight on ridiculous claims like a Wasilla connection to the Knik Arm Bridge. The current version identifies the controversy and directs the reader to subarticles and sources that contain further details. To say that "virtually all Palin criticism has been removed" is silly. Kelly ^hi! 19:21, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Where does the current version "identify the controversy and direct readers to subarticles and sources?" I see no controversy identified, despite the fact that routinely ignore all the media sources on the subject and substitute your own research for it. Do me a favor. READ the sources. Then tell me why you disagree with them and your own research trumps it.GreekParadise (talk) 19:49, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

The section title "Controversial bridges" doesn't identify a controversy? Kelly ^hi! 19:56, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Outlasting others does not make you right -- nor does iterating archived material. We have finally gotten the section stable, and as close to NPOV as possible. To use your old version would cause another three or four hundred posts here. There comes a time to let it rest. Collect (talk) 19:19, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

I strongly agree that "outlasting others" does not make you right. Which is why the mere fact that you have outlasted me, Collect, does not make you right. Care to address any of my points above OTHER than the Wasilla-Anchorage connection? Or do you agree with them?GreekParadise (talk) 19:49, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

As some one who lives here in Alaska, I can tell you that the Knik Arm Bridge has very little to do with Wasilla, except that it would decongest the route they already use. It would be no easier to drive from Wasilla over the Bridge, as you would have to deal with all the other traffic from towns that are much closer to the site, which is the problem the bidge would help reduce. As for calling that one a "Bridge to Nowhere", check the maps. There are a whoe lot of towns besides Wasilla that would be helped by that bridge, such as Houston, Big Lake, Willow, Talkeetna, Healy, and even Fairbanks.Zaereth (talk) 19:41, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

But there are no towns closer than Wasilla, right? And you agree it would decongest the route Wasillans already use? (That's what the Mayor of Wasilla said.) So you agree it's an "alternate" route" that avoids the traffic on the main route?GreekParadise (talk) 19:49, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Have you looked at the map? Houston is way closer than Wasilla. And there's no road on the north side of the Arm to Wasilla. Kelly ^hi! 19:53, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

• I'd have to look for some citations, but I am pretty sure the road was included in the project. As for Houston, its census figure is 1200 people, would it really be the primary destination? That sounds like it would barely have a main street, let alone a bustling "city of Wasilla" title. Emphasis on the lower-case c. Not trying to start a fight, just noting the irony here. Duuude007 (talk) 20:03, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

According to Google, Wasilla is four miles closer to the bridge than Houston.GreekParadise (talk) 20:14, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

The point is that from Houston and all the other towns it's actually closer to go through the bridge so their commute would be cut. From Wasilla it's longer AND you pay a toll on the bridge their commute would be increased. Without the road no commute is a possible and none of them can go anywhere, but Anchorage can start building in the McKenzie port developement area. The bridge by itself allows exactly that Anchorage can use all the land and the port on the other side. With a huge road being built it would allow Wasillans to take a longer commute and pay a toll and Houston, Willow and the others to take a shorter commute. Hobartimus (talk) 20:18, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi, all. Just poking my head in to make a suggestion. As this section stands now, it says that "Alaska has decided to not return any of the". I feel that attributing to the vague, impersonal state, when it was the decision of the Palin administration, is hardly accurate or NPOV. That's just my 2¢. Parsecboy (talk) 20:13, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

http://www.tollroadsnews.com/node/1729 addresses the rationale for the toll bridge, and it makes no claim that anyoine would commute from Wasilla to Anchorage in order to spend more time, more distance, and a toll to boot. Collect (talk) 20:29, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

I note your (GP) claim that I am outlasting you. I would rather be known as one who uses fewer words, as that would not be construable as an attack. The tollroadnews.com cite is clear, and succinct, and agrees with the other factual cites around. I would trust, indeed, that this would end the desire to revert to a totally non-consensus status again. Thanks! Collect (talk) 20:51, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Point 1. I think you're right. Point 4. By all means fix bad grammar. Points 2,3,5,6,7,8. This kind of detail really belongs in the sub article. Point 9. This doesn't seem true to me.Aprock (talk) 20:28, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, Aprock. Based on your support, I'll correct 1 and 4. Point 9 was already fixed by Homunq (which may be why it doesn't seem true anymore.)GreekParadise (talk) 20:51, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Seeing no comment on my other mentions, it appears to me that the general consensus is to say as little as possible. Therefore, as some editors have removed (without discussion here) much information that may be deemed critical of Palin in the section, I'll remove some of the pro-Palin stuff too so that we have a shorter article.GreekParadise (talk) 20:51, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

"remove some of the pro-Palin stuff too so that we have a shorter article." Huh? I suggest that there is not a consensus to "remove" all of the material on one side so that your favored side is the only one represented. I strongly oppose such a unilateral action on your part, and would support a thousand reverts by everyone else to maintain a balanced section. I know of no WP policy which endorses your position that all the material on only one side should be excised. If you cite one, I would appreciate it. I trust this is short and clear? Collect (talk) 20:56, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Nope. You can't say Gravina Island has an airport without saying the population. You have to show for and against, yin and yang. So cut the population and we'll cut the airport too. You can't say Palin wanted to stop the bridge as being "fiscally irresponsible" without saying that she, in the very same message, blamed Congress for not providing funding. Cut out the Congress line; let's cut out the fiscal line. You'll see. It'll be much shorter. Lots of "undue" removed.GreekParadise (talk) 21:03, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

I support reverting back to the "fair and balanced" way the article used to be, with facts represented by sources and both sides represented...also short and clear!.--Buster7 (talk) 21:08, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Do you have a specific revision in mind? Aprock (talk) 21:15, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

@ Aprock...if your asking me I suggest [here] as a good place to restart.--Buster7 (talk) 21:47, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

(undent) I have no problem with "Bridge to Nowhere" as the title. I also have no problem with "Bridge controversy" as the title. I would be happy to support the former if people would ease up on trying to greatly change the text in the section.Ferrylodge (talk) 21:22, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

In paragraph 1, I support either the short version:

Two Alaskan bridge proposals have become symbols of federal pork barrel spending and faced strong criticism across the country: Gravina Island Bridge and Knik Arm Bridge.

Or the long one:

Two Alaskan bridge proposals have become symbols of federal pork barrel spending and faced strong criticism across the country: Gravina Island Bridge connecting Ketchikan to Gravina Island (population 50), where its airport lies; and a bridge crossing the Knik Arm inlet near Anchorage, called "Don Young's Way" after Alaska's Congressman, providing an alternate route from Anchorage to Wasilla and other points north. (many citations).

I do not support a version that only gives pro-Gravina bridge reasons (airport) without negatives (population) or pro-Palin reasons only (location mentioning Anhorage with no mention of Wasilla despite dozens of sources and Mayor of Wasilla that say Wasilla was important). Many sources expressly say Palin only supports the bridge becausee of proximity to her hometown, but we can leave those to the subarticle.

In sum, I don't think it's fair to include only pro-Palin POVs. I'm OK with both sides or none.GreekParadise (talk) 21:27, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

You already told us quite a few times what you support. Restating it again again and again and again some more is not productive. One user above said about you "Outlasting others does not make you right". Hobartimus (talk) 21:35, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

And bullying him doesn't make him wrong. He is obviously a good faith editor that is striving for non-partisonship.--Buster7 (talk) 21:50, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Uh huh. And this bridge is for sale. (Kidding!) :) Kelly ^hi! 22:06, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Kelly, that was not helpful. GP is impatient, wordy, and stubborn, but there is no doubt that they are in good faith with WP principles, including NPOV. (GP: but it helps to accept the compromises OTHERS propose, not just the ones you do) Homunq (talk) 23:41, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, thanks Homunq. I was out of line. Kelly ^hi! 23:46, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Because the Bridge to Nowhere is probably never going to exist, one will never know whether its aborted future effect will be bad or good. Perhaps it will turn its destination into a resort, and bridge tolls would pay the federal debt. Perhaps some scientist will cross the bridge and discover a cure for cancer after kicking over a rock. Or perhaps it will not only be a waste of money but also become the cause of World War III. No one really knows. Decades ago Louisiana had a Bridge to Nowhere. It was at the time the only bridge across the Mississippi between New Orleans and Baton Rouge. It now connects Gonzales to Donaldsonville across the Mississippi River. . . . Today the Sunshine Bridge is a busy span which serves an important role in hurricane evacuation. If you build a Bridge to Nowhere, people will turn Nowhere into Somewhere. In the meantime I still think there are better ways to spend money, but, if I were a Governor, I might try to get for my constituents what I could. Richard David Ramsey 16:20, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

• I tend to share some of the same sentiments as GreekParadise. See below, assuming that my comments do not get deleted again. Lambchop2008 (talk) 01:41, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

"bridge controversy" name change

The name was changed to "Bridge to Nowhere" again, with the statement that this was a consensus decision. I can not find any such consensus, and changed it back to "Bridge Controversy." Is there an assertion that "Bridge to Nowhere" was to be the new title? Collect (talk) 21:20, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

I have no problem with "Bridge to Nowhere" as the title. I also have no problem with "Bridge controversy" as the title. I would be happy to support the former if people would ease up on trying to greatly change the text in the section.Ferrylodge (talk) 21:25, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

What Ferrylodge said. Kelly ^hi! 21:27, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

PALIN says Bridge to Nowhere, MCCAIN says Bridge to Nowhere, Democrats say Bridge to Nowhere. Why would you want to say anything else?GreekParadise (talk) 21:26, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

One reason, Greek Paradise, is because "These days, when someone talks about the Bridge to Nowhere, they mean the Gravina Island bridge", according to Factcheck.org.[26] Sliming the Knik arm bridge with that name is questionable at best. But I'm willing to go along with the heading "'Bridge to Nowhere'" if you'll ease up on trying to re-write the rest.Ferrylodge (talk) 21:32, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

I will admit that I don't see why the other bridge in particular is included, as opposed to any other piece of pork that goes to Alaska. I mean they are both bridges, but that's really it. From a summary standpoint it doesn't serve the article. Aprock (talk) 21:56, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

I think the bridge section is getting just too contentious please don't change stuff without consensus such as the title. Collect was right to act here to undo the nonconsensus change, discuss it first then decide not the other way around. Hobartimus (talk) 21:29, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

"Bridge to Nowhere" it is, as widely reported. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:29, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

So far, the ones I suspected wanted "Bridge to Nowhere" have all voted. The claim was made that the change was discussed here first -- it was not. Asking for consensus or non-consensus, without having anyone else reverting the section title until it is reasonably decided, is the right thing to do. Reverting to "Bridge to Nowhere" would not. It is, however, important to note that changing the title will not guarantee that those who wish to purge all "pro-Palin" material will agree to desist. If those who so desire will stipulate that they will cease all further POV activity here, then even I would support the change. I doubt that those with the anti-Palin POV will so stipulate. Collect (talk) 21:35, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Again I ask that the title not be changed again UNTIL a consensus is reached. Those who think that they are playing a game by reverting when a subject is under legitimate discussion weaken their own cause. Collect (talk) 21:40, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Did the change from "Bridge to Nowhere" occur under consensus? Reading through the revisions, I remember seeing the reason for the change was the presense of scare quotes. Do you have a reference for any prior consensus? Aprock (talk) 21:50, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree - damn, be civilized, people. Kelly ^hi! 21:42, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Hobartimus (talk) 21:44, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

AgreeZaereth (talk) 21:45, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Agree.Ferrylodge (talk) 21:45, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Agree, assuming that if no consenus is found here, we revert to title before the first non-consensus change.Aprock (talk) 21:50, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

And that title was "Bridge(s) to Nowhere", the consensus title that stood for two weeks before it was changed without consensus yesterday.GreekParadise (talk) 21:52, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I agree that if no consensus is found here by 2010, then we should revert to the title before the first non-consensus change, whatever that was (we'll have to reach consensus on that).Ferrylodge (talk) 21:57, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Ferrylodge's point. Bridge to Nowhere is the Gravina Island Bridge. To change the heading would only confuse the issue.Zaereth (talk) 21:54, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm OK with Bridge to Nowhere Bridges to Nowhere "Bridge to Nowhere" "Bridges to Nowhere" Bridge/s to Nowhere

but the one that existed that stood for two weeks and was changed without consensus yesterday was: "Bridge(s) to Nowhere"GreekParadise (talk) 21:55, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

I can't agree without a proposal...what are we agreeing to do???--Buster7 (talk) 21:58, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

It's unclear what people are thinking here, so allow me to propose title issues be resolved by taking the following two actions:

• change the title to "Bridge to Nowhere", without scare quotes if they are too "scarry"
• remove references to the second bridge, it only serves to confuse the issue and isn't relevant to the broader focus

What say ye? Aprock (talk) 22:03, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Folks -- one bite at the apple, please! The only consensus title which stood without lots of quotes and implied singular/plural combinations and contradictions as to what bridges were involved is "Bridge Controversy." Now it those who find this to be "pro-Palin" -- tough. But loading up a request for consensus section is not fair, nor are improper reverts while we await a consensus. Play fair. Collect (talk) 22:06, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm missing something here. Where is the talk consensus for that title, and when were quotes and parens a problem? And if it was specifically the quotes and parens that were the problem, shouldn't it be reverted to "Bridge to Nowhere" without the quotes? Aprock (talk) 22:07, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

It is named in a multitude of sources as "bridge to nowhere" (US and Intl's media, the candidates themselves, etc.) and it is a controversy. Changed accordingly. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:09, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm for "Bridge Controversy".216.67.92.66 (talk) 22:09, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

This is not a !vote. We simply report what published sources say about a subject. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:10, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

You miss the point Jossi, it's named "Bridge to nowhere" but the section discusses 2 bridges. Hobartimus (talk) 22:11, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

So what did you think of my proposal to resolve that? Aprock (talk) 22:12, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

I could support that.Ferrylodge (talk) 22:15, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Me, too. Kelly ^hi! 22:17, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Collect wasn't around for the two weeks when: "Bridge(s) to Nowhere" was the title. But I encourage everyone to look at the history. It, or, more rarely, some variant without quotations, stood for two weeks.GreekParadise (talk) 22:11, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

As I was around, you are making a personal attack on me. Thanks! Collect (talk) 22:20, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree to BRIDGE CONTROVERSY...by now the reader will know what's up.--Buster7 (talk) 22:14, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

• "Bridge to Nowhere" - 9,228 news sources "bridge+to+nowhere"+sarah+palin
• "Bridge controversy" - one singular source (Las Vegas Review) "bridge+controversy"+sarah+palin

Enough said? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:14, 19 September 2008 (UTC) Basically, some purported "consensus" here cannot trump our sources. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:15, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

On the second bridge, there are tens of thousands of published articles that refer to both Gravina and Don Young's Way (Knik Arm) as "Bridges to Nowhere", and even more sources that refer to Gravina as the "Bridge to Nowhere" In the original consensus version that stood for a week before the massive changes yesterday, it said as follows:

"Bridge(s) to Nowhere" See also: Gravina Island Bridge and Knik Arm Bridge (Don Young's Way) Two Alaskan bridge construction proposals supported by Palin in her 2006 gubernatorial race have been derided as a symbol of pork barrel spending: a proposed bridge connecting Ketchikan to Gravina Island (population 50) where its airport lies;[95] and "Don Young's Way" (named after Alaska's Congressman who strongly supported it), a proposed bridge crossing Knik Arm to spur development and provide an alternate route from Anchorage to Wasilla.[96][97] The nickname "Bridge(s) to Nowhere" has been used for the Gravina Island Bridge alone[95] or, more rarely, both bridges.[98]

As you can see, the last sentence of the first paragraph deals precisely with the objection, making clear the term has been used for Gravina or more rarely both.. The footnotes in the original are well sourced and show citations to both "Bridge" (Gravina) and "Bridges" (Gravina and Knik Arm).GreekParadise (talk) 22:15, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes. Basically, some purported lack of consensus here, cannot trump a wide consensus of sources. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:17, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

"It is named in a multitude of sources as "bridge to nowhere" (US and Intl's media, the candidates themselves, etc.)" the section discusses 2 bridges do you claim the same for the Knik Arm Bridge (candidates, etc all agree?)? Hobartimus (talk) 22:22, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

(ec)GP, we're simply not going to agree to your POV version. See above. Be reasonable. Kelly ^hi! 22:19, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Jossi, you're not reading, IMHO. GP said "rarely". Should we follow what is "rarely" done by reliable sources?Ferrylodge (talk) 22:18, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Bridge to nowhere else new proposal Bridge Controversies (plural)... so as to satisfy everyone. cheers. Duuude007 (talk) 22:18, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Nope. - - Yet another revert. The folks who were supposed to wait for consensus obviously have no good faith trust in that process. I suggest we not listen to those who do not edit in good faith on this. The title, as far as I can tell, by consensus of the editors who are not doing reverts during the discussion, is overwhelmingly for retention of "Bridge Controversy." If you want to be counted, don't revert during the discussion, folks. That includes ALL who made bad-faith changes. And adding another fifty paragraphs is not relevant to the finding of a consensus. Collect (talk) 22:20, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Especially when they're the same fifty paragraphs that have been thrown up on this talk page time and time again. (GP) Kelly ^hi! 22:21, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

And when, contrary to expectations (sic) (properly used!), they decide to add POV material to a stable section which, I suspect, could well be reverted as a "bad faith edit" if anyone will do that task. Collect (talk) 22:30, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Could you clarify, what is the POV material, and which section is stable? Aprock (talk) 22:49, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

how about "Brigde to nowhere controversy"

@Ferrylodge - More concise caption? Or sourced removed for no specific reason? [27] ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:32, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Jossi, the former, obviously. The Tom Kizzia reference is already in this article, and there's no need to have it twice. And I'm not sure why the "Jed Report" is notable here. And since when is it appropriate to have an enormous caption, all in quotes, including a wikilink directing us to this very article?Ferrylodge (talk) 22:39, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

The only reasonable thing to do, is to keep the "Brigde to Nowhere" section title. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:33, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Jossi -- you are a wilful reverter and inserter of material in a section under discussion. How can "reasonable" be associated with ignoring WP consensus rules? Collect (talk) 22:35, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Collect, what is your position on the title, beyond reverting it? Aprock (talk) 22:39, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

I repeat, for clarity...AGREE: BRIDGE CONTROVERSY....--Buster7 (talk) 22:38, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Consensus of editors cannot trump the obvious and undisputed fact that there is consensus of sources about how to describe the controversy. That is why is is the only reasonable thing to do. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:43, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Jossi, please read: "These days, when someone talks about the Bridge to Nowhere, they mean the Gravina Island bridge", according to Factcheck.org.[28] Sliming the Knik arm bridge with that name is questionable at best. As Greek Paradise has mentioned repeatedly here, the term “Bridge to Nowhere” refers to both bridges only “rarely”.Ferrylodge (talk) 22:50, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

@Jossi...This dance is over for me...The reader WILL be smart enough to know...To the rest, My choice is given...but if you decide to change it to >..Bridge Over the River Kwai...that's all right , too...--Buster7 (talk) 22:48, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

As noted above, iteration of a position does not strengthen it. This section is intended to reach a consensus on the name of a section in an article, not on an eponym for a bridge. Collect (talk) 22:47, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

I also note that this was the consensus for two weeks prior to yesterday's change. Jossi's right. Even PALIN uses the term "Bridge to Nowhere" and NO ONE says "Bridge Controvery." So how about some reasons here? Why should we use a term no one uses instead of a term everyone uses?GreekParadise (talk) 22:48, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

That's a red herring. No one uses the phrase "Budget, spending and federal funds" either,[29] but it's still one of our headings.Ferrylodge (talk) 22:53, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the argument that "it's what everyone uses" isn't very strong, but the two-week stability, given the amount of edits, indicates that the previous title had more consensus than the current. Aprock (talk) 23:10, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Congrats. Yet another revert. I am sad to see the revert rules being broken repeatedly, and would ask any admin here to inform those responsible that reverts DURING a discussion are contrary to any sense of "good faith." Meanwhile, would someone revert the section title back? Dealing with people who are not seeking a good faith consensus is trying. When they seek to destroy the process, that is worse than trying. Collect (talk) 22:51, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

This is getting seriously ridiculous. Obviously some editors believe that it is OK to trump consensus of sources, which is incorrect. I will start an RfC on the subject. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:53, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

PROPOSED COMPROMISE, which I am pleased to see Ferrylodge has suggested (with the exception of the (s) which we can ditch if necessary for compromise):

The "Bridge(s) to Nowhere" Controversy

Excellent. I fully support this.GreekParadise (talk) 22:55, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

not the River Kwai???? i'll agrre to anything....@jossi...Now is not the time to start and RfC...this is taking up a lot of time and effort for EVERYONE..Please be considerate and trust the general public to know what the section is about no matter what we name it.--Buster7 (talk) 23:00, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

More vandalism at this point. Insertion of material removed by consensus. Wilful iteration in the hope that iteration will convince anyone. Agreeing with oneself. I started this with an open mind, but the openness depended on finding good faith. Alas, when bad faith is shown, my own views must, perforce, be affected. Thanks! Collect (talk) 23:01, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Collect, could you please state what you feel the issues with the title are, and what you think the best path to consensus is? Aprock (talk) 23:06, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

I had hoped that this section would arrive at a consensus, but, alas, that was apparently doomed ab initio. I would have accepted any result. It is only those who will not accept any result who have doomed my poor efort to find consensus. Note my initial post here. Collect (talk) 23:27, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

I understand what your hope is, but you're confusing me. Here, you say you'll accept any consensus, and below you state that there is only one acceptable title. Could you clarify this? Aprock (talk) 00:52, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

The upper comment was made when I had an open mind. Behavior of some people caused me to doubt "good faith" on their part. WP asks that everyone assume "good faith" unless that presumption can no longer be held. Had people not engaged in revert wars and possible vandalism, I was not going to state a specific opinion of my own here. Clearly after my position was forced to change, my opinion also changed. Collect (talk) 02:08, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

WP naming conventions/guidelines suggests titles that are short, simple, and are commonly known or referred to. "Bridge to nowhere" meets all of the criteria while the other names are convoluted or less known. Palin, other politicians and the MSN all refer to it as the "Bride to nowhere" and a Google search produces over 800,000 results. As noted in prior discussions, the plural "Bridge(s)" is not necessary and should be explained in the test of the section. An editor(s) may not like the name "Watergate", but that is the known name and per guidelines we should not change it. Why does there have to be such lengthy discussions about this and all the other minor or non-issues? IP75 75.36.70.205 (talk) 02:51, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Hear, hear, 75. Why are we quibbling over commas, guys? Regards. FangedFaerie (Talk | Edits) 19:09, 20 September 2008 (UTC)